Another ship carrying EVs, hybrids burns down at sea. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2025, 08:36:40 pm
content: Title correction: another ship that was carrying EVs,along with hybrids, andconventionally-fueled cars, andnumerous other toxic and dangerous substances(source) has caught fire at sea. The cause of the fire (whether it was a car or something wrong with the ship), whether any EVs were involved, and whether EVs made extinguishing the fire more difficult, all have yet to be established.It is notable that fires on ships that transported vehicles were still commonplace before EVs were "mainstream". I suggest this could be considered before 2015 for argument's sake; Tesla had only just entered the European market by then, and other manufacturers were generally only producing small compliance vehicles sold in low volumes. Constraining the search, an inexhaustive Google reveals at least these:2006:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_al-Salam_Boccaccio_98(over 1,000 lives lost)2008:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_UND_Adriyatik(truck started fire)2010:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Lisco_Gloria(explosion on car deck)2010:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c6fb0e5274a428d000037/CommodoreClipperReport.pdf2013:https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/fire-caused-by-electrical-defect-on-main-deck-of-ro-ro-cargo-ferry-corona-seaways-in-the-kattegat-scandinavia2013:https://gcaptain.com/icelandic-coast-guard-continues-response-to-cargo-ship-fire/2014:https://shipwrecklog.com/log/2014/04/asian-empire/(ship abandoned by crew before it could be extinguished)... so we should probably see if there is any increased trend here, before attributing electric vehicles as a particular concern, compared to for instance fertiliser and oils that cargo ships frequently transport that also carry particular hazards.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2025, 08:58:00 pm
content: Also in the news, a truck carrying gasoline starts a massive fire, burning down a bridge.https://www.yahoo.com/news/tanker-fire-under-bridge-shuts-140324991.htmlClearly, gas cars are not the answer to EV fires. For those so worried about EV fires or car fires in general, the answer is a horse, I have yet to hear of a horse catching fire by itself.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2025, 09:52:49 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 15, 2025, 08:36:40 pmEVs are evil! particularly Fords!I changed the title!In the future when LIPO are passed out for something less hazardous i will buy a EV.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2025, 10:18:03 pm
content: Container ships are just a disaster for fires period, but for cars there are car carriers.All improvements in cargo ship firefighting seems to come from insurers. The problem isn't so much that the fires can't be fought but that most managers refuse to handle long tail risk, despite the economic consequences, until the insurers force them. The engineers can contain any fire they damn well please, it's not rocket science.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2025, 10:27:33 pm
content: Quote from: MT on June 15, 2025, 09:52:49 pmYou can already buy an EV powered by lithium iron phosphate batteries if you are really concerned about fire risk. They are incredibly stable:The only serious disadvantage is slightly less capacity than NMC, but still usually enough for a car (200+ mile range common).Either way, fire risk should not be a deciding factor in a car purchase. It's one of the least likely events to occur for any type of vehicle, compared to being involved in a collision or just having a fault that means it breaks down.Anyway, this is interesting: I was curious where the source of "3,000 cars, including 700 hybrid and electric vehicles" came from. This is the cargo manifest as released by the Indian government (Kerala administrative region):https://sdma.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/DGCargoWANHAI503_PublicRelease-2.pdfThere is no mention of any vehicle there. Indeed, the ship is a cargo container ship; these aren't commonly used to transport vehicles because loading cars into 40ft containers is not trivial and is quite inefficient since you can't drive them in (they are loaded in on jigs usually since they need to be secured in place). Ro-Ro ships tend to be used instead; the cars are driven onto the ship and then driven off, and only need to be anchored down with normal towing straps. AFAIK it's pretty much only used for one offs where there isn't a car transporter ship going somewhere. For instance motorsport event might transport their cars that way, or someone moving continent or importing a rare car might containerise their car.There is mention of 2.4 tonnes of lithium batteries (exact type not specified), but otherwise I see no mention of anything even tangentially related to cars here.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2025, 11:02:36 pm
content: According to the manifest .pdf cited above, there were more than 150 "dangerous goods", mostly inflammable, loaded on that container vessel.What could possibly go wrong?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2025, 11:57:39 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 15, 2025, 10:27:33 pmYou are looking at the wrong ship, its the ship that burns in the Pacific outside Alaska, not the one outside India. Btw now we have two ships burning both carrying lithium batteries!https://youtu.be/IZi4R1wf81E?t=50

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 12:29:48 am
content: Quote from: MT on June 15, 2025, 09:52:49 pmI'm looking forward to when sodium ion batteries become mainstream. Hopefully that will be the end of battery fires.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 12:46:17 am
content: So what the next thread will be like? There was an explosion on the road where EVs are driving sometimes?

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 12:50:58 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 15, 2025, 10:27:33 pmFor a long time.All BYD models use LFP. Tesla Model Y standard range uses LFP since October 2021, as do Model 3 made in China. Also not a car but PowerWall 3 uses LFP.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 12:51:28 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 16, 2025, 12:46:17 amYour chiding here is misplaced.After all, internal-combustion vehicles depend on a widespread network of very dangerous technology, from oilfields to refineries to gas tankers, and yet we don't hear about disastrous incidents with these all that often. But we seem to be witnessing catastrophic incidents involving EVs and their batteries all the time now, despite EVs being a distinct minority of vehicles on the road. So I think drawing attention to them is warranted,

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 12:59:48 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 16, 2025, 12:51:28 amWe don't hear about gasoline-powered car fires precisely because they happen so often, around 500 a day in the USA, 200,000 per year. It's roughly one car in 1500, per year.EV fires are rare enough to be news.Bulk oil tankers and refineries burn quite often too. I believe there are a few refineries burning in Russia right now, due to careless smokers.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 01:22:30 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 16, 2025, 12:51:28 amBecause it's called sensationalism, and ICE vehicle fires are so mundane that nobody talks about them. There are about 200 thousand vehicular fires in US annually, yet you'll rater nitpick some extremely rare 'EV fire' that likely did not even happen at all. Not to say, the vast majority of cases when EV was blamed for causing some large accident turned out to be not due to EV. Luton airport fire for example, which was caused by a diesel car, despite all news blaming an EV.https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/vehicle-firesQuoteNot much of a minority anymore. Tesla model Y is the best selling car model in the world, for example. I see EVs on the streets nearly every time I go out of my home.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 09:31:08 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on June 15, 2025, 08:58:00 pmBut horses are kept in stables, along with other flammable materials such as hay, which can spontaneously combust.In short, nothing is completely safe.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 09:40:36 am
content: A perfect example of how brainwashing works.After the "previous" case finally was shown to be burned by ICE vehicles, it suddenly and completely disappeared from the attention of both mainstream media, and "alternative media" political characters like this "MT" poster here. Yet, as people like "MT" clearly follow the news, I am 100% sure heknowsthe result of investigations.Yet, he formulates a title like this: "Another ship carrying EVs, hybrids burns down at sea."Which hasobviousimplications, without any direct lies however. Good old trick - keep repeating the lie "between the lines", and it becomes the truth.I don't understand why on this electroncis forum this kind of hybrid warfare political operator like "MT" is allowed to post political Youtube videos and political rants all day long, never anything really related to electronics, while people who try to discuss about electronics, like treez, get banned. I would have banned him a year ago already.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 05:59:18 pm
content: Some actual data:https://rib.msb.se/filer/pdf/29438.pdf(in Swedish but you can translate as required)Swedish civil contingency agency recorded 160 EV (car) fires out of a vehicle population of 522,698 electric and hybrid cars, over 6 years. That means per year the expected risk of an EV fire is 0.005%. The statistics do not exclude cases of arson and include all forms of EV fire, relating to the battery and not. Compared to the ICE population, around 3,150 cars (per year, average over 2018-2024, sourcehere) caught fire in Sweden, but the vehicle population for ICE type cars is average 4.46 million over that period of time.That puts the risk of a ICE car fire at 0.07%, or around 14x higher.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 06:09:40 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 16, 2025, 05:59:18 pmThis difference, between 10x and 20x, seems to be repeating in all sources that can be verified, year after year. A pretty good improvement.Interestingly, even if there was a way to make EVs completely inflammable with zero fires, e.g. with solid steel battery turned into energy storage device by unicorn dust (also inflammable), and all plastic parts and tyres replaced with magical squishy concrete, people like MT would still push their lies and agenda.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 07:20:30 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on June 16, 2025, 06:09:40 pmImportant language correction: “inflammable” in English means “capable of burning”, just as the related words in other languages. Hence, the similar medical term “inflammation” and rhetorical term “inflammatory”.The correct term is “non-flammable” for fire resistance.Due to popular misconception, the insurance industry in the US prefers the modern “flammable” to the synonymous “inflammable”, which never means fireproof.At work, we had the usual yellow steel cabinet for dangerous liquids labeled in English, Spanish, and French to remind me of this feature.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 07:25:36 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 16, 2025, 05:59:18 pmExcellent! According to the Nigerian study “Assessing the Detrimental Effects of Solar Panel Installation on Residential Roofing Systems”, 65% of homeowners reported structural issues with their roofs, and 50% experienced roof leaks after the installation of solar panels.https://pathofscience.org/index.php/ps/article/view/3187This translates to millions of incidents each year.In comparison, serious leaks (IAEA Level7 events) from the active zones of nuclear power reactors have occurred only 2 times in the planet’s 4.3 billion-year history (Chernobyl and Fukushima), averaging approximately 0.5 incidents per billion years.This suggests that the risk of roof leaks from solar panels is trillions of times higher than that of nuclear reactor leaks.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 09:04:23 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on June 16, 2025, 09:40:36 amSiwastaja they guy who cant hold his temper in chess rather ask people to go fuck them selfs when the debate does not please him is a personality type who should have been banned 5 years agobesides Siwastaja often taking MSM to seriously and emotionally rather then rationally thats why you are shit scared by Pootin as you said. Besides thats Tom66 suggestion for thread title they guywho cant distinguish between two different ships. But accusing Shipping Sam Cagleano for being a political hack is pure stupidity but thats the level your at since you still dont get it there is aignore function so of course you dont understand and newer will.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2025, 11:30:23 pm
content: Quote from: vad on June 16, 2025, 07:25:36 pmSo start a thread on that ... but otherwise it's not really relevant now is it.Nuclear power is not an alternative to EV's.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 12:03:39 am
content: No politics please. This can be a decent discussion if we stay away from personal attacks and stick to facts.I'm surprised if they are transporting hybrids and EVs without any special outfitting of the ship (that was mentioned).The video guy is saying they used CO2 extinguishers, which apparently are not effective against lithium.These Class D extinguishers exist but they look incredibly expensive:Quote

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 12:46:06 am
content: Quote from: MT on June 16, 2025, 09:04:23 pmThese are personal attacks. Stop it or you'll be the one who gets banned.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 12:47:10 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on June 17, 2025, 12:03:39 amThe fire being fought is not a lithium metal fire - it's a chemical one. The solvents for the electrolyte tend to be highly flammable. Note the extinguishers you just mentioned explicitly state they're not for lithium-ion fires.The usual choice for these fires is water. LOTS of water.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 12:50:04 am
content: As for car cargo ship fires, here is a non-EV one, ironically caused by an incorrectly disabled battery.https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1139363/Hegh-Xiamen-fire-caused-by-vehicle-battery

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 01:02:25 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on June 17, 2025, 12:47:10 amThey have access to lots of sea water, but:- presumably no pumps to distribute it throughout the ship?- wouldn't want to flood the entire ship with water, maybe they could segment and just flood one section or floor?Would be interesting to see it on a thermal camera as well, if there was much warning or none at all.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 01:24:28 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on June 16, 2025, 09:40:36 amYou should have stopped at the first sentence, there was need need for the personal attack. Cut it out please.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 05:29:45 am
content: In the UK EV fires makes the news more easily that ICE fires, but again statistically ICE cars have more fires than EV's. There was a big fire in an airport car park. EV's were immediately blamed by every armchair warrior, tuned out that it was actually a diesel car but this was not widely publicized.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 05:39:25 am
content: Quote from: Simon on June 17, 2025, 05:29:45 amI remember that one.Both ICE cars and EV's (NMC and LFP) contain flammable material, it really comes down to possible ignition sources and construction. And LFP is safer and NMC.I'd say that EV batteries, all things considered, have a greater probability of an ignition source, but this can be engineered down to a very low practical level.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 06:19:28 am
content: The main challenge is with batteries is that a manufacturing defect can cause thermal runawayat any time.The vehicle does not need to be in operation.So it can go wrong in the warehouse, on the ship, when parked at an airport, or whendecommissioned.The risks are entirely different and require new ways of handling.Currently for these types of ships it is challenging the contain the fire because the source cannot be reached. There is fire inside the pack, and you cannot extinguish this because it provides it's own oxygen.Lots of water on these large open decks are a problem, so they use gas. It will only prevent spreading of simple fires, it doesn't cool anything to prevent the neighbouring pack from overheating.The fire also melts the straps the vehicles are hold down with. The last thing you want is moving cargo on sea.Perhaps newer ships can be fitted with sprinklers or mist nozzles inside the deck, to cool the bottom?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 06:38:41 am
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on June 17, 2025, 06:19:28 amLike I said, this can be engineered down to a very low probability at the individual cell level.And even then EV packs are supposed to have firewalls that contain individual cell failures so they do not spread.e.g. UL 2580, IEC62660-3 and others.

author: 5U4GB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 06:57:10 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on June 15, 2025, 08:58:00 pmHorses don't catch fire, but sometimes the cities the horses are brought into do. Especially when there are Greeks involved.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 09:05:24 am
content: Quote from: 5U4GB on June 17, 2025, 06:57:10 amI'm pretty sure there has never been a bicycle fire.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 10:36:43 am
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on June 17, 2025, 06:19:28 amThis was an issue with LG Chem pouch cells due to a manufacturing problem. It is the reason the Jaguar i-Pace was recalled, and Porsche replaced batteries in the Taycan, as well as issues with GM vehicles. As far as I know, no other manufacturer has had this issue yet.It is almost unheard of in cylindrical and prismatic cells from manufacture, though it can develop over time due to cell degradation.And it can be detected. The condition is known as a weak short and is exacerbated by charge/discharge cycles, especially charging up to 100%. The mechanism is to watch banks of cells and look for leakage current in the off-state. If a cell bank exceeds threshold, set a service flag and limit charging/discharging rates until the issue is fixed.Different risks but really not higher risks as the data shows.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 10:57:31 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 17, 2025, 09:05:24 amE-bike fires are common though. Especially when people buy cheap knock-off batteries or modify them to do excessive speeds.I have lights with lithium ion cells on plain old manual bicycle, which is stored in a shed, along side flammable materials. Fortunately it's a safe distance from my house and other residential buildings, so no one will be hurt, if it burns.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 11:02:02 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on June 17, 2025, 10:57:31 amIndeed and this is a tragedy of the commons thing, the reason e-bikes are banned from public transport in most UK locations is because there are so many unsafe/uncertified batteries out there, sold with recycled cells with poor quality control, no cell balancing or temperature monitoring, excessive charge/discharge current, and some home-made examples too, that mean it is effectively impossible to tell if a bike is safe to transport by looking at it, so the result is a quite good form of personal transport gets banned entirely because manufacturers can't follow the regulations. An e-bike system by, for instance, Bosch, would be perfectly safe to have on a train, but you could easily stick Bosch logos on a fake battery. The same doesn't apply for cars since it's very hard to "sneak" a car into the country for sale.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 11:23:57 am
content: There have been some EV models that tended to catch fire more often than others, triggering recalls.Kind of to be expected with any new tech. Car designers and manufacturers have to figure out the best/safest ways to integrate batteries into cars.And of course it's important to use lithium cells manufactured without any corners being cut. *Cough* Samsung Phones *Cough*.But yeah, EV fires have been blown out of proportion in the news.One legit thing about car fires that is quite different with EV's over ICE, other than the difficulty trying to put them out, is the time lag you can sometimes get between an event occurring, impact etc.., and a fire starting.For ICE cars the fire happens very soon after impact event, but with EV's there can sometimes be damage without a fire until quite a while later.Which does increase the risk if your EV is parked in your internal garage.But I don't think the risk is something to really be worried about. Just mount a smoke detector in the garage.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 11:24:57 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on June 17, 2025, 10:57:31 amElectric bike on fire, in an electric train!https://railgallery.wongm.com/ebike-fire-union-station/Oh noses

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 11:34:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 17, 2025, 06:38:41 amWe all know the distance betweensupposed to haveandreality. And if you place a lot of things with a low probability on a ship it still adds up.I also see a lot of people, also on youtube, naively using or creating their own battery packs. Like soldering the tabs on. Brrrr.The youtube channel StacheD goes into a variety of battery incidents with background knowledge, quite interesting.

author: 5U4GB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 12:58:11 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 17, 2025, 09:05:24 amI'm pretty surethere has.

author: 5U4GB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 01:03:20 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 17, 2025, 11:02:02 amPresumably this applies to power tools as well, given the popularity of repacking the batteries using recycled laptop cells sourced from some dodgy eBay trader. Was talking to a neighbour today about this, he's in the process of repacking some old power tool batteries with recycled cells from e-scooters, carefully matched in capacity and with proper cell balancing in place, but I'd guess he's more the exception than the rule.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 01:31:06 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on June 17, 2025, 06:19:28 amDo you count parked up as in operation? Because ICE vehicles can and have lit themselves on fire just parked up as a result of defective modules, damaged or defective wiring harnesses, material packed around hot catalytic converters drying out until it's able to ignite..

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 01:55:03 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 16, 2025, 12:50:58 amSome youtubers reporting about China show regularly EV fires including BYDs. I don't know if BYD lies about using LFP batteries or if they build/buy cheap and dangerous battery packs.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 01:59:34 pm
content: Quote from: madires on June 17, 2025, 01:55:03 pmBYD sold close to 7 million cars in China in 2023 & 2024, maybe 10+ million in total (they're growing very fast).It would be quite remarkable if there weren't several a day catching fire.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 02:43:23 pm
content: One very important point about ICE vs. EV fires is how the fire burns. Typically LiIon batteries burn very violently and also deliver oxygen for the fire, which makes fire suppression nearly impossible. In contrast, Diesel is relatively harmless, and gasoline more dangerous than diesel to some degree because of its more volatile parts. Unless the ideal fuel-air ratio is reached both can be managed by standard fire fighting methods. You can find some interesting talks from a fire fighting conference about LiIon battery fires on YouTube. LiIon battery fires become dangerous starting with battery packs sized for e-bicycles/e-scooters. That's also the reason why some car parks bar EVs.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 02:51:11 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 17, 2025, 01:59:34 pmTwo brief remarks, Be careful, the sales numbers are inflated. A lot of BYDs are rotting on parking lots or meadows (registered for getting subsidies). Of course, more cars means more car fires. But shouldn't it be just a very few fires because of the LFP battery packs?

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 02:59:58 pm
content: There is a lot of other stuff in cars, whether EV or ICE, besides the "fuel", that can burn.AFAIK, the majority of ICE fires are caused by issues in the electrical systems. I don't see why EVs would be any different in that regard, since many (most or even all?) still have a separate battery for everything not directly related to the electric motors.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 03:04:48 pm
content: Quote from: madires on June 17, 2025, 02:43:23 pmLithium Ion Phosphate at 600C, not too difficult to prevent that from spreading in the pack with bottom spray device.Solid state should help the other way, by not giving the oxygen much energetic to burn.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 03:08:43 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on June 17, 2025, 06:19:28 amYes. Comparing statistics (at least at this point) is useless and leads to nonsense debates as we can see here. Some will find figures showing over 10x more fires with EVs, some will find just the opposite."I'm right.""- No, you're wrong."The respective numbers of vehicles in circulation are still very different and thus make it hard to draw any valid conclusion.But that's not the core of the matter. The causes of EV fires are indeed usually very different and the ways to extinguish them are also very different. *That* is a specific issue that we must handle.Comparing a car catching fire in a violent crash and a car catching fire spontaneously are two very different things, even if the former happens more frequently. Putting them on the same level would be disingenuous.It would otherwise be interesting to compare the respective costs of the consequences. To start with, extinguishing an EV fire typically takes longer than for an ICE vehicle and requires specific techniques.Just my 2 cents.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 03:08:51 pm
content: Quote from: madires on June 17, 2025, 02:43:23 pmI often hear the comment that because a diesel car contains hard to ignite fuel, a diesel car fire is somehow less likely to occur - but it ignores than the fuel tank is rarely the direct cause of an ICE car fire. You have hot engine and gearbox oil, high pressure fuel rail, and hot exhaust components, maybe a turbocharger too which can be exposed to engine oil in a failure. Something such as atomised diesel fuel spraying onto the hot exhaust manifold can start a small fire in the engine compartment but by the time it is discovered it has ignited something else like rubber hoses, PVC wiring, plastic casings etc. and is quickly out of control. Engine coolant is also flammable, because it's usually at least 50% glycol.It is probably true to say that EVs are volatile most of the time, whereas ICE cars are typically most volatile whilst the engine is running. But I am not sure this makes a big difference at the end of the day.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2025, 05:08:29 pm
content: From the 8th International Tall Building Fire Safety Conference in London Dec 2024:Prof. Guilermo Rien. Battery Fire Research:Prof. Paul Christensen: Latest Electric Car Fire Research:Paul Hayles: Case study of Underground Car Park Electric Car Fire Exercise:

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2025, 06:07:51 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on June 17, 2025, 01:31:06 pmYes this sometimes happens, cars that burn down just after being parked. Fuel or oil leaks mostly, sometimes a electrical fire inside the dash.But most of the car fires here are arson....What I meant was that if you get a box of batteries, theycouldspontaneously combust on the shelf, just due to defect or age.A jerry can of petrol cannot.What tom66 points out is that, despite our focus may be put on the battery as cause, the cause of the fire can still be electrical in nature somewhere else in the car.The battery runaway simply being a consequence of it, at that point the battery is just a chemical energy storage device on fire.Just yesterday DiagnoseDan on youtube fixed a range rove that had a damaged cable harness due to an, in hindsight, obvious design flaw.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2025, 08:33:19 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on June 16, 2025, 07:20:30 pmThanks - funnily enough, Iknowthis perfectly well, even remember The Simpsons making a joke about it - and yet I made the exact mistake

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2025, 08:51:04 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on June 16, 2025, 11:30:23 pmThanks, Marco, but this thread was already derailed by BEV fanboys tossing in whataboutisms about gas car fires, instead of sticking to the actual topic - BEV setting another ship on fire.Not all fires are the same. Lithium ion battery thermal runaway is not like the usual gas or electrical fires in ICE cars. My exaggerated example, of not all power generators leaks being equal, was just to make that clear.PS. Unless you are the OP or a mod, maybe don’t tell others how to post.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2025, 10:21:21 pm
content: Quote from: vad on June 18, 2025, 08:51:04 pmEmphasis mine. There is, as yet, no evidence to support this conclusion. All we know is that a ship containing BEVs, hybrids and conventional cars caught fire.I provided evidence of numerous instances of obviously non-BEV caused ro-ro ship fires given they predated mass BEV deployment, caused by either ship engine faults, electrical faults on the ship, or ICE vehicle faults (in one case a starter motor circuit being triggered by a faulty control module leading to a fire, one example of an ICE car that can spontaneously burn despite otherwise being 'off').But go on then, provide your evidence that thiswasa BEV-caused ship fire.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 06:01:45 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 18, 2025, 10:21:21 pmDid you even watch the video? If you did, you’d know that smoke started coming from the deck with the EVs, the CO2 extinguishers didn’t help, and the fire has been burning for weeks. To me, all three of those facts are a smoking gun.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 04:04:31 pm
content: Quote from: vad on June 19, 2025, 06:01:45 amFTFY

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 04:39:50 pm
content: The CO2 supposedly worked, but fire reignited. I suspect existing ships are not sufficiently airtight to allow it to sustain CO2 atmosphere for long.The containership had explosives on board BTW.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 09:14:58 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on June 19, 2025, 04:39:50 pmaiui Li battery fires can't be contained with CO2 as they supply their own oxygen; the only remedy is cooling (usinglotsof water)

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 09:42:51 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 16, 2025, 12:51:28 amThats because its more news worthy - plenty of accidents and fires involving ICE vehicles every day, but they aren't reported on. Where-as EV's are still - for some reason - a controversial issue, so make it to the front of the news cycle. Mostly because the over-50's fear of anything remotely modern driving the clicks and likes and making these things appear much greater than they are.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:54:56 am
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on June 19, 2025, 09:14:58 pmOnly enough oxygen for the lithium in the battery. Most the electrolyte and all the plastic in the car won't oxidize. You won't get flames to increase convection either because the oxidation will happen locally.Even though there's oxygen, without oxygen in the air it's a runaway chemical process which gets hot more than a fire. CO2 could likely contain the runaway and prevent it from spreading to neighbouring cars, but things were still too hot when oxygen re-intruded in the air ... and then it became an actual fire.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 03:40:11 am
content: Quote from: Buriedcode on June 19, 2025, 09:42:51 pmFunny how roof leaks from solar panels barely make the news, while leaks at nuclear plants like Chernobyl and Fukushima got massive coverage from the media and even Hollywood. Doesn’t this feel like the same kind of bias you’re upset about with all the headlines over this EV fire that burned down that poor ship? Or is that somehow different?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 10:27:56 am
content: Quote from: vad on June 20, 2025, 03:40:11 amHow is a roof leak at a domestic property even slightly comparable to water leaking into a nuclear reactor...?In the Chernobyl case, water was leaking into the sarcophagus of the reactor (from the roof), which could risk contamination of ground water. This was repaired, but Russia bombed it with a drone, which led to further leaks.In the Fukushima case, the water was contained within the reactor building, so it was ultimately a non issue, but at the time there was concern of a leak into ground water.In both cases, there is a massive difference between a homeowner being inconvenienced and natural spaces being contaminated by nuclear waste. But I'm sure you know that.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:15:52 pm
content: I don’t have a car and have no interest in the EV vs ICE debate. Battery fires are just different to flammable liquid fires. In this case does it matter what started the fire? If it was an ICE car then the fire will spread to EVs and vice-versa.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 02:49:03 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on June 20, 2025, 12:54:56 amInteresting point. I doubt shipping lines will want to add the expense and weight of a CO2system though, unless mandated. Those folks are someseriouspenny-pinchers. It's not as easy as just pumping seawater either; if you fill the decks the ship will overbalance and capsize, if you just spray, it'll probably cause as many fires as it extinguishes. Not to mention all the extra corrosion.All in all, I'm gladI'mnot the one who has to figure it out

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 05:25:03 pm
content: I just checked a couple of ferries operating UK to France and UK to Ireland routes and there is no price or availability difference using an EV. Most didn't even ask what the vehicle was, other than that it was a car.If there is an increased risk from carrying electric vehicles, it doesn't appear to be worrying the ferry operators just yet. Of course, EVs are still a small portion of the overall vehicle population, around 3% in the UK. So maybe they are not worried yet, check back in a decade when it's probably closer to 50%.It's probably unlikely that charging will be allowed on ferries any time soon, except possibly for LFP-based EVs. If an EVisgoing to melt down, then charging is the most likely time. I don't think it is a particularly high risk but I can see a ferry operator just not wanting to take that risk on.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 02:59:27 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 20, 2025, 10:27:56 amThat was an intentional exaggeration to highlight the absurdity of comparing apples to oranges, such as lithium-ion battery thermal runaways versus electric and gas fires in ICE cars, or leaks related to solar panels versus nuclear reactor leaks. Both comparisons are meaningless and fully deserve the facepalm you gave.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 05:06:20 pm
content: Quote from: vad on June 21, 2025, 02:59:27 pmNot really given analysis of lithium-ion powered vehicles and conventional ICE vehicles has shown the heat release rate (i.e. how damaging and aggressive the fire is), is comparable. This is because the battery only contributes a small part of the fire hazard. Most of the fire is the interior materials, plastics, paint, wiring etc. which is common between vehicle classes. It might actually be more appropriate to say larger vehicles like SUVs are a greater hazard here due to the higher weight & materials content.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379711222001722And there are already techniques under development, like fire lances, that should allay most concerns about EV batteries being "unextinguishable":Quote from: Section 3.2.2Or, another study:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261922017548Additionally, since EVs do not carry flammable fuel or much in the way of flammable liquids, there is little potential for a running fuel fire, which has been established in several cases as leading to fire spread in car parks, see for instance:https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Significant%20Incident%20Report%20LLA%20Car%20Park%202%20fire.pdfQuote from: Page 49 of reportQuote from: Page 85-86 of reportOr here:https://www.merseyfire.gov.uk/media/1589/kings-dock-car-park-fire-protection.pdfQuote from: Page 7 of reportSo before you say that both deserve the facepalm, perhaps actually look into the research and draw an appropriate conclusion: EVs do not have zero risk of fire (but we knew that already), but the data so far shows considerably lower risk. They do present new hazards for firefighters, but they are not unextinguishable. New techniques and training are required to extinguish EV fires (easier with the right tools). In terms of fire spread within structures or ships, it appears that ICE presents a greater risk due to the running fuel fire phenomenon.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 05:47:08 pm
content: Saw a video from a below car suppression system from Australia recently. Don't know how representative their tests was, but they extinguished a burning EV simply with a below car mister. The fire was going pretty well when they let it kick in, some of the cells were already bursting violently.Seems you could retrofit this to car parks and Ro-Ro ships.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 09:08:15 pm
content: Even the inclusion of regular spinklers is sufficient in most cases. In multistorey car parks that have been fitted with sprinklers, vehicle fires have been contained (99% of the time, BRE report, pg 23). This is because the adjacent vehicles simply cannot get hot enough to ignite even the vehicle next to them is melting down, and the fire brigade can attend and put out the source vehicle quickly enough before the environment becomes too hostile for firefighting. Running fuel fires also don't happen as the water extinguishes the fuel.Sprinklers were tested by the BRE in the 2000's:https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20120919122719/http:/www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1795610.pdfA simulated three-car fire was created.Quote from: Report Page 46Despite the evidence that sprinkler systems do adequately control car fires and frequently prevent a one-car fire from becoming a multi-car or whole building fire, sprinkler systems were not fitted to Kings Dock car park nor to the Luton Airport car park. Both were totally destroyed with approx 1,500 cars in each meeting their maker. The origin vehicle in both cases was a Range Rover (the first, a petrol and latter, a diesel), but of course it would be foolish to draw a conclusion about the safety of Range Rovers there from two data points, wouldn't it now.Underbody sprinklers are probably a good idea though would be a lot more complex to fit. Might make sense for new car parks, I suspect you'd want to combine them with sprinklers on top though, or perhaps only in bays for charging (especially rapid charging) given the elevated risk in such areas. There isn't enough data to qualify how elevated that risk is.Incidentally, modern EVs made to UN ECE standards (pretty much every model placed in the EU/UK market) has to survive a fire under the battery pack for 3 minutes without entering thermal runaway. I suppose the idea is to prevent a running fuel fire from spreading to the car. The vehicle is allowed to use the cooling system of the battery if required.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 06:54:50 am
content: Sprinklers or misters under the cars will probably be an easier retrofit on the ships than in car parks.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 08:48:35 am
content: Apparently one reason for not having sprinklers in car parks is because the codes are enormously expensive to meet.https://dgmr.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Artikel-European-Fire-Sprinkler-Network.pdfSprinklers can be cheaper than insurance, but not if they need a watertank half the size of the carpark. Misters could be even cheaper, but I suspect codes kill those outright.Maybe it would be better for carparks to not have government codes whatsoever on sprinklers and let the insurers optimize it. Government codes only really make sense when the system is mandatory.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 10:52:49 am
content: A dry sprinkler system where the fire department can attach their hoses to could already help a lot. You don't require water storage if you make it that basic.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 11:19:45 am
content: Well, in the UK there is no statutory requirement to have sprinklers in car parks except if there is an occupied building above the car park (e.g. underground car park with shopping mall or apartments above it). Those are rare in the UK but are found in London and some other big cities.If occupied levels above car parks are present, it is supposed to be the case that a fire in an underground car park can burn for one hour without control, without risking harm to residents/occupiers of a building above (including the risk of structural failure), allowing their safe evacuation. This is a difficult requirement to meet, requiring reinforced support columns and thicker concrete divisions, and probably explains why these types of car parks are not common in the UK.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2025, 10:15:40 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 20, 2025, 05:25:03 pmThere is at least one Norwegian ferry operator which doesn't allow EVs on their ships.

author: Wolfram
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2025, 07:51:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 29, 2025, 10:15:40 amHavila Kystruten still bans EVs and hydrogen cars due to the potential danger during fire, not for reasons of preventing fires. These are not car ferries, but transport/cruise ships with a capacity of 9 cars in addition to cargo and passengers. Each of these four ships also have a 6.1 MWh battery on board.Meanwhile, the hundreds of car ferries in the country all allow EVs on board. With 20+ million cars transported per year. Given that around 40 % of registered cars at the moment are EVs or hybrids, quite a few EVs travel by ferry every day and there's no indication that this is a problem.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2025, 07:32:42 pm
content: Matson Suspends Electric Vehicle Shipments Over Battery Fire Concerns | StacheD Training Discusses:

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2025, 08:29:57 pm
content: Strange that their public statement highlights the fire risk of LFP batteries - a chemistry known to be significantly more stable than NMC/NCA battery chemistries. Doesn't really make sense to me, and suggests they don't really know what actually poses the greatest risk.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2025, 02:46:26 am
content: Thank you for sharing this episode of “What’s Going on With Shipping”.Here are a few random thoughts after watching the episode:1) New ICE vehicles are statistically more likely to catch fire than new EVs. However, ICE fires are easier to extinguish onboard a ship using CO2. If an EV catches fire, either spontaneously or from an a burning ICE vehicle, it is nearly impossible to save the ship and its cargo. To reduce the risk of catastrophic fires on car carriers, it might be wise to avoid mixing new EVs and ICE vehicles on the same ship. While EVs can still self-ignite, this appears to happen less frequently than with ICE vehicles or in a mixture of ICE vehicles and EVs.2) The video’s suggestion to increase spacing between EVs to 20 feet is a good idea from a safety standpoint but would significantly raise shipping costs. A typical car footprint is about 15’ x 6’. Currently, vehicles are packed closely, side by side, bumper to bumper. Assuming 2 feet spacing (1 foot margins from a car to the end of the parking space) on all sides, a parking space area currently is around 17x8 = 136 square feet. To implement 20-foot separation, the margins would need to increase to about 10 feet, resulting in a space of roughly 35 by 26 feet, or 910 square feet per vehicle. That is almost 7 times the current space per car, meaning an EV carrier would transport about 1/7 the number of cars compared to a similarly sized ICE car carrier. This would drive up the cost of shipping new EVs by about 7 times.3. New EV carriers should be designed to stay afloat even if one or more decks are flooded with seawater. Immersing an EV in thermal runaway is currently the only practical firefighting method. These decks must be fully sealed to prevent toxic runoff from spilling out into the ocean.4) Used EVs should be banned from shipping by sea. I would also avoid ferries that allow EVs onboard, unless it is a brand-new, unregistered EV being transported to a dealership or customer. The condition of the battery in used EVs is unknown, and they represent a serious toxic fire hazard that should be kept off ships and ferries.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2025, 02:56:25 am
content: Hmm; pardon me if this is a dumbass comment, but:What about shipping EVs with their batteries partially or mostly discharged? I haven't read anyone suggesting this.There may be reasons why this isn't practical, but it would seem to lessen the risk of fire during shipping.Maybe they could be driven on board with the absolute minimum of charge needed to move them that last few feet (and to drive them off at the other end).Or they could be towed? maybe even strung together in some kind of train that could be pulled on and off?

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2025, 05:54:33 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 28, 2025, 08:29:57 pmIt's not that they are more stable. It's that if, by whatever (external) reason, they do combust, they are impossible to deal with and it will result in hull loss.The regulations will suddenly become more strict when an BEV-fire incident occurs on a ferry.Quote from: Analog Kid on July 29, 2025, 02:56:25 amiirc this is already supposed to happen.https://www.emsa.europa.eu/publications/download/8189/4729/23.htmlQuote from:https://www.uecc.com/media/1524/uecc-electric-vehicle-guideline-v1.pdf

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2025, 07:40:26 am
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on July 29, 2025, 05:54:33 amMy point is it makes no sense at all to highlight apparent LFP fire risk and not highlight NMC/NCA fire risk. China produces both types of batteries. LFP -can- enter thermal runaway but it is very rare compared to other chemistries, especially NMC, the next most common in EVs. So why say, "No LFP shipments any more", why not say "No lithium-ion shipments any more"? It screams as if the carrier really doesn't understand the relative risks of the battery technologies and hasn't done an actual risk assessment but is instead knee-jerk reacting. I would be much more concerned over NMC given there have been actual fire risks with defective cells (see Jaguar i-Pace, Porsche Taycan, GM Bolt recall; same source of cells from LG). I have not heard of any LFP-based cars being recalled. I don't think the risk is high for NMC, based on other data, but if it is a factor for LFP, it must be much less than NMC. And it's not as if LFP batteries are rare, every standard-range Model 3 has one...As for transport SoC, it's common to transport EVs with 10% or less effective SoC, many models of EV have a transport/service mode which will discharge the battery using the climate control system or similar to get the battery down to this level.BTW, this is what is in the news, even the reporter understands it's a subtype:Quote

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2025, 10:33:53 am
content: We should differentiate between the risks. The first one is the risk of an EV battery pack suddenly self-igniting, exploding or whatever. Less likely with LFP, but it still happens (see BYD EVs). Based on statistics an ICE car has a higher probabilty for self-ignition than an EV. But the interesting point is what happens when a car burns, either by self-ignition or caused by something else on fire (another car), and what are the risks of a much higher damage. A burning ICE car can be extinguished with water or CO2, which are typical fire suppression methods on car carriers. But for the battery pack of an EV it's comnpletely different. It provides oxygen itself and the fire is more ferocious and hotter, nearly impossible to extinguish and causing more damage to the ship. Having many EVs packed together exacerbates the situation (-> chain reaction). BTW, reports from parking deck fires show basically the same impact. The safety of the car carrier and sailers comes first for the shipping company. ICEs on fire are manageable, but burning EVs are much more dangerous.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2025, 10:57:25 am
content: Profit comes first and these are combined containerships, so it's a smaller part of their profit.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2025, 11:11:58 am
content: We should stop repeating the "LFP is safer" myth. It has higher onset temperature for thermal runaway and smaller released energy during thermal runaway, but not dramatically so; if a fault is capable of generating the 170degC or so temperature to turn LCA or NMC cell into thermal runaway, it's also pretty close to turning LFP into thermal runaway (300 degC or so), and even if released energy is half or one third, it's still capable of cascading into neighboring cars.When trying to find actual research, the results are mixed. I remember seeing a paper which compared COTS LCO and LFP cells in overcharge and short-circuit scenarios, and the LFP cells were all worse because the specimen had worse protection technology. Li-ion safety goes much beyond the cathode material choice; separator material plays important role in localized "shutting down" before a fault propagates into thermal runaway, not to even talk about current interruption devices / built in fusing.It's a good initial assumption that all available li-ion chemistries (or subtypes) are roughly equally dangerous, and cell manufacturer's specific "safety secret sauces", and pack manufacturer's mitigations are deciding factors, more than the chemistry.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2025, 10:38:44 am
content: Quote from: madires on July 29, 2025, 10:33:53 amI'd be surprised if an EV fire on a ship could be contained at all. I think it's cross your fingers and hope it doesn't spread much until it burns itself out.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2025, 10:40:35 am
content: Grok says this:Quote

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2025, 10:53:32 am
content: I'm not quite sure random AI barf brings anything useful to the discussion. Citation needed...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2025, 11:00:42 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 30, 2025, 10:53:32 amGrok gave references for everything, too many to list, here are some:https://maritime-mutual.com/risk-bulletins/fire-detection-fire-fighting-and-containerised-dangerous-goods-regulations-and-realities/https://www.firerescue1.com/electric-fire/articles/cargo-ship-on-fire-and-adrift-at-sea-what-firefighters-can-learn-from-the-response-efforts-q6pcSVES48Xd5Okw/https://blog.trans-rak.com/latest-technology-in-firefighting-cargo-shipshttps://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/whats-on/stories/a-burning-issue-keeping-ships-safe-from-firehttps://www.nautilusshipping.com/news-and-insights/shipboard-firefighting-systems-an-essential-guide-to-fire-safety-at-seahttps://bulkcarrierguide.com/fire-fighting-equipment.htmlhttps://maritime-mutual.com/risk-bulletins/fire-detection-fire-fighting-and-containerised-dangerous-goods-regulations-and-realities/https://www.dnv.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/A-step-change-in-fire-safety-on-board-containerships/https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/fireprotection-default.aspx

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2025, 02:07:17 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 30, 2025, 10:38:44 amThe containers themselves should be fitted with fire suppression systems.Containers are pretty standard. You make a device that can go above the car, and at the destination they can disassemble it, and place it into another container or ship them back by the dozens. Maybe the bottom of the container needs to be replaced from wood to something that can contain (no pun) the fire.If you can transport liquids, grain, LNG in specialized containers, so can you electric cars. An LNG container is practically a ticking bomb once it's on a ship, it has a limited shelf life and if you go above that, it evaporates and starts spilling out methane. They can handle that during shipping, cars are not inherently dangerous. It's just a new challenge.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2025, 05:10:28 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 30, 2025, 10:38:44 amAbsorbing a MW of fire output only takes half a litre of water a second and there's lots of water around as long as you don't mind the salt corrosion.You could have an automated system to use fresh water first with a mister system, that could contain the fire for a couple of cars almost indefinitely. Switch to sea water when necessary, if you pump as much water as the bilge pumps can handle you can contain a whole lot of fire with mist.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2025, 06:52:46 pm
content: Exactly. An EV fire isn't even significantly more intense than an ICE car fire. Most of the fire energy does not come from the battery. Water mist/sprinklers and yeah, that particular vehicle is gone and the adjacent vehicles are probably melted, but you just need to stop the fire spreading from car to car, which sprinklers will do very effectively. And damage can be localised even if salt water is used, just use heat triggered sprinklers as standard.As for LFP fire risk, the question is really how the LFP cell enters thermal runaway in the first place, since most won't enter thermal runaway even if directly shorted. Maybe a manufacturing defect not discovered until it goes into a car could cause it.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2025, 09:54:21 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 30, 2025, 06:52:46 pmSure. EV fire is not extremely intense - just intense enough to completely incinerate a massive steel car carrier ship.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2025, 10:32:15 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 30, 2025, 09:54:21 pmI contend thatregardlessof what vehicle started the fire, ANY mass vehicle fire is a problem - whether there are no EVs there or every car is an EV. Modern cars contain flammable materials: fuels, oils, plastics, fabrics, wiring and yes, lithium batteries... all of which can contribute to a fire.After all, a single Land Rover SUV destroyed the Luton Airport Car Park, and it was a regular diesel turbo, not even a hybrid. Some 1,300 cars were destroyed, and the car park was a total structural loss, and flights were disrupted for days afterwards... this was despite the fire service arriving on scene within about 15 minutes of the fire starting; it simply became untenable to fight it once more than a few cars were alight.https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Significant%20Incident%20Report%20LLA%20Car%20Park%202%20fire.pdf

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2025, 01:58:57 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 30, 2025, 06:52:46 pmThis subject has a few twists.Given vehicles with equal range, an ICE fuel tank holds more energy than an EV battery's normal electrical output by a factor of the ICE's efficiency, so 2.5 (the best diesels) to 4 (an average petrol). The battery isn't 100% efficient, but ICE cars still have longer range (especially diesels), with the latter factor outweighing.So in an externally misdirected energy scenario e.g. a fuel line leak or short circuit, the ICE can do significantly more damage, especially as burning fuel can spray around while a short circuit will be at a point.A lithium battery in thermal runaway releases about twice as much energy as the electrical capacity, so this is still less than the energy in ICE fuel, especially if the runaway is limited to a single cell -- you can't put much petrol in an 18650 or 26650.The thermal runaway also produces flammable gasses, but is not necessarily hot enough to ignite them. I don't know the probability. There are many cases of both. The solid materials of the battery certainly don't themselves inherently burn, that takes very high temperatures.In a raging inferno, complete combustion of a 26850 cell was found to produce 8 times as much energy (288kJ) as its electrical capacity (35kJ), so this is 2-3 times more than the fuel tank of an ICE vehicle with comparable range -- but probably only 1.5 times more than an actual typical ICE e.g. EV range of 500km, petrol range of 750km, diesel range 1000km.But as you say, once there is an intense fire, the battery/fuel tank is a minor contributor to it anyway.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2025, 03:14:37 am
content: How much of the energy in a lithium battery fire is from oxidation (burning) of the lithium itself?Lead is not very inflammable.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2025, 01:21:18 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on June 17, 2025, 12:47:10 amThat seems to be the advice from any fire department video on the issue I have seen. Other then the obvious "GET THE FUCK OUT!"The battery will release it's energy. Until it's finished, all you can do it douse it and keep it "cool" and thus limit the colateral damage or risk of spreading.For your personal devices. If it swells or vents. A bucket of water. A lot of the people will complain, "But... but... lithium water!!!", the response to that is, "Shut up, you don't have time, put it in a bucket of water NOW!"Airline cabin crews are trained much the same for personal device fires on flights.Think about it this way, even BigClive plays with them outdoors.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2025, 02:21:18 pm
content: Lithium ion batteries don't contain elemental lithium, so realistically it isn't a problem to put a battery in water, other than it will discharge the battery (if the water is conductive) and corrode components... if it is on fire then these are probably not major concerns so yeah, water is the way.With EV batteries, the new technique is to inject the battery casing with high pressure water ASAP... you want to cool any of the cells which have gone into runaway. If you can cool the cell down below the critical temperature then the fire can be stopped in its tracks.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2025, 06:50:16 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 30, 2025, 06:52:46 pmAgreed. I believe this is an entirely solvable problem. Regulations are also tightening on surviving some external heat (i.e., thermal insulation on battery pack). Combine that with some simple misting system and it should work out without extreme increases in transport costs.QuoteEasy: exactly the same way as the other li-ion chemistries: physical damage, manufacturing defects causing localized short, failure of the separator to shut down.Direct shorting is probably the most obvious way: the paper I remember seeing exactly found out that LFP cells were vulnerable because the manufacturers skipped short circuit protection.I have personally directly shorted several LCO and NCA cells and none went into thermal runaway, because they had cell-level protection.Demonstration videos where LFP cells are directly shorted and "only smoke a lot and melt a little bit but do not enter thermal runaway" may be reassuring to some, but always were alarming in my opinion, because that indicates significant temperature rise. If they count on just barely not exceeding thermal runaway onset temperature, that might work when the cell is in isolation, like it is in the demonstration video, but if you have a tightly coupled pack of cells, good luck.Plus, "just the smoke" may be electrolyte mist, which is highly flammable, and only needs an ignition source.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 12:16:42 am
content: Quote from: vad on July 30, 2025, 09:54:21 pmThat's the thing, two ship losses now from EV fires, even with all the sprinkler and other systems they have in place. So something seems different.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 12:17:42 am
content: No sprinklers, CO2.CO2 seems capable of suppressing the battery fires BTW. It just doesn't last.Also CO2 equipped ships have burned down at shore with no EV in sight, doesn't work with the ramp door open.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 12:18:43 am
content: Quote from: paulca on July 31, 2025, 01:21:18 pmI do teardowns of big lithium batteries in my garage at home, not in the lab in my high rise office building.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 12:23:17 am
content: Quote from: Marco on August 01, 2025, 12:17:42 amSOLAS regulations apparently say these car container ships must have sprinkler systems.And reports are the Felicity Ace and Morning Midas had sprinkler systems.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 12:36:50 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 01, 2025, 12:23:17 amAlmost certainly only relevant for passenger ships (where they can't use CO2). No "reports" of sprinklers for the Delphine fire for instance, Felicity Ace had a foam system whichfailedand I doubt the report for Morning Midas is any more accurate.

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 12:56:32 am
content: heat release rate ?i dont know what is the correct metric ?https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Heat-release-rate-of-diesel-a-lubricating-oil-b-and-aviation-kerosene-c-tested-in_fig2_277250623https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330786740_Study_on_the_fire_risk_associated_with_a_failure_of_large-scale_commercial_LiFePO4graphite_and_LiNixCoyMn1-x-yO2graphite_batteriesthe battery size in the research article is 50Ahthe battery releases alot in very short time ?the 50Ah battery size/area could be 0.1 x 0.15 x2 = 0.03 sqmso per sqm HRR = over 1300kW/sqm ?

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 02:40:57 am
content: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/a-porsche-ev-reportedly-started-the-fire-on-the-felicity-ship-vw-is-facing-a-lawsuit-230393.htmlQuotewow over $500m in losses (ship + cargo ?)

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 02:57:25 am
content: re: battery vs ICE vehicle safety on container shipsI would have guessed that vehicles are shipped with no gasoline in them.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 03:35:49 am
content: My guess is that the shippers have temporary hires just to drive the vehicles onto ship and into the hold spot designated.I've also been told, by safety pros, that the ALMOST EMPTY gasoline tank obviously contains plenty of air for combustion, and, somewhat paradoxically, is more prone to accidental scenarios (that develop into major fires).There is probably an Auto Makers and Sellers trade MAG, that describes modern shipping issues, that would cover the temp workers, if my guess is right.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 08:28:16 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 01, 2025, 12:16:42 amHang on. You're jumping to conclusions.Go back before EVs were commonplace. Cargo and container ships carrying vehicles still caught fire, usually about one every 18 months or so. Some from ICE vehicles catching fire. Other times from a malfunction on the ship or some other form of accidental fire. I'm not yet convinced there's enough data to say that they represent substantially more risk than any type of vehicle being transported (that being, a huge amount of combustible 'fuel' for any fire in the form of car parts, fluids and so on.)Quote from: tom66 on June 15, 2025, 08:36:40 pm

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 09:34:06 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 01, 2025, 12:18:43 amYeah, I took some battery packs through certification testing. The test lab did all the battery testing outside in portable cabins which could be replaced quickly and at low cost. They learned to do that the hard way. Before that they did testing inside their main building. A battery pack caught fire and due to smoke and fire damage they had to shut down the entire lab and part of the offices until the mess got cleaned up.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 01:41:45 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2025, 08:28:16 amHow many of these Google search results are about fires aboard car carriers transporting new ICE vehicles?

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 02:46:07 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 01, 2025, 01:41:45 pmWhy would that be relevant? Think about it before you answer.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 04:46:34 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2025, 02:46:07 pmI expect most ships transporting new cars over the last 5 years will by carrying both EVs and ICE vehicles.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 05:15:01 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2025, 02:46:07 pmAnd why is MS al-Salam Boccaccio 98 (the top search result) relevant? If you bother to open tom66’s link, you’ll read:”The immediate cause of the sinking appears to have been a buildup of seawater in the hull, when the firefighters were trying to extinguish a fire in the engine room.”Should we also include the sinking of convoy ships during WWII? As long as there was a fire in the engine room before the sinking, and as long as a vehicle with an ICE engine was among the cargo, it should meet the criteria, or shouldn’t it?By any chance, do you know if the Titanic was carrying a car with an ICE during its fatal journey? Maybe the Titanic sinking should also be added to the list? I know there was a fire before the sinking - I saw it in the movie, not some random Google search.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 05:33:57 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 01, 2025, 05:15:01 pm...Because it was a ro/ro ship fire? We don't know where the fire in this case started either. We just know a fire was reported on the deck somewhere. Could have been a fire in an air conditioning/heating unit. Could have been an EV. Could have been an ICE car. Could have been a carelessly discarded cigarette. If you're going to gather statistics about ship fire safety when carrying large numbers of vehicles, you need to include all sorts of incidents, even ones that don't immediately seem relevant, unless you actually have definitive proof of the fire's origin.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 05:55:24 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2025, 05:33:57 pmJust so I understand your point. Are you implying that fires aboard ships are so common that the recent car carrier fires, which couldn’t be extinguished due to EVs onboard, are just statistical blip and should be dismissed?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 08:06:20 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 01, 2025, 05:55:24 pmI have seen nothing so far to convince me that there is an epidemic of ro/ro ship fires that needs urgent intervention to address, brought on by EVs or otherwise. Ultimately these are mostly economic losses born by marine insurers and automakers. Thousands of these ships are sailing at any one time, so statistically you would expect fires to occur from time to time, even with the safest vehicles. Sure, there is an environmental consequence, but I doubt it is anywhere near as bad as fossil fuel emissions for even say a few minutes of a given day.It is pretty clear thatifa single vehicle does catch fire in a large structure (which includes a ship), regardless of what type of vehicles that structure contains or the type of the origin vehicle, that the resulting fire can quickly become unmanageable. It would be prudent, just from a perspective of minimising losses, to have some way to either contain that fire, or outright extinguish it should it occur. Sprinkler systems are cheap and effective, and have been demonstrated to work well in multi-vehicle fires in parking structures. There is no evidence that a sprinkler system would not be effective against a lithium battery in thermal runaway. After all, the job is not to put out that specific vehicle (though, that may be a bonus), but prevent adjacent vehicles from igniting.I suspect most of these problems are brought on by have much larger vehicles than before. Vehicles contain many more plastic components in their interiors, and are physically larger, with SUVs being increasingly common. Just as an example, the "pleather" that most cars now use as a vegan alternative (mostly cost saving, not ethical) is highly flammable, whereas natural leather only tends to smoulder. Newer vehicles contain airbags everywhere and pyrotechnic charges for seatbelt systems and the like. They contain many more electrical modules and wires. All of that will contribute to the potential fire load.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2025, 09:59:51 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 01, 2025, 04:46:34 pmYes, but those search results are (deliberately) 10-20 years old, before EVs were common.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2025, 09:17:01 am
content: Quote from: Simmed on August 01, 2025, 12:56:32 amThe fire suppression needs to get smarter. The intensity isn't a fundamental problem, a couple litre per second per square meter of mist isn't really a problem if the battery can only burn like that for 15 minutes, but letting that run continuously over a large enough area will become a problem for the ship.Traditionally they avoid smartness for good reason, but at some point new better reasons can override old good reasons.Insurance beancounters will drive them where they have to go eventually.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 05:27:20 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 01, 2025, 05:55:24 pmNo one is suggesting dismissal, quite the opposite; we are pointing out that cause needs to be investigated; statistics show that a guess (which you are suggesting, and yours is of course correct) has worse chances of going right than tossing a coin.Of course the causes, root cause and contributing factors, need to be carefully investigated. We EV fanbois have absolutely no problem with that, even if the result shows that you were correct.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 06:32:55 pm
content: The fire extinguishing systems don't even need to be that smart. Regular thermally triggered sprinkler systems would be enough. Could start with fresh water in a ~2000L tank on board (pretty typical for a normal sprinkler system). If that is exhausted switch to sea water using pumps to keep tank filled up. It's corrosive to the cargo that gets soaked... but corrosion is better than fire!

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 06:44:01 pm
content: In a chaotic situation where the fire only needs high flow for say 10 minutes and where too much water becomes dangerous for the ship (it's all going to be hack work retrofits for the near future) you don't really want a human to shut off a valve in the middle of the fire to slow down the flow. You want the system to adapt and switch to a maintenance suppression mode.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 06:52:50 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 02, 2025, 09:17:01 amProbably. However, shipping has always been a business where the safety of people and cargo is very low on the list of priorities. So personel training and maintenance are very low on the list. So if there is a fire on a ship, assume the crew doesn't know what to do (up to the point of ignoring the presence of life boats and simply jump overboard) and any kind of fire suppression system has stopped working correctly a long time ago. The more sophisticated a fire suppression system is, the bigger the chance it will break down due to wear and lack of maintenance. Especially in a harsh marine environment.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 07:04:19 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2025, 06:52:50 pmAn electronic system would have the advantage it can do autonomous testing. Use pressurised air and flow measurement to test the valves, use a resistive heater to test the infrared sensors. Someone might still bang up the sprinkler/mister head, so real inspection/testing is still needed eventually, but it helps.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 07:34:31 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 03, 2025, 06:32:55 pmJust to give you some idea how big these fires are. These ships often carry more than 10.000 containers, and most of these containers will carry some sort of flammable materials. The one on the video are 4000 containers. You cannot access them, they are stacked up high, next tot each other, you cannot go there, there is no space to do anything. Their floor is wood, and while they treat it with all the toxic materials it's still flammable.If you don't stop the fire inside the container, you cannot stop that fire. And CO2 and other gasses will just take out the fire temporarily, since the battery is still shorted out, mangled, releasing it's energy, plus chemical reactions.I think the only way to stop it, is some sort of expanding foam, inside the container, that hardens and covers the car.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 08:13:37 pm
content: @tszabooTo be clear, I was talking about ro/ro ships - used primarily to transport cars that are driven onto the ship. There is usually minimal free space around each vehicle, these are quite like multi-storey car parks in that regard. There is an existing body of evidence that shows that regular sprinklers are usually enough to arrest fires like this since the problem is more about stopping a fire spreading from one car to another. As long as you can keep the adjacent vehicles cool enough you can stop a fire from leaving the origin vehicle and the damage is limited to melted trim, damaged paint, etc... probably still 'writes off' quite a few cars, but the ship should be fine as a whole.I don't think sprinklers would work for container ships.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 08:40:41 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 03, 2025, 08:13:37 pmhere at new year when they sell firework, they store the fireworks in shipping containers with build in sprinkler system with an external connection to a fire hose.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2025, 08:51:15 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 03, 2025, 07:04:19 pmYou are thinking way too much as an engineer... throw technology onto a problem and it will be solved. But the contrary is true. If your electronic systems fails its self test, nobody is going to repair it on a ship operated by penny pinchers.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 12:17:04 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 03, 2025, 06:32:55 pmSoaking EVs in seawater up to the car floor level would also eliminate any involvement of firefighting teams. No one wants to step into a conductive salty water with hundreds of submerged 800VDC battery packs nearby. Speaking of applying 800V to seawater, I imagine hydrogen accumulating at the ceiling, with a hydrogen-oxygen mixture just below. All it would take is a single spark to trigger a catastrophic explosion.So, as I mentioned several days ago, EV carrier ships must be specifically designed and built to handle the full complexity of EV battery thermal runaways. Reusing traditional car carriers, which were originally built to meet safety standards for internal combustion engine vehicle fires, without addressing the unique risks posed by EVs is about as reckless as it gets.Constructing purpose-built EV carriers will require significant capital investment. This will make sea transport of EVs extremely expensive. The 20-foot spacing requirement alone reduces ship capacity by a factor of 7 (see my earlier post for details). But EV fanboys never seem to mind paying a premium.PS. Better still, manufacture EVs locally. What better way to bring manufacturing back to the US than building Mercedes-Benz and BMW EVs on American soil? In this regard, I fully support our president. And for those in Australia, why not bring back the Holden Commodore as an EV, and build it locally?

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 12:26:23 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 04, 2025, 12:17:04 amGeeez.It would be orders of magnitude cheaper to retrofit sprinklers to a few RORO ships.The shipping companies (and their insurers) will do it themselves if they decide that's cheaper than losing the occasional ship.For new never-owned goods a small loss rate is no big deal. The thing I wish shipping companies would take special care over is personal effects of people relocating. I imagine that's a pretty small proportion of all cargo.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 12:52:06 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 04, 2025, 12:17:04 amUmm, no thanks. Even if you brought it back as an ice cream.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 01:17:43 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on August 04, 2025, 12:52:06 amTake away my man card, but despite having lived in NZ for 55 of the last 62 years, I think I've only been in a Commodore once, also despite growing up in Kingswoods (learned to drive, first makeout sess etc). The Condom came out and my parents and other relatives switched to Falcons (those who weren't already). The once that I remember was when I arrived back in NZ in the start of Level 4 lockdown and a cop gave me a lift home. I was shocked how little elbow room there was compared to the 2017 Subaru Outback I'd had in California. The Holden is an inch or two wider on the outside, but idk they must have thick doors or something.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 07:20:48 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2025, 08:51:15 pmSimple solution for the insurer, they demand attested logging. No logs, no pay out. Everything works out in the end.Monetary incentives solve everything.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 09:00:35 am
content: Quote from: Marco on August 04, 2025, 07:20:48 amIf that where true, ships would have had better fire suppression systems already. AFAIK: If you transport something by ship, you have to insure it yourself. The shipping company takes no liability for any form of transport damage or loss. Hence there is no incentive for shippers to be more careful with the cargo. So the worst that can happen to a shipper is losing an old ship which has been paid off a long time ago.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 09:46:56 am
content: Worse, there is a concept in shipping known as "general average". This means that if you are transporting goods on a cargo ship, and a fire on board damages other goods, you can be held liable for the damage to those goods and any goods damaged in the resulting attempt to extinguish the fire.Everyonepays for the damage, essentially. This is old maritime law, I guess as a system before insurance was commonplace, the idea being everyone transporting goods pays for the losses of a few. Normally, you would purchase "general average insurance" that will cover this liability, it is not expensive, but anyone who forgets it will quickly regret it should an incident happen.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 11:10:54 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 04, 2025, 09:00:35 amCan't count beans until there is enough data for statistics. First you need better ships, then you need to show they are actually safer, then some insurer actually has to be willing to lower their premium ... then everyone else will follow eventually.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 11:33:55 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 04, 2025, 09:00:35 amthe ship is insured

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 12:20:00 pm
content: Maybe they could put a disposable cover over the car and then throw a reusable fire blanket over it after parking. Need some extra manpower, but it would probably not cost more than a buck per car.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 07:01:25 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 04, 2025, 12:20:00 pmWhat are the fire blanket and cover actually for? Cutting off the air oxygen supply will not slow down a battery’s thermal runaway. It supplies its own oxygen.In fact, thermal runaway may intensify due to the “boiler effect”. And accumulation of flammable gases (hydrogen, methane, ethylene, carbon monoxide, …), released during the thermal runaway, can lead to an explosion if trapped under the cover.Refer to the “explosive fire blanket” segment in the What’s Going On With Shipping episode mentioned earlier in the thread.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 07:39:24 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 04, 2025, 07:01:25 pmThe blanket is for containment, the cover is so you don't scratch the paint.QuoteAs long as it doesn't destroy the blanket and it slows radiant heat down enough it can't put neighbouring car batteries in thermal runaway it doesn't matter.The recent warning about explosion risk was for the removal of the blanket ... that can wait a long time.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 09:03:23 pm
content: A fire blanket is obviously a good idea but a little impractical on a ship because the vehicles are packed in tightly. Sprinklers are going to be better in that application.And the idea that sprinkler water would suddenly become energised to 800V is not 'grounded' in physics. EV batteries are not grounded to the vehicle chassis. They are floating to the chassis with contactors used to isolate the cell, typically in the middle of the pack. When a fire occurs in a battery, the battery very quickly go open circuit. Because once a cell goes into runaway, it stops being a cell. Once you have an open circuit in that chain, the risk is far far smaller. It's the same as how dropping 240V wires (or a toaster) in a bathtub isn't immediately dangerous to someone in the bath if the bathtub is ungrounded.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 09:05:12 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 04, 2025, 07:39:24 pmSo you assume that the thermal energy released by a battery in thermal runaway would simply disappear, and that outside the fire blanket it would somehow be cool and freezing?According to this article, there are three approaches to dealing with EV fires:1) capitulate and let the fire burn out completely (this how it was handled in the recent fires aboard car carriers)2) apply large volumes of water (10,000-30,000 liters) from underneath the vehicle to cool the battery pack3) submerge the entire vehicle in a water tankThe use of fire blankets is not mentioned. The article:https://www.fireengineering.com/technical-rescue/electric-vehicle-fires-whats-really-going-on/

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 10:54:52 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 04, 2025, 09:05:12 pmThey have a lot of ventilation, so yes eventually it will just disappear. In the meantime it can melt some aluminium under the blanket.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 11:35:56 pm
content: And how about all the toxic fumes?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2025, 11:49:18 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 04, 2025, 11:35:56 pmSucks for the seagulls.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2025, 08:04:33 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 04, 2025, 09:05:12 pmThe blanket idea would need to be combined with the water spraying idea. There is some validness to this; remember how massive the energy capacity of liquid to gas phase transition is. The problem is just bursts of flames in whatever directions (in case of gasoline fires, also the spilling/leaking fuel). A simple fire-resistant blanket should be well capable of deflecting those blowtorch effects and keeping them contained; with their energy eventually spent into making steam out of wateratthe car.Anyone know how these ships are exactly laid out? Do they have fixed markings where the cars go, or do they just fill them up randomly with cars? If each car has a place where to go, a sprinkler system on the floor should be easy to add, and while at it, adding "stiff fire blanket" walls between the cars would be also possible. But if they fill the ships with cars with minimum possible size between the cars, with random sizes of cars, so that there are no pre-defined borders, then this becomes much more difficult since any sprinkler or fire blanket systems must be portable / easily removable.Another approach is to mandate better thermal insulation against external heat in the battery pack itself, and that could well be the best overall solution since it would improve safety also on the road, when there might be people stuck in the car after a crash.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2025, 01:34:26 pm
content: The only test I've been able to find where fire blankets did not suppress the fire and lower the environmental temperature, was one where it was throw on an active fire and it was too light not to get lifted by airflow.AFAICS explosions are as of yet a theoretical corner case and they mostly have just worked in tests when used with EVs (not necessarily by the metrics of the people doing the test, but by the common sense metric of the fire not spreading).It's really weird to have some agencies bash fire blankets so harshly over a corner case. When firefighters routinely need to do things like cut holes in roofs for vertical ventilation, with only a prayer that it doesn't hit the corner case of it blowing up in their face too. It doesn't have to be perfect.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2025, 06:07:48 pm
content: Fire blankets work by cutting off the oxygen supply to a fire. However, they are useless in EV fires, as lithium-ion batteries generate their own oxygen during thermal runaway.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2025, 06:57:45 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 05, 2025, 06:07:48 pmFrom the fact they are designed to cut out oxygen supply, comes another effect: they must be capable of preventing flames going through. That feature is highly useful in prevention of spreading the fire by the blowtorch effect, even if the blanket is incapable of extinguishing the fire (because, as you say, getting rid of external O2 supply does not stop the li-ion battery fire).Remember that setting the neighbor car on fire requires long-sustained temperatures way over 200degC or so. Or shorter sustained of even higher. My intuition says that combination of water spray, andfire deflectorshould be a workable solution. And the same materials as used in fire blankets would make decent deflectors. Water spray under the car which is on fire then eventually gets rid of all of the energy; fire deflector slows down the transfer of energy to adjacent cars; and water sprays under the adjacent cars remove that smaller amount of energy. Tell me why this isn't a workable concept?Also remember that it's not only the battery that is burning. Other combustible material like tires, plastic parts, brake fluids etc. contribute, and that part can be reduced by the blanket.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2025, 07:55:12 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 05, 2025, 06:07:48 pmPartial oxygen, not for everything burnable in the car.If heat doesn't burn through the blanket and the temperature for the car next to it does not lead to thermal runaway ... then it doesn't really matter what happens below the blanket. That's what happens in almost every test.Air is a good insulator and the the solid to liquid phase change makes all the Aluminium in the pack a good sink to keep temperatures somewhat under control.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2025, 09:07:55 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 05, 2025, 07:55:12 pmJust watchhttps://youtu.be/C12CI8rlLoY?si=WZjJMfaGJzoNQpWVPatrick Dunham is more qualified than I am to discuss extinguishing EV fires, and probably more qualified than you. Fire blankets are also mentioned in the video.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2025, 10:32:45 pm
content: Talk is cheap, real life testing is expensive.Here's the report for a real life test from the Danish Institute of Fire and Security Technology, representative of a RoRo situation.Despite all the recent whinging from the Americans at FSRI ... reading between the lines, it's pretty clear the blankets worked in their tests too ... but they really didn't want to admit it.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 01:38:44 am
content: Quote from: Marco on August 05, 2025, 10:32:45 pmTalk is cheap indeed, especially at international conferences.FSRI (part of UL, which you may have heard of) issued an immediate safety advisory about the explosion risks associated with using fire blankets to suppress EV fires.https://fsri.org/news/potential-hazard-involving-ev-fire-blankets

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 04:38:22 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 06, 2025, 01:38:44 amTranslation: It's not American therefore it's to be ignored. NIH is a disease.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 08:10:00 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 06, 2025, 01:38:44 amWhich it almost certainly didn't in their testing unless they blew forced air under it (which I wouldn't be surprised at). The timing of this release while not mentioning any other preliminary findings makes it pretty clear they simply worked like in almost all previous tests, but they didn't want them to.They were already in widespread use in litigious US by fire departments. They were not blowing up.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 08:15:29 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 06, 2025, 04:38:22 amThe leading brand being headquartered in Norway probably plays a part.I found this video interesting. This was the aftermath of a charged 67KWh Kona test, 24 hours later. No water used. Can not work?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 10:01:00 am
content: One potential problem I see with blankets is that they don't stop the formation of flammable gasses. Most stuff which burns gets converted into a flammable gas through heating. The heat doesn't go away so pyrolysis continues. Especially with a battery pack continueing to supply heat. And then you are stuck with a compartment filled with toxic & flammable fumes. On one hand you don't want to bring oxygen into a compartment on fire and on the other hand you want to ventilate it (to prevent backdraft explosions).Another problem with blankets is: who is going to put the blanket on top of a car? A fire has to be going on for a while before it is detected and responded to which means there is probably quite a bit of smoke in the compartment. This smoke will make it almost impossible to put the blanket on. Do not underestimate the disorientating effect smoke has. For an untrained person it is a suicide mission. For a person with full firefighter gear (including breathing apparatus) it is super dangerous. Especially when the ship is rolling in heavy sea. What if the straps holding the car in place already let go?All in all, the blankets sound nice in theory but I don't see a practical use in an enclosed cargo ship.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 10:19:02 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 06, 2025, 10:01:00 amFor ocean transport just use it as a prophylactic. So the people doing the straps. As I said, you'd need a disposable cover to protect the paint too.The advantage is that you need no changes to the ship, unlike when using water to replace CO2.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 10:23:26 am
content: I don't see any protective covers covering the entire car.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 01:17:20 pm
content: It was a suggestion about what they could do.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 01:41:53 pm
content: The biggest issue I see with that arrangement is how densely packed everything is. Obviously this maximises revenue, but even parking vehicles on the ramps between decks(!) means that a fire has plenty of fuel to spread. If they had some fire doors or shutters it might give firefighting a chance but as it is, it seems any fire that does occur there, if not promptly extinguished at the origin, will consume all the cargo eventually.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 03:16:37 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 06, 2025, 01:41:53 pmThe only thing that could be feasible to fit would be roll-up deflectors - think about stiff versions of fire blanket - stored as rolls, and rolled open between the cars. Could be like 1-1.5 meters high or something; preventing the blowtorch effect, offering thermal insulation to adjacent cars and their most sensitive areas (tires, battery packs under the car).This would also avoid the problem of small enclosed space with built-up gases.Would be quick to set up, small to store, and inexpensive. Is it sufficient? - I don't know.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 04:15:22 pm
content: Honestly I think sprinklers would be enough. All this talk of containing the fire within a blanket is fine, but you just have to stop the adjacent vehicle getting hot enough to start a thermal runaway or some other fire like interior fabrics/plastics burning. For NMC that's over 150C to enter thermal runaway, LFP is higher. If the vehicle is doused in water then it will be hard for that to occur, even if the vehicle right next to it is burning. This was all covered in the BRE report on multistorey car park fires that I linked earlier. The amount of water might need to be increased to deal with the closer spacing and larger vehicles and there would need to be drainage/runoff fitted to the decks. The crucial thing is ensuring that the sprinklers are ideally positioned so they can provide cooling for the vehicles around the faulted one, which probably means at least two sprinklers per car space, which is quite a lot of sprinklers to fit in an already dense cargo bay.All of this being by-the-by because we still don't know that this (or any other fires) were started by an EV fire and what the relative risk of carrying EVs is compared to any other cargo. There is a degree of risk acceptance here. If the risk of a battery randomly going into thermal runaway during transit is something like 0.01ppm then with say 5000 cars there is a risk of fire in 0.05% of the sailings. Let's say the fire destroys all the cars worth avg $50k each ($250m) and the ship worth $100m is scrap. So the total cost of a disaster is $350m. If retrofitting fire protection systems cost $10m (including downtime for the ship not earning revenue, extra training for the crew, lifetime maintenance costs, etc.) then it is probably not worth doing because the chance that ship will see a single fire in 10 years of sailings (60 days per sailing, 10 days downtime, 5 sailings per year) is only ~0.25% but the system cost 10x the consequence of one disaster.All figures are fag packet maths but I suspect the ro-ro ship operators are doing very similar calculus.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 04:41:48 pm
content: I would not call an outlet that can dump up to 30,000 liters of water in about 15 minutes (500 gallons per minute) a “sprinkler”. Sounds more like a city fire hydrant.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 05:25:59 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 06, 2025, 04:15:22 pmBut that's not an easy retrofit, they went for CO2 because it doesn't damage the cars and has no impact on ship stability. A smart sprinkler system might be relatively water efficient, but a deluge system could require greater adjustments to the ship.I wonder how the foam system on Felicity Ace would have worked on EV's had it actually worked. Like CO2 it won't affect ship stability, but unlike CO2 it won't as easily fly away and let the EV's go full flame on.Prophylactic fire blankets require a purchase, but no significant modifications to the ship.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 06:26:53 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 06, 2025, 04:15:22 pmUnless some cargo has a high risk of fire it doesn't matter much in the overall calculation as there are many other risks/sources of fire. The main issue with burning EVs - no matter how the fire was started - is the lithium battery. Not the probability of self-ignition of the battery, but the impact of a battery on fire and how to deal with that. About 20 sailors are on a large car carrier. They might be able to deal with a small fire. When the fire supression system, i.e. sprinkler or CO2, fails to extinguish a larger fire the sailors can't do much. Training them in fire fighting and providing them with the best equipment available would help only a bit. If you haven't watched the recorded talks from the fire fighting conference I've posted earlier (IIRC. page #3) please watch them. Any lithium battery sized for an e-bicycle/scooter or larger on fire is a hazard not to be underestimated. You can find plenty of videos about EV fires on YouTube which show how lithium batteries burn or explode. How fast the fire of one burning battery can spread to other cars when parking side by side. Not long ago there was a huge e-scooter fire (over 100) in the parking deck of a large building in China, caused by a single e-scooter.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 07:25:49 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 06, 2025, 01:41:53 pmIf you look at the staircase shown in the video I found, you'll see some kind of aluminium cladding which looks like a heat shield to me. My guess is that in case of a fire in cargo hold, they just close the cargo hold to limit the oxygen supply and let whatever is burning, burn. The heat shielding at the staircases should allow the crew to pass safely long enough to get to a safe space and radio for help. As I wrote before, trying to put the fire out without being able to see where you walk due to smoke in a tight space littered with straps you can trip over and/or cars which may move or have moved is nothing else but a suicide mission.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 07:37:48 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 06, 2025, 04:41:48 pmGood news. You don't need 30,000 L of water. But I suspect you know this. You are trying to stop the adjacent vehicles from igniting. Sprinklers in car parks do not directly extinguish the vehicle that originates the fire. The goal is always to stop the spread. The origin vehicle is lost. But that is ultimately fine if it does not spread between vehicles as it is always about limiting the economic cost not in extinguishing the fire.The good thing about EVs is they can't leak fuel if they burn, so the only path they can ignite other vehicles is by heat impingement. So cooling adjacent vehicles should be enough.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 08:23:03 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 06, 2025, 07:37:48 pmOnly in a best case scenario. The battery pack is usually at the bottom of the car and in case of a fire or battery issue it often creates a burst of fire (similar to a gas torch, hot, fierce, with pressure) between street/floor and the car's bottom, pushing the burst to the sides. Other vehicles parked aside will catch fire after a moment. Plenty of videos from CCTV cams are showing that.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2025, 09:33:57 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 06, 2025, 07:37:48 pmExperts say 3,000 to 8,000 gallons. If my calculator doesn’t lie, that’s 10,000 to 30,000 liters. Go figure.https://www.fireengineering.com/technical-rescue/electric-vehicle-fires-whats-really-going-on/

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2025, 08:57:26 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 06, 2025, 04:41:48 pmOh, we can throw around numbers. How about 3000 0000 00000 liters of water in 12 nanoseconds?

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2025, 11:50:32 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 07, 2025, 08:57:26 amTypo? I thought you were leaning more toward 12 picoliters in 3000 0000 00000 bazillion years?

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2025, 12:15:38 pm
content: I declare this post done.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2025, 03:10:14 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 06, 2025, 09:33:57 pmTo permanently extinguish it with really shitty access to the chemical source of the heat.EV fires are going to need changes in approach. In a lot of cases, covering it with a fireblanket, pulling it on a skid and putting it in the salvage yard for a couple weeks is going to be the safest option ... not just pumping water at it for long enough to cool down the whole pack below thermal runaway AND to be relatively sure all the shorts have exhausted the electrical energy. Because relatively sure is all you can be.If it reignites under a fireblanket it's not much of a danger.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2025, 03:21:41 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 06, 2025, 09:33:57 pmYour quote says, "cooling a battery pack undergoing thermal runaway to ambient temperature will take time and a large amount of water, potentially 3,000 to 8,000 gallons."Why is cooling a battery packto ambient temperaturerelevant to the discussion we are having is for you to explain. Everyone else is discussing preventing a chain reaction to every other car (or most cars) on-board, not cooling a battery pack to ambient temperature.But I know this game, you are copy-pasting random URLs and cite random numbers, and think that no one bothers to check what it actually says.Protecting adjacent property (e.g. buildings) by spraying water is a well known measure used in house fires in tightly packed areas, or even wildfires, and for that, much less water is used than putting out the actual fire. You could explain why you think this is somehow impossible or irrelevant with cars?

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2025, 04:37:31 pm
content: Remove all the batteries, and pack them together on a barge dragged by the main ship.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2025, 11:25:20 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on August 07, 2025, 04:37:31 pmProblem solved.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2025, 10:27:51 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 07, 2025, 03:21:41 pmAre you asking why the firefighting techniques for extinguishing EV fires, described in the article, are relevant to preventing mass EV fires aboard car carriers? Or are you questioning why directing up to 8,000 gallons of water to the hotspots underneath a burning EV is necessary to stop thermal runaway?If it’s the former, you are obviously trolling.If it is the latter, I can explain it to you at three different levels, because I don’t know your age or how comfortable you are with math and physics.1. Five-year-old levelAn EV battery pack is huge and heavy, and your dad couldn’t lift it without help. Imagine that, deep in the center of that battery pack, there’s a fire as hot as your stove burner. If we don’t stop that fire, the entire car will burn and ignite the cars around it. But you can’t directly reach the burning part because it’s hidden behind layers of metal.How can you cool something in the center without touching it? Think about your mom’s egg timer when she boils eggs. The heat from the boiling water slowly travels to the center of the egg timer, taking about 5 minutes and about a quart of water. But that egg timer is tiny compared to an EV battery pack, and your dad could carry hundreds of them in one hand.So, it takes much longer for heat to travel from the center of an EV battery pack to where firefighters can cool it. And since firefighters can’t just pick up an EV and dunk it into a giant pot of water like your mom does with the egg timer, they have to simulate immersion by blasting the hot spots underneath with a powerful stream of water from a fire hydrant, and they need to keep doing it for a long time.2) College student levelYou have a 1,000 to 2,000 lb battery pack. One cell has gone into thermal runaway, heating surrounding cells. Firefighters can’t access the cell directly because it’s behind multiple metal layers. You can’t immerse the pack in water, so the alternative is to simulate immersion by directing water underneath the car. Use the heat equation (PDE) to estimate the required flow rate and duration to bring the runaway cell below the critical temperature.3) Professional firefighter levelFollow your training and standard operating procedures from professional literature, and ignore nonsense from Internet trolls.

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2025, 10:50:32 am
content: this video is interestinga fire isolation bag which seems to work

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2025, 12:12:52 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 09, 2025, 10:27:51 pmYou can find videos of professional firefighters who just test the surface temperature of a fireblanket with their gloves after throwing it across an EV with a battery clearly in thermal runaway.One part of the profession is throwing FUD at fire blankets, the other is buying and using them. Work, they do, demonstrably.