Out-of-control EV blaze (thermal runaway) threatens to sink massive RORO ship. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2023, 08:32:49 pm
content: Quote from: MT on July 27, 2023, 05:12:15 pmI got tired of it about four minutes in. It's all speculation, like, "kind of suggests EV thermal runaway", as if that's even a thing.Then he spouts falsehoods such as EV battery fires, "can not be stopped". They can by applying water. Gasoline fires require foam, because the gasoline floats on water, spreading the flames and making it so much worse. Battery fires only require water.This guy is a blowhard, with an obvious ax to grind. None of the press reports talk about this being caused by EVs. There were 2,857 cars, including only 25 electric cars. Zero evidence of any cause, including it being started by an EV.I put John Cadogan in the bit bucket some time ago.

author: aeberbach
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2023, 11:11:54 pm
content: YouTube thumbnail-face is strong with this one.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 12:09:57 am
content: Quote from: aeberbach on July 27, 2023, 11:11:54 pmSorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 12:30:07 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 27, 2023, 08:32:49 pmI do tend to agree. At the end of the day, he's a journalist and he has a way with words. Whilst he does make some excellent, factual videos and provides really good advice, I find his personal opinions and biases tend to creep in from time to time, which he attempts to pass off as "fact". One thing I've noticed is that he seems to have a beef with certain car brands, whilst seemingly loving others despite their flaws.The way he speaks comes across as having a superiority complex at times which can make him hard to watch.I would prefer he sticks to his videos about practical car maintenance, technical explanations and driving techniques, as opposed to some puff piece based off cherry-picked stats. It's the one reason why I hate these lists of "best and worst" car brands based off reported faults in a year. A "fault" could be a warranty claim about a loose or rattling fixture, or it could be something more catastrophic; Two entirely different things.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 01:11:38 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on July 28, 2023, 12:30:07 amI think you just offended an awful lot of journalists.QuoteTime to time???QuoteI agree with that. He not only acts superior, he has a goofy way of "performing" that is pretty silly.QuoteSomeone in a Tesla forum tried to make that distinction, but every time I have to put my car in the shop, is a huge inconvenience, so I don't distinguish what failed, only that it failed.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 02:22:23 am
content: He did a video a long time ago responding a comment that diesel engines run lean, and despite his convincing mocking drawl narration of the comment, he then proceeded to give the impression that he doesn't have the slightest clue how AFRs works.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 03:06:03 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 01:11:38 amSure it might be an inconvenience, but I don't think it's a fair way to measure how good or reliable a car brand is (let alone a single vehicle model). I don't think I've ever owned a car without some kind of "fault", even if it's just a squeak in some internal panel. Those kinds of trivial faults can wait until the car goes in for it's next service. It costs me no more in time or convenience to do so.I don't think that it's fair comparing minor faults with things that actually cause a drivability of safety issue.For example, in John Cadogan's 2022 "lemon list" he includes the likes of Mercedes-Benz and Volvo in that list (among others), despite being among the list of cars with the lowest number of major faults and recalls. His only excuse (and I really mean excuse) for Volvo is the "lack of dealerships" (even though there are 12 to choose from in Sydney metro alone) and just relies on his own opinion about being "terrible at reliability" with zero facts or figures to back up that claim. Similar with Mercedes, just because they are expensive and there were some grumblings between MB and their dealers being (apparently) shafted, that automatically makes the cars crap? I don't think so.Even if you never set foot in a dealer, there are plenty of independent mechanics out there that specialise in European cars, and have done for decades. Taking a car to an independent instead of a dealer or "authorised service centre" won't void your warranty either.But where is Subaru in Cadogan's lemon list? No mention of the electrical issues that plague many of their models spanning the last 10+ years, or unintended acceleration in some models built between 2012 and 2019, or that windscreens would spontaneously crack in models made between 2015 and 2020, not to mention faulty brake light switches in a range of 2008-2017 Subaru models. These aren't just small problems, but ones that impact millions of vehicles worldwide. But no, he'd rather pick on Volkswagen and Audi (admittedly with some merit) any chance he gets.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 05:30:30 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 12:09:57 amif you don't makesoy faceson thumbnails the algorythm will crush you

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 06:24:33 am
content: Large lithium battery fires are indeed a real bitch to actually stop.Yes you can stop them with water, but the problem is that the amount of water required is huge. Combined with the fact that these batteries live in a closed off metal box to protect them means that getting enough water to the burning battery is difficult. The whole thing made worse by the individual cells getting pressurized until they pop open one by one, each pop releasing a cloud of flammable high pressure gas that sends flames shooting out of the battery in random directions and at random times. They are also high voltage so water could in theory pose a shock hazard.Even after you do manage to put the fire out the batteries usually continue to sizzle and short out inside, so the fire spontaneously starts again after like 15 minutes.Firefighters are terrified of EV fires for these reasons. The Germans came up with one solution for it where they take a bin hauler truck with a hydraulic claw (often used for garbage collection of large items like washing machines). So they fill the metal bin in the back with water, then use the claw to grab the burning car and dunk it whole into the water. However obviously you have to first rescue the occupants of the car, so they still have to work with a burning car manually.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 07:05:04 am
content: In terms of actual fires, yes, you're right, water is the best method of controlling them, but as you said, it sucks! I've actually been a member of the fire brigade for quite some time and this is straight from our standard operating procedures concerning lithium battery fires attached to motor vehicles or PV arrays (edited for brevity):If a BESS is involved in fire, thermal runaway may occur. Thermal runaway is a chemical reaction where a cell fails inside a battery and a short circuit ignites the electrolyte, releasing excessive heat, toxic gases, and flammable vapours. The heat may affect surrounding cells also sending them into thermal runaway.Cooling with water can potentially prevent thermal runaway. Water is the best extinguishing agent as foam does not assist in cooling and may inhibit use of a thermal imaging camera (TIC) to identify affected areas of the battery.A large and sustained supply of water may be required (at least 4000 litres). The battery needs to be cooled for 15 minutes, then checked with a thermal imaging camera. After ambient temperature is reached, the battery needs to be monitored for up to 60 minutes, then checked again. In the instance of a large scale BESS – for example inside an industrial building or on a large-scale outdoor installation – there may potentially be multiple appliances required to effectively extinguish a fire and cool the BESS. Ensure that rapid scale-up (with appropriate command and control) is considered. Depending on BESS construction and available resources, a defensive strategy may be adopted, protecting exposures as the BESS burns itself out.(BESS = Battery Electrical Storage Systems in Government speak)I'm not suggesting the firies are the experts in electrical components, but I'm sure they would have done plenty of testing and research before they released this advice.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 07:21:49 am
content: Quote from: John B on July 28, 2023, 02:22:23 amMaybe I don't either. What's an AFR?

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 07:25:38 am
content: Quote from: JPortici on July 28, 2023, 05:30:30 amSorry, I have no idea what you are talking about, "thumbnail-face" or "soy faces". I have to assume you are making some sort of joke. I'm not laughing.

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 07:31:11 am
content: BBC News - Ameland rescue: Crew jump off ship ablaze with cargo of 3,000 carshttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66310280Yesterday it was reported by the coastguard the fire was believed to have started with an electric car. But reading the article now that has been watered down. So the YT chap was just a bit quick to jump on the EV cars are bad band wagon for some views.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 07:38:23 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 07:25:38 amIt's a colloquialism for the overly-forced and fake expressions people pull on video thumbnails. It's the visual equivalent of click-bait... Like "OMG... He did WHAT?!...."

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 07:42:21 am
content: Quote from: Berni on July 28, 2023, 06:24:33 amThat's true for every type of fire. Do you have any particular definition of "large"? I think they found it hard to put out the fires of Tokyo and Dresden.QuoteAnd yet, they are often put out easily when fire departments are involved. This is a major topic of disinformation. There was a fire in the stavanger norway airport garage in 2020, which destroyed hundreds of cars and shut down the airport for hours.Initial reports was it started with an EV, but turned out to be an Opel diesel which started the fire. Typical EV misinformation.An EV in Texas caught fire in a crash. Initial reports (see a theme here?) said it took "hours" and a large portion of the fire department to extinguish the blaze. The reality is much smaller. It was extinguished in under an hour (I want to say 30 minutes), but they left one fireman with a garden hose to put out the intermittent flareups.QuoteI'm thinking you are a news reporter. Rather than report verifiable facts, you extrapolate and draw conclusions on your own.QuoteOh, "in theory"? So, now you are completely speculating, without any basis in reality? Why not actually find something verifiable to report?QuoteYes, that is true. So, you have a continuing need for a garden hose.QuoteAh, reporting the emotions of others. I'm glad you can see into their hearts and show it to us.QuoteAt least they aren't dealing with gasoline fires, which require foam to put out and horribly burn many, many people every year. In the US, there are 150,000 car fires every year, according to government numbers.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 07:55:32 am
content: It would help a lot if you indicated who you were replying to.Quote from: Halcyon on July 28, 2023, 07:05:04 amSo thermal runaway is what we otherwise would call, "burning"? Yes, things burn. Ignite one part of it and other parts get hot and burn too. I think this is also true of gas tanks, especially now that many are made of plastic.Gasoline thermal runaway is particularly spectacular.QuoteYes, foam is for fighting gasoline and other petroleum fires, because simple water is very ineffective, and will spread the blazing gasoline on top of the water. Picture a river of fire.QuoteI'd like to see the source materials for this claim. I believe that's around 1,000 gallons. I don't know if that is considered a lot for an automotive fire. I know some of the car fires reported here, were truly impossible to extinguish, so I guess that would be an infinite amount of fire fighting liquid. I don't know how many fire departments here have foam to fight gas fires. I guess if they don't, they let them burn out.QuoteLOL I like the thermal camera thing.QuoteI'd love to see the reports of those tests and research.I'm a scientist myself. I've learned to not believe things posted on the Internet, until I've read the references. I found one reference on Wikipedia, where the wiki article said the exact opposite of what the reference said. OPPOSITE!!

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 07:59:40 am
content: Quote from: mendip_discovery on July 28, 2023, 07:31:11 amVery common. The huge airport garage fire at Stavanger airport, in Norway was initially reported as starting with an EV. Turns out it was an Opel diesel. But many read the initial reports, but never read the follow ups that reported the true facts.Reports of EV fires remind me of Mark Twain's quote, "The report of my death was greatly exaggerated".

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 08:05:55 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 07:21:49 amAir Fuel Ratio. He was mocking someone who said diesel engines run lean......which they do. He proceeded to make a video then waffling along about tangential facts, some of which were wrong as well.I thought he had some amount of training/education as an engineer so it was pretty disappointing.Especially when the channel is somewhat pretentiously named "auto expert". Expert is basically a meme word these days.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 08:08:48 am
content: Most fire-fighting techniques on ships are incompatible with battery fires. Battery fires aredifficultand create their own O2due to lithium cobalt oxide decomposition.Water doesn't work unless you submerge the whole car. (sink the ship, roro ship are particularly vulnerable for this)Foam doesn't work.Gas doesn't work.Mist doesn't work.You can't extinguish the fire , only prevent spreading. And cars are packedtighton these ships.Batteries are really annoying, really efficient, mostly stable, energy carriers.Though, fires appear to have been a more recent development?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_roll-on/roll-off_vessel_accidents

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 08:09:33 am
content: I happen to live close to where the ship is on fire. I didn't watch the YT but the EV story was in almost all news reports about this, so maybe one of the crew members of the ship had some information where the fire started? Time will tell. The problem they are facing is that they can't continue putting water on the fire because the ship will get instable and could tip over and sink, which is not what we want in these waters, so they only cool down the ship on the outside. Latest reports are that the situation is getting better slowly, no more visible flames, so they are waiting for the ship to cool down enough to be boarded and towed away.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 08:13:20 am
content: Quote from: mendip_discovery on July 28, 2023, 07:31:11 amBut still, despite the actual cause of the fire, when EVs are involved the fire is extremely hard to put out (*). On a ship it is next to impossible. The ship currently on fire isn't the first ship with cars that has caught fire and they can't put the fire out. It may take weeks until the fire stops by itself. If you pump more water into the ship, it may sink leading to an even bigger environmental catastrophy. If ships with cars catching fire and sinking / total loss as a result where common, we wouldn't be reading it in the news. So there is a problem with transporting EVs on ships.* The Dutch fire brigade has special trucks with water bins in which they submerge an EV to put the fire out as just sprinkling water over the car doesn't help.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 08:24:49 am
content: Feel free to do the research yourself if you don't believe any of the forum members here. We are just discussing it for fun. If you are in charge of drafting up new standards on how to handle burning EVs or something then you should be using more reliable sources than this forum anyway.Firefighters do have special protocols for things that involve electricity like EVs or solar panel arrays. How real the shock hazard is i don't know, hence why i said "in theory", just that nobody wants to be held accountable for someone getting shocked to death so they are careful with it anyway and put protocols in place.Not saying that internal combustion cars don't burn, or that they are easy to extinguish if they do catch fire. Just that large lithium battery packs present a unique extra challenge in putting the fire out. Those batteries contain a lot of energy and once damaged they don't need oxygen or heat to release it (also in the process likely damage cells next to it causing those to fail too). Unlike burning gasoline or diesel or plastics that stop burning once deprived of heat or oxygen.The EVs catching fires is a thing that the media loves to focus on and write about, while they won't even report on a internal combustion car catching fire (unless there is something else in the news story to write about). None of the cars (EV or ICE) spontaneously catch fire often enough for people to be worried about there own car catching fire, sure it happens but it is a few known cases among the many many many cars out there.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 08:49:20 am
content: From what i understood, there are like 25 BEVs on that ship. Alongside around 2000 ICE cars.Sure, a battery might have started the fire. And they surely are burning now. But can they really still be a major contributing factor to the fire as a whole?From what i heard this morning on the radio, the temperatures on the ship are decreasing and there are no visible flames anymore.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 08:52:08 am
content: Quote from: Ranayna on July 28, 2023, 08:49:20 amNo. There where nearly 500 BEVs on the ship (out of 3800 cars in total) and according to the news (probably based on a statement made by a crew member / report from the captain to the coast guard), one of these cars caught fire.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 09:04:06 am
content: Quote from: mendip_discovery on July 28, 2023, 07:31:11 amQuote from: nctnico on July 28, 2023, 08:52:08 amAll the coastguard said is that the ship had EVs on it, and that made the fire more difficult to fight... which is definitely true... it seems to have been interpreted by someone in the press that statement mean the firewas started by an EVand unless there is CCTV or eyewitness as to what car caused it (if indeed a car was the source, could have been anything on the ship) we may not know, especially if the ship sinks.Where do you get the 500 BEVs from? The coastguard and owner both said 25.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 09:07:29 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 28, 2023, 08:52:08 amDo you have a source for 500 BEVs? I can only find a couple of german sources stating 3783 (i misremembered the 2000 number) cars in total, and 25 being BEVs.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 09:10:15 am
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on July 28, 2023, 08:09:33 amI like that you are speculating about the speculation. Read up on the parking garage fire at Stavanger Airport. All of those initial reports claimed it was started by an EV, only to be corrected the next day. Did the initial reports change their wording? No.QuoteGood. Maybe they can get to the bottom of this, and we can stop speculating? Nah, not going to happen. That's what people like to do, speculate on things they don't know about.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 09:18:00 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 28, 2023, 08:13:20 amFalse information. No tanks of water are required. That is an overreaction.QuoteSimple nonsense. Ships are immense. The water required to extinguish an EV fire is nothing compared to the normal leakage and other causes of water on board.QuoteWow! A ship catches fire and can't be put out. So, let's blame EVs, somehow.Are you actually an engineer of any sort?* The Dutch fire brigade has special trucks with water bins in which they submerge an EV to put the fire out as just sprinkling water over the car doesn't help."Sprinkling water" is not terribly effective. Dunking the EV in a tank of water is not required. Your Dutch fire brigades are being rather reactionary. Not the first time someone has done this.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 09:26:38 am
content: Quote from: Berni on July 28, 2023, 08:24:49 amPrecisely! This thread is just chewing the fat and has little interest in learning the facts of EV fires. Here's one. ICE cars are three times more likely to catch fire as EVs. Well, in the US, according to government numbers.Quote"In theory" is code for, "I don't really know anything about this, but here's my favorite take".QuoteBy "unique" you mean not needing foam? You mean not spreading around on top of water, getting into sewers and running to any buildings nearby?I just wish people would stop believing every stupid report they read. Try learning some facts. Real facts, not alternative facts.QuoteLOL!!! You make it sound easy to put out gasoline fires. A gas tank contains four times the energy of a fully charged battery for a full sized EV. FOUR TIMES!!!QuoteIndeed!I remember a gasoline fire on the DC beltway. A gas truck got pushed over onto a guardrail, which it then could not get off of and ran into a bridge abutment. The whole thing went up in flames killing a number of people, including one person who was able to walk out of the flames, but in his disorientation, walked back into into the fire and was burned to death.I'm happy with my EV. Once enough of them are on the roads, we won't be carrying loads of hundreds of gallons of liquid death on our highways so much.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 09:27:46 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 28, 2023, 08:52:08 amEvery report I've seen says "2,857 cars, including 25 electric cars".https://apnews.com/article/cargo-ship-fire-netherlands-environment-sea-ca213ea320ba2c664d12e960c52331ee"Electric cars" often includes hybrids which also carry gasoline.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 09:59:50 am
content: It is different trying to put out a whole tanker truck full of gasoline versus the amount of gasoline in the typical passenger car.We actually had a fire in a tunnel recently caused by a truck crash:https://twitter.com/DARS_SI/status/1673277495548821508Even diesel (usually regarded as much more difficult to set alight) makes quite the violent fire ball if a truck plows into a large tank of it.If you had a lithium battery that holds the equivalent of 700 liters of diesel that trucks carry the results would be rather spectacular as well.Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 09:26:38 amWell in what way is someone supposed to refer to it then? I don't want to pass off assumptions as facts.I am not a fireman, nor have i done any tests to confirm pouring water on a battery might electrocute you. All i know is that firefighters and first responders DO have protocols in place for dealing with EVs and large batteries. So they agree that special care is required to avoid electrocution, otherwise they would use the same protocol as for internal combustion cars. If you want detailed reasons for why they do that go ask a fireman, all i know is that they do it.For example look at how they handled the giant stationary battery that caught fire in Austrialia. They didn't even dare enter the fence, so all they did was spray water over the fence onto the surrounding battery banks so that they would not catch fire while they wait for the damaged bank to burn itself out.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:35:44 am
content: Quote from: Berni on July 28, 2023, 09:59:50 amThen say, "My assumption is". You just said that's what it is. So, say that! It's nothing about "theory". It's your assumption.QuoteWhich means what???I'll give you a hint. What would be the circuit that would electrocute you? Where exactly is the current flowing?QuoteNo, ICE require a special "protocol" because gas fires are hard to put out. I don't know where you are, but in the US, we have labels on fire extinguishers that have letters to indicate the type of fires they are good for. Type B extinguishers are for gasoline and other flammable liquid fires. Type C extinguishers, generally are used on electrical fires. What do your sources say is appropriate for EVs?QuoteWhat does that have to do with EV fires? Do we need to build fences around EVs and put the fire out from outside the fence? What are you saying?This gets old after a while. It's as if people are not able to think logically.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:36:21 am
content: https://nos.nl/artikel/2484547-veel-meer-elektrische-auto-s-aan-boord-van-brandend-schip-dan-gedacht-498498 ev's, the company apparently released a statement to stop speculations. I can't find it.Some sites report there was also a dutch pilot and german surveyor on board. Surveyors are often on board when tests are being performed.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:42:27 am
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on July 28, 2023, 10:36:21 amEven so, it's not relevant, since there is no indication the EVs were responsible for the fire, or that they are making anything difficult for extinguishing it. There's still many more ICE cars, all potential fireballs and hard to put out.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:48:24 am
content: Yes, I doubt the cargo is the cause, even as many news outlets report the EV as cause. I don't believe that. They would have to spontaneously combust.Since I have not seen reports of this on other places, like car transportationparking firesI highly doubt the cargo is the cause.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:54:37 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 07:25:38 amif you click that link you'll see what we mean about "soy faces". You will certainly see the resemblance on the expression of the youtuber in the thumbnail. It came out in the past few months that videos that didn't show people with these expressions on their faces in the thumbnails would be heavily penalized by the youtube algorythms. Not a joke, very annoying

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:54:55 am
content: Electric vehicles have caught fire whilst charging and driving. One of the most famous ones is the Tesla that burned down at the supercharger, that was ultimately put down to Tesla techs not correctly bolting the pack charge connectors after changing the charge port. Like any high energy storage medium there is a risk of things going wrong.However, when in transit like this, the vehicle pack is isolated by pulling the fireman's loop, it is kept at low state of charge (10% is typical) and it will obviously not be charging or driving. So the risk of combustion is really minimal, it would have to be a spontaneous cell failure or water leaking into the pack from a manufacturing defect.It is amazing how politicised EVs have become, if you read the news it'd seem like this is the next environmental catastrophe, a boat with some cars on fire, yet in relative terms the Deepwater Horizon spill is still being cleaned up and cost BP some $65 billion dollars in compensation. Some areas will never again be viable for fishing because the fish are not considered safe for at least 100 years.edit: spelling

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 11:33:37 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 10:35:44 amHere you go:https://www.nfpa.org/Training-and-Events/By-topic/Alternative-Fuel-Vehicle-Safety-Training/Emergency-Response-GuidesRead up on the specific car you are interested in putting the fire out on.For example here are the instructions for putting out a battery on fire in a Tesla Model S. It calls for dousing the battery with a huge amount of water (3000 to 8000 galons). It specifically calls for always using insulated tools and other chapters talk about the areas that you are not allowed to touch, cut, puncture etc.. due to involving high voltage.I know it is very unlikely you would actually get electrocuted by it, but i didn't write these documents, go complain to Tesla and other EV manufacturers to revise the document to be to your liking.This is many times more water than is typically used to put out a typical car fire. Besides even in an internal combustion car the fuel is only one of the flammable things. There is even more chemical energy stored in all the other parts of a car. Both EV and ICE cars also have oil, brake fluid, plastic body panels, plastic interior panels, rubber seals, rubber tires, fabric on seats, foam inside seats...etc all of it burns really well once it starts going.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 11:51:44 am
content: Quote from: Berni on July 28, 2023, 11:33:37 amI'm not sure of the point of your post. You continue to make false statements like comparing the water used to fight an EV fire to the water used to fight an ICE fire, when water is not recommended for an ICE fire when gasoline is involved.Where are the equivalent guides for ICE vehicles. I can't seem to find them.So, what are you trying to say?

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 11:59:40 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 09:18:00 amIt's typical extrapolation from facts: some fire brigades (not only in the Netherlands, but all around the world) have started testing/evaluating dipping the whole car in a container full of water. It sounds dramatic but it's actually simple: such containers are simple and plentiful, can be easily transported around using existing infrastructure, water is cheap and plentiful, and dipping the whole car simply removes the need of the "garden hose" man as you described it. It's an obvious idea, so it's obviously being used.Now, is thisneeded? Of course not, it's nctnico's interpretation not backed up by any source or any sensible reasoning. Quite the opposite, if such measures were the only way to stop EV fires, we would be all doomed because these fires happen and in most cases there is no such container available. It's also worth noting Tesla specifically advises against it, this would be pretty weird if it was "necessary".

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 12:19:48 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 11:51:44 amHere's something:https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/personal-protective-equipment-ppe/articles/firefighter-safety-reminder-car-fires-are-class-b-fires-aHIOlyst4ZAmA2Z6/>The responding crew got caught in the flash reignition of the liquids, but thankfully, they were protected by their PPE.The same dreaded reignition, but orders of magnitude faster and thus more dangerous.>third-degree inhalation burns to the throat, trachea, possibly lungs. Facial burns around the mouth and nose area>third-degree burns to the scalp, neck, eyes and face.>third-degree burns to the hands and wrists.>the gear, when exposed to the extreme high-heat temperatures, starts to off-gas.>a simple fuel spill fire is enough to push the gear to those limits>be mindful of what is flowing out from the vehicle and where you are standing in relation to it, and then start extinguishment from a distance before moving closer.Sounds all pretty nasty.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 12:24:13 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on July 28, 2023, 10:36:21 amInteresting, i still can't find anything in german except the number 25.I do not know enough to know if it ultimately matters though. Once the ship is burning, it's burning.I can't imagine that BEV or ICE makes much of a difference in this case, since that is not the reason for the difficulties with extinguishing this particular fire.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 12:25:11 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 11:51:44 amHere you go a guideline for ICE vehicles that touches on the exact issue of cars involving flammable liquids:https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/personal-protective-equipment-ppe/articles/firefighter-safety-reminder-car-fires-are-class-b-fires-aHIOlyst4ZAmA2Z6/The article says that water is appropriate while foam is recommended. However this is for actual firefighters that know the dangers of using water on a flammable liquid and have protective equipment to save them from the situation you see in the video.For the average joe without appropriate training and wearing no protective equipment you are definitely NOT supposed to use water in this situation.Context is important. If you think firefighters should not use water, go explain that to them.EDIT: Keep in mind that even when using foam, the same can still happen, it is just less likely.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 12:36:55 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 28, 2023, 10:54:55 amYes, remember this?:At least two dead in oil platform fire in Gulf of Mexico? Problably not, it was only 3 weeks ago!The dipping of the car in a container with water is only to transport the extinguished car to a yard where it will stay for weeks to prevent re-ignition.Then it will be scrapped. The electrolyte is pyrophoric, this means it can reignite in air.I have seed some video's of fire trucks with a special skid plate they can shove under a car and pump water through to cool the battery.Like this:https://www.toxicsuppression.com/ev-utility-nozzle

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 12:47:59 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on July 28, 2023, 10:48:24 amBathtub curve for failures would indicate that new cars are likely to fail fast if there is something wrong with them after assembly.I am kinda familiar with the shipping of Lithium batteries. They cannot be shipped more than 30% charged. Cannot go on plane. Has to be marked with danger label outside the box. When I saw the shipment of large size lithium cells, they came in a wooden box, that was filled up with something very much resembling asbestos, had to be opened in a closed and then cleaned environment, wear PPE, gloves and mask of course.Quote from: Siwastaja on July 28, 2023, 11:59:40 amWe are not doomed, but everyone buying cars now of these "Gen 1" electric cars is going to have a bad time in the future when solid state batteries come out. I really think at some point regular lithium is going to get banned, then you cannot drive into parking garages or city centers with their flashy tesla.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 12:55:59 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 28, 2023, 11:59:40 amThere is nothing "easy" about transporting such a container of water. Water is cheap and plentiful. In fact, it would be the perfect approach if only it were readily available, say at a fire hydrant. Oh, it is, isn't it.So you can start fighting an EV fire without waiting for the only tank of water to arrive. Then if there are N tanks and N+1 fires, no problem.I can't believe people are being serious about this idea.QuoteYes, weird is the right word.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 12:57:49 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 28, 2023, 12:19:48 pmFlammable liquids are very, very dangerous. Not only the liquid, but the vapors can accumulate to explosive levels. It's not an issue very often, but it does happen.It's too bad ICE fires are so much more prevalent than EV fires. Dangerous, and frequent. Not a good combination.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 01:07:14 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on July 28, 2023, 12:47:59 pmI think that's an insane overreaction, relatively speaking the risk of ICE fire or the risk of EV fire are both quite low, likely the EV represents a lower risk. If you want to ban any car from a parking garage, ban the 15 year old car with an oil leak and 15A fuses in place of 5A ones that keep blowing for some reason...Just a few years ago in the UK a fire in a Range Rover that was reportedly 15 years old destroyed 1150 cars and likely wrote off the entire building...https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdfFrom the report:Quote

author: aeberbach
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 01:55:17 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 07:25:38 amIt means the tendency of YouTube creators to make exaggerated faces on thumbnails is found tiresome by a lot of people to the extent it's an instant skip.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 02:35:37 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on July 28, 2023, 12:36:55 pmI don't think it's true. Electrolyte in li-ion batteries is just lithium salt in an organic solvent like ethylene carbonate. It's flammable, but not pyrophoric; and it's not super flammable, flash point of EC for example is 150degC and autoignition temperature 465degC. Compare the flash and autoignition temperatures of gasoline, -43degC and 280degC respectively. The electrolyte only burns during the incident, when the cells already are hot enough to ignite the electrolyte.The battery itself however contains oxidizer in form oxygen in the cathode (e.g. LiNiCoAlO2), andthisis the source of reignitions. This thermal runaway happens inside the battery which makes the reignition slower / benign compared to reigniting gasoline which can spontaneously combust at -43degC or higher given enough spilled gasoline i.e. good mixture.Flammable electrolyte is not great and would be replaced if the battery industry had something better available, but it's not the root issue with battery fires, just adds to the destruction and spread of fire.(Note how LiFePO4 cells use the same flammable electrolyte but due to their less reactive cathode chemistry and worse energy density, even if they experience thermal runaway one often sees how the electrolyte just sprays out without getting ignited, as temperatures are just a few hundred degC during the incident. (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, be careful with the LFP chemistry, too.))

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 02:44:04 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 12:55:59 pmI don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest waiting for the water tank. The point of that tank is just to "automate" the prevention of reignitions, to replace that hose guy. Before it arrives, fire is fought normally.Because I fail to find the English word, this is what I mean by existing infrastructure:https://epnvaihtolavapalvelu.fi/images/2020/06/12/dsc08808-neli-250-px.jpg. These things are available with hydraulic lids. It just needs to be made somewhat water-proof, other than that, pretty simple. The hose guy is probably easier if you have space, but imagine this happening in a tunnel or a tight parking garage or something. Then you would transfer the car out ASAP, the sooner the better. That container thing would prevent reignition during that transfer.Now as you point out EV fires being quite rare, and them happening in "tight spots" even more rare, so probably the whole city fire brigade would only need one-two such containers, not N+1.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 02:46:00 pm
content: Quote from: aeberbach on July 28, 2023, 01:55:17 pmSounds like something that's a problem for old people.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 02:52:53 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 28, 2023, 02:44:04 pmI don't know what to make of this conversation. As is common in EEVblog, people who actually know very little about the realities of a given thing, are very willing to offer their opinions, usually as if it were fact.The percentage of highway that is in tunnels, is probably (well) under 0.1% of the total. I can only think of two tunnels in the entire region of 100 miles from DC. I find it absurd to consider such specialized equipment to simply reduce the time of such a blockage a bit absurd. Maybe once we have more than 1 in 100 on the road, we can take another look at what is actually needed.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 03:23:27 pm
content: I guess it's true what they say about irony.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 03:30:40 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 02:52:53 pmThe percentage of tunnels in the TEN-T road network, which covers critical infrastructure, is 1.2%.https://www.cedr.eu/download/Publications/2020/CEDR-Technical-Report-2020-01-TEN-T-2019-Performance-Report.pdf< Page 69. Because I come with fact, citations, and no bias.Dismissal based on this not counting every street and alley in the world in 3.. 2.. 1..

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 05:15:00 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 28, 2023, 01:07:14 pmThat's not the point. When was the last time when you saw political decision based on any sort of data?My point is that they are going to get banned because there is a safer alternative, and every single electrical car fire is going to make it to the news, because it is the new thing.There was probably more Italian supercars on fire than electric cars, but you kinda expect them to combust, and doesn't make it into the news.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 05:44:28 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on July 28, 2023, 05:15:00 pmWell, it won't be political, will it? At the end of the day, it will come down to insurance companies. Are they comfortable with insuring ships and car park structures with electric vehicles within?So far, the evidence seems to be: mostly yes, there's one ship company in Norway that I'm aware of has banned EVs, but I'm not aware of anywhere else banning EVs. Commercial decisions will influence this too: if you aren't selling to EV users, as they become more dominant, they are going to go elsewhere for their business.If there were Tesla's catching fire every 10 minutes then it might make sense to act in the way you describe, but the fact that they are notable news items suggests that they aren't that common and while insuring a Tesla at home is a little more expensive than other cars (due in part to Tesla's incompetence in supplying spare parts leading to long hire car periods), they're not drastically more expensive to cover for all the standard liabilities.

author: aeberbach
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:03:11 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 02:46:00 pmNot wasting time on clowns is a skill old people learn, that's true.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:27:29 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 28, 2023, 03:30:40 pmI suppose you can find any statistic you want."tunnels make up less than 0.3% of the network in Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and the UK."What is your point?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:36:22 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 10:27:29 pmMy point is that your assumption that tunnels are an irrelevancy is nonsense and a subject you know next to nothing about. Just like extinguishing vehicle fires of any type, and monitoring the remains afterwards. You might notice that certain countries, for example the Netherlands, which is where this particular topic originated in this thread, and say, Switzerland, have rather a lot of tunnels in their critical road infrastructure, as far as the data available at the publication of that report goes.Your only purpose here is to attack anything which paints EVs in even the faintest negative light.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:41:36 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 28, 2023, 10:36:22 pmNo, my purpose is to view EV issues with an appropriate light. Tunnels are an irrelevancy for EVs, or there would be a mobile water tank at every tunnel. There is a very small number of places where such water tanks are in place. Even Tesla saysNOTto immerse the vehicle in a tank of water. Appropriate response is to spray the EV with water. Not dunk,spray.I don't need to be unrealistic about this issue. Others are doing plenty of that themselves.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 10:46:35 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 10:41:36 pmAh, so your limited knowledge on the subject of fire containment trumps that of the organisations who do it for a living? Tesla build cars. They don't put out their own fires for a living - literally or figuratively. And they only get to give advice about their own products.Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 02:52:53 pmAt least you're proving your own statement to be accurate.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 11:16:41 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 28, 2023, 10:46:35 pmWhich they did. They said do not submerse the vehicle. What part of that is not clear?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2023, 11:24:29 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 11:16:41 pmIn your world, are Tesla the only EV manufacturer?Submersion is a method being trialed to more effectively handle EV fires. Whether Tesla or you believe in it is immaterial and rejecting the notion out of hand is presenting your opinion as fact.Just a few posts ago, you had no idea how much water (or other extinguishing agent) and time was involved in putting out a car fire - ICE or EV. Now you're an authority on appropriate methods and the needs of the agencies dealing with these fires to reopen roads.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2023, 01:38:41 am
content: The RORO ship owners a Japanese company said there was 500 EV's onboard not 25. A number of RORO's have burned past last decade one in 2022 was this one carrying a mix of ICE and EV's. It eventually sank.https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/01/massive-cargo-ship-carrying-electric-cars-sinks-in-atlantic-ocean-after-fire

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2023, 02:44:24 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 07:42:21 amQuote from: gnuarm on July 28, 2023, 07:55:32 amPot, meet kettle.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 06:33:13 am
content: Quote from: MT on August 12, 2023, 01:07:09 amI'm about halfway through the video, into the actual second video which the author tacked onto the end, and the only mention of EVs has been to mention nothing specifically relevant to the fire on the Fremantle Highway. He does spread falsehoods such as EV fires being "almost impossible to extinguish". He tries to blame this on how closely they are packed. All the while, no one has shown the fire had anything to do with EVs.One of the video hosts says, "EVs catch fire even on land for no apparent reason", with no support. I expect there are people even in this group, who believe that.It is clear that the fear of fires in EVs is an emotional reaction to new technology, not entirely unlike people being afraid of "radiation" from 5G technology. It is disappointing to see presenters spreading this sort of misinformation. But, they are doing their videos to make money, which requires eyes on the screen. They can't get that by saying, "We don't actually know anything yet, but..."

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 07:14:28 am
content: Several news sources here in NL stated that the cars on the 4 lowest decks seem to be in good condition while the upper decks are a massacre. Also, the EVs are all on the lower decks...

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 08:54:25 am
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on August 12, 2023, 07:14:28 amAny reliable sources? Or are they all simply repeating a single Internet source of dubious provenance?That's the problem with this sort of story. One source will make a statement. It will be repeated by many, many web sites, in ways that totally obscure the actual source, saying things like "crew members say", etc.Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 08:58:53 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on August 12, 2023, 08:54:25 am'They' say it was reported by the salvage team that went on board to assess the situation, but I didn't talk to the salvage team myself so

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 10:13:10 am
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on August 12, 2023, 08:58:53 amI bet you didn't talk to "they" either?If the salvage "team" made a statement like this, it would seem reasonable that the salvage team would be properly interviewed, no?This is no different from flat earth or men from outer space. It only requires the application of even small amounts of reason.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 10:16:36 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on August 12, 2023, 10:13:10 amYou mean that guessing is better than having factual information? So far all you have been doing in this thread is dismissing factual information and keep clinging on to your own believes.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 01:41:09 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 12, 2023, 10:16:36 amI'm a bit confused because it looked like gnuarm was defending EVs but even when I bring in some information that was apparently released by the head of the salvage team that it was not caused by the EVs he still reacts this way. Some are hard to please I guess

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 04:02:45 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on August 12, 2023, 06:33:13 amPerhaps watch the full video then. So far all you have been doing in this thread and many other threads is dismissing factual information and keep clinging on to your own believes and biases, for some odd reason.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 07:40:52 pm
content: Quote from: MT on August 12, 2023, 04:02:45 pmWhat "beliefs and biases"? What is wrong with using information that is from a reliable source, rather than "they"?

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2023, 09:02:35 am
content: Perhaps he is not making sense. Perhaps.But you say, "Battery fires only require water."So we have a burning ship in the middle of the ocean, which I suspect is mostly water, and they can't put it out. What's wrong withthispicture? And don't tell me that water is not used to put out fires on ships. Sure, enough water could sink a ship, but it does take a lot. Fire control on ships has used water. Perhaps it is not currently the best answer, but it has been used. They even build and employ boats specifically for doing that.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireboatIn WWII tons and tons of water was used to fight fires on Navy ships: sometimes successfully and sometimes not. But it was used.So, perhaps, just perhaps you are also not making complete sense.The mixed fuel argument seems to make more sense. There are 25 electric vehicles loaded in a ship with well over 1000 gas and diesel powered ones. So, in all likelihood, more than one thing is burning. But I am not a firefighter, so I don't claim to know.As for using the words "thermal runaway" to describe this, they are perhaps not the best choice. What happens in those batteries is the fuel and the oxidizer are both present inside the battery. So, once the fire starts, it continues with no need for anything from the outside. It is like a solid fuel rocket engine, fuel and oxidizer are mixed together and only need a source of ignition. Solid fuel rockets can not be turned off like liquid fuel ones can by simply closing a valve or stopping a pump. In fact, when some solid fuel missiles needed to have their thrust terminated, the answer was to blow holes in them to vent the burning gases to the sides instead of out the rear. But the solid fuel just continued to burn until it was ALL exhausted. Same thing happens in the batteries. They just keep burning as long as the chemicals (fuel and oxidizer) are still available.Quote from: gnuarm on July 27, 2023, 08:32:49 pm

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2023, 09:12:10 am
content: Quote from: EPAIII on August 16, 2023, 09:02:35 amWhat ship, and what fire are you talking about??? You don't use water on gasoline fires. You use water on lithium-ion battery fires. Gasoline fires require foam. Water just floats the gas on top, spreading around on a river of fire.QuoteWhy are you telling me this? You seem to have jumped a rail.QuoteNot making sense about what??? I think you are putting words in my mouth.QuoteAlso, you are not on the ship, so you have no idea.QuoteNo, not true. Lithium-ion battery fires can be put out with water. The water lowers the temperature, preventing further ignition. The fire goes out.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2023, 11:45:25 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on August 16, 2023, 09:12:10 amThey use CO2 on cargo ships.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2023, 11:49:15 am
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on August 12, 2023, 07:14:28 amAre these the same news sources that lied about only 25 EVs on board?

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 01:58:50 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 16, 2023, 11:49:15 amThe news was reported from what they were told. Why does that make it a lie, rather than a mistake by someone?

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 03:46:34 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on August 17, 2023, 01:58:50 amI'm questioning the trustworthiness of the news sources. I don't care if they lied or spread someone's lies or mistakes accidentally or intentionally, without proper fact-checking.I am also skeptical of the rumor that it was a gasoline fire that couldn't be extinguished with the ship's CO2 fire extinguishers for an entire week.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 04:07:30 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 17, 2023, 03:46:34 amYou are free to be as skeptical as you want.Enjoy

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 11:46:26 am
content: Pictures and analyze starts at 5:30

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 02:58:59 pm
content: What's the video equivalent of TL:DR?The guy has to start making snarky comments from the get go and attack a made up enemy of "insufferable green evangelists".Any time you have to invent an enemy, in order to make up what they are saying, you can't have a very convincing position you are trying to assert. I don't want to listen to a politician. I was hoping for facts... you know, information.So, 52 seconds in, TL:DWEither, this guy clearly has an ax to grind, or like so many on Youtube, he's just pandering to his viewers. Maybe someone can cut out the rhetoric and post a video of the factual content? Does Youtube have a minimum length requirement?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 04:28:42 pm
content: Not often I agree with Rick, but on this I am 100% with him

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 04:35:32 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 17, 2023, 04:28:42 pmI guess that's a sure indication I am totally wrong then.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 05:26:41 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on August 17, 2023, 02:58:59 pmIf you're looking for the information, you can skip the bashing and embedded ads, and fast forward to 5:28.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 06:05:08 pm
content: I'm skeptical that John can reliably identify the vehicles there. I think you could only do that if you had mechanical drawings and measured things like the wheelbase and key component locations.Could you identify the burnt-out husk of these two vehicles?https://www.porsche.com/international/models/taycan/taycan-models/taycan-turbo-s/https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/porsche/panamera/2020/photos-exterior/front-viewThey look pretty similar to me, in terms of windscreen position, bonnet, doors etc. The Panamera has an engine -- but it's likely made of aluminum. Given the condition of the cars, you might not expect to see any aluminum components remaining.It is very likely the ship had cameras and smoke/fire detection systems that will be studied to determine which vehicle (if any, it could have also been a fire due to the ship itself) initiated the disaster. Combined with a manifest of when vehicles were loaded, or even better their precise location, and the source could be identified quickly enough.Not saying it isn't an EV either, just saying this picture really means very little.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2023, 09:46:34 pm
content: QuoteEasy. One is blue and t'other is white

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2023, 06:17:16 pm
content: Offloading Fremantle ROR. Discharging the EV's in bathtub.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2023, 08:37:40 pm
content: This guy is pretty pathetic. He acknowledges over and over that he knows nothing about EVs or how to put out EV fires, yet, he says things like, "highlights the dangers of electrical vehicles" and talks about how "really difficult to manage" the tarp is.To this guy, it all seems to be about the emotional response. He seems to be pretty much an idiot.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2023, 12:11:13 am
content: Why do you think they dump the car in the trough? If it was EV, why would putting it in there start it burning if it hasn't already decided to do that in the time since the ship was on fire? And, if they put it in there to burn out the battery, why couldn't they just disconnect instead, or even leave it until it's down the scrapyard like any other vehicle? The vehicle seemed to be a bit burned, so if the battery was going to be dodgy surely it would have done that at the time or not long after.If it wasn't EV, what's the purpose of the trough? I initially thought they could jsut drain the tank if there was anything left, but that would still leave fumes. OTOH, IC cars don't tend to spontaneously combust (apart from my Mum's Vauxhall Viva, and that appeared to be a known issue with those).Many questions, but it is intriguing

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2023, 12:26:39 am
content: what if that was a oil tanker that cracked open

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2023, 02:42:56 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on September 01, 2023, 12:11:13 amMuch like you, this guy in the video has no answers. But he's happy to cast aspersions.This is very much like the thread on the Titan submersible. People have very few facts, but "analyze" the crap out of it, without actually knowing what they are talking about. As I said, the guy in the video is pathetic.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2023, 09:50:11 am
content: No theories, then? If we wait until the final report which won't be released to the general public, that still won't detail what that trough business is about. And by that time we'll have forgotten about it and moved on anyway. So some educated guess would be interesting at this point - or are we not interested in thinking at all?Even if what we think turns out to be wrong, that's a learning experience and (if EEVBlog threads are anything to go by) may well turn up related and unrelated interesting stuff! But since you only want hard facts perhaps you're better off leaving this and similar threads until the authorities send you their reports.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2023, 10:37:15 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on September 01, 2023, 09:50:11 amEven an "educated" guess still needs to be based on information. The video had nearly none of that, so I have nothing to base an opinion on, other than guessing. Anyone can guess.QuoteYes, it probably would be better if I don't criticize public videos for pretending to provide useful information, while actually offering only speculation, far outside the speaker's field of expertise.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2023, 12:04:35 pm
content: The video did provide useful (rather, interesting) info. I had no idea something like that trough would be used. And for what? So the video was, in that respect, not too much of a waste of space.As for the commentary, it's surely better than most in that no-one could ever mistake him for being an expert. Any sensible viewer would turn the sound (and captions) off or just ignore it.No educated guess then? You know, that's how some things are discovered or invented or figured out, by proposing an idea and having it taken apart. Even if the real purpose doesn't crop up (and, frankly, we likely will never know unless someone involved does an AMA on redit), the idea(s) might find a use in different circumstances.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2023, 12:49:27 pm
content: My guess is they're dunking all of the cars because even a slightly fire damaged new car is an economic write off and doing that limits the chance of later fires.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2023, 12:53:03 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on September 01, 2023, 12:04:35 pmWhat useful info? That tubs of water are used for EV fires? That should be common knowledge for anyone interested in the issue of fire safety.QuoteI think you are overrating the public. He is putting together a video, with lots of negative commentary about EVs. I'm sure many people think he is stating facts.QuoteGuess at what???QuoteMy educated guess is that there were cars on the ferry, including ICE and EVs. Some of them caught on fire.Anything else is not aneducatedguess, as I've said before. Guessing is not educated. An "educated guess" is just a way of saying BS.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2023, 02:15:10 pm
content: At least one EV has caught fire after or while it was unloaded, according to a short report i read in the newspaper this morning.The article did not mention the state of the vehicle or the size of the fire, only that it was quickly extinguished.Might that be the one they dunked in the video?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2023, 03:24:01 pm
content: Your favorite Aussie bitching about the bathtub, the EV,s the batteries and stinking electric hell!

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2023, 04:28:47 pm
content: Why would anyone want to listen to his drivel?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2023, 05:04:50 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on September 02, 2023, 04:28:47 pmI can't think of any good reason so don't ask me.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2023, 07:34:11 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on September 02, 2023, 04:28:47 pmHis whole shtick is to take genuine comments/criticisms of his prior videos, voice them in some kind of silly high pitched voice, and then tear one or two points apart without really looking at the rest of the comment. No time for him any more - was a shame, used to enjoy John's videos - might watch something he actually understands rather than just fear mongers over.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 03:29:27 am
content: Quote from: gnuarm on September 02, 2023, 04:28:47 pmBecause, unlike Sal Mercogliano from 'What’s Going On With Shipping', the former mariner and firefighter, who is described by some members here as a pathetic author with no clue about ship fires, this guy is a true engineer, has a good sense of humor, and speaks a marvelous Aussie accent. You should really listen to him.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 05:14:08 am
content: Quote from: vad on September 03, 2023, 03:29:27 amI absolutely have tried. But I just can't get past the innuendo and many faceted implications, in the place of actual facts.I'm willing to bet, that if someone watched the entire video, they could condense the factual content to less than a minute.Why did you mention Sal Mercogliano? How did he get into the conversation???

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 09:16:19 am
content: Quote from: vad on September 03, 2023, 03:29:27 amIf he where a true engineer, he had a good paying job. But instead he is on Youtube making video with lots of talk and little content. A real engineer sees & hears that right of the bat. I put zero value on John Cadogan's videos.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 09:21:53 am
content: He does raise some valid points from time to time, but he's always taking things people say to an extreme (that they did not intend) just so he can crap all over what they said and make a clickbait/psudo-entertaining video.Reminds me of thunderfoot sometimes.I think his anti-EV stuff is probably hurting EV adoption somewhat.He's always focusing on the downsides of current battery tech and ignoring that actual goal.To get the electric vehicle industry up and running and getting all the infrastructure sorted and issues ironed out. Transitioning an electric car from one energy storage source to a newer/better one is dead simple!Starting up an entire new EV industry has a lot of lag time so it's best to get started now, better/safer batteries are coming.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 10:13:23 am
content: Quote from: Psi on September 03, 2023, 09:21:53 amI don't think so. There is only a tiny fraction of the entire world population watching his videos. Go out on the street and ask random people if they know John's Youtube channel or ever heard about thunderfoot (another Youtuber I put zero value on) and you'll find that nobody knows these channels.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 10:32:41 am
content: In my opinion the whole story is fake, beginning with the title of this thread.1) That ship had mainly conventional vehicles plus a small fraction of electrical cars.2) No details are known why there was a fire nor how it stopped.I guess somebody pays for confusing and manipulating people. Please stop it.Regards, Dieter

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 11:33:53 am
content: QuoteExothermic reaction ran out of therms.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 01:16:57 pm
content: Quote from: gnuarm on September 03, 2023, 05:14:08 amI thought this was your comment:Quote from: gnuarm on August 31, 2023, 08:37:40 pm

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 02:00:45 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on September 03, 2023, 11:33:53 amBut it is interesting to find out why the car they pulled out of the wreck started to smoke again. I can't think of any mechanism that makes something like that possible with an ICE car which is submerged in water. OTOH with an EV there is stored energy in the battery that doesn't need anything from the outside (like an oxidizer) to be released.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 05:28:13 pm
content: It started to smoke in the water (assuming that's what was in the trough - I am sure someone will say we can't discuss that without an official analysis). Maybe it was a bit hot when they pulled it out, but they sure didn't look too concerned until it was dumped in the trough. Since the battery would presumably form part of the chassis, I would have thought it would be reasonably waterproof. But perhaps there's a difference between water thrown up from the road and water pretending to be passengers.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 06:02:11 pm
content: Which brings an interesting observation: plenty of videos out there on floodings where people drive their cars and trucks half submerged in water. I guess you should not try that with EVs.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 07:20:41 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on September 03, 2023, 06:02:11 pmWhy?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2023, 09:14:15 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on September 03, 2023, 06:02:11 pmIf anything, an EV is better in water. The risk is getting the water in the battery pack, but that would only happen if the vehicle was submersed for some time; the packs are sealed generally quite well. There is no air intake or exhaust on an EV, so as long as the wheels are still on the road, it should be OK from an electrical perspective.On Tesla packs, water eventually gets into the pack via the rebreathers which equalise pressure in the pack. This only occurs when the water gets into the cabin, at which point other things are likely broken in the car.Of course,cars are not boats, and people are notoriously bad at estimating depth. In general, it's a bad idea to drive through any deep water unless you are absolutely certain of the depth.https://youtu.be/watch?v=cBYFo6fXPvU

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2023, 08:31:48 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 03, 2023, 09:14:15 pmUnless it is an Amphicar (recently I've seen one for real!) or a Lada. Back when I just got my driver's license my parents owned a Lada. At some point I was driving on a large parking lot and there was a big pool of water. So I got the idea to drive through it with the car like kids do with a bike. Well, you where right that people suck at gauging depths (actually, you can't see the depth). The water splahed up so high went over the car. Fortunately is was a LadaI never tried to do something like that ever since.

author: gnuarm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2023, 09:05:35 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 04, 2023, 08:31:48 pmThe real problem with trying to drive through flood waters, is that it only takes a foot or two and the car will simply float and be carried away. That is very likely to kill everyone in the car, whether or not the motor keeps running.