By Andy May
h/t Don Keiller and Ken Gregory
Australia’s Maritime Safety Authority has issued a domestic commercial vessel safety alert on the risks of ferrying battery powered cars (EVs), download it here. Each ferry operator must conduct a risk assessment for their vessel to ensure that they are capable of dealing with potential EV fires. They list the risks of carrying EVs as follows:
- High voltage shocks
- Direct jet flames
- Fires develop in intensity quickly and rapidly reach their maximum intensity (typically within 2-3 minutes)
- Toxic gases
- Gas explosion (if the released gas accumulates for a while before being ignited)
- Long lasting re-ignition risk (can ignite or re-ignite weeks, or maybe months after the provoking incident)
- Once established fires are difficult to stop/extinguish
- Thermal runaway
They go on to add that EVs are approximately 25% heavier than vehicles with internal combustion engines. This should be considered when placing the vehicles on the ferry or ship to minimize the potential impact on vessel stability.
Lithium-ion batteries have been known to suffer from spontaneous thermal runaway fires. The lower the charge retained by the vehicle’s battery the lower the likelihood of a thermal runaway fire, checking the charge on each vehicle can help in assessing the risk.
Some battery powered vehicles have a lower ground clearance than internal combustion engine vehicles. This means they are more susceptible to damage from ramps during boarding. Care should be taken in identifying these vehicles before boarding to ensure damage is not sustained to the battery. Any damage to any part of the battery increases the risk of fire. Physical damage to the battery can lead to thermal runaway. EVs which have been damaged should not be loaded. Charging the battery while onboard is very dangerous and can increase the likelihood of a thermal runaway fire, do not allow charging any EV on your vessel.
Fumes given off by lithium-ion batteries are toxic, gas masks are necessary when fighting the fire. When fighting a lithium-ion battery vehicle fire with water, substantially higher quantities of water are required in comparison to an internal combustion vehicle fire. The water must also be applied for a longer period. There is also a risk of re-ignition. Using other methods such as a car fire blanket designed to extinguish EV fires can help. A damaged high-voltage battery can create rapid heating of the battery cells. If you notice hissing, whistling, or popping, a possible sweet chemical smell, then black “smoke” (nanoparticles of heavy metals, not smoke) then white vapor coming from the high voltage battery assume that thermal runaway has occurred. Directly attacking the fire with water hoses and breaking open the battery requires specialist training and equipment. Do attempt this without extensive training and practice.
EVs are in real trouble. EV insurance rates are higher than for internal combustion engine (ICE) cars due to the risk of intense fires, higher cost of repairs, and the cost of replacement batteries. EVs are much more likely to be totaled after an accident and repairing them takes much longer than for an ICE. Be very careful about putting an EV in your garage, especially with a built-in charging station.
Ignacio Galán, the chief executive of Spanish utility Iberdrola, said in 2018, that the renewable industry was facing a possible “Enron” style collapse. The era of cheap money is gone, and the new higher interest rates will shake out any weak renewable companies, as well as weak EV manufacturers. From an investor point of view be very careful. EV bankruptcies have already occurred (also see here), and more are on the way. Solar startup bankruptcies are increasing (see also here and here). Wind power isn’t doing much better, Siemens is in real trouble (see here). My state of Texas is also hurting. We all eventually have to pay the piper.
I conclude battery electric vehicles are dependent on political mandates, as the number of wealthy virtue signalers is rather limited. Arguably, the technology is not ripe, and should have been allowed to develop naturally.
Governments are awful at picking winners and losers; they need to stay completely out of it.
Oh, some early involvement in things like aviation or electronics were useful, but this is like trying to do computers with vacuum tubes.
What early aviation advances came from government? As just two counter-examples, Prof Langley was so wrong and the government was so invested in denying it that the Wright Flyer was not displayed in the Smithsonian until both Wright brothers had died. And air traffic control was invented by airlines, not the government.
But the TSA helps airports run…oh wait.
Actually, it was the French government, who pirated the Wrights after they did a demonstration in France. The example was “damaged in shipping”, so it had to be rebuilt in France.
What they should do is maintain a separate barge (dinghy) to keep EVs separate from Non spontaneously combustible ICE vehicles and tow it behind the main ferry
I think they need a separate barge for each EV
I say put them all on the same barge. And have a remotely detonated scuttling charge on board. It’s cheaper for the ferry operator, and puts a strong spotlight on the collective risk for all of the EV owners. Let’s see if that encourages them to put some pressure on each other to drive safer vehicles…
(To be clear, I would put all the EV drivers themselves on the main ferry with the ICE vehicles, not on the scuttlable EV barge… I’m not suggesting the drivers should go down with their vehicles!)
On second thought…
BC ferries put “dangerous cargo” at the front or back so it can be pushed overboard. The most common one seems to be trucks carrying hay. Same could be done if there are only a few electric cars.
IIRC Colossus did exceptionally well at the time
Government played no role in the development of electronics, other than a very minor increase in demand.
I can remember when government hammers cost the taxpayer $500. In any case, true EV costs are hidden and high.
https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-10-TrueCostofEVs-BennettIsaac.pdf
“Governments are awful at picking winners and losers”, Uh I dunno, ours (UK) is excellent at picking losers!
The tech is over a century old, rather than ‘not ripe’, withered on the vine.
EV technology failed over 100 years ago for the same reasons it is failing today. People never learn.
I had to laugh at the battery car advert today which was trying to put a gloss on the ‘up to’ less than 300 miles range. The on screen small print referred to the WLRP test method so I guess even the claimed range is total bollocks as the test is no doubt some idealistic one with perfect temperature and nothing but the minimum running.
I just learned about the Kawasaki “Ninja” E-1, electric motorcycle.
7.4 hours charge time. Max range ~41 miles. (I get that far on a gallon with my vStar 950.) Top speed 52mph
No thanks,
Those are really sad specs,more of a scooter than a motorcycle. I like my XT250 80 miles/gallon and top speed of 70 MPH,
Here is a link to the test procedures of EV vs ICE. To your point, the tests are very different, and appear very biased to the EVs.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
The technology is terminally flawed.
re: “Australia’s Maritime Safety Authority has issued a domestic commercial vessel safety alert on the risks of ferrying battery powered cars (EVs) ”
But – but what about those ppl on YT (self appointed subject x-perts) and various forums saying “well, actually, there are more fires from ICE vehicles“?
(Yeah, I don’t buy it either.)
There are more fires from ICE vehicles – because there are VASTLY more ICE vehicles than EVs. In comparison by percentages of vehicles that catch fire, there are many, many more EV fires. In percentages of vehicle fires that cause major damage, EVs are WAY ahead of ICE.
Furthermore, many of those ICE vehicle fires are insurance jobs or vandalism. How many ICE fires start spontaneously when the car is parked and not running?
Some years ago my car was stolen. Some hours later, the police phoned to say they had good news and bad news. The good news was that they had found my car. The bad news was that it was a burned-out wreck. It had been stolen by joy-riders.
There were some truck models – many years ago, so I don’t remember whether it was Ford or GMC – that would spontaneously combust just sitting there, due to some defect in the cruise control electronics. No instances of them burning down a ship, parking garage, or house, though, because they were quickly put out with a normal fire extinguisher.
There is a proverb: “Fire is a good servant but a bad master.” That goes double for electricity. I saw a video just a couple of days ago of “Don’t do this to your jumper cables.” Yet another person who didn’t know how to use them. Spectacular fire resulted.
“How many ICE fires start spontaneously when the car is parked and not running and not made by Jaguar Land Rover?”
Fixed!
re: “In percentages of vehicle fires that cause major damage, EVs are WAY ahead of ICE.”
Which is/was the under-handed point of my post, which few ppl, excepting you, apparently recognized. This mis-direct is oft-used by self-appointed x-perts and is yet another example of the game of ‘Fun and Misdirection with Statistics” when a particular narrative is sought on behalf of ‘special interests’ employing marginally educated advocates following published talking points.
Oh, I think that everyone here knows this – including the shills for the Green Hoax.
And ICE fires can easily and quickly be extinguished.
ICE vehicles are also, on average, a lot older than EVs. Not to mention that how they are driven is different as well. EVs, mostly to putt around town. ICEVs are more frequently used for longer distances at higher speeds.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=movie+top+secret+pinto+explode&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ca&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:6651cfeb,vid:4-Qj58o87sY,st:0
Except that they can be put out…..
I am very grateful to the Germans for inventing the word schadenfreude.
Otherwise I wouldn’t know what to call this feeling I have.
Perhaps every ferry should include a crane or bulldozer to swiftly disposes of burning EVs.
Or a catapult?
Hangman’s drop? Like Sweeny Todd but straight down
Longer ferry journeys should profile park EV’s to the bow, behind a protecive barrier. In the event of one of the EV pack developing a thermal situation, then the entire pack should be pushed over the bow regardless.
You could never operate a crane or bulldozer in the tight confines of a car ferry. The ferries need to redesigned with extended aft ramp where EVs are located. When one catches fire, lower the ramp so they all slide into the water. Saves the vessel and gets rid of a whole heap of crap in a single step.
The precautionary principle suggests EVs should be dumped overboard prior to sailing
The RoRo tilt tray
If I was the captain, I wouldn’t wait for a fire, before lowering the ramp at sea.
Do they still call that the ‘Herald of Free Enterprise manouevre?”
I can remember seeing ferries mid-Channel pass by us with the rear door open which is somewhat safer than having the bow door open. I can also recall coming through the harbour wall at Dover with the bow door already open for docking. All changed post Zeebrugge such that the ferry had to fully secured before the doors open.
My suggestion was to have all EV’s on a section of the foredeck that is hinged and operated by hydraulic rams. The crew could then keep an eye on them from the bridge. The slightest hint of a whiff of smoke from one EV, the foredeck can be tilted and tip the lot of them over the side.
Who would volunteer to be the rigger for that lift? I work in a DoD crane department. Rigging loads is more complex than it first appears. … like most things.
All EVs on the exterior, with tilting ramps.
Of course EV’s are heavy enough that you may need to dump an EV on the other side, just to keep the load balanced.
Will be excluded from ships soon. As has been done in Norway. Just another cross for EV owners to bear and the reason why owners are not making repeat purchases of EVs.
The next step in Australia is to exclude them from parking anywhere but ground level in open space. One city in Germany has already done that.
Eventually insurance companies will not insure houses where EVs are garaged in fire connected locations. It is against electrical standards (not sure if regulated yet) in Australia to house a household battery in a fire connected location. And car batteries are often much larger than household battery.
I’ve read for a bit now that a change has been made away from straight Li-ion polymer batteries/cells to LiFePO4 batteries in ‘residential’ storage applications on account of safety concerns with the former.
While not quite as energy dense as Li-Ion poly etc, this isn’t as big a drawback in fixed installations versus motive (automobile etc) applications.
I’ve observed LiFePO4 offered for sale on Amazon now, and some electric e-bike articles/projects I’ve reviewed are going with this safer battery tech too.
The Tesla household batteries are the same as the car batteries.
LiFePO4 are somewhat less prone to self-combust but still high energy and power density. They can certainly start a fire but not with the same explosive force as other chemistries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07BS6QY3wI8
There are now household flow batteries that should be safer but not a large part of the market yet.
Post would seem to be at odds with a quick review of available material including articles written in the past few years. Is your research up to date?
Any business model that relies solely on government largesse is subject to sovereign risk.
The only reason there are wind and solar farms is because they operate under a scheme of mandated theft. In Australia, the system is set up so the electricity retailers are the bag men. They collect the money from consumers and hand it over to the owners of the subsidy farms. It is organised theft established by the government.
If the Renewable Energy Target was rescinded today, the existing subsidy farmers would lose about half their income and end up on financial rocks.
It is also arranged so that the consumers will blame the power companies for increasing rates, rather than the politicians who are actually behind the scheme. For the faithful, it’s yet another piece of evidence that the free market can’t be trusted and they must turn to government for protection.
Andy May is a funny guy.
Driving to the ferry is dangerous. Riding on a ferry is dangerous.
Oh gosh everything is dangerous.
I drive a motor home and have driven a motor home onto a ferry. It was rough weather and the ferry was going perpendicular to busy marine traffic.
We do dangerous things everyday safely by mitigating the risk. For example, when I drove my motor home onto the ferry, professionals evaluated the risk and asked me to close the valve on the propane tanks.
So of course safety regulations are being issue for EV.
I am a trained shipboard fighter. I am thinking Andy May never had to wear big boy pants.
The post is about a safety alert concerning EVs on ferries.
Nobody gives a f@ck about your firefighting skills.
People are mitigating the EV risk by not buying them,
Ferry companies are mitigating the EV risk by banning them from their vessels.
I wish that DFDS would do that but I don’t think they have. I have a ferry crossing of the North Sea booked with them next June.
I reckon you’ve got about 7 months to persuade them to change or do everything on your bucket list. Good luck.
This must be one of the days when Kit P is posting drunk.
Did anyone say that we must never do anything dangerous?
How is pointing out that EVs are more dangerous than ICEVs promoting a belief that all dangers should be avoided?
Do you routinely take unnecessary risks in your life? When you had your fire fighting training, did they teach you how to prevent fires from starting? Or did wearing big boy pants mean that you only cared about fires after they got started.
Not putting EVs on ferries is called mitigating the risks.
Mr. P: So you are a trained shipboard fighter, eh? What do you fight, kangaroos?
I evaluate you fealty to safety concerns by noting you drive your RV with the propane valves open; a big no-no.
Dave my motor home is designed for the propane valve to be open when going down the road so it is ok.
This is debated on RV forums and it depends on how your rig is set up.
One common hazard is propane and gasoline refueling. Ignition sources should be turned off to prevent an explosion or fire if there is a spill.
One infrequent hazard is a leak in the propane system when in a confines space like a ferry. My propane system would detect an outside leak and automatically isolate the system.
I recently blew a rear tire that damaged the propane piping. Finding the leak was had to find because it was under the frame and propane is heavier than air. I had to cut a hole in the bathroom floor. The treads broke at a T joint.
To make matters worse, after fixing the problem I get an alarm going down the road. When I got to the side of the road and go back and look the alarm had stopped an no indication of the problem. As soon as I started driving, the alarm came on. This time I got back faster. Turns out my coffee grinder bumped a test button.
Matson, Inc. pretty much dominates civilian ocean shipping between the mainland US and Hawaii (also Alaska and Guam). Their current guide to preparing vehicles for transport states:
When I last checked about a year and a half ago (at the time of the Felicity Ace fire and sinking), the same Matson guide specified that EVs should be fully charged.
I don’t know exactly when this changed.
It begs the question of how you keep an EV fully charged between the nearest battery charger and the drop-off point? Somebody must’ve raised this at some point to the company.
The Australian Maritime authority and the New Zealand Maritime authority are closely aligned. New Zealand will have to follow suit as there is significant vehicle ferry traffic between the two Main islands. It is only a matter of time before a EV fire occurs. The consequences could be horrific as these ferries also carry a lot of passengers. I sense a storm coming.
As a regular user of the Channel Tunnel, I have been concerned that EVs are allowed on the trains. If a train carrying a significant number of EVs catches fire it could result in hundreds of deaths and threaten the structural integrity of the tunnel.
Well said
Is there an emergency procedure in place and, if so, what is it?
Personally, I’d just get the train to hightail it out of there.
One advantage to modern tunnels, including the Chunnel, is that there are two tunnels, one for each direction. They also have passageways between the tunnels. If there is a fire, both directions can be stopped, and passengers guided from the tunnel with the burning train to the other side where the air is still clean.
I don’t know if the Chunnel does, but some tunnels have a third, smaller, maintenance tunnel that runs between the two main ones.
Yes it does.
Don’t hold your breath. The UK government is fully signed on with the EV revolution and it’s going to take most governments introducing bans before we’ll do the same, reluctantly.
Let’s get things into perspective. It seems that the alarm expressed on this site, about the frequency of EV fires, is similar to the alarm expressed on other sites about AGW. (wink)
The suggestion that the reason why ICE-vehicle-fires are more common then EV-fires is because there are far more ICE vehicles than EVs, might seem plausible, so I did an internet search for any studies that address this issue.
I was surprised to find that the actual percentage of ICE vehicles that have caught fire was far greater than the percentage of EVs that have caught fire. What’s even more surprising is that the vehicles which have the greatest risk of catching fire are the hybrid vehicles.
https://evse.com.au/blog/electric-vehicle-fires/#:~:text=The%20study%20revealed%20that%20petrol,fire%20than%20their%20petrol%20counterparts.
“The study revealed that petrol and diesel vehicles experienced 1530 fires per 100,000 vehicles, while only 25 out of 100,000 fully electric vehicles caught fire. These findings clearly demonstrate that EVs are actually less likely to catch fire than their petrol counterparts.”
https://www.mynrma.com.au/electric-vehicles/basics/understanding-electric-vehicle-fires
“A 2022 analysis by insurance company AutoinsuranceEZ showed that based on US-based National Transport and Safety Board data, ICE vehicles are 60 times more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles are 138 times more likely to catch fire
https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/ev-fires-less-common-but-more-problematic/25749
Regarding how common vehicle fires actually are, there have been several studies on the topic. Tesla released data suggesting one fire for every 205 million miles traveled which is over 10 times less common than the US national average. Tesla of course could have a bias here, but other sources are suggesting a similar result. Pinfa (Phosphorous, Inorganic and Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association) suggested around 55 fires per billion miles traveled in ICEs compared to 5 fires per billion miles traveled for EVs. A recent study conducted by AutoInsuranceEZ using data from the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) showed that electric cars in the US caught fire at a rate of 25.1 per 100,000 sales compared to 1,530 for ICE vehicles and 3,475 for hybrids.”
However, because I tend to be impartial and unbiased, I will not leave out the more dangerous part of EV fires, which is mentioned in the article.
“Whilst the occurrence is lower for EVs, when an EV does catch fire, the consequences can be very problematic.
EV fires can continue to reignite for days after initially being extinguished. It doesn’t help that the occurrence of EV fires can be unpredictable, with research conducted by IDTechEx suggesting that a third of EV fires occur when the vehicle is stationary, parked, and not charging.”
Yep there were 21 Zeppelins with some early warning signs prior with hydrogen airships but folks went right off them after the Hindenberg thinking that could be moi!
Question:
Are EVs more or less likely to be involved in a spontaneous fire than an ICE?
A good question. The article says “…EVs are actually less likely to catch fire than their petrol counterparts” which implies spontaneous ignition, but more than 50% of vehicle fires are due to arson and most of these are associated with vehicle theft for ‘joyriding’. This tends to involve older cars that are easier for the knuckle-draggers to break in to. Another point is the severity of the fire, many spontaneous car fires are minor burning of oil and dirt on the outside of the engine and are restricted to the engine compartment. The car is often repairable, in fact I recall a fire prevention lecture where it was said that dry-powder extenguishers often do more damage than the fire itself! Lithium battery ignition seems to be a severe event that results in the total loss of the vehicle as well as potential damage to surrounding vehicles and buildings.
The number of fires is not as important as the severity. ICE fires are generally small and easily extinguished. EV fires are very hot and fierce and hard to put out.
And that is the whole point.
Surely it depends on the size of the number. If there are 60 times more ICE fires than EV fires, per equal number of cars, then for the EV fires to be worse, they would, on average, have to be more than 60 times as severe.
Mr. Vincent: You did some research on the numbers, but did you think, “if ICE cars catch fire more frequently, why are ferry companies putting out warnings on EVs, but aren’t putting warning notices out regarding ICE vehicle fires?” You stopped thinking a bit too soon. Maybe EV fires present issues that are not present with ICE fires?
Andy May is just wrong, that is not how risk is not how risk analysis is done.
First step is to determine the risk of a fire starting while the ship is moving. From the above data I would say it is less than one in a million for both ICE and EV.
Done, both safe enough!
But say say it is 1 per 100,000 for EV and 10 per 100,000 for ICE. Then the ability to put out the fire would be considered.
I am not going to buy an EV. However, Andy May argument is childish. He needs to put on big boy pants.
I am an adult unlike many posters here. I have a DD214 document the adult things I have done. This includes dealing with a serious electrical fire that injured my electrician.
This same type of failure can occur on my motor home. If Andy May tells me I can use a ferry my response is FOAD.
There are little girls who worry about climate. Then there are little girls who worry about EV.
This guy is getting to be as bad as Simon and Griff. No matter how many times the statistics they throw out are refuted, they keep throwing them out. Your figures compare fires against sales, not against the total number of the two fleets.
Whom ever is pushing this trash either knows nothing about statistics, or is being deliberately dishonest. Then again, Like Mann, both is a possibility.
BTW, this is the guy who still believes that roof top solar panels can produce 2 to 3 times more power than your house needs in a day.
This misinformation has been doing the rounds for some time now. Ignore it, go for the real figures and statistics by fire services and it draws a very different picture. You may have noticed a trend to identify which car caused a fire, but to completely ignore any cars which were involved in the fire; this is intentional and deliberately misleading.
Twiggy is right – heads do need to be on spikes.
What’s unfolding in this entire climate charade is nothing less than criminal & reckless negligence – no part of it have been deliberately engineered to go so badly wrong, be so hideously expensive, so unfit for purpose and be such junk
All aboard folks with 25-50-75% EVs of various ages states of repair and maintenance?
Spirit of Tasmania | Be a Spirited Traveller
Not flaming likely!
There are lots of Toyota Prius on the road, but they never catch fire, seems odd, maybe the batts are smaller and thus cooler.
Toyota kicked off with NiMh batteries and only more recently switched to lithium
PS: Discussion here-
Hybrid (not Prime) switching to Lithium mid year 2020 | Toyota RAV4 Forums (rav4world.com)
with different models and timing depending on climate destination and hybridising Toyota’s complete range of cars. Toyota can easily switch back to NiMh but not Tesla et al.
Just ban EVs from ferries
Problem solved
Just ban EVs
from ferriesJust refuse to take them. Problem solved.
What is needed, during this EV madness period, is an outside upper deck location for such vehicles when on ferries. The outer deck EV section could have a rapid tilt system that simply throws the burning EV directly into the water and thus no risk to the ferry.
I am sure once the word got round that your ferry carrier is happy to receive EVs so long as the owners know, there is a risk of them being thrown overboard (the cars not the owners) should the need arise, would calm all fears of the other passengers when travelling with anti social EVs on board…..
Here let me help you with that-
Fallacy of composition – Wikipedia
John in NZ’s suggestion of a catapult would make for a better spectator experience.
It would but loading said catapult with a toxic burning EV sounds a bit challenging. A section of outer deck with each EV parked on a flipper ready to toss it into the drink should the need arise, avoids any human intervention at the time of crisis. A simple fire detection sensor would do the trick and another flaming liability goes over the side.
I’d pay to see that show!
Alot more entertaining than pumpkin chucking.
Most modern seagoing ferries are made of aluminium. A battery fire in a parking garage with concrete floors is one thing, in a place where the floor is of aluminium it is an other thing altogether. A battery fire will melt the floor and the burning contraption sinks to the deck below and ultimately burns a hole in the hull itself.
A company will decide to not carry EVs at all.
Plenty of crowing from the pro-EV lobby that the Luton Airport car park fire was caused by a diesel, not an EV, according to the preliminary investigation. Also plenty of scepticism about that conclusion, partly because of the extreme haste with which the result was announced and also because it doesn’t seem to tie in with the evidence. Check out ‘Geoff Buys Cars’ on YouTube. In the original phone footage, the seat of the fire is clearly under the left front seat – the location of the battery in a Range Rover Evoke Hybrid. It is also a vigorous fire that is projecting sideways in a jet, similar to other battery fires. If not a Lithium battery, what is burning? Not diesel fuel that burns with dense black smoke, and the fire seems to be too vigorous to be just upholstery and plastic fittings. The rear lights are on, so the 12V electrics are still working, indicating that the fire had not been burning for long, so became intense quite quickly. The confirmation that this was a pure diesel comes from a second video submitted several days later taken from the front, showing the full number plate that can be identified on the national vehicle register as a diesel Range Rover Evoke. However, this doesn’t seem to correspond to the rear plate on the original video, that seems to be a rare two-character plate; very odd that there would be different plates front and back – not to mention illegal. Most modern car parks (this one was only a few years old) have automatic vehicle ID systems that time-stamps a photograph of each car as it enters and leaves, but no such evidence has been made public in this case. Still questions to be answered I think.
You’d think they’d learn but it’s always the cover-up that gets them worse. ICE carparks are burning to the ground and/or in threat of collapsing all the time dontcha know? Insurers just write this petty cash stuff off every day.
The Luton fire started on the top floor of the carport and spread downwards. This is difficult to explain without invoking lithium, which will burn through glass or concrete.
Every time the floor collapsed, burning debris was dropped onto the floor below.
The real agony for quite a few owners of the 1500 cars that were undamaged on the lowest floors was having to get their head around flattening the carpark onto their cars due to the risk of extracting them. Sell tickets to watch the flattening but before that hold an insurer auction for the right for thrillseekers to go in and drive their pick out one at a time. Don’t you ever let a chance go by to scoop up any economic rent and I do love free markets. LOL.
The colour of the flames (carmine red and orange) and the powerful jet-like manner in which they were projected essentially confirm the lithium battery as the source of the Luton fire. Lithium metal burns with a distinctive red or carmine colour. As others have noted, a diesel fire emits vast amounts of thick black smoke, which was entirely absent in this case.
Mr. Turner: Thanks for your comments, couldn’t agree more that the local fire folks have handled this so badly, I’m left to wonder why a fireman in Luton would provide cover for EVs. That is how it appears.
It’s possible that they were told that there next raise or promotion would be determined by their willingness to not undercut what the politicians are saying.
We may also see changing behavior of Great White sharks circling the stalled ferries.
Another reason for catapults.
EVs. Can’t live with them, can’t live without them. Oh, wait.
Can’t live with them. … Really can’t live with them.
A good risk assessment remains difficult while the Felicity Ace remains unexamined under 30,000 feet of water, with 4000 vehicles aboard, some EV, some not. Odds are lithium sank it, but you can’t prove it. https://www.cedtechnologies.com/did-electrical-vehicles-lithium-ion-batteries-sink-felicity-ace/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/18/was-the-felicity-ace-fire-caused-by-electric-vehicle-batteries/
The insurance companies still have to pay out. They work on odds, not certainties.
Where’s Bob Ballard when you need him?
This must be an issue for the Channel Tunnel operators as well….?
Perhaps they think if they floor it mid tunnel, they can get to the far end before everyone is burnt or suffocated.
The solution is quite simple. EVs are prohibited on ferries. If you absolutely need to get across a body of water there is a platform specifically for EVs. In the event your EV catches fire it will automatically be pitched into the body of water you are crossing. Before loading you will have to sign a waiver stating you understand your EV must be jettisoned in the event of fire, that the loss is yours alone, that the ferry owners or employees can not be held accountable. You also must leave a security deposit to cover any environmental damage your jettisoned EV will undoubtedly cause. There fixed it for you.
Nobody would insure the EV-only ferry.
Richard what I was trying to say is that all ferries would have a special platform just for EVs. If there is a problem with the EV it is automatically flung into the water.
From the article: “Long lasting re-ignition risk (can ignite or re-ignite weeks, or maybe months after the provoking incident”
It’s worse than we thought! Now they are going to have to write rules requiring the separation of EV far enough from other cars that they don’t set the whole junkyard on fire.
I have already warned the channel ferries repeatedly of the consequences of an EV car deck fire.
Their answer – we are currently thinking about it….
They will carry on thinking no doubt until follows a disaster like Herald O F E or The Estonia, which went down in a storm.
MS Herald of Free Enterprise was a roll-on/roll-off (RORO) ferry which capsized moments after leaving the Belgian port of Zeebrugge on the night of 6 March 1987….killing 193 people
Estonia sank on Wednesday, 28 September 1994, between about 00:50 and 01:50 (UTC+2) as the ship was crossing the Baltic Sea, en route from Tallinn, Estonia. Of the 989 on board, 137 were rescued.
The sinking was one of the worst maritime disasters of the 20th-century.It is one of the deadliest peacetime sinkings of a European ship, after the titanic (1912).
People forget pretty quick what happened in the fires in the channel tunnel or Mont Blanc tunnel.
On the morning of 24 March 1999, 39 people died when a Belgian transport truck carrying flour and margarine, which had entered the French-side portal, caught fire.
CHUNNEL one of 3 btw.
The fire was reported on 11 September 2008, at approximately 13:57 UTC (14:57 BST / 15:57 CEST) in the North Tunnel 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) from the French side…
Full service resumed in February 2009, after the completion of repairs costing €60 million.
Industrial size disaster on transport infrastructure occur on average about once every 7-9 years, mostly due to a combination of negligence and statistical outcome relative to traffic use/annual mileage.
Right now we are about 5 years overdue for the next big one.
I predict it will be caused by an EV – as per MAY 2 2022 EV bus fire in PARIS….
149 electric buses will be taken off the streets of Paris temporarily “as a precaution” after two of the vehicles caught fire, public transport operator RATP said Friday, April 29…..temporarily of which became PERMANENT!
NO SOLUTION!
Following a second blaze on Friday morning, in which no one was hurt, “RATP has taken the decision to suspend use of 149 electric buses” of manufacturer Bollore’s Bluebus 5SE model, the state-owned company said…
AND as of now…..”Ils sont toujours à l’arrêt.
Les 148 bus produits par la société Bluebus pour la RATP en Île-de-France sont toujours stationnés à Châteaulin, près de Quimper, selon Île-de-France Mobilités (IDFM), l’autorité organisatrice des modes de transport en commun en Ile-de-France, en attente de trouver une solution avec son fabricant.
RATP CEO demands compensation and safety guarantees before putting Bluebus e-buses back into service in ParisThe CEO of the RATP, Jean Castex, announced on May 10, 2023, that the 148 electric Bluebus buses of the 5SE series operated by the RATP will only be put back into service when all safety guarantees are met.
Previously there were not enough on the road to be a useful transport statistic. Now it appears a little more interesting.
How many electric buses are there in Paris?
The state-owned public transport operator in Paris has 500 electric buses in its fleet of 4,700 vehicles. (of which 148 are currently chewing the cud in Brittany at RATP expense). so now only 350.
The electric buses are supplied by Bolloré, Alstom, and CNH’s Heuliez Bus
Haven’t read all the comments but I’ll throw this in case no mentioned this idiocy: NYC is going the convert to EV fire engines!!!
Priceless!
Freaking nightmare to be in the middle of Georgia Straight on a BC ferry and have one of these start combusting.
Strait