On June 4, 2025, the Morning Midas—a cargo ship loaded with over 3,000 vehicles, including approximately 800 electric and hybrid models—was left adrift in the Pacific Ocean after catching fire 300 miles southwest of Alaska’s Adak Island. Thankfully, all 22 crew members were safely evacuated. But the fire, reportedly starting on the vehicle deck, overwhelmed the vessel’s onboard suppression systems and forced a total abandonment. The ship, flagged under Liberia and en route from China to Mexico, now floats like a ghost vessel—a monument to the hazards of our increasingly electrified obsession.
This latest incident is more than just a maritime mishap. It’s a warning. A costly one, literally and figuratively, about the technological delusions driving climate-centric energy policies.
Let’s not mince words: the proliferation of electric vehicles (EVs) is a politically engineered phenomenon. It’s not market demand but bureaucratic fiat, massive subsidies, and regulatory cudgels that are flooding global supply chains with lithium-ion batteries. And when these batteries go up in flames, they don’t just emit smoke—they torch the narrative that this energy transition is safe, sustainable, or rational.
The Lithium-Ion Fire Problem: Not Just a Technical Glitch
According to The Times, “The fire broke out on the vehicle deck of the ship, which is carrying electric vehicles that contain lithium-ion batteries, a type of battery known for being difficult to extinguish once ignited.” Fire suppression systems failed to contain the blaze—just like they did in similar disasters, including the Felicity Ace, which sank in 2022 along with 4,000 vehicles after a battery-related fire.
“Lithium-ion battery fires are notoriously hard to extinguish. They often require immense volumes of water and can reignite even after appearing extinguished. Once a fire begins on a cargo ship, especially one carrying EVs, the danger multiplies.”
None of this is surprising to those who’ve been paying attention. Lithium-ion batteries, the workhorse of the EV movement, are not merely flammable—they’re energetic time bombs under the right conditions. They’re prone to thermal runaway, a fancy term for “you can’t put the fire out once it starts.” This is not a minor engineering inconvenience. It’s a fundamental flaw of the very core of the so-called clean energy revolution.
This event highlights, yet again, the hubris of the technocratic caste who believe that spreadsheets, slogans, and subsidies can override physics and chemistry. The push for EVs has never been about sound science or market viability—it has been a triumph of ideology over evidence. And it’s average people, logistics networks, and now even global shipping routes that are paying the price.
The Morning Midas fire is a maritime echo of policy arrogance: a floating allegory of what happens when top-down climate mandates ignore the inconvenient details. These details include not only the fire risk of EV batteries but also the human cost of cobalt mining, the environmental degradation of lithium extraction, and the limited recyclability of these so-called green technologies.
And to reiterate, this isn’t even the first time a ship has been sacrificed at the altar of climate policy. As The Wall Street Journal notes,
“In 2022, the Felicity Ace, carrying thousands of EVs including high-end brands, caught fire and eventually sank in the Atlantic Ocean, resulting in the loss of vehicles valued at over $400 million.”
What did we learn? Apparently nothing.
One might expect policymakers to pause and reconsider the wisdom of forcing an electrified fleet onto the world. Instead, incidents like this are met with silence or worse—more deflection and rhetorical gymnastics about how such setbacks are just “growing pains.” If a fossil-fueled cargo ship carrying traditional cars went up in flames this regularly, you can bet there’d be a parade of headlines and UN statements calling for the end of internal combustion engines.
But when EVs ignite, the media response is muted. Why? Because to question the safety of EVs is to question the entire green transition—and that is a heresy punishable by cancellation.
Let’s be clear: no one is suggesting that lithium-ion batteries be banned. What’s being demanded is honesty. It’s one thing to promote EVs in a competitive market that values performance, price, and safety. It’s another to enforce their adoption through regulatory compulsion while ignoring their very real dangers.
The fire aboard the Morning Midas is the logical outcome of a world governed by narrative rather than nuance. Climate policy today operates more like a religion than a science—complete with saints (Greta), sinners (Exxon), and sacraments (Net Zero). It elevates technologies to sacred status without demanding proof of their safety, scalability, or superiority.
The global shipping industry is already grappling with draconian emissions targets and bureaucratic overreach. Now, it’s being asked to risk floating battery farms across oceans, all to appease climate prophets in Geneva and Brussels.
We need a serious reassessment. Not more subsidies. Not more mandates. A real, skeptical, evidence-based appraisal of where this so-called transition is actually leading us.
Because if the goal is to save the planet, setting fire to it with lithium doesn’t seem like the smartest route.
H/T Mike, John W, recukeet, Walter S, and “someone”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s going to be difficult getting insurance for these vessels soon!
Wotta shame — what a lousy cryin’ shame. Oh the humanity.
Yuk, yuk, yuk…
But, one way or another the voting population will pay higher insurance premiums to offset this loss, while the electric/hybrid car industry stays silent about more fires, costs, the future harm and the favoured, immense subsidies.
The public has not been asked or properly informed.
Geoff S
Well, Geoff, look at the bright side.
All the lithium oxide introduced into the ocean from sunk EV-transporting cargo ships will neutralize the “ocean acidification” caused by our CO₂ emissions.
Here, we have the unique situation of progressives inadvertently solving a problem created by their own millennialist nightmares.
Pat Frank: Your optimism is inspiring! I see the bright side here as well, better EVs immolate a ship at sea instead of reaching the destination, where a high rise dwelling might get torched.
Or they’ll just charge 10 times as much- which of course will drive up the price for EVs.
Highly conductive seawater and batteries. What could go wrong?
Put that in your actuarial tables and smoke it!
OMG 3000 vehicles, I wonder if/when/how it will be salvaged. $$$!
If they can’t put it out and the thing sinks, are there pollution dangers here?
The ocean is big. In time, it will dissolve all without trace.
Over time, but the local toxic pollution will do harm.
But there is nobody close. It is 500 miles away from some probably uninhabited Alaska island.
The Pacific Ocean is HUGE. The solution to this pollution is dilution. I doubt it will even be detectable in shallow water near the coasts.
At a seminar once, I heard Pief Panofsky say exactly that as the solution to nuclear waste.
He said to dump it in the Marianas Trench. It’d dilute out, and be undetectable above background.
He went on to say that the only problem with the idea was political.
Yeah, but then, Godzilla…
I dunno. When cores at Fukushima melted down and released contamination into the sea, they were able to detect it in the seawater off the California coast a while later. Lots of dilution available between Japan and California. Of course, you can find almost anything if you count it long enough…..
The equipment used to detect a couple of atoms of radioactive isotopes in a cubic meter of seawater is pretty amazing. This would not have been detectable two decades ago.
We live in a radioactive environment. Always have. Very low levels of radioactivity can be safely ignored. My phone and granite counter tops emit more radiation than those few atoms. Anyone flying in a plane gets a non-trivial dose from the Sun and cosmic rays.
And if it is detectable near a coast- we’ll be sure to put the blame where it belongs- on the climate emergency nut jobs demanding we all drive EVs.
During the last two world wars, thousands of ships were sunk.
No. The plastics all burn up before they can pollute the ocean. There has never been any report of burned plastics found floating in the Pacific gyre the size of Texas.
Flotsam or jetsam?
Plastic floats but it might be bolted to something heavier. Also I doubt the detail level of visual inspection on a Texas-sized collection of straws and empty soda bottles.
(it would be fun to build a frequency distribution of soda bottles by brand. The kind of science no one caes about.)
Flotsam is correct.
Almost all of the plastic in the Pacific Ocean is micro plastics. Plastic breaks down rapidly in sun and salt water. Also it almost entirely comes from 8 Asian Pacific rim countries…virtually none from the U.S.
You are not following the narrative. And you are using facts.
Thanks. I bought the story that it was “our fault” and wondered how Californians could be to blame. LA looks like a s— hole to me but my mental image of the coast looks more like the tourist boat to Alcatraz or Candlestick Park, quaint and tidy.
It’s the fault of the imposers of recycling.
If waste plastic was bundled and incinerated as it was 50 years ago, there’d be no microplastics at all.
The eNGOs are entirely responsible for microplastics. Blame them.
Good point, Vlad.
Plastic breaks down rapidly in sun and salt water
It’s impossible to convince many people of this.
Also, I’ve read that there is now a microorganism that’s evolved to “eat” plastic.
Motor oil, gasoline, all kinds of exotic chemicals-but no, no pollution. sarc.
Those hydrocarbon oils will be lapped up and metabolised by marine bacteria, as happens naturally at undersea petroleum seeps.
Live in a cave and go hunting for food. Sarc.
Sarcasm is noted.
Has a couple thousand tons of fuel oil on board
Microbes will consume that.
more food for the food chain!
The net effect would likely be a generation of fish and crabs whose rate of clinical depression was slightly lower than average.
If they don’t go “trans species.”
They have to stay away from the ship until the fire goes out. Undoubtedly the fire will result in a twisted mass of scrap metal on the bottom of the Pacific. It will not be worth the cost of salvage.
“no one is suggesting that lithium-ion batteries be banned.”
Well they are banned from checked baggage on airplanes.
One might respond to quote:
“why not?”
Better check with Moss Landing CA residents who just filed a cease and desist lawsuit against PGE and Vistra, both of who’s battery facilities spontaneously burst into flames.
Remember, all this is happening because democrats want to “Save the Earth”.
…and in some car parks as well.
And buses.
And trains in GB in anything other than a mobile phone or a laptop.
Give them time…
EVs and their batteries are already banned in underground car parks in China and under the UK’s Parliament.
True. If only Guy Fawkes had waited a few centuries!
I think we are up to 3 abandoned cargo ships on fire in the last couple of years, aren’t we?
To put that into perspective globally about 2 cargo ships are lost every week. So losing 3 to electric battery fires in 2 years is hardly surprising.
Swing, and a miss.
Well, all 3 were car carriers and there aren’t all that many of those.
How many were lost due to a fire started by the cargo?
There are still many cargo vessels that started life during or before WWII.
Yes, but they aren’t carrying lithium-ion batteries as part of the cargo.
As usual for Izaak, a complete apples and oranges comparison.
Compare the age and condition of the vast majority of the maritime fleet, vs the these ships that are built specifically to carry vehicles.
One day, if the money is right, Izaak will decide to do science.
Two every week make 100+ a year.
But there are other reasons for these losses, not only fire.
Plus there are vessels of different size.
Over the past five years, 64 ships have been lost to fires. This is <13 per year, one every 4 weeks. Most of these 64 are medium and small size, not anything like Felicity Ace or Midas Morning. Losses of such large ships are very rare.
But fire accidents are on the rise, and hazardous materials are #1 cause.
To make a valid comparison, one needs to look at large car carries only.
Its an interesting comment because it is typical of the kind of thinking that has gone into net zero planning and implementation in the English speaking world. Vague generalizations which are supposed to satisfy the inquirer but which have no bearing on the problem. Literary criticism when what is needed is engineering.
The question really is, how many car carrying ships are lost annually to fires which start in the vehicles. But the comment produces an irrelevant statistic and draws a false conclusion from it.
See also:
+10
“While it’s difficult to pinpoint an exact number of cargo ships sinking annually, estimates suggest that around 26 large ships are totally lost each year. This includes all types of ships, not just cargo ships.”
Your figure is a bit off, at least by a factor of four. And the real question is, what is the rate of EV-carrying cargo ships sinking?
You can’t just make up your statistics, Izaak.
There are approximately 110,000 cargo ships worldwide. On average, fewer than one cargo ship is lost per week globally (0.05%).
To put that into perspective, globally, there are approximately 750-800 car carriers, so losing 3 in a couple of years is not insignificant (0.25%).
The real statistic of interest would be, in car carriers, ship losses
versus
I doubt its available, as more and more car carriers will be carrying a mix so there will be fewer and fewer carrying only ICE.
As to whether EVs are a greater fire risk than ICE? Don’t know, but certainly the costs are far greater because of the difficulty of control, and the kind of breakout is probably different. I would not keep one in a garage attached to a house because why take the chance of a fire which is almost guaranteed to burn the house down, and which can break out at any time for no obvious reason? Certainly would never charge an EV in such a garage. However rare, why take such a chance? Its like not looking at a train level crossing on the grounds that there are very few trains on this route.
Yes, and if there is one this time? And if, for a society, there are millions of the things in garages and car parks all over the country? The low odds of it happening will not help you then.
0.25% is 5 times the average of 0.05%. A 400% increase is not insignificant.
That’s ok then.
Mr. Walton: Thanks for a splendid example of How To Lie With Statistics. If you include the SS Minnow in your “lost ships” count (did not return from three-hour-tour in mid-sixties), why, this is just another lost ship that we must not talk about.
2013-2022 cargo ship losses total 311, over 468 weeks. That’s less than half of your claim
https://www.statista.com/statistics/236250/looses-of-ships-worldwide/
2024 total ship losses were 27, so about one every 2 weeks. Most due to sinking, not fire.
So I would be curious as to the source of your “2 per week” claim.
Do you remember Bill McKibbens’ “This Rump is Temporarily Closed” sign?
So far, no mention of it on Drudge Maybe I will check later.
Google search on “Morning Midas” [News] only turned up 9 pages that included the following well known names:
New York Times, Washington post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, News Week, ABC News, Bloomberg & The Times
Missing:
CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, REUTERS, MSNB & Drudge etc.
Why am I not surprised?
_____________________
On edit, Drudge still silent.
It must be tough for them. On the one hand they can poke an enemy’s business, on the other hand they will have to go negative on a platform they supported to do it. This minor incident is a proxy vote for who’s ready admit defeat and to move on to the next war. It sounds easy but the unnamed team has to drag a few generations of warriors educated for the old fight into a new fight armed with the wrong tools.
Reuters and CNN have appeared in my Google now.
So what will be “the next thing” if they abandon NZ?
If they abandon New Zealand ? ? ?
Sure, where would they film Tolkien movies without Net Zero?
Not just Net Zero – when will Climate Change and CAGW be abandoned?
“Lithium-ion batteries are increasingly impacting shipping safety, with a number of fires. The issue raises questions for the design and firefighting capabilities of ro-ro vessels carrying electric vehicles (EVs), as well as the declaration, stowage and packaging of battery container cargoes.”
https://commercial.allianz.com/news-and-insights/expert-risk-articles/shipping-safety-22-losses.html
Ah, so it’s the ship’s fault. Thanks for clarifying that.
Would a brave shipmate be willing to Dukes-of-Hazard the first smoky car off the back deck into the Bering Strait if given a time machine?
The Bering Straits are some of the most dangerous waters in the world. It would be insanely immoral and absolutely idiotic to risk any injury to a human being in order to salvage a bunch of golf carts.
That is not my opinion. It is the opinion of “Allianz SE … a German multinational financial services company headquartered in Munich, Germany. Its core businesses are insurance and asset management. Allianz is the world’s largest insurance company and the largest financial services company in Europe.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allianz
I am a retired lawyer, not a marine architect. But, I was professionally involved in the insurance business and taught Insurance Law at a T14 law school. I do know enough about the insurance industry to know that Allianz’s opinions are worthy of a few billion dollars worth of respect.
They could defuze a lot of the problem by requiring the the batteries be down to a few percentage of charge before driving the cars aboard.
Is that so?
Batteries in transit are discharged. However, they are not bled dry as that would render the battery both useless and dangerous during recharging at the destination.
It is not the charge that is the issue. It is the chemistry.
“caught fire June 3 off the coast of Alaska” … “watching from a safe distance because of the risk that lithium-ion batteries in the cars could explode” … and is still burning?
“In 2022, the Felicity Ace, … a fire onboard burned for nearly two weeks.”
“Abandoned Morning Midas still burning, salvage tugs four days away”
For some strange reason, the word “boondoggle” comes to mind.
Lithium.
https://www.espimetals.com/technical-data/102-Lithium-%20Safe%20Handling
Almost as much fun as phosphorus.
Wait until the first battery electric cargo ship goes up.
If you are looking forward to that, let me tell you about the hybrid cruise ships already on the seas. Hurtigruten cruises, out of Norway, already have hybrid ships, that have large battery banks aboard. their claim to fame is sustainability. No thanks. Although I was on a ship docked next to one or two of those hybrids. Maybe that wasn’t a good idea either.
According to the IEA Norway also has three liquid hydrogen fuel ferries in operation also. Give them a miss too!
We have hybrid diesel electric locomotives.
What is missing is that I said battery electric, not hybrid.
Also, do you know the battery technology used in those cruise ships.
I should have clarified my post by including Li ion in the post.
I apologize for the omission.
Or an apartment building with underground parking.
China.
Part of the pollution will be from fuel oil on the ship, if it doesn’t go up in smoke along with the rest of the ship. But the IMO and EcoNuts have a solution to that too. Methanol! More specifically, E-Methanol, or methanol from “Excess Power”. The IMO is mandating that vessels convert to methanol as fuel to reduce PM and SOx emissions that come from burning bunker fuel. But to be Eco-Smart, this has to be MeOH from electrolysis of water using the so-called excess power from wind turbines and solar fields that generate more power than the grid can absorb.
What a concept. Making fuel from “free” energy. All well and good except for the nagging details.
Electrolyzers want to operate continuously and don’t react well to massive thermal cycles.
H2 from intermittent power is by definition also intermittent. But the conversion of H2 into MeOH is a continuous process, so H2 must be stored in massive quantities to supply the system continuously.
MeOH has about 45% the energy density of fuel oil so more than 2X the volume if needed for the same power output
MeOH is water soluble so can’t ballast the fuel tank with seawater as fuel is consumed.
MeOH is toxic and will disperse quickly if a ship sinks with unknown toxicity to fish.
Much like the auto industry, much money will be wasted pursuing Green Agendas only to find that they are only Unicorn Farts and will die a horrible death in the light of reality.
They could add WV and WTG arrays to those ships to help recharge the batteries.
Wile E. Coyote has the plans. I am certain he would sell the intellictual property rights and associated patents.
WEC is a licensee only. The patents belong to Acme.
In the meantime…it gets even better 🙂
No injuries when fire erupts at Philadelphia transit lot filled with decommissioned buses | Watch
“A fire erupted at a transit bus lot in Philadelphia filled with dozens of decommissioned vehicles. The Thursday blaze did not cause any injuries, and burned for nearly two hours before it was declared under control.”
According to ChatGPT,
“The decommissioned buses involved in the fire were part of a fleet of 25 battery-electric buses purchased by SEPTA from Proterra in 2016.These buses were deployed on routes 29 and 79 in 2017 as part of a pilot program aimed at reducing emissions.”
And battery fires were one of the reasons for decommissioning.
“However, the buses were pulled from service in February 2020 due to structural issues, including cracks in the composite chassis and failures in equipment brackets. Additionally, a battery fire involving one of these buses at a SEPTA depot raised further concerns about their safety and reliability.”
However, the fact the fire was under control after just two hours of burning makes me doubt it was Li ion battery fire.
I saw that fire on television. I wondered if they were electric buses, but the news report didn’t mention that particular fact. Now, I know. 🙂
I also saw that and my first thought also was the fire was put out rather quickly for a lithium battery fire.
According to Wiki, some of those buses may have had lithium titanium chemistry batteries.
EVs should be placed on a catapult and the auto should have a sensor to detect when it begins to heat (or whatever it is they do initially). When the alert happens, the release of the torsion energy should throw the suspect EV out and away from the ship.
In port, precautions would be needed.
They should have a top deck for all EVs and plug-in hybrids, which can be lifted by hydraulic cylinders when fully loaded high enough that all cars on that deck, even with brakes apied, will slide off into the ocean.
Upon the first sign that any of the cars is self-immolating, push a button and unload the lot of them.
Ship High In Transit.
I prefer to trust physics and gravity. Transport EVs on platforms suspended over the side of the cargo ship using nylon ropes. If there is a fire, the rope starts weakening at 200 degrees F and burns at 428 degrees F. At some point within that range the ropes will fail and the cars will plummet into the ocean. Continue on to the next port of call with the rest of your cargo.
Look to the technology on aircraft carriers. They have managed to drop a few jets overboard lately.
OT.
Slight drop in UAH for May.. down to +0.5C
It they were treated like the hazardous material they are, it would amount to ban in many situations.
By not treating them as the hazmat materials they are is criminal negligence.
Hey, can watch the heat signature in almost real time! Try this link to NASA FIRMS. Must be hot considering it’s pretty cloudy
NASA | LANCE | FIRMS
It was there. It’s 1735 PST DST and I don’t see it.
It shows up as heat on Zoom Earth, but not on FIRMS. I’d say it still afloat, and burning.
Lithium metal reacts vigorously with water, to produce hydrogen gas and lithium oxide. Finely divided lithium reacts explosively with water. Hot lithium and heated water – well you can imagine.
If the onboard suppression systems aboard the good ship Morning Midas were water-based, they’d have done nothing except promote the fire.
Undergraduate chemists are taught that the only way to extinguish an alkali metal fire is by smothering, typically under a heap of sand.
One can suppose that the onboard suppression systems aboard the good ship Morning Midas did not consist of 100 tons of sand.
Lithium and water
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Wq1J8n_gmN4?feature=share
Actually, even sand (mostly silicon dioxide) doesn’t work well with lithium fires since it is reduced to elemental silicon by the metal. Only argon can be used to suppress a lithium fire as lithium reacts vigorously with the usual blanketing gases CO2 and nitrogen.
I have seen a lithium fire in a laboratory. The burning metal cut through borosilicate glass in seconds. Metallic sodium and potassium are tame in comparison.
It doesn’t matter what was in the extinguishing system of the ship. Water, foam, gas, whatever. Lithium is the most radical metal element existing on earth (place 3 in PSE and alkali metal with one very reactive electron!). With its unsurpassable reaction potential it rips out the reaction partner (mostly oxygen) of any other chemical compound.
It can’t be extinguished. Also the heap of sand isn’t really extinguishing Lithium fire. The Lithium keeps on burning in the heap by ripping the oxygen from the sand (which is SiO2). The fire is just contained by the overload of sand, where the comparable small amount of Lithium is spent before it can burn through.
The idea is to cool the batteries with water and that supposedly causes the thermal runaway to back off and that allegedly leads to the batteries stopping burning. Funny how they burn as long without the cooling as with. Maybe the fire likes the fuel?
Yes, Pat. Correct on all points. I have been dealing with lithium batteries of many different chemistries for 45 years.
The spontaneous combustion of Lithium-Ion batteries is very tragic and is a major problem for this type of technology. However, technology does progress, and there are alternatives which are much safer.
The leading contender is the Sodium-Ion battery which doesn’t rely upon expensive Lithium and rare earth metals, and is therefore not only cheaper but much safer.
The disadvantage, so far, has been the lower energy density of Sodium-Ion batteries. However, this is about to change. The Chinese battery maker CATL has designed a new type of battery called Naxtra, which achieves an energy density of 175 Wh/kg, which is comparable to LFP batteries. The company is currently building a factory to mass-produce these batteries, which will be in operation by December this year.
Here’s a site which provides some basic details.
https://afma.org.au/new-sodium-ion-batteries-to-power-cheaper-safer-evs-by-end-of-2025/
Below are some major points from the article.
“Electric vehicles (EVs) are about to become more affordable and safer, thanks to a new type of battery. Chinese battery maker CATL plans to start mass-producing its sodium-ion batteries, called Naxtra, by December 2025.”
“One of the standout features of CATL’s sodium-ion batteries is their performance in cold temperatures. The Naxtra batteries can charge from 30 per cent to 80 per cent in just 30 minutes at -30°C. Even with only a 10 per cent charge, a car powered by these batteries can maintain a highway speed of 120 km/h.”
“Safety is another key advantage. The Naxtra batteries have passed rigorous tests, including compression, needle puncture, and even battery sawing, without catching fire or exploding. They are also built to last, capable of being charged over 10,000 times, equating to about five million kilometres of driving.”
Wow!! If this turns out to be true, then it’s ‘game, set and match’. ICE vehicles will become obsolete.
You can believe the Chinese. You can; I can’t. If they could develop new technology they wouldn’t be stealing everyone else’s. And they lie, big time.
At the very least those batteries will come with kill-switches, and you’ll be able to drive only if they let you.
Sodium reacts more vigorously with water than does lithium. I see no safety improvement with its use.
Sodium (atomic mass 23 g/mol) is also much heavier than lithium (atomic mass 7 g/mol), meaning that the battery must also be heavier.
Perhaps the Chinese have discovered an element even lighter and more electropositive than lithium…
That’s why it reacts so violently in the sea. Oh, wait….
That’s not the answer I get when searching Google with the question: “Are sodium-ion batteries exposed to water safer than lithium-ion batteries?”
I get the following answer:
“Yes, sodium-ion batteries exposed to water are generally considered safer than lithium-ion batteries in the same scenario. While both types can be damaged by water, sodium-ion batteries, particularly those using aqueous electrolytes, exhibit better water resistance and reduced risk of thermal runaway.”
Perhaps you can provide a link to some reliable research which shows this is not true.
How can a sodium battery use an aqueous electrolyte?
Just ask Google. To save you the trouble, I asked them. Here’s their response (AI assisted).
“A sodium battery can use an aqueous electrolyte, but it faces challenges due to the limited stability of water. The key is to find ways to widen the electrochemical stability window (ESW) of the electrolyte, which is the voltage range where the electrolyte remains stable without decomposition.
Here’s how this can be achieved:
1. Electrolyte Design and Modification:
Salt Concentration:
The ratio of water to salt can affect the ESW. For instance, researchers have found ACS Publications that when the water-to-salt molar ratio in a sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide based aqueous electrolyte is below 2:1, the ESW can expand to up to 2.6 V.
Salt Type:
Different salts have varying effects on the ESW. Sodium perchlorate (NaClO4) and sodium hexafluorophosphate (NaPF6) are common in non-aqueous systems, but other salts like NaTFSI or NaFSI are also being investigated.
Additives:
Additives can further enhance performance. Examples include fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), which can improve low-temperature operation.
pH Control:
While the ESW itself may not be significantly affected by pH, controlling the pH can impact the stability of electrodes and the occurrence of side reactions like hydrogen evolution (HER) and oxygen evolution (OER).
2. Electrode Materials:
Anode:
Lowering the reduction potential of HER through pH control can enable the use of anode materials previously unavailable.
Cathode:
Coatings like Ni/C on the cathode can improve cycling stability and prevent electrode dissolution.
3. Other Strategies:
Water-in-Ionogel (WIG):
Confinement of water molecules in an ionogel network can lead to higher operational cell voltages and allow for lower salt concentrations, according to ScienceDirect.com.
Novel Electrolyte Systems:
Researchers are exploring new electrolyte systems, such as those using MgCl2 to lower the freezing point of aqueous electrolytes, allowing for low-temperature operation.
In Summary:
By carefully choosing electrolyte salts, using additives, and optimizing electrode materials, researchers are finding ways to widen the ESW of aqueous electrolytes in sodium batteries, making them a more viable option for energy storage. “
It could be true or it could just be another Chinese money grab.
Li-ion battery fires make it certain you do NOT want to keep your Tesla in your garage. Li-ion battery fires make it certain you do not wish live near places like Moss Landing in CA, not Fredrickton in MO. Now, Li-ion battery fires make it hazardous living near ports of entry or even large BEV sales lots (we had such a fire last year). The batteries in portable devices may be a bit safer since you throw it out a window- maybe. You are aware of the admonition to NOT leave batteries on charge. That was supposed to save energy, but in fact, it is to prevent fires since continually batteries can evolve gas and destroy your home.
All those little fire bombs!
Will it sink and be a total loss or float and be an interesting recovery hazard?
As a chemical engineer I just have to look at the picture of the burning ferry to know what caught fire. Massive white smoke is a typical indication of vigorous Lithium fire creating lots of white Lithiumoxide Li2O. While hydrocarbon fire (ships fuel) would result in dark black smoke due to lots of soot (especially when heavy oil burns).
And we are being mandated to put our families in these death trap cars.
Odd that this story is not in much of the MSM. A burning ship would have been a major news item once. Must be a ban on anything that makes battery cars look bad.
How long before ferries have to ban them?
Some ferries already do. If memory serves, one in Germany made the news a while back.
Better they burn now, before families are coerced into buying them. This is happening to brand new EV batteries which are not even being charged, when most explode during charging. Why are ferries still allowing these things on board with passengers?
i winder if there is a way that we could require the climate plutocrats to sail on each and every vessel carrying anything climate related or with lithium batteries to provide appropriate supervision and support for safety reasons. In the event a vessel catches fire, they should be left onboard in charge with a rowboat that could be launched only at the last minute. This will allow them to make an appropriate contribution to the field that they force everyone with a functioning brain to put up with.
Perhaps the solution is to transport uncharged EVs.
Charging an uncharged Li ion is particularly dangerous and if you succeed, the battery capacity/life is degraded.
It is not the charge. It is the chemistry.
First up just like new ICE cars EVs off the line require running and testing for quality control and that also allows them to be driven on and off trucks and ships. Apparently it costs $5000USD per car to ship by sea now and the logistics of non drivable cars would see that soar on top of the insurance premium hikes coming both for the cars and their RoRo carrier.
In any case if say a quarter charged brand new EV can’t safely negotiate a typical export sea journey should they really be regarded as sound and merchantable quality for consumers when they arrive? What chance old banger EVs on dual purpose passenger ferries is the next obvious question.
The CCP’s central planners may have made a typical huge costly Groupthink error they’re covering up for as usual along with our lickspittle watermelon media-
China’s 3,000 New Cars Catch Fire in the Pacific, Destroying the Entire Ship, 800 EVs Are Bombs
The CCP’s Build Your Dreams with surplus value from the masses doubles down on the Groupthink-
BYD’s fourth car carrier ship is the largest to date – electrive.com