This is another concern about shipping EV’s with their potentially flammable batteries. I also wonder if trying to put this fire out with water, possibly salt water, caused the fires to burn hotter.
I understand that new solid state batteries are coming soon that offer much better ranges, faster charging times, and very little chance of fire or explosion. I think that this is going to be a requirement for more widespread adoption of EVs. Many parking garages do not allow EVs due to fire risk and some cargo carriers are not allowing them as mentioned in this article.
I am surprised that ship did not sink with that amount of fire damage. It looks like the damage was mostly near the top. If lower down in the hull, I don’t think it would have fared well at all. Even now I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t declared a total loss and scrapped.
They didn’t try to put the fires out. Firefighters knew they couldn’t. The water was to try to keep the hull cool to save the ship. The last ship that had burning EVs collapsed and sank while being towed into port once the fire burned itself out.
I’d suggest the ships put EVs on the top deck and leave enough room to push them overboard if they catch fire. And charge them more, of course.
There is no proof an EV started the fire but if they catch fire, they won’t stop burning until they consume themselves.
My understanding was that it was an ev that caught fire. It was interesting though that the total number of ev’s on board was under counted. I wonder if this might have to do with higher cargo insurance rates.
An EV catchung is likely but not proven. No one can get close enough to investigate and likely the evidence is ash.
I saw a news report from Jacksonville of a Mercedes Benz EV given to a customer as a loaner while her Merc was being serviced burst into flames. It was not being charged but it burnt their house to a total loss.
I saw another news story where a Tesla randomly caught fire while driving down the road. It took the firefighters hours to put it out and they finally had to dig a pit and fill it with water to put it out. I wonder if different chemicals will be required for fire depts in the future to deal with reactive metal fires.
This makes sense. Keep the hull cool and prevent buckling until the fire is out. Fires on ships are a bad deal and send many to the bottom.
They might have to design ships for EV transport with large hydraulic pushers to just push many burning cars overboard at the press of a button or TWO buttons across the control room so two people must activate them at the same time to prevent and accidental activation. If stored below decks but not too close to the waterline, they could design sections that could be blown out with explosives for this purpose to create an opening to push the burning cargo overboard. I am not a naval engineer and there might be other problems I don’t see. Opening up a source of air for combustion just might be one such concern.
The numbers were all over the place, maybe in my mind because they didn’t report the full hazard for insurance. At any rate it appears there were over 300 electrics on board. Ive been on car ferries before, before electrics, but I would sure want to know if one was on board before I got on board. It can be kinda lonely out there in the middle of the lake.
Another fire. I guess the battery was damaged in an accident which is another concern with current EV designs. I guess the LiFePO4 batteries are a lot more stable but have a much lesser capacity for the same weight and size of battery. I am hoping the newfangled solid state batteries solve both problems and eventually end up in phones, laptops, and other tech products as it sounds like they are about double the capacity for the same size and weight.
It seems to me digging a pit would only be good for a very small percentage of the fires depending on location somebody needs to be working on a snuffer like the candle snuffers of old.
Yes, it seems that exposing burning reactive metals to water isn’t the best way to put them out. I wonder if some type of nozzle could be used to penetrate the battery compartment area and fill it with some type of inert foam.
The older standard range Model 3 has an EPA range of 220 miles and the 2023 has a range of 272 miles. While the LFP battery has a slightly lower charge density compared to the older Li-ion battery the range is easily increased by providing more battery.