Batteries from electric vehicles catch ship on fire

[YouSayPotato]

Burning Electric-Vehicle Batteries Complicate Efforts to Fight Fire on Drifting Ship in Atlantic Ocean​

The incident could raise questions about the safety of ferrying EVs over long distances at sea​

The Felicity Ace, a cargo ship carrying thousands of cars including Porsches and Bentleys to the port of Davisville, R.I., caught fire last week and was adrift in the mid-Atlantic. Burning electric vehicle batteries complicated efforts to battle the blaze.
By William Boston Wall Street Journal
Updated Feb. 20, 2022

The large number of electric vehicles on board a ship that is drifting ablaze in the Atlantic Ocean is complicating efforts to extinguish the fire, the Dutch experts contracted to salvage the vessel said Sunday.
It is unclear whether the blaze was caused by the electric cars, whose lithium-ion batteries have been known to catch fire, but the presence of burning batteries on board means SMIT Salvage, the company contracted to rescue the ship, is facing fire that spreads fast and cannot be fought with water alone, the company’s owners said.

“The cars are electric and part of the fire is the batteries that are still burning,” said a spokesman for Royal Boskalis Westminster NV, which owns SMIT Salvage and the company that freed the ship Ever Given after it became stranded in the Suez Canal last year. The spokesman added that it was too early to say how SMIT would put out the battery fires.

The 60,000-ton Felicity Ace merchant ship was carrying around 4,000 cars from Germany to the U.S., including 1,100 Porsche sports cars and 189 super-luxury Bentleys, which are all units of Volkswagen AG, when it caught fire last Wednesday, leading to the evacuation of the 22 crew members. It has been drifting just off the Azores islands since. The fire is the latest in a string of supply-chain setbacks to befall an auto industry that has faced production bottlenecks due to a shortage of components and Covid-19-related disruptions to international-trade routes.

Although it will be months before the cause of the fire is known, the blaze on the Felicity Ace, one of the first major fires during a transport of electric vehicles, also raises questions about how to safely transport such vehicles in the future.

The fire on the Felicity Ace led to the evacuation of the 22 crew members. The ship has been drifting just off the Azores.​

For days, spokesmen for the car makers have declined to provide details to the public about the models on board the ship, but Portuguese navy officials monitoring the vessel and salvage workers fighting the blaze say based on cargo lists they have it is clear that many of the cars on board are electric vehicles. VW and its brands export electric models such as Porsche’s Taycan, Audi’s e-tron, and VW’s ID.4 from Germany for sale in the U.S.

“The fire continues to be active, although it has diminished in intensity,” said João Manuel Mendes Cabeças, captain of the nearest port on the island of Faial in the Azores. “The expectation is that everything or almost everything burned.” Over the weekend, SMIT Salvage piloted its Phor B tug boat to douse the sides of the boat with water as smoke continued to billow out of the decks high above. Footage of the scene showed the hull was bruised and scarred from the heat inside.

The Portuguese navy isn’t directly involved in efforts to quell the fire but is monitoring the ship at sea for signs of instability and leakage. Capt. Cabeças, who is coordinating the navy’s operation, told The Wall Street Journal that he spoke to the ship’s captain when he arrived on shore after the crew was rescued by the Portuguese air force.

According to the ship captain’s initial statements to Capt. Cabeças, alarms alerted the crew Wednesday morning to a fire on Deck 1, just above the main deck. Crew members rushed to Deck 1 but smoke prevented them from entering the cargo hold, Capt. Cabeças said. This prompted the captain to abandon the ship. The ship’s captain couldn't be reached for comment.

Among several commercial ships that came to assist the Felicity Ace was the Resilient Warrior, a Liberia-flagged 81,817-ton oil tanker, that was en route from Ingleside, Texas, to Rotterdam, Netherlands, according to a vessel-tracking site. The tanker took crew members on board to await rescue by the Portuguese air force.

The air force posted a video of the rescue operation on YouTube, showing its EH-101 Merlin helicopter lifting the Felicity Ace crew members off the deck into the aircraft. They were removed from the Resilient Warrior in two groups of 11 and taken to the island of Faial.

 

[TheGunner]

I wondered why this wasn’t getting a lot of media coverage.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Solution is to ban electric cars I guess.

 

[YouSayPotato]

Solution is to ban electric cars I guess.

The solution is to tap on the brakes regarding this "climate-change-all-mankind-will-die-must-stop-gasoline-cars" mentality. Internal combustion cars are not operating 94% of the time. By far the greatest contributers of greenhouse gases are fossil fuel power plants, and the obvious resolution is nuclear power.

And if all of America switches to Teslas tomorrow, the reality is that most of Asia, Africa and Latin America will continue churning out greenhouses with impunity well into the 22nd Century.

 

[kvc]

"Cause of fire unknown," is what I read in this article. It is possible that a battery caused fire, but not known at this time. Car fires are notoriously hard to put out once they are ablaze. I imagine electric cars even more so.

 

[kvc]

"Cause of fire unknown," is what I read in this article. It is possible that a battery caused fire, but not known at this time. Car fires are notoriously hard to put out once they are ablaze. I imagine electric cars even more so.

Need to buy... "Made in the USA"

 

[SKYDOG]

Need to buy... "Made in the USA"

No EV cars for me made anywhere.

 

[YouSayPotato]

No EV cars for me made anywhere.

20% of EV buyers switch back to gasoline cars.

20% go back to ICE

 

[YouSayPotato]

There is also that pesky problem when you are recharging your EV inside your garage and it catches on fire and burns the house down while the family is sleeping in bed. Fortunately, there is now a solution for this.

A new company, Promat, installs silica-concrete bunkers inside your garage to contain the blaze. No, I'm not making this up. Promat is actually selling boxes made of fire-proof silicon-concrete that fit inside your garage. The EV is then parked inside the box for recharging. If the car catches on fire, the concrete box contains the flames and the house does not burn down.

Promat

 

[Droid12345]

20% of EV buyers switch back to gasoline cars.

20% go back to ICE

Two things:

1. 80% of EV buyers keep their EV
2. The issue raised in the article is about availability of options for charging the cars, especially the lack of 240v outlets in homes. That's an infrastructure problem, not anything inherently wrong with EVs. Essentially, this would be like posting an article that people were switching back to horse and buggy from horseless carriages because of a lack of gas stations as evidence that cars were not going to catch on.

 

[BuilderBob6]

The solution is to tap on the brakes regarding this "climate-change-all-mankind-will-die-must-stop-gasoline-cars" mentality. Internal combustion cars are not operating 94% of the time. By far the greatest contributers of greenhouse gases are fossil fuel power plants, and the obvious resolution is nuclear power.

And if all of America switches to Teslas tomorrow, the reality is that most of Asia, Africa and Latin America will continue churning out greenhouses with impunity well into the 22nd Century.

Then SAY that, don't post some BS article trying to imply electric cars are bad because a ship caught on fire.

You really want to have a conversation about deaths from oil or coal exploration, production, transportation and storage? The cost to the environment, cost in healthcare, cost of subsidies.

Change has to start somewhere.......and we have to change eventually. Thanks to technology we found shale oil, what happens when that's gone?

If the government starts mandating everyone drive an electric vehicle give me a heads up.

 

[YouSayPotato]

Then SAY that, don't post some BS article trying to imply electric cars are bad because a ship caught on fire.

You really want to have a conversation about deaths from oil or coal exploration, production, transportation and storage? The cost to the environment, cost in healthcare, cost of subsidies.

Change has to start somewhere.......and we have to change eventually. Thanks to technology we found shale oil, what happens when that's gone?

If the government starts mandating everyone drive an electric vehicle give me a heads up.

It appears you are brain-dead regarding cellulosic ethanol. We should be switching to flex-fuel like Brazil has done but instead of using glucose from sugar cane, using cellulose from corn stalks, roots and cobs.

Cellulosic ethanol

 

[BuilderBob6]

It appears you are brain-dead regarding cellulosic ethanol. We should be switching to flex-fuel like Brazil has done but instead of using glucose from sugar cane, using cellulose from corn stalks, roots and cobs.

Cellulosic ethanol

So you just........come out of left field with something completely different, and be a dick about it, when you don't want to reply?

Ethanol is simply an additive, it doesn't solve an energy problem. You think the ethanol we've used for 15 years makes sense? It's freakin Iowa, that's why we use it, among other dumb reasons.

 

[SKYDOG]

It’s amazing how much better mileage you get when traveling out west without ethanol in the gas. Seems like such an easy solution to burn less fossil fuel when driving. Stop putting corn mixed with gas and it makes a big difference. I know it employs some people at ethanol plants, but come on.

 

[YouSayPotato]

So you just........come out of left field with something completely different, and be a dick about it, when you don't want to reply?

Ethanol is simply an additive, it doesn't solve an energy problem. You think the ethanol we've used for 15 years makes sense? It's freakin Iowa, that's why we use it, among other dumb reasons.

OK, who started being nasty in this thread? Scroll up and read your words: ". . . post some BS article . . ."

Ethanol is not an additive, it is fuel. In Brazil, many vehicles can run on 100% ethanol and the flex-fuel vehicles in that country can run on any combination of gasoline and ethanol. They use sugarcane but the technology is now available to ferment all five sugar molecules that compose cellulose. This means that instead of using corn kernels, we can now make ethanol from the cobs, stalks, roots and leaves that are now left in the fields to decay. Or we could use autumn leaves, lawn trimmings, weeds or lumber waste.

Cellulosic ethanol

 

[delarno]

20% of EV buyers switch back to gasoline cars.

20% go back to ICE

I have a Tesla and it is by far the best and most fun car I have ever had. I will never go back to an ICE vehicle unless I needed a good Pickup Truck which I don't think there are viable EV options for right now.

 

[YouSayPotato]

Some updates on cellulosic ethanol production: Cellulosic ethanol

Cellulosic ethanol production

From the EU: Cellulosic ethanol EU

 

[YouSayPotato]

And she sinks . . .

4000 cars into the sea

 

[YouSayPotato]

Essentially, this would be like posting an article that people were switching back to horse and buggy from horseless carriages because of a lack of gas stations as evidence that cars were not going to catch on.

Totally broken analogy. Going from horse and buggy to horseless carriages to internal combustion engines was a giantic leap forward in technology that brought about a staggering enhancement in civilization - agriculture, economy, aviation, on and on. Going from internal combustion engines to EVs accomplishes nothing for society.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Two things:

1. 80% of EV buyers keep their EV
2. The issue raised in the article is about availability of options for charging the cars, especially the lack of 240v outlets in homes. That's an infrastructure problem, not anything inherently wrong with EVs. Essentially, this would be like posting an article that people were switching back to horse and buggy from horseless carriages because of a lack of gas stations as evidence that cars were not going to catch on.

There have been multiple fires in electric vehicles, some that have caused deaths. I'd ride a bicycle before I'd drive one.

 

[Droid12345]

There have been multiple fires in electric vehicles, some that have caused deaths. I'd ride a bicycle before I'd drive one.

Apparently, gasoline cars catch fire about 60x as often as EVs. If your primary concern in choosing a vehicle is fire safety, the choice is clear.

Gas vs. Electric Car Fires [2023 Findings] | AutoinsuranceEZ.com

Auto fires result in hundreds of fatalities every year and millions of car recalls. Click here to see hybrid, gas, and electric car fire statistics.

www.autoinsuranceez.com

 

[YouSayPotato]

Apparently, gasoline cars catch fire about 60x as often as EVs.

True but highly misleading. Gasoline cars catch fire when they are turned on and running, usually following an accident. EVs can catch on fire when they are in the garage at night and can then burn the house down, occupants included.

There is now a company called Promat that makes 'safe boxes' for EVs in garages. It's a silica/concrete box to put your EV into while recharging. If it catches on fire, it won't burn the house down.

Promat Safe Boxes

 

[SKYDOG]

Apparently, gasoline cars catch fire about 60x as often as EVs. If your primary concern in choosing a vehicle is fire safety, the choice is clear.

Gas vs. Electric Car Fires [2023 Findings] | AutoinsuranceEZ.com

Auto fires result in hundreds of fatalities every year and millions of car recalls. Click here to see hybrid, gas, and electric car fire statistics.

www.autoinsuranceez.com

That’s more than likely due to the shear number and age of gasoline cars. Very few EV vehicles out there to make that point.

 

[Droid12345]

True but highly misleading. Gasoline cars catch fire when they are turned on and running, usually following an accident. EVs can catch on fire when they are in the garage at night and can then burn the house down, occupants included.

There is now a company called Promat that makes 'safe boxes' for EVs in garages. It's a silica/concrete box to put your EV into while recharging. If it catches on fire, it won't burn the house down.

Promat Safe Boxes

Regardless of cause, EVs catch fire way less often. But, since you bring up garage fires, that can happen to gasoline cars, too:

If you own one of these cars, vans or SUVs, don’t park them in a garage, automaker says

Both Hyundai Motors America and Kia Motors America are instructing owners of some vehicle models to stay away from certain places due to recalls.

www.clickorlando.com

 

[YouSayPotato]

Regardless of cause, EVs catch fire way less often. But, since you bring up garage fires, that can happen to gasoline cars, too:

The fire risk in those cars was due to faulty anti-lock brake systems. It had nothing to do with ICE vs EV.

 

[Droid12345]

That’s more than likely due to the shear number and age of gasoline cars. Very few EV vehicles out there to make that point.

If you read the article I posted, you'll see they controlled for the number of vehicles. If we just go with raw numbers, there are about 4,000x more vehicle fires among gasoline cars than EVs.

That said, they used fires/car sold as their metric, which is maybe not the best. If, instead, we look at all cars on the road, there are about 290-ish million cars in the us, 2 million of which are EVs. The original data shows 52 fires in EVs and 200,000 among ICE cars. Giving ICEs the best chance by assuming all of the 288 million ICE cars (there are fewer, because we haven't accounted for hybrids), then there are .026 fires/1,000 EVs and .692 fires/1,000 ICE vehicles. So, it's actually closer than I initially stated, ICE cars are only 26x more likely to catch fire than EVs.

 

[Droid12345]

The fire risk in those cars was due to faulty anti-lock brake systems. It had nothing to do with ICE vs EV.

And EV fires are largely due to faulty batteries. So, in both kinds of cars, manufacturing or design mistakes can lead to fire risk. But, that said, you don't think a short circuit in the ABS system is more likely to ignite gasoline than a battery? Both types of cars could have the same defect, but have differing fire risks because of said defect. And faulty ABS is not the only reason an ICE car might catch fire in a garage.

Attached Garage Fire Hazards

Attached garage fire hazards.

www.nachi.org

But, even if I grant that EVs are more likely to catch fire in your garage than ICE cars (which doesn't seem to actually be true), ICE cars are more likely to catch fire in an accident. ICE cars have to go to gas stations, which are fire hazards.

The overall risk of fire was significantly lower in an EV than an ICE car. There are plenty of reasons to not like EVs, and fires that do occur are notoriously difficult to extinguish (perhaps this is why Promat is making safe boxes, or, more likely, they see a way to capitalize on people's fears of EV fires). But, if you're going to choose a car based on which is least likely to catch on fire during its lifetime, it appears EV is the way to go.

 

[SKYDOG]

If you read the article I posted, you'll see they controlled for the number of vehicles. If we just go with raw numbers, there are about 4,000x more vehicle fires among gasoline cars than EVs.

That said, they used fires/car sold as their metric, which is maybe not the best. If, instead, we look at all cars on the road, there are about 290-ish million cars in the us, 2 million of which are EVs. The original data shows 52 fires in EVs and 200,000 among ICE cars. Giving ICEs the best chance by assuming all of the 288 million ICE cars (there are fewer, because we haven't accounted for hybrids), then there are .026 fires/1,000 EVs and .692 fires/1,000 ICE vehicles. So, it's actually closer than I initially stated, ICE cars are only 26x more likely to catch fire than EVs.

The article can’t take in effect the age of the vehicles as the EV market is so new. I just don’t accept the comparison at this time.

 

[YouSayPotato]

And the EVs that catch fire are due to faulty battery systems. Risk of fire is risk of fire. But faulty ABS is not the only reason an ICE car could catch fire in a garage.

But, even if I grant that EVs are more likely to catch fire in your garage than ICE cars (which doesn't seem to actually be true), ICE cars are more likely to catch fire in an accident. ICE cars have to go to gas stations, which are fire hazards.

The overall risk of fire was significantly lower in an EV than an ICE car. There are plenty of reasons to not like EVs, and fires that do occur are notoriously difficult to extinguish (perhaps this is why Promat is making safe boxes, or, more likely, they see a way to capitalize on people's fears of EV fires). But, if you're going to choose a car based on which is least likely to catch on fire during its lifetime, it appears EV is the way to go.

That was a fairly balanced analysis but it still ignores the long-term risk associated with EVs as they age. Virtually all EVs on the road are less than five years old. As they age, they recharge less efficiently and more energy is needed, increasing fire risk. Also, simple wear and tear will result in more damaged batteries as the vehicles age. See link below.

When the current generation of EVs is 20-25 years old, vehicle fires will be a major safety concern

Fires in older EVs

 

[Droid12345]

The article can’t take in effect the age of the vehicles as the EV market is so new. I just don’t accept the comparison at this time.

Age could be a factor, sure, though hybrids are also relatively new and they appear to be the worst for fires of the three types.

That said, Teslas have been on the market since 2008 and people keep their cars, on average, 7 years. So there's been plenty of time to cycle through a couple generations of EVs, in admittedly small numbers. I suppose we'll see over time if the current trend holds, but there's certainly no data at the moment to support the argument that EVs are more prone to fires than ICE cars.

 

[Droid12345]

That was a fairly balanced analysis but it still ignores the long-term risk associated with EVs as they age. Virtually all EVs on the road are less than five years old. As they age, they recharge less efficiently and more energy is needed, increasing fire risk. Also, simple wear and tear will result in more damaged batteries as the vehicles age. See link below.

When the current generation of EVs is 20-25 years old, vehicle fires will be a major safety concern

Fires in older EVs

SKYDOG brought up a similar point. That may prove to be true, though how often are cars that old really still on the road? Aging batteries can also be replaced (no need to mention the expense of this, that's not the topic of discussion). The fire referenced in this article though, appears to also have been caused by either a manufacturing defect or software issue, same as an ABS fault causing a short circuit.

And fire risk rises for ICE cars as they age, too.

I should be clear here, I'm not saying there is no risk to fires in EVs. I'm saying that risk has been overblown because we hear more stories about EV fires since it's a novel technology. We don't often hear news stories about ICE vehicle fires, even though they happen way more often both in raw numbers and when controlled for the number of cars on the road.

There are plenty of reasons not to by an EV, I just think fear of fire is not a good one.

Thanks for the good chat, y'all!

 

[YouSayPotato]

The fire referenced in this article though, appears to also have been caused by either a manufacturing defect or software issue, same as an ABS fault causing a short circuit.

Actually, it did not say that. It said: "(Tesla) . . . manipulated its battery software in older model vehicles to reduce the risk of fire, lowering the range and lengthening charging times as it sought to address the undisclosed defect." The defect was undisclosed by Tesla. The automaker then tried to minimize the risk by tweaking the software.

 

[Droid12345]

Actually, it did not say that. It said: "(Tesla) . . . manipulated its battery software in older model vehicles to reduce the risk of fire, lowering the range and lengthening charging times as it sought to address the undisclosed defect." The defect was undisclosed by Tesla. The automaker then tried to minimize the risk by tweaking the software.

Right, a defect, something that can affect any car. That was my only point.

Oh, and you left out the word "alleged" in your quote.

I'm not denying any of these risks exist. I'm just saying that, based on available data, ICE cars are more likely to catch on fire (accounting for all causes of said fire) despite any specific risk factor that may affect EVs only. Maybe that data will change over time, but the conclusion that EVs are at greater risk for fire is not currently supported. Anyone coming to that conclusion is weighting anecdotes over data. At worst, you could say that older EVs might one day be at greater risk than older ICE cars, but that is speculation at this point.

Edit: Something else occurs to me. If Tesla can use software to help mitigate whatever fire risk is unique to EVs as they age, isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that help to solve to issue you're concerned about?

 

[Crayfish57]

And EV fires are largely due to faulty batteries. So, in both kinds of cars, manufacturing or design mistakes can lead to fire risk. But, that said, you don't think a short circuit in the ABS system is more likely to ignite gasoline than a battery? Both types of cars could have the same defect, but have differing fire risks because of said defect. And faulty ABS is not the only reason an ICE car might catch fire in a garage.

Attached Garage Fire Hazards

Attached garage fire hazards.

www.nachi.org

But, even if I grant that EVs are more likely to catch fire in your garage than ICE cars (which doesn't seem to actually be true), ICE cars are more likely to catch fire in an accident. ICE cars have to go to gas stations, which are fire hazards.

The overall risk of fire was significantly lower in an EV than an ICE car. There are plenty of reasons to not like EVs, and fires that do occur are notoriously difficult to extinguish (perhaps this is why Promat is making safe boxes, or, more likely, they see a way to capitalize on people's fears of EV fires). But, if you're going to choose a car based on which is least likely to catch on fire during its lifetime, it appears EV is the way to go.

Diesel is still the best way to go

 

[Boilerscuz]

You guys are equating ICE fires with EV fires, stop it. An ICE fire requires a fire truck to put out the flames in a fairly standard manor. An EV fire can’t be put out by standard means and has temperatures well beyond standard fire so it ignites everything around it unless it is cooled enough to be contained. It just keeps burning until all battery materials are consumed. Also, the lithium battery fire fumes are toxic.

 

[Droid12345]

You guys are equating ICE fires with EV fires, stop it. An ICE fire requires a fire truck to put out the flames in a fairly standard manor. An EV fire can’t be put out by standard means and has temperatures well beyond standard fire so it ignites everything around it unless it is cooled enough to be contained. It just keeps burning until all battery materials are consumed. Also, the lithium battery fire fumes are toxic.

Burning gasoline is also toxic. But, I'm not saying they are the same, and have acknowledged that EV fires are harder to extinguish. But, if a car is on fire in your garage, it doesn't make much difference whether it is an EV or not. The likelihood of your house burning down is pretty high. If you are inside a car that's on fire, it doesn't make much difference whether it's an EV or not, you're going to die if you can't get out. And, though EV fires burn hotter, it would appear that they take longer to start:

Are electric cars more likely to catch fire?

Recent fiery crashes involving Tesla are raising concerns about the safety of electric cars. But carrying a tank of gasoline poses it own risks.

money.cnn.com

The relevant quote: "The biggest difference is the time it takes to ignite. Gasoline fires start almost immediately when gasoline comes in contact with a spark or flame, and spreads rapidly. Battery fires typically take some time to achieve the heat necessary to start the fire."

So, if you're in an accident that is going to cause a fire in your car, you have more time to escape before ignition if your car is an EV.

What I AM saying is that EV fires apparently don't happen very often relative to ICE fires. If concern over the fire risk is too great for someone to own an EV, then I'd expect concern over the fire risk for ICE cars (or even to have a toaster in their house that could short and cause an electrical fire) to also be too great to own for that person. But, that doesn't seem to be the case, which seems inconsistent to me.

There are absolutely and objectively risks to owning an EV. But, there are also absolutely and objectively risks to owning an ICE car. It seems that some are very concerned about one set of risks and completely ignoring the other, even though, at least to date, ICE fires seems to be a far greater likelihood than EV fires.

Edit: A point of reference. In the data I linked earlier, over the course of whatever year they got their data from, there were 52 EV fires among about 2 million vehicles, many of which were the result of accidents -- this is not just spontaneous combustion during charging. In 2020, there were about 22,000 house fires caused by electrical malfunction out of about 140 million homes. It's apparently far more dangerous to own a home with electrical appliances than it is to own an EV, but I doubt anyone is choosing not to have electrical appliances because they might catch fire.

None of that is to say that manufactures should stop trying to solve the problem, or that it's not a consideration one should take when determining what type of vehicle to purchase. But, to just say "I won't buy an EV because it might catch fire" while still being willing to purchase an ICE car because they supposedly don't catch fire makes little sense, given that it is demonstrable that EVs don't appear to be any riskier than many other things we all happily own and use, including ICE cars.

 

[Boilerscuz]

EV fires usually happen when they’re parked. Nobody is watching their car charge or in the case of a European city their buses parked 5 feet apart overnight. Once they found out the bus had caught on fire there were already other buses on fire. They lost a half a dozen. Imagine what happens when one is parked in an underground parking lot for an apartment complex and catches fire at 3 am.

Usually when ICE fires happen it’s while driving (or wrecking). I’ve been in one of those. Guy driving down the highway finally figured out his engine is on fire due to a ruptured gas line. Idiot rammed his brakes on and dad ran into him from behind. We all walked away and a fire truck put out his car.

Read the warning/recall notice on Chevy Bolts. “Don’t park within 30 feet of other vehicles or buildings” “don’t charge unattended”. Yeah right.

 

[Droid12345]

EV fires usually happen when they’re parked.

This can and has happened, but I haven't seen any data to suggest it's the most likely cause of an EV fire.

Nobody is watching their car charge or in the case of a European city their buses parked 5 feet apart overnight. Once they found out the bus had caught on fire there were already other buses on fire. They lost a half a dozen. Imagine what happens when one is parked in an underground parking lot for an apartment complex and catches fire at 3 am.

This can happen with ICE cars, too.

Usually when ICE fires happen it’s while driving (or wrecking).

So, while people are actually in them? That's better? Safer?

And this may very well be true of EVs, too. Again, I don't know if there's data either way.

I’ve been in one of those. Guy driving down the highway finally figured out his engine is on fire due to a ruptured gas line. Idiot rammed his brakes on and dad ran into him from behind. We all walked away and a fire truck put out his car.

Glad everyone was ok.

Read the warning/recall notice on Chevy Bolts. “Don’t park within 30 feet of other vehicles or buildings” “don’t charge unattended”. Yeah right.

And regarding a recall of some ICE cars: "Drivers of certain Hyundai Elantras, Entourages and Sante Fes and some models of Kia Sedonas and Sorrentos were told to park their vehicles outdoors and away from other vehicles or structures until a recall repair can be performed."

and...

"Hyundai and Kia alerted the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about a rare but dangerous defect discovered in 10 Hyundai Elantras that caught fire while parked and off."

I acknowledge that EVs have a particular situation in which they could catch fire that doesn't apply to ICE cars, that being during charging of a defective or damaged battery. But ICE cars have particular situations in which they are at fire risk that doesn't apply to EVs, such as during fueling or, as in your situation, a damaged fuel line.

The question here is whether or not the risk of an EV catching fire while charging is high enough to really be of concern. If you're willing to have electrical appliances in your home and are unconcerned with the fire risk, then it would seem that you should similarly be unconcerned about EVs, given the rarity with which these situations occur.

 

[Boilerscuz]

You once again equate all fires. EV batteries have the fuel and oxidizer in one package much like a rocket engine but not deployed for maximum thrust. The transport going down due to a battery fire won’t be the first. They put these cars nose to tail and door to door. A random EV fire in the middle won’t be put out, a random (almost non existent) ICE vehicle fired could be smothered or watered out. I don’t understand why you won’t accept the basic concept that an ICE fire is a minor event while an EV battery fire is on another level.

 

[Droid12345]

You once again equate all fires. EV batteries have the fuel and oxidizer in one package much like a rocket engine but not deployed for maximum thrust. The transport going down due to a battery fire won’t be the first. They put these cars nose to tail and door to door. A random EV fire in the middle won’t be put out, a random (almost non existent) ICE vehicle fired could be smothered or watered out. I don’t understand why you won’t accept the basic concept that an ICE fire is a minor event while an EV battery fire is on another level.

I've not denied that an individual EV fire can be worse than an individual ICE fire (the circumstances around it matter, of course, an EV alone in a field is no worse than an ICE alone in a field). That's not the point I've been trying to make, and you and I are in agreement on that.

But you use the "almost non existent" qualifier for ICE fires when EV fires are similarly "almost non existent." They are, apparently, even less existent than ICE fires. That's the point I've been trying to make, they almost never happen. I similarly don't understand why you won't accept the basic concept that EV fires are exceedingly rare.

The post that started all this was from someone who said they'd rather ride a bike than drive an EV because "there have been multiple fires in electric vehicles." But that person, likely, drives an ICE car, which can also catch fire. He didn't say anything about the severity of the fire. It seemed, at least, that that poster believed EVs catch fire and ICEs don't, which is just not true.

Anyway, I think I've made that point clear multiple times, so I don't see any reason to continue saying the same thing. Have a good night.