I get that statistically, Teslas are much less likely than ICE cars to catch fire, the media attention to EV fires is disproportionate, etc.
I think if Tesla could give a reason for the fires, rather than simply pointing out how rare they are, these stories would be much less compelling. It's the sense of the unknown which makes people paranoid. I suspect it has to do with Model S battery chemistry and they don't want to make the S even less competitive against the 3 than it already is.
It's also that if a Lithium battery catches fire, it's not going to be stoppable by a common extinguisher. The only thing you can really do is put a shield around the fire, or drop a tungsten dome around it and pray it doesn't fly off.
As the article says, the fire department used a new approach which was to submerge the car in a pool of water and leave it over night. I'm surprised this didn't cause more issues (I guess the battery wasn't actually damaged or on fire before hand), but it's good to know it works. Still, it needs a lot more equipment than a regular car fire.
Actually, the Belgian fire dept has done that multiple times already. At least once in the Antwerp harbor with a Volkswagen.
They where being followed by a tv crew at the time, so it’s well known to the public and we got some explanation as to the reasoning of why they’re doing it like this. (“Helden van hier” S04E08)
In an electric car the battery is essentially the only part that can catch fire. If there's flames, the battery is already burning and you can't really put it out.
The only other thing would be an electric component overheating or shorting, but that would cause a small explosion rather than a continuous fire.
The larger problem is the toxic gases being released.[1] For my latest safety training in the maritime industry the handling of lithium battery fires was essentially put yourself upwind and let it burn it self out to prevent any exposure.
Sorry I was not being clear, I realize that a metallic fire is different from a battery fire. Updated the comment to reflect that.
The case we primarily discussed was an EV fire on the car deck of a ro-ro ferry.
And the conclusion from the paper is important:
"Using water mist resulted in a temporarily increased production rate of HF but the application of water mist had no significant effect on the total amount of released HF."
Essentially, our conclusion was don't touch it, if you have to then cool flammable things in the vicinity and as a last resort if things are about to spiral out of control put water on it.
What I get though is that ICEs might be subject to more stringent regulation at least for charging in the future.
At least in EU, cars with a compressed fuel tank (hydrogen, GPL or methane) cannot be parked in a closed or underground parking lot for one safety reason: risk of explosion. The risk is pretty low, and if you have such a tank you're also subjected to scheduled regular inspections and replacement of the tank, but you still cannot park underground. Not many people are aware or respect this limit, thanks to the fact that it's not easy to distinguish a car which has a dual fuel option.
Now imagine a lithium fire in a garage (maybe... your garage?).
Much less scary than gas leaking, filling part of a large underground parking garage, then getting ignited and collapsing the entire multi-story residential building built on top of the garage.
Also, while looking for examples, I learned that compressed gas (hydrogen, methane) is much less of a problem due to being lighter than air, so it doesn't accumulate as much, which means these cars are sometimes allowed. LPG, being heavier, sticks around near the ground also posing a suffocation risk.
I'm not sure I'd dismiss the risk so much. With burn temperatures reaching 600C, nearby electrolytes being vented also resulting in smaller burst explosions, difficulty in suppressing the fire, cars with other flammable products nearby and the toxicity of some formulations?
GPL is legal to park in garages through most of the EU. Belgium and France have some limitations (local regulations apply / need to have safety valve).
Most likely, something is occasionally going wrong with the whole "Super" part of supercharging. Quick-charging a lithium battery is a lot more fiddly than just slowly feeding it a trickle of charge, and the Superchargers push the "quick" aspect to the extreme, since it's one of the most problematic parts of EV use.
>Teslas are much less likely than ICE cars to catch fire
I wonder how many of those ICE cars were new, or at least within the same life time of Tesla?
If we are talking about good old 20 years classic, then we all expect them to fail some day right? Or exotic cars that were be pushed to the limits and caught fire. ( From a few Lamborghini )
It is extremely rare ( if at all ), that a well maintained, newer ICE cars goes into flame just by filling up with petrol.
A quick google seems to show that’s fairly standard[0]:
> A small Li-ion fire can be handled like any other combustible fire. For best result use a foam extinguisher, CO2, ABC dry chemical, powdered graphite, copper powder or soda (sodium carbonate). If the fire occurs in an airplane cabin, the FAA instructs flight attendants to use water or soda pop. Water-based products are most readily available and are appropriate since Li-ion contains very little lithium metal that reacts with water. Water also cools the adjacent area and prevents the fire from spreading. Research laboratories and factories also use water to extinguish Li-ion battery fires.
Not really true, you have a problem of toxic gases being released.[1] For my latest safety training in the maritime industry the handling of lithium battery fires was essentially put yourself upwind and let it burn it self out to prevent any exposure.
The conclusion from the paper is important:
"Using water mist resulted in a temporarily increased production rate of HF but the application of water mist had no significant effect on the total amount of released HF."
Though presumably, submerging the car would help by solving the fumes in the water creating hydroflouric acid instead.
When I did safety training at a US Energy Department facility they said you should use salt extinguishers for lithium battery fires. They are quite rare and yellow.
The study makes a note that it's testing HF production and not testing putting out a fire. "The intention in this study was however not to extinguish the fire completely."
If you have the luxury of isolating the burning component and a lot of open space and a consistent wind direction you can let it burn. Few places outside of ships and desolate areas have that. Airplanes definitely don't. Neither do locations inside of cities. Cars also have many lithium cells so isolating the burning one is impossible and you probably want to avoid all of them catching on fire.
Letting a car fire burn on it's own means you now have clouds of HF and you need to evacuate massive area for a long time. Or you drop it in water and avoid all that.
28 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 66.4 ms ] threadI think if Tesla could give a reason for the fires, rather than simply pointing out how rare they are, these stories would be much less compelling. It's the sense of the unknown which makes people paranoid. I suspect it has to do with Model S battery chemistry and they don't want to make the S even less competitive against the 3 than it already is.
The only other thing would be an electric component overheating or shorting, but that would cause a small explosion rather than a continuous fire.
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09784-z
Li-ion battery fires are commonly fought with water.
The case we primarily discussed was an EV fire on the car deck of a ro-ro ferry.
And the conclusion from the paper is important:
"Using water mist resulted in a temporarily increased production rate of HF but the application of water mist had no significant effect on the total amount of released HF."
Essentially, our conclusion was don't touch it, if you have to then cool flammable things in the vicinity and as a last resort if things are about to spiral out of control put water on it.
At least in EU, cars with a compressed fuel tank (hydrogen, GPL or methane) cannot be parked in a closed or underground parking lot for one safety reason: risk of explosion. The risk is pretty low, and if you have such a tank you're also subjected to scheduled regular inspections and replacement of the tank, but you still cannot park underground. Not many people are aware or respect this limit, thanks to the fact that it's not easy to distinguish a car which has a dual fuel option.
Now imagine a lithium fire in a garage (maybe... your garage?).
Much less scary than gas leaking, filling part of a large underground parking garage, then getting ignited and collapsing the entire multi-story residential building built on top of the garage.
Also, while looking for examples, I learned that compressed gas (hydrogen, methane) is much less of a problem due to being lighter than air, so it doesn't accumulate as much, which means these cars are sometimes allowed. LPG, being heavier, sticks around near the ground also posing a suffocation risk.
The comparison with ICE cars should be to cars of a similar age.
Comparing them to the entire population of ICE cars, some of which would be old and poorly maintained, seems wrong
I wonder how many of those ICE cars were new, or at least within the same life time of Tesla?
If we are talking about good old 20 years classic, then we all expect them to fail some day right? Or exotic cars that were be pushed to the limits and caught fire. ( From a few Lamborghini )
It is extremely rare ( if at all ), that a well maintained, newer ICE cars goes into flame just by filling up with petrol.
So fed up with the news, everything has to be sensationalized, and shame on ycombinator for feeding into all of it.
But makes sense, a bunch of NY and CA liberal elites running the show.
> A small Li-ion fire can be handled like any other combustible fire. For best result use a foam extinguisher, CO2, ABC dry chemical, powdered graphite, copper powder or soda (sodium carbonate). If the fire occurs in an airplane cabin, the FAA instructs flight attendants to use water or soda pop. Water-based products are most readily available and are appropriate since Li-ion contains very little lithium metal that reacts with water. Water also cools the adjacent area and prevents the fire from spreading. Research laboratories and factories also use water to extinguish Li-ion battery fires.
[0]: https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_concerns_...
The conclusion from the paper is important:
"Using water mist resulted in a temporarily increased production rate of HF but the application of water mist had no significant effect on the total amount of released HF."
Though presumably, submerging the car would help by solving the fumes in the water creating hydroflouric acid instead.
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09784-z
They didn't say why.
If you have the luxury of isolating the burning component and a lot of open space and a consistent wind direction you can let it burn. Few places outside of ships and desolate areas have that. Airplanes definitely don't. Neither do locations inside of cities. Cars also have many lithium cells so isolating the burning one is impossible and you probably want to avoid all of them catching on fire.
Letting a car fire burn on it's own means you now have clouds of HF and you need to evacuate massive area for a long time. Or you drop it in water and avoid all that.