That is WAY too optimistic!
In a statement, ship manager Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd (MOL) said the Felicity Ace remained stable, and the smoke that for days billowed from the vessel, adrift around 170 km southwest of the Azores, had stopped.
AFAIK, the only thing you can do with a lithium battery fire (âthermal runawayâ) is to cool the area or take other measures to prevent the fire spreading to surrounding material. The recommended response to a small one is to bury it in sand. As for putting them out, there isnât really anything thatâs considered effective.
1 Like
With a fire in the car decks the goal is to stop the spread of fire to rest of the ship and forcing the crew to abandon ship.
If the fixed firefighting system can prevent the fire from spreading to other zones long enough for the ship to reach port then then thatâs obviously not ideal but effective enough.
Thatâs the question. Can the fixed system keep the fire confined to a single zone?
2 Likes
Double leap year??
1 Like
Short answer: I donât know and am hesitant to speculate.
It would take some pretty expensive (although not as expensive as this one) experiments to figure out. I hope the investigation uncovers enough about how the fire propagated (e.g. thermal runaway on one vehicle âcooking offâ battery in adjacent vehicle) to give some answers.
Earl
In that case I donât see how any otherwise effective fire suppression system would be considered particularly ineffective against battery fires. The only twists are that whatever is cooking off will continue doing so for a while, and the added danger of electrolysis creating an explosive atmosphere.
Blockquote
A demonstration of my faith that it would happen
Already working with thin margins with fire involving ICE-powered cars.
Iâve talked to crewmembers with experience with a major car deck fire. Fire was put out but it was a near thing, lots of confusion and chaos.
CCTV in the car decks would help, maybe park the EV cars further apart.
CCTV is already in use, as is âroving patrolsâ by Deck Crew. Basically, the smart thing to do would be to disconnect and isolate all of the batteries and/or electric systems in every electric vehicle after stowage.
Alternately, a segregated cargo deck (or part of one) with Class A- Gastight segregation and a close dispersion class d fixed suppression system serving that space.
IDK what percentage of car fires are successfully put out but even with just ICE cars itâs a race between the crew doing the right thing quickly (and being prepared) and a rapidly spreading fire amongst tightly packed cars each with a big fire load (gasoline, tires, plastics).
Having lithium-ion batteries aboard is going to tip the scales against the crew.
My question is whether itâs even possible to put out or just more difficult and thus less likely.
I donât think anybody knows for sure. The majority of spontaneous thermal runaways happen as a result of circuit failure during charging or physical damage in a wreck. So the most likely cause of thermal runaway on a car carrier would be âcook offâ from a fire that started some other way.
I suppose one of the most common, if not the most common EV platforms to transit the Atlantic will be VWâs MEB âskateboardâ platform, intended to be common across most of their vehicles. I am not aware of any published data on how hot you have to get one of those to initiate thermal runaway. Or what the minimum charge level is to sustain it or initiate reflash.
I have total respect for the salvage crew that is on board that thing.
Earl
3 Likes
I can see physical damage in a wreck aboard a car ship being a problem. A circuit failure in a single vehicle will be confined to a single zone but cars breaking loose on several decks could well be a problem in several zones in the same incident.
A fire in multiple zones in heavy weather would be a big problem.
2 Likes
This is why I am skeptical of the assertion that keeping charge below 50% somehow eliminates the risk. That may be true for spontaneous thermal runaway, but Iâd like to see tests which tell us how low the charge must be to prevent thermal runaway in the case of physical damage.
Itâs an interesting systemic phenomena we are witnessing. Risk reduction in the area of transport of vehicles has evolved over the years, one casualty at a time. Now a new form of stored energy means starting over. Very reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gouldâs notion of Punctuated Equilibrium.
Earl
1 Like
National Academies has a proposal to look into a similar issue:
Electric Bus Fire Prevention and Risk Management
Cheers,
Earl
Reducing the stored charge would have the effect of lowering (but NOT eliminating) the risk of ignition following physical disruption of the battery. It would also reduce the incidence of re-ignition, since it would reduce the amount of energy available to raise the temperature above the flash point.
Why 50% is considered a good number is not at all clear, as 50% charge is PLENTY of energy to start a fire!
But it would do nothing to reduce the extremely difficult task of putting a fire out once it has started (for whatever reason), as the flammability of the Lithium-ion battery is not driven by its state of charge, but rather the electrode and electrolyte materials contained within it.
Lithium-ion batteries are wonderful things - weâre investing in a LiFePO4 pack for our home/boat this spring! â but they need to be treated with respect for the hazards contained within.
Hartley
S/V Atsa
1 Like
It sank
Nah that can still be saved. Right?
I hope the salvage crew got off OK. Actually very unfortunate; a lot of potentially useful information about EV fires on car carriers went down with her.
Earl
2 Likes
Yes! I remember our resident expert on this site just saying it was minor damage that will be easily repaired!
1 Like