Are we all happy our steel ships have holes burnt into them like that?
I particularly like the idea of and ejection chute for EVs once smoke is detected.
Or just revert to sensible policies designed to benefit the world’s poor and not try to change the global temperature by a poofteenth of a degree in a century?
“”" Sal Mercogliano, a specialist on shipping news points out that on these ships, the cars are packed bumper to bumper and tied down with straps over the wheels. As the fire burns through the straps, he says the cars can start to roll on the seas. (His youtube on this is here).“”"
Well the fire will burn through the straps but soon after the tires will be burnt too. So IMHO the cars will be sliding from side to side rether then rolling. Just saying
Once the first tire starts burning brightly, all the tires (and everything else) in that space are going to burn.
Maybe EVs should be shipped in special EV fire suppression containers with the batteries fully discharged?
Why aren’t most normal sized cars shipped in containers?
I can understand why we need truck and heavy equipment ships, but why do we need “car ships”?
I don’t see who the manufacturer of the EV that started this fire was. Seems like something an intrepid reporter could find out.
perhaps some sort of fire proof shrink wrap over each car with a automatic fire system in each vehicle
costly but better than destroying a whole ship
Unfortunately, you can’t have the batteries “completely discharged” without doing chemical damage to the cells. As we’ve seen with things like laptop and cellfone batteries, they are supposedly required to be at something low like 30% charged for shipment, but that does not end the risk, simply lowers it.
Perhaps the proper course would be to ship the EVs WITHOUT the battery, and ship the batteries separately in appropriate containers? The separated battery would be smaller, more easily packaged to reduce the risk of damage and could be encased in fire-resistant materials.
New types of batteries with less risk of fire are under development and testing.
When they will become standard for EVs is still not known:
Are there any proof that the PCTC fires that has been experienced lately ACTUALLY started in EVs, or are the presents of EVs automatically ASSUMED to be the cause of the fires.
PS> Used cars are more prone to fires than new cars, regardless of type.
How many of these fires has been on vessels carrying used cars?
Ev’s like nuclear power, rarely go up but when they do the world says too dangerous so shut them down, ok thats next months news.
Great idea and quite logical. But it will not wash and will not pass the ultimate test : time is money 
Meantime some Nordic carriers figured a new " industry standard practice" of not taking this save the planet beauties on board untill all issues ( there are plenty) are solved.
Regarding used cars. There are heavy booked routes fm USA & EU hauling used junkies to Africa . Not much noise about fires there. Wonder why ? Are these news suppressed?? And the problem seems to be quite obvious . It does not matter what the source of fire is but rather how to supress it in case it spreads on battery powered cars.
Yes agree, but it appears that it is ALWAYS assumed that the source of any fire are the EVs, if any is present onboard.
PS> On ICE cars the fuel tank is empty and the battery poles disconnected during transport.
More specific explanation and demonstration or Thermal runaway:
One more question; If L-I batteries are so prone to causing fires, or thermal runaway, why does this not happen as frequently in the large L-I battery banks found on more and more ships and ferries?:
This first electric car ferry in Norway MF Ampere has now been in operation over 10 years w/o any battery fire:
AFAIK there have been only one major fire incident on the many ferries and offshore vessels with large battery packs in Norway:
MF «Ytterøyningen» took fire at Sydnes ferry quay in Kvinnherad on 10 October. 2019
Source:
The reason for the fire was found to be:
PS> Lessons learnt, improved design and understanding of battery fires has resulted in improved safety since then.
Not a native speaker but i know from locals what assume and bias may mean.
Seems to me the same battle as between oil/gas sellers/producers and renewables fans. Sameo, sameo , same old …shit
The increased risk from fires in used cars is within 2 hours after being loaded.
The origin of most fires in used cars has been found to be electrical shorts in the wiring harness. If a used car does have an electrical short sufficient to cause a fire the battery is rapidly discharged. After 2 hours the battery is dead and the risk of fire from used cars is considered to be the same as new ones.
SOP is to increase the safety round frequency during the period of higher risk.
Noted.
Between 1983-1989 , on ships below I was hauling as 3rd/2nd mate new and used cars btw EU> USA> EU. Not by thousands but by hundreds. Junkies from USA were destined for BRH and picked up by US Army where soldiers -old car buffs ,were bringing cars frm the 50-tes to its former beauty renovating them to perfection. We hauled back to US beauties once renovated.
AS duty off on ro-rp sections ( three decks) we considered taking all the junkies as a pain in the ass as it was required to supervise the electricians( 2) when they disconnected the batteries upon loading /stowing. Somehow under our law electrician was not a “responsible” person and required supervision of a licenced man considered as “responsible” . In short all used cars batteries were disconected. Not sure it is done on car carriers as I lack practical experience on such.
My point
was, that since at least 30 years what I have observed there is a VERY heavy traffic on smaller car carriers fm EU & USA to Africa with used junkies and there are no reports about fires on car carriers carring these cars. And I am not sure if the batteries are disconected there with a very high rate of loading , although rates are slower then with new cars as some need to be pushed by stevedore equipment which can cause fire as well ( see latest fire in USA)
with some EV’s the battery installation is integral with the chassis.
perhaps containerizing with dampers on the vents and fire suppression. while costly and maybe only two cars in a container it better than losing the ship
Good question . But they are. Retail importer like me for expample buying used or new car/cars in USA will have it delivered at destination in container . There are sizable stowage guides how to stow and lash the car inside container - one above the other . But the freight is more expensive. Car carriers are serving mostly the wholesalers and distribution centers w/w. and surely the freight rate is cheaper.
Now imagine 15 000 teu vsl can take 15000 ( minimum ) cars .If packed as two per box it is 30 000 cars. The biggest pure car carries barely reach the 10 000 units barrier.
Many of the car factories for export are located within the load port at the pier. New cars come off the assembly lines are parked then driven directly onto the ship.
Might be cheaper to deliver a car from Asia to LA/LB then from Detroit. Presumably loading cars into containers would add considerable time and expense to the process.
I would not agree with presumably and would rather say it is a sure thing the cost is prohibitive.
Are any EV’s built “over there” coming to the US or to other countries? Weren’t the cars in this instance heading to Mexico? The Japanese/Korean manufacturers like to advertise “MADE IN THE USA”. At present, Toyota is building huge battery manufacturing plant in Central North Carolina. At least these won’t be on a ship.
