Featured LFP Battery hazards vs NMC/NCA

Discussion in 'Prius, Hybrid, EV and Alt-Fuel News' started by bwilson4web, Apr 28, 2026 at 1:14 AM.

  1. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    28,918
    16,406
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Source:


    • There are "fillers" between cells that are endothermic, heat absorbing. This reduces the risk of a complete pack event.
    • There are "separators" within the cells that upon heating, block ion transfer, turning off energy release by the cell.
    • As for relative risks:
      • NMC/NCA - heat and fire
      • LFP - toxic gas with a lot of explosive hydrogen
    I am leaning towards battery pack safety regulation that incorporates both the "filler" around the cells and "separators" within the cells. Not something that needs to be done instantly and should not specific the specific media. Rather, a performance based, benchmarked solution.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #1 bwilson4web, Apr 28, 2026 at 1:14 AM
  2. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,707
    4,230
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I consider my Tesla battery pack safe, while poorly designed NCA/NMC can be unsafe. LFP is safer, but of course you can mis design the pack and the battery management system to be less safe.
     
    #2 austingreen, Apr 28, 2026 at 7:33 AM
  3. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    28,918
    16,406
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    My takeaway was an endothermic filler between the cells. The fire hazard of Sherman tanks was resolved by ‘wet’ storage.

    The tank round racks had thin, antifreeze filled walls. This greatly reduced ‘cook off’ giving crews time to get out and often leaving a tank that could be repaired.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #3 bwilson4web, Apr 28, 2026 at 8:12 AM
  4. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    114,823
    52,484
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    now I feel liking I'm driving a rolling death trap :oops:
     
    #4 bisco, Apr 28, 2026 at 1:45 PM
  5. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,707
    4,230
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    My take away was tl:dr the full thing. On a vehicle carrying hazardous waste I can see heavy regulation to make it as safe as possible. But what is it, EVs have less than 2% of the fire risk of vehicles carring an ice and a gasoline or diesel tank. Those EVs using LFP even have less risk (other than being heavier may cause more damage to what they hit). The perfect should never be the enemy of the good, and waiting for perfect (solid state) and keeping the mediocre until then is even worse.
     
    #5 austingreen, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:04 PM
  6. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    28,918
    16,406
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    All vehicles have risks. EV risks are different and thankfully less bad than ICE and some hybrids. We are about 20 years into adoption of high energy batteries and lessons are being learned.

    Being aware, we can mitigate the different risks.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #6 bwilson4web, Apr 28, 2026 at 6:42 PM
    bisco and austingreen like this.
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)