Source: Large lithium batteries should never be shipped as tightly as ICE vehicles. But it draws attention to a latent design defect of EV traction batteries ... the absence of a battery "flood" port. One of the better EV fire tools is a very high pressure, water wand. Effectively a "water jet" cutting tool on a wand, it can cut into the battery case and then flood the cells. Once water cooled, the EV fire effectively goes away. Speculation, two "water jet" ports on either side of an EV would likely solve the problem. This would let fire fighting crews quickly flood the pack with enough water to stop thermal runaway. It still requires prompt removal to a disassembly yard equipped to handle a battery run-away. Not trivial but necessary for public safety. So I have two EVs and a solar roof, buffer battery. The two cars are parked several feet away from the house. But the battery is mounted on the exterior, shady side of kitchen wall. Fire risk, yes, but I also have natural gas to the furnace, 50 year old, house wiring, and recently cut down two 180 ft, pine tree lightning rods in the front yard. Bob Wilson
Who came up with this idea, and what were they on when the thought it Depending on the chemistry, LFP, LTO, Sodium Ion, don't catch fire, so there no fire to put out. NMC and any lithium cell with cobalt in it, makes it's own oxygen when it reaches thermal runaway, so you can't smother it or cool it. Cover it with a fire proof blanket and let it burn itself out ..... Here is a video to prove what I'm saying Hyundai Kona EV fire - long version T1 Terry
People that are frustrated that we can't buy Chinese EVS ought to consider something very important. Quality control. Even China's flagship, the BYD. Think the USA fires from ev's are an issue? You ain't seen nothing. It makes sense. Think how tight-lipped China media was about responsibility for the covid virus. Would it be any less - if quality control were an issue as they flood the market with millions of Chinese ev's? China keeps a tight rain on what people can say when it comes to complaining. The Human Rights Implications of China’s Social Credit System | OHRH .
There is a fundamental problem, the amount of energy in the pack. Be skeptical about claims of being “inflammable.” Energy is heat, a lot that a battery can release in a short time. Sure some chemistries are ‘less bad’ but the announcements are often made by those who are not doing whole pack, to destruction testing. Besides, how can any beyond a few EV geeks tell what chemistry is in any battery pack. For example, his channel shows ievidence LiFePo emit less flame but the outgas is explosive. EVs are different but share similar risks in a different form. Whole pack and design testing is need with real world, vehicular testing to destruction. Bob Wilson
At least fossil fuels are safe being delivered on the open sea, right? Salvage efforts to rescue stricken Red Sea tanker Sounion makes 'slow' progress after oil ship was hit by Houthi missiles | Daily Mail Online ooops But maybe terrorists can hit container ships with lots of batteries, next time. .
But doesn't a typical EV only have about two or three times the energy of a gallon of gasoline all in a massive block that's the weight of hundreds of gallons of petroleum?
I think energy density per kilogram is probably the best measure of flammability. For example low density sodium-ion and LiFePo4 are typically low density and are way less flammable, as in they'll smoke and melt plastic but they aren't gonna burn hot enough to make their own oxygen and not go out till pack / vehicle is entirely combusted... But the catch is they're developing high density versions of both these chemistries in a lab and one sodium-ion density they're developing exceeds the highest density of lithium-ion, so I bet it would be real hard to put out just like lithium-ion
Sodium Ion are shipped at zero voltage, all others are shipped at a max of 50% SOC. No matter what some talking head claims, the vapour from an LFP or LTO battery can not and will not explode ..... insufficient oxygen for a rapid flame front. China has already mandated all batteries from the middle of this yr I think, must be proven to not be explosion proof .diesel when it gets hot, that self combusts, a high pressure line leaking onto a manifold .... and no matter what you try, that fire is not going to go out. If anyone stayed awake long enough to watch the Fire Brigade testing ground staged EV fire, would have seen how long they had to wait for the car interior to catch fire, that was the high intensity blaze, every car goes up like that if enough heat is involved. It was clear, the blanket that can be reused 20 times, was the most successful at containing the fire, simply shipping each vehicle in one of those blankets, no major fire will develop ..... can't make that claim with a diesel fire. T1 Terry
While sodium cells can tolerate 0 volts, I'm not aware of anyone shipping them at zero volts commercially. Starting 2026JAN01 30% SoC is the maximum allowed during vehicle transport (UN3556). This 30% limit is already in effect for UN3480. Pat is incredibly well respected in the firefighting community. He's an engineer, too, with both lab and real world lithium battery firefighting experience. His back catalog is filled with useful information. Literally Pat's previous video shows an LFP-equipped electric boat 'exploding' due to the 50% hydrogen gas LFP emits when venting:
That one has already been dismissed as a total lack of fact mixed with clickbait thrown in. At the 3 min mark, listen to the total rubbish that spills from his mouth regarding lead acid batteries ..... Everyone has seen a lead acid battery explosion, the result of the perfect mix of hydrogen and oxygen being vented ..... not only when the cell reaches fully charged, but during discharging and charging the gases are produced. The part that wrecks his story, the LFP batteries are in the back of the boat, there is a hatch above it, the explosion would have been the most dramatic in that area if it was the result of LFP cells venting. As far as the 50% hydrogen gas LFP emits when venting ..... I call B/S on that one, the graph he shows in a large scale behind the previous B/S video, come from here (PDF) Thermal Runaway Vent Gases from High-Capacity Energy Storage LiFePO4 Lithium Iron Fig 7 page 11, now reference fig 6 page 10 and see they deleted the other minor gas C2H4 which they chose not to actually name either, it's ethene ...... Looking at the true content of the LFP vapour shows his beat up is all B/S .... if he had any credibility before, it's no longer existent ..... The likely cause, and just a guestimation on my part here, someone had a battery powered vacuum cleaner or scooter or something charging in the cabin at the same time as the boat was charging, that explosion is the type associated with LiPo hobby model type cells and those that come in the cheap Chinese E scooters that burn houses to the ground in the period after Christmas each yr. T1 Terry
By whom? Did you watch the whole video? At the end, Pat specifically addresses why he's using his engineering experience to deduce the probable root cause prior to the official announcement. Which part do you propose is "total rubbish"? -Do you not agree that lead acid batteries release small amounts of hydrogen during normal use while charging? -Do you not agree that the volume of gas released by lead acid batteries during normal use is much less than LFP cells release when they vent during failure? -Do you not agree that since the volume of hydrogen gas released while charging lead acid cells is so low that even trivial venting will prevent explosion hazards? -Do you not agree that lead acid batteries only emit hydrogen (due to electrolysis) above the gassing threshold (~2.45 V/cell, or ~14.7V for a 12V battery)? -Do you not agree that lead acid batteries stop emitting hydrogen gas as soon as you stop charging them (or drop the charging voltage below that threshold once the charger enters the float phase)? In short, what I'm asking is: What specifically do you disagree with regarding Pat's comments "at the 3 min mark"? OK, and? Nobody is saying lead acid batteries don't emit hydrogen gas. The difference is that lead acid batteries release hydrogen slowly, in a controllable manner, that stops completely the instant you stop charging (because electrolysis inside the cells stops). Whereas, LFP cells in thermal runaway generate a huge volume of hydrogen gas all at once. Which do you think is safer? -0.1 moles of hydrogen gas released per hour, but only while charging, and only once a lead acid cell is full, or; -100 moles of hydrogen gas released in twenty seconds when an LFP cell is in thermal runaway? If the answer isn't immediately obvious, I've got a power plant in Ukraine to sell you. Lead acid batteries do not generate hydrogen gas while discharging. The chemical reaction while discharging generates the exact opposite reaction, namely by forming H2O (i.e. water). He explains this exact question in his previous video on the topic: Thanks for linking to a scientific document and then referencing figures specifically. However, just to make sure we're on the same page, I assume the charts you're referring to are: -"Fig7 on page 9", a bar graph showing total gas emitted, and; -"Fig8 on page 10", a bar graph showing only the CH4/CO2/CO/H2 emissions? Maybe the PDF versions we're looking at are rendered differently? Regardless, just verifying we're discussing the same data. OK, assuming we're on the same page about the scientific paper you mentioned: -The footnote on Figure 8 reads: "From the perspective of gas production, H2 accounts for a relatively high proportion of the gas generated by LFP batteries, approaching ~50%. -Figure 7 is a superset of Figure 8, which also includes non-methane hydrocarbons and 'other', where 'other' is primarily "water & ethyl methyl carbonate". We both know what water is, so I'll just note that EMC is an electrolyte solvent. -While both the water and EMC emissions are initially gaseous, they quickly condense back into liquid form. -The same is true for non-methane hydrocarbons, which at C5 are either liquids or solids at STP. In short: -Figure 8 is looking at the total gas emission products that remain gaseous (i.e. they do not condense in STP conditions). -Figure 7 is looking at the total gas emission products (whether or not they remain gaseous). Since the question at hand concerns what percentage of gaseous emissions building up in a confined space are hydrogen, it makes sense that we look at the Figure 8 gaseous percentages (i.e. those that don't condense rapidly after emission). Using Figure 7 percentages would yield incorrect percentages in a confined space, as it includes emission products that do not remain gaseous after emission. Therefore, I propose Pat is correctly quoting Figure 8 in stating that 50% of the gas emitted by LFP cells is hydrogen. And if you disagree with Pat, then you're also disagreeing with industry accepted standards on how to interpret gaseous emissions during thermal events. Given the above, I propose this is a PEBKAC interpretation error. Please watch Pat's previous video where he discusses the boat's construction in more detail.
