Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#31

Post by [deleted] »

SoftTalker wrote: post #21
whartung wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is an EV with 2% charge in the battery any more or less prone to spontaneous combustion than one with 10%, 50%, or 100% of charge? I'm under the assumption that these are roll on/roll off carriers and that cars themselves are driven on and off (so they have some level of charge or fuel). I know that batteries (apparently) can "just catch fire", I just don't know what the risk of fire to charge capacity of the battery…

It stands to reason (and simple physics/chemistry) that a fully-charged battery is going to burn more intensely than a depleted one. But as I undertstand it, Li ion batteries need a minimum "base" charge below which the battery can be damaged or become unable to be recharged (at least not by normal means). So I'd guess that like phones and other devices, they are shipped with roughly a 50% charge, allowing them to be…

[deleted]

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#32

Post by bell-cot »

almost_usual wrote: post #28

Triggers the “Battery fires will be bad during a catastrophic earthquake” thought.

Other than pancaked parking garages, how many EV's would a major earthquake damage badly enough to start a battery fire? And how many crushed ICE cars would be turned into gasoline fires?

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#33

Post by mmmBacon »

audunw wrote: post #25
legitster wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the EVs were not the source of the fire, they were surely the cause of the firefighting problems the coast guard had. Once ignited, EV fires are quite a thing.

The intensity of an EV is almost the same as that of an ICE car. A little bit less severe actually. There’s a study from Sweden that set an EV and ICE on fire and measures the energy/heat from the fire over time. The curves are fairly similar. An EV battery is much less likely to catch fire from nearby car fires. A whole parking garage burned down at Sola airport in Norway, with lots of EV inside. Not a single batter…

This is fundamentally incorrect and even a basic Google search returns:

EV and gas-powered vehicle fires pose different challenges to firefighters. EV fires are harder to extinguish due to deep-seated heat in batteries, potential for reignition, and release of flammable and toxic gases. Traditional firefighting techniques might not be sufficient, and specialized equipment like submersion tanks or specific types of foam are often needed. Here's a more detailed breakdown: EV Fires: Higher Temperatures: EV fires can burn hotter than gas-powered vehicle fires, reaching temperatures of 1,200°F or more. Reignition: EV batteries can reignite hours or even days after a fire, even after the flames have been extinguished. Toxic Gases: Burning EV batteries release flammable gases (like hydrogen and methane) and other hazardous chemicals, posing a threat to firefighters and the environment. Difficult to Extinguish: Traditional firefighting methods, like using water or foam, may not be effective in cooling the battery cells to the point where the fire is extinguished. Special techniques like submersion tanks or specialized foam are often required. Prolonged Fire Suppression: EV fires can take longer to fully suppress compared to traditional car fires. Gas-Powered Vehicle Fires:

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#34

Post by cogman10 »

cdot2 wrote: post #17
Lendal wrote: post #16

Where does the buck stop in this scenario? My assumption is the manufacturers have already been paid, so does that mean they don't care about this? I'm thinking the individual dealer owners of the vehicles probably have to file claims with their insurance companies. So insurance rates will go up. Is that where it ends?

Unless someone was negligent in causing the fire that is likely the end of it.

Lawsuits will likely fly and both the shipping company and the manufacturer (or at least their insurance agencies) will try and prove the other was negligent.

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#35

Post by coderintherye »

floren wrote: post #26

> EV fires can take up to 8,000 gallons of water to cool the lithium-ion batteries. where could a cargo ship possibly obtain that quantity of water

Most large ships have large water storage vessels as well as make fresh water using pumps (while operating). They also usually have separate pumps to pump salt water for firefighting. But in the event the pumps are not running that's a problem such as what happened with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bonhomme_Richard_(LHD-6)

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#36

Post by cdot2 »

sagarm wrote: post #8
D13Fd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t it just be that EVs are highly combustible and prone to spontaneous ignition? It may be that we just need better means of shipping these vehicles so that they are less likely to catch fire in an uncontrollable way (maybe with the batteries uninstalled).

The reporting of the 2022 sunken car carrier did not mention EVs, saying that only "Porches and Bentleys" were lost. Even if the cars themselves have no fuel, the ship has lots of it. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-coast-guard-responding-carg...

I don't know about Bentley but Porsche makes hybrid electric drivetrains which would include lithium electric batteries

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#37

Post by lupusreal »

audunw wrote: post #29
D13Fd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t it just be that EVs are highly combustible and prone to spontaneous ignition? It may be that we just need better means of shipping these vehicles so that they are less likely to catch fire in an uncontrollable way (maybe with the batteries uninstalled).

No, EVs are far less likely to spontaneous ignition than ICE cars. The statistics on this is very clear now. Depending on the source an ICE car is 10-20 times of a similar age is more likely to catch fire. Since most EVs are new I would guess the statistics is mostly applicable to fairly new cars, and so should also be applicable to brand new cars. One caveat is there may be some EVs from less reputable Chinese car c…

There's a qualitative difference between a car that's likely to burn on the road when being driven, and one that's likely to burn in the middle of the night when parked in a garage attached to my house.

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#38

Post by lazyeye »

xnx wrote: post #3

Again? These ships must make attractive sabotage (or insurance fraud?) targets. > In 2022, a vessel carrying about 4,000 vehicles caught fire in the Atlantic and ended up sinking despite efforts to tow it to safety. A year later another ship with close to 3,000 cars on board caught fire near the Dutch coast.

I found this to be a fascinating read about maritime insurance fraud

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58395055-dead-in-the-wat...

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#40

Post by floxy »

cdot2 wrote: post #36
sagarm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reporting of the 2022 sunken car carrier did not mention EVs, saying that only "Porches and Bentleys" were lost. Even if the cars themselves have no fuel, the ship has lots of it. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-coast-guard-responding-carg...

I don't know about Bentley but Porsche makes hybrid electric drivetrains which would include lithium electric batteries

Porche makes fully BEVs:

https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/taycan/taycan-models/tayc...

Post reply on HN