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

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#21

Post by SoftTalker »

whartung wrote: post #12
topkai22 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the MSN article linked below: “ UK-based shipowner Zodiac Maritime has since confirmed that the fire originated in the section of the vessel carrying electric vehicles.”

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 driven on and off the ship and then on and off a truck before finally arriving at the retail dealership or other buyer's location.

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#22

Post by rgreeko42 »

D13Fd wrote: post #7
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.

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).

Why would we want unsafe vehicles to reach consumers? Better that they don't reach the showroom if that's the case.

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#25

Post by audunw »

legitster wrote: post #10
linotype wrote: post #6

Of the 3000 cars only 800 were EVs, and there’s no evidence yet they were the source of the fire. The headline seems misleading.

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 battery pack ignited.

The challenge with EVs is thermal runaway. That can last for hours, and if you don’t cool it down the intense heat will ignite other flammable materials (plastic) in the car, or nearby cars.

It shouldn’t be too hard to make these ships EV fire proof. You just need something that can spray water on each car from beneath. That will keep thermal runway contained to a single car.

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#27

Post by briandw »

Why is this news? ICE cars in container ships catch fire frequently. One example was the Grande Costa D’Avorio at Port Newark in 2023, which resulted in two firefighter fatalities and over $23 million in vessel damage. Not EV related.

https://gcaptain.com/ntsb-calls-for-national-reforms-after-f... Bloomberg didn't cover it (at least a quick search didn't find a story)

More to the point, ICE vehicles pose fire risks 60 times higher than EVs. https://www.evengineeringonline.com/did-you-know-ice-vehicle...

This is anti EV FUD from Bloomberg.

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#29

Post by audunw »

D13Fd wrote: post #7
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.

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 companies that may fall outside these statistics, since they’ve not been sold in the countries where I’ve checked (Northern Europe and USA). Some smaller Chinese companies cut a lot of corners, and they have had an explosive growth of EV car companies.

Re: Ship Carrying EVs Abandoned in Pacific After Catching Fire

#30

Post by potato3732842 »

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…

That's a misleading slight of hand. You can choke off a "normal" fire with foam and water. Can't do that with a fire that comes with its own oxidizer.

From a firefighting perspective, which is what the comment you're responding to is talking about, a battery absolutely is the bigger PITA even if there's less energy release per input. You can knock it down all day and it'll just keep coming right back up.

Post reply on HN