Another EV carrier up in flames :(

[MartG]

[JoshSm]

Be interesting to know what battery chemistry was involved as they aren't all prone to this behaviour.

Certain cargos are going to become uninsurable and untransportable if they don't get themselves sorted with a way to safely handle them. The rate of hull loss isn't sustainable.

It's a hard problem though, air freight of lithium batteries involves all sorts of mitigations and even then it's only intended to make it possible for the crew to to have enough time to get back on the ground rather than guarantee that there won't a problem in the first place.

[captain_cynic]

The obvious solution would seem to be shipping the batteries separately. Reducing the need for specialized fire suppression systems as you only have to cover the hold or ship containing the batteries rather than whole cars.

Edited by captain_cynic on Saturday 7th June 13:43

[Simpo Two]

Not a glimmer of that on the BBC website, as far as I can see.

[stevemcs]

Mostly petrol/diesel cars, followed by hybrids, followed by EV's , think there were less than 50 EV's on board - obviosuly it only needs one to go up but irrespective of the cause it does seem to be becoming more frequent for the car ferris to go up in smoke and potentially sink


Edit

3100 vehicles with 65 electric and over 600 hybrid vehicles

Edited by stevemcs on Saturday 7th June 14:33

[captain_cynic]

Simpo Two said:

Not a glimmer of that on the BBC website, as far as I can see.

Nor on the Daily Express or Daily Mail?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact it's off the coast of Alaska and was heading for Mexico... ergo being of little interest to the average Briton.

So your point being... just to hijack a thread for a pointless jibe at the BBC.

No mention of the continuing recount in Bradfield either, possibly because no one here cares about a single seat in the Australian parliament.

[Dogwatch]

captain_cynic said:

The obvious solution would seem to be shipping the batteries separately. Reducing the need for specialized fire suppression systems as you only have to cover the hold or ship containing the batteries rather than whole cars.

Edited by captain_cynic on Saturday 7th June 13:43

I expect a hold full of Lithium-ion batteries would be a marine underwriter’s nightmare.

[IanH755]

captain_cynic said:

The obvious solution would seem to be shipping the batteries separately.

OMG, its just soooooooo obvious!!!!!!!!!

In fact, I wonder why these silly car manufacturers don't already even bother to assemble their cheap EV's in the first place and just to get the EV battery shipped out separately to the cars, doubling the transportation costs, then just build some highly expensive maintenance facilities in the target country to rebuild these cars once everything has arrived, its just sooooooooo obvious to anyone!!!!!

The lack of any actual knowledge on the subject, when mixed with the certainty that "internet experts" believe they're the only ones who correct and who just can not even dream of being incorrect on a subject they have no real understanding of, is why the internet is such a crap state nowadays.

[TheLurker]

IanH755 said:

captain_cynic said:

The obvious solution would seem to be shipping the batteries separately.

OMG, its just soooooooo obvious!!!!!!!!!

In fact, I wonder why these silly car manufacturers don't already even bother to assemble their cheap EV's in the first place and just to get the EV battery shipped out separately to the cars, doubling the transportation costs, then just build some highly expensive maintenance facilities in the target country to rebuild these cars once everything has arrived, its just sooooooooo obvious to anyone!!!!!

The lack of any actual knowledge on the subject, when mixed with the certainty that "internet experts" believe they're the only ones who correct and who just can not even dream of being incorrect on a subject they have no real understanding of, is why the internet is such a crap state nowadays.

I like your writing style. It's eloquent, articulate, informed and non judgemental.

[Southerner]

Dogwatch said:

captain_cynic said:

The obvious solution would seem to be shipping the batteries separately. Reducing the need for specialized fire suppression systems as you only have to cover the hold or ship containing the batteries rather than whole cars.

Edited by captain_cynic on Saturday 7th June 13:43

I expect a hold full of Lithium-ion batteries would be a marine underwriter s nightmare.

Not if they were shipped aboard purpose-built vessels with appropriate mitigations in place, I wouldn’t have thought?

Less so than decks full of battery-fitted EVs all lined up, anyhow!

[hidetheelephants]

Yay, another thread of fact-free anti-EV nonsense. We've not had one for at least 24 hours.

[TheLurker]

Southerner said:

Dogwatch said:

captain_cynic said:

The obvious solution would seem to be shipping the batteries separately. Reducing the need for specialized fire suppression systems as you only have to cover the hold or ship containing the batteries rather than whole cars.

Edited by captain_cynic on Saturday 7th June 13:43

I expect a hold full of Lithium-ion batteries would be a marine underwriter s nightmare.

Not if they were shipped aboard purpose-built vessels with appropriate mitigations in place, I wouldn t have thought?

Less so than decks full of battery-fitted EVs all lined up, anyhow!

Or in ISO containers kept above decks so they could be dumped overboard if required or at least easier to fire fight than stuck below.

It would make logistics a proper headache though, just being able to move the cars without batteries in. All doable I'm sure, but would increase the cost.

[JoshSm]

hidetheelephants said:

Yay, another thread of fact-free anti-EV nonsense. We've not had one for at least 24 hours.

This just reads like a fact free automatic kneejerk response, and it's not the only one.

So far the only facts are that a carrier is on fire, started by part of the cargo which is an EV based on where the fire started, and they have no apparent way available to suppress the fire so the only response was to abandon the ship.

And it isn't the first time this happened.

Not all EVs have the same type of batteries so the risk depends on the type, and some suppliers have a long sorry history of building hazardous cells and modules. Some types are absolutely fine and fundamentally wouldn't have a shipping issue because they dont fail that way, and some other types occasionally show what can happen in a failure mode. And cargo carriers have to take this possibility into account as it differs from what the more traditional cargo would need.

If you want to contribute any facts you feel are missing then feel free.

[cliffords]

From this and the other incidents. Do we know it's the EV that starts the fire, or a fire starts and it's very serious as they have EV's on board.
I can't see why EV's catch fire on ships, in car parks etc, but not on people's drives, whilst being charged for example.

[JoshSm]

cliffords said:

I can't see why EV's catch fire on ships, in car parks etc, but not on people's drives, whilst being charged for example.

They catch fire all over the place including on driveways and in garages, depending on all sorts of things and whether it's a chemistry/cell type that likes becoming a firework. LG Chem cells did it in certain cars because they fked up the manufacturing.

Sometimes there's just a lurking fault that starts a fire, just like on any other type of car.

The biggest issue isn't how likely a fire is to start, it's how you deal with it if it does, especially if it's a situation with firefighting something highly exothermic and self oxidising.

[Tisy]

TheLurker said:

Or in ISO containers kept above decks so they could be dumped overboard if required or at least easier to fire fight than stuck below.

It would make logistics a proper headache though, just being able to move the cars without batteries in. All doable I'm sure, but would increase the cost.

They could fit them with a safe internal combustion engine to transport them from factory to customer/dealer, then once they reach their destination replace the internal combustion engine with the volatile battery.

[ferret50]

Wonder when the cross channel ferry operators will ban EV's?

[Johnson897210]

Surely the eco loons will shortly be telling us it was a diesel…

[100SRV]

captain_cynic said:

The obvious solution would seem to be shipping the batteries separately. Reducing the need for specialized fire suppression systems as you only have to cover the hold or ship containing the batteries rather than whole cars.

Edited by captain_cynic on Saturday 7th June 13:43

Or local manufacture of the battery packs.
Only permit shipping of raw materials by sea.

[Johnson897210]

100SRV said:

captain_cynic said:

The obvious solution would seem to be shipping the batteries separately. Reducing the need for specialized fire suppression systems as you only have to cover the hold or ship containing the batteries rather than whole cars.

Edited by captain_cynic on Saturday 7th June 13:43

Or local manufacture of the battery packs.
Only permit shipping of raw materials by sea.

Or banning EVs and keeping ICE?