💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29430777 captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm not saying I agree with the condo association but I am confused by the counterpoint the article author tries to make. Their response is regarding the odds of an EV catching fire vs the odds of a ICE catching fire. They even state that if the odds of an ICE catching fire is equal or greater than an EV than ICE's should also be banned. But the associations argument against EVs in the garage isn't based mainly around the odds of them catching fire vs an ICE. The garage has a sprinkler system and is designed to allow fire fighters to bring enough water to bare to put out an ICE fire. EV fires can't be put out with water so the sprinkler system is of no use and the garage doesn't provide the access needed to allow fire fighters to deliver the required volume of chemical fire retardants to extinguish an EV fire.
The article is an example of twisting stats and data to make a false or misleading point. The author (who owns Tesla stock, according to the bio) is claiming that ICE cars are more likely to catch on fire. Perhaps, but irrelevant. The condo is not concerned with what happens out on the road. But it is very concerned about what happens while parked in the garage, and EVs are more likely to combust _in the garage_ than ICE cars (at least according to some sources), which puts the building at risk.
I wouldn't be surprised if the condo board is also twisting stats to an extent, however the fact that Chevy, Hyundai and Ford have all had battery-related recalls prompted by fire risk gives their stance a bit of credence.
One (redundant and costly) solution might be for building code to require two side-by-side sprinkler systems for garages, one that sprays water and another that sprays chemical fire retardants suitable to fighting battery fires and the like.
I'm unaware of chemical fire suppressants for EVs. The FAA's advice is to use lots of cold water, which brings the batteries temperature below the auto ignition point. (The concern for hydrogen production is moot in a fire scenario due it not being pure, free lithium.)
...and a simple alternative to an expensive fix is to simply ban the cars. I would expect that if fire codes require retrofixes, similar bans will become widespread (and popular).
Certainly. I was imagining a more forward-looking requirement with grandfather clauses for existing systems. EV's will only become more widespread, fires will naturally be an occasional fact of life, and it seems untenable to ban keeping them in garages forevermore.
> it seems untenable to ban keeping them in garages forevermore.
Concern is if something bad happens it's catastrophic, even if the chance that it happens is slim...
So, until buildings are retrofitted to deal with EV fires this proposal seems reasonable. It's going to be interesting when EVs become the majority, but by that point they can be self driving and shared vehicles / always running and doing something.
You need not only chemical fire retardants but a fume extraction system. Lithium battery fires are extremely toxic.
And for some reason it wasnt needed for a ICE car fire?
Sure a burning car isn't good for you, but lithium metal is famously toxic and will cause severe GI & neurological problems and is potentially fatal.
I think if more people had an idea of just how quickly an EV fire consumes the car and just how much hotter they burn than ICE car fires, they would be a lot less keen on having those vehicles parked anywhere near their property.
And yes, not only will the sprinkler systems not do anything, but Lithium is highly reactive with water.
Condos and apartment buildings are going to be a significant barrier to widespread ev adoption (esp in metro areas where these are more common). It's 2021, my condo hoa has no plans (even 'someday') to add ev chargers. They don't even have the electrical infrastructure in the garage to allow owners to install chargers at their own expense.
This is why regulations are sometimes the sole feasible option.
You don't want regulation forcing these things into your properties without also some way of containing their fires and their fumes (which are highly toxic).
Why are you more concerned about EV fires when gas fires have been a thing for the past century? We had a _parked_ car go up in flames at work and nobody was calling for the company to ban ice cars.
Parked ICE cars _rarely_ catch fire just sitting parked. When they do it's usually electrical system issues that started a larger fire (I'm looking at you, VW, Audi). Battery fires commonly occur while at rest. More importantly, they can't be put out (and are accelerated) by common indoor sprinkler systems and the toxic fumes will keep you from getting close enough to use a Class D extinguisher anyway. Much unlike ICE cars.
Additionally, lithium batteries burn at 1000+ degrees vs gas fires which burn at hundreds and batteries tend to EXPLODE, whereas gas just burns unless the fire starts from inside the pressurized tank (which is virtually impossible).
EV cars rarely catch fire also? If I'm mistaken, and EV fires are endemic or something, please post a source that lays out the fire rates between ev and ice cars.
I think banning them is a stupid, ignorant solution in search of a problem, and I don't own one, nor will I for the foreseeable future.
Edit: study here:
https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/
They rarely catch fire, but ICE cars catching fire while parked is even more rare.
Plus EV fires are significantly more catastrophic.
I also think banning EVs would be stupid, but we need to be serious about having the proper infrastructure to support them and nobody is talking about it.
I don't want an EV within 50 yards of my house or really any other indoor structure. They should be required to be parked outdoors and with a minimum distance to other property. EVs are being pushed on us without any regard to their impracticality wrt property damage.
I think they have great potential for shared vehicle programs, "self-driving" and public transit applications. As my personal daily? You're crazy.
You make a lot of bold claims with no evidence.
Good thing I guess that you don't get to dictate federal policy, which is moving in the opposite direction.
The regulations would address those issues as well.
I'm confused about the argument regarding the sprinkler system. I can understand water sprinkler being a dangerous combination with a battery fire. But for a gasoline powered car, isn't a fire likely to be a flammable liquid fire, for which water sprinklers are also a dangerous choice?
Small amounts of water can spread gas fires but large amounts of water smothers and deprives it of the oxygen needed to react & burn.
It's also really hard to get liquid gas on its own to ignite -- it's the vapor that you have to worry about. This is why gas is atomized and combined with oxygen and compressed to burn in your vehicle.
Considering that Tesla is moving to LFP batteries which are much safer and less likely to catch fire and I think other auto makers are expected to follow. I would not be surprised if this is a none issue in a year or two. Are there any shipping cars using LFP batteries yet?
AFAIK Tesla has no plans to move their high end cars to LFP.
It's currently for cars made in China, and would be for the lower end cars, such as a standard range 3/y. X and S have no immediate plans to switch, or they would be at a competitive disadvantage to people like Lucid and Rivian.
Wonder if EVs could come with built-in extinguishers... maybe just for the battery compartment. Would CO2 work?
Probably not remotely practical.
With lithium battery fires, you need to both extinguish the fire and cool the battery. They’re like those trick birthday candles. Water is usually best at both jobs.
What would be better is a charger hooked up to a standpipe with orifices in the car to extinguish and cool the batteries.
> With lithium battery fires, you need to both extinguish the fire and cool the battery. They’re like those trick birthday candles. Water is usually best at both jobs.
What would be better is a charger hooked up to a standpipe with orifices in the car to extinguish and cool the batteries.
No, this is stupid. Lithium, the main component of this battery chemistry, reacts _intensely_ with water, producing both lithium hydroxide and flammable hydrogen gas.
It's an exothermic reaction and lasts longer than sodium in water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxqe_ZOwsHs&t=61s
Parent comment seems to be correct: the key thing to do is lower the temperature.
Here's an interesting FAA study I found about it:
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-13-53.pdf
Also, just googling it returns this, for example
"Traditional fire extinguishers, such as foam and water, don’t work on lithium battery fires. The only way to extinguish a lithium battery fire is to flood the battery with water."
[
https://bridgehill.com/fire-blankets/lithium/
]
That's "for the prevention of thermal runway". This study is talking about how to _prevent_ fires.
We're talking about fires that have already started here and are raging out of control and consuming the car.
The battery verification tests confirmed that aqueous agents were most effective for the prevention of thermal runaway propagation. For the lithium-ion cell chemistries tested, none of the handheld agents at their recommended application distances were able to prevent propagation.
The lithium-metal battery tests revealed that, without suppression, the cells would propagate into thermal runaway. To stop propagation, 500 mL of the aqueous agents were sufficient.
The FAA has an instructional video for flight attendants and other flight crew as to how to extinguish li-ion fires.
Step one: pour a bunch of cold drinks on it.
Step two: the end.
Edit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh3ZOvhRNwU
Unfortunately, you're wrong in this scenario. The FAA demonstrates this isn't a concern. You should do your research before promulgating FUD and misinformation.
Cold CO2 then
This is standard fare for condo associations.
These are almost always chock full of old crotchety rules lawyers that undoubtedly don't want their association dues to increase one red cent just because some whippernsapper dogooder lazy millenial wants this. They are the knowitall Boomer generation!
Of course this will fix itself VERY QUICKLY once condo associations realize NOT having sensible charging infrastructure in a parking garage will hurt your condo's resale/property value.
Fussing about the association dues is peanuts compared to the new third rail of white politics: your home's property value.
It's why you want to get on the board of your condo.
yah more work for no pay sucks, but far better to control your own fate. In many smaller condos, they practically have to beg people to run for office..
I lived in an apartment building that had an old ICE car with an electrical problem catch fire at night, then explode. Flames were 20' high.
Luckily it was parked under a carport area, so destroyed the carport roof and adjacent laundry building, and not the residential building (just singed.)
It took about a year to deak with the insurance adjuster and rebuild.