My husband was involved in battery industry many years ago and worked with companies researching the use of brine to discharge lithium batteries. It works but the residual waste is a hazardous liquid which needs collection and disposal. He always said, and still says that the technology is not ready.
Spot on John. As a chemical engineer I am fully aware of low probability high consequence events. Incidentally, thees types of events began with railways in the UK in the 1840s. The response, formation of the Railway Inspectorate who investigated every incident and made enforceable recommendations to prevent recurrence.
Yep just like what will happen with electric vehicles, problems will occur, smart people will fix them cars will get even safer. Just the leap from petrol to electric is reducing the likelihood of fire by 22 times
Interesting and useful solution. Here in UK we are not allowed to take an LPG powered vehicle through the channel tunnel to France and the amount of spare Petrol in containers is strictly limited for FIRE safety reasons. Vehicles are loaded onto a train consisting of separate carriages with fire shutters between each carriage. Occupants remain in their cars for the 35 minute journey. EVs however are WELCOME, they even have charge points in the terminal waiting area. I may have to review my use of the tunnel to get to Europe.
Main reason for the LPG restriction is that there were too many botched conversions with leaks. Same reason why some ferry companies banned them. The per-vehicle incident rate of fire in BEVs vs ICE cars is small. Risk of fire in a BEV is low. It’s also much less likely to get as dangerously explosive as say a petrol fire. They do burn hotter and for longer though…
@@amiddled Love how you koolaid drinkers love saying how rare EV fires are and low risk… And gasoline cars exploding? lol You should quit watching movies. At least you got the EV burns hotter longer right, conveniently left out that it burns itself out even if the fire department is there. Reality is EV fires do go on thermal runaway on their own, and just like ICE can catch fire due to an accident or something else around it catching on fire.. Like it or not, other than drive train vehicles really aren’t that much different. It’s not like EV’s don’t have an electrical system, brake system and components like wheel bearings that I’ve seen cause vehicle fires. As an automotive technician I’ve seen more electrical fires than drivetrain fires that an EV doesn’t have. And let’s not pretend an electric motor can’t catch fire because they can. Most gasoline related fires I’ve personally seen is one carbureted engines being worked on by someone who probably should educate themselves before trying to turn a wrench but was at least smart enough to have a fire extinguisher, garden hose nearby. Seen a few where the shoveled dirt or sand and threw it on it to put it out. Lots of janky wiring from adding lights or stereo equipment which EV’s will get to share in with time. It’s also just a matter of time “handyman” will be attempting to make his own repairs on EV’s..
Being a professional firie, I always watch and listen to your videos on these issues as you have well thought out ideas and practical solutions based on facts… being an engineer… that’s what you do, and I think you do it well.👍🏻👍🏻 As you pointed out… the fire fighting medium needs to be delivered directly into the cell casing to be effective… thumbs up to the mining industry for engineering that feature into their EV👍🏻 On a practical application for the real world… Another problem for the firefighters is the finite space on a firetruck and having to carry sufficient onboard brine solution as well as water and foam (which is on most urban trucks). It’s great to learn that the brine solution discharges (and I assume neutralises the battery cells) however there would also be a serious corrosion problem with fire pumps and equipment being made of different metals and brine would make a wonderful electrolyte… and rarely used. At the end of the day, unfortunately, I think it’s going to be a Ford Pinto situation before EV’s are redesigned to incorporate a dedicated battery firefighting inlet, as that would admit these things are potentially extremely dangerous, and that doesn’t sound very “green” to the customer. Let’s see what happens… Thanks for the update John.
Question regarding fuel filler hardware on ICE vehicles in relation to serious road accidents. As a firie have you seen any instances of the fuel filler plumbing shearing to a fuel tank? My train of thought here is a "brine port" to the battery could be flexable in it's construction so location could be anywhere using available construction methods? So the port could in essence be located on the car bodywork in a similar manner to current filling locations with just a simple push to open mechanism hiding the appropriate plumbing beneath. Charging ports are in all sorts of locations depending on make or model so putting the appropriate fire suppression port on a rear quarter panel should not be too much of a stretch for those automotive engineering / design people. The manufacturers will scream blue murder over cost & added complexity but I feel once the nightmare scenario of an EV fire under a shopping centre and or apartment building will force through some suitable knee jerk legislation so we may as well do the debate on locations, fixtures and assorted plumbing before the camel (Race Horse designed by a committee) exits the gate at high speed.
Renault Zoe does have a dedicated fire extinguisher port under the rear seats, you can find this information in the"rescue card" or whatever it's called
Brine has been used for many years to discharge LiPo batteries that have gone a bit puffy when used in the RC industry. Well done TJ and his mates. Science and practicality. 13 out of 10 indeed.
As a firefighter who gets called to car fires many times a year, by the time I get to the fire there is no way I can get close enough to connect anything to a car until the fire is out!
Asking anyone to get close enough to put a lance through the window is insane. Battery fires shoot flames out like a rocket., And shrapnel. A quick way to loose your legs.
Great info, thanks. Note that all the EV and Li-ion battery manufacturers were very well aware of this problem well before they began mass production of EVs. The earlier problem was expulsion gasses sufficient to lift the car about 100m. One of my colleagues was on the team that solved that issue. They designed expulsion chutes which split into opposing direction exhaust chutes. That's why you see the smoke expelling from under the car on all sides. The previous chutes all pointed down. I saw videos of impressive nail, crush, and overload testing of these cells at least 10 years ago. I prohibited their use in all our data center design based on that and more recent evidence. I'm amazed all the agencies allowed their use for anything larger than a hand drill. I like the standardized lance jammed into a receptacle idea. As others mentioned, a single port may work great on new cars, but on the highway burning cars are often also wreaked cars; so your single port may be smashed in, or on the ground. On a ferry, I think seawater would be a better choice as the suppression agent. I think the chilled brine is not worth the effort, especially if you have a fitting. Without a fitting, on a ferry deck, with 1000 cars, yes chilled brine surely appears to work, but I still doubt it's necessary. If the battery burns at about 400C and seawater in the Temperate Atlantic ranges from 0 to 20C, delta T is 380C worst case. The chilled brine would only add 20-40C, or 5-10% delta T. One could simply increase the flow rate by 10% to match performance. And, they'll not run out of seawater, not have to carry it, not have to chill it. To gain the very nice conductivity to kill the battery, the seawater line could have a very highly concentrated liquid saline solution injected during use. Most ships that size have seawater cooling systems and fire suppression. I recently set up a barge with a full operating data center aboard. Seawater cooling was really the only plausible way to cool it. We did not use a fire suppression system in that data center because there are no combustible materials within that room. One last note. The quick connect ports should probably exists on 4 corners, 4 sides, or a combo. They should be blocked until thermally opened. I'm guessing a meltaway plug on the battery side of the pipe. Otherwise, someone may just destroy your battery for the fun of it. And, if you provide a port to inject fluid, you should also provide a port on the opposite side to release that water. Water flowing through would be much better than a pool of stationary water. Perhaps the expulsion chutes could provide this pathway.
yes a thermal fuse plug say made from wax. there are wax stick pens commercially available for temp testing used in metal fab shops to check if a part is at preheat temp. surely that could be adapted here.
I will begin by saying that all you said makes sense to me and seems like good logic. Not arguing with your assertion, but just a thought… because I assume the brains behind this are thinking about this kind of stuff. (I am not an expert, nor do I know profess to be knowledgeable about chemistry) but I would assume that this brine is different from sea water in some way. Lower freezing point? Less elements that interact with lithium batteries? Have no clue. But as with JCs assertions about liquid nitrogen, there is a reason why fire fighters dont use liquid nitrogen. I had that thought, but whether it was chemical, logistical or practical reasons, I figured there was a reason why LN was not used as a suppressant. If sea water is used, i am guessing that the cooling of the liquid is part of the reason why they dont just say “sea water”. The only other issue I have with this post is about the cooling port to batteries. You mentioned highway accidents causing excessive damage to cars and wanting 4 ports instead of 1. I live in California, and major accidents I see on freeways, I am guessing that even if you had 4 ports, by the time fire dept arrived, the fire might be so hot they just had to use the stinger demonstrated in the video anyway. Again, not arguing… just thinking that the scientific minds behind this have thought of this stuff. I’d like to hear your thoughts though
The quick connection port is a great idea. Hide it in the charging door just like a conventional fuel filler. If the battery temp gets too high, the charging door automatically opens, allowing for rapid access for responders.
It’s great to see such cognitive recognition of the real truth of EV’s and battery tech. The question now is, what will this recognition then cost the consumer? Once the cost of insurance, regular replacement of incredibly expensive parts, exclusion zones based around consumer safety, restrictions on repairs etc etc… Will the utopian style subsidies be enough for lunacy to prevail long enough to remove established and well understood current transport in such a way that we can’t go back to what we trust? I seriously doubt it! Keep up the brilliant exposé John, love your work
Very well done TJ and his mates. At least there is one person (other than yourself) who is taking this EV battery thermal runaway problem seriously as no one else seems to be in the least bit interested. He may well save the lives of the people on his vessels or at least not be left with incinerated hulk of a ship should the worst happen.
Thanks John; this embraces many of my previous comments in relation to EV fires in carparks and RoRo passenger ferries. Interesting to see Smyril Line's ferry participating and I'll be investigating further as I'll be on their Norrana vessel next month. One other point is that AI plus thermography cameras can help early detection of localised thermal abnormality in a ferry car deck ( I investigated this method a while back for municipal incinerator refuse hoppers) to initiate alarms. The inlet cooling port is a great idea. Imagine having a coolant feed pipe hooking up with the EV charging cable, or at home having to connect at least a 15mm hose before your EV could charge if you are brave enough to do that in your garage. As ever, it's going to take the first inevitable mega fire disaster with major loss of life to make legislation catch up.
@@philhealey4443 16 tonne of refrigerated brine is quite a lot but for it to be implemented by by fire brigades worldwide is quite straight forward. Another thing that could be implemented, in this era of mass communication devices, would be a thermal App. built into the vehicle that automatically sounded an alarm. It would not be difficult, considering the amount of computerized automation required to make them go anyway.
@seanworkman431 That's another good one. There are definitely multiple issues needed to close the loop on this, including escape from the car, how the battery performs thermally when in trouble, detection, attempts at suppression / methods to prevent spread to surrounding areas including property and other vehicles.
For some reason they put all the EVs together … If any adjacent EVs got brine on their battery packs those batteries would have to scrapped, maybe the whole car. … Brine is highly corrosive.
A truly excellent video by John Cadogan. I read in one of the many comments that in the USA, doors are automatically locked when the car is in motion. I remember that when I was in Germany in 1971, I was told that I should not not use the inside security button to lock the door from the inside, because in the case of an accident in which I was rendered unconscious, first responders would not be able to open the door from the outside to drag me out of the car.
John, a great video but I want to straighten the scrum a bit regarding Li metal. When a LiFePO4 battery is in a charged state, much of the lithium is over on the negative electrode intercalated within graphite with a zero valency (ie for all intents and purposes it is there as metallic lithium). The other electrode is in the form of FePO4 where the Fe is in the +3 valence state and the PO4 is 3-. Upon discharge, the Li on the negative electrode surrenders an electron to the outside circuit and becomes Li+ and heads to the positive electrode where you get Li+ + FePO4 + e- = LiFePO4 drawing an electron from the external circuit (the Fe now in the +2 valence state). The actual form of Li ions in the electrolyte is generally in the form of salts as you say like LiPF6. So the Li in the salts is not the issue - it is the Li metal within the graphite negative electrode that is the issue (and the unholy mixture that is the electrolyte).
An electropositive metal like lithium reacts by donating an electron to an electron acceptor (oxidant). John is being a little disingenuous when he asserts that there is no lithium metal in a lithium ion battery. Lithium intercalated in graphite is still a very strong reductant and will react violently with water.
@@j.w.8663 , yes, when the Li is in the form of LiFePO4 it is in a lower energy state compared to being there as Lithium Metal. Still lots of material in there that can oxidise, but less likely to begin self-heating.
@@romanpolanski4928 , I don't think John is being disingenuous - I just don't think he understands that much of the Lithium is present in the reduced form (metal) in a charged LiFePO4 battery. I think the firefighting approach at big battery installations of "stay upwind and let it burn" is a good one. Keeping water away from the lithium lessens the risk of a hydrogen explosion and lessens the environmental clean-up.
@@petert4393 If John doesn't understand the electrochemistry of lithium ion batteries he should tone down the snide dismissal of people who know more than he. The toxicity of lithium salts is another problem. Lithium is biologically active, and is prescribed to sufferers of manic depression.
Thanks for the update on this important story, John. Like you, I once thought having a common standard connection for safety reasons is a "no brainer." You referred to fire department connection points outside of buildings (in Canada they are called stand pipes) that firehoses can be attached to. One would think there is a common (universal) connector, at least in one country - I was surprised to find out it ain't so! As a HS administrator I was involved in several aspects of new school design almost 25 years ago. When the local fire chief met with school, department, and contractor representatives he asked, "What style stand pipe connectors will you be using?" My interjection was "Pardon me? You mean there isn't a national standard?" "Nope, not even a provincial one." So, it should be possible to enforce a standard firefighting connector for autos, but it hasn't been done for buildings.
Even many more betters, if the fire fighters can connect from a few meters away. Maybe several positions on the battery with lugs where a lance could be connected and the battery pierced, water jet ???
I commented this the last time already, that would address a problem that does not exist anymore. The solution is to manufacture batteries such that they cannot run away anymore - and that is happening right now. The new batteries have highly compatmentalised cells made of high temperature resistant material, so the fire does not propagate from cell to cell anymore. Several car manufacturers are already doing this. So legislating now to fit a water port to every future car, while the runaway issue only exists in old, already on the road cars, is actually not an excellent idea, it is an unnecessary idea that would solve a problem that does not exist anymore by the time it has been legislated and implemented.
It seems that for every technical development we make, introduces a multiple of associated problems. This also indicates that not enough research has gone into those developments before proceeding to manufacture. The internet is just one example that has created more problems, that need to be solved.
I’m not an EV fan , and you are right. When the first catastrophic car park fire happens in an apartment or office block, watch councils and state and federal governments start jumping around regulating EVs to death.
They built a new supermarket around the corner from my house a couple of years ago with 2 levels of basement parking...and 2 EV charging stations right next to, of all places, the exit.
A fossil fuel car fire is more likely in an underground or multi story car park of any kind. This is due to fuel theft being rife in these places which most of the time are deserted. Data from insurance companies show that there are 100,000 car fires in the UK every year, about 300 a day, leaky fuel and fuel theft are the most common causes. Again using the insurance data and data from highways authorities in the USA, Sweden and the UK, you are at least 25 times more likely to have a fire in a fossil fuel car than in an EV.
I use Lipo's for flying RC planes. Lipo stands for Lithium-polymer battery. A thermal runaway happens with these batteries as well. That's why we take several precautionary steps to make sure this doesn't happen in use, storage, or when tossed. One way that suggested to neutralize these batteries before discarding them is to make sure the neg & pos wire ends are exposed as much as possible and soak them over night in salt water, brine, before tossing them. The whole batter without any covers, in bags/ packaging, tape on the wires ends have to be removed. The pos & neg wire ends have to be completely exposed, any covers, insulation, tape, etc like EV car battery packs have needs to be removed for best results.. I've done this several times over many years and it does work IF you leave the batteries under saltwater for 24 hours or more. And IF I do several batteries at the same time the saltwater, brine, effectiveness diminishes the more batteries I put in the container; I don't know why, I just know it does. When there's too many batteries I have to make a fresh brine solution and repeat to make sure there's no voltage reading when done. I'm no scientist I just know this is what happens and I can still get a voltage reading on some of the batteries even after 24 hours of submerging them, and these are not as lethal as the batteries in EV's. I'm very skeptical about this method. I'm sure it's better then just water, but I still would not trust the car is completely safe after this method. In my, opinion there's nothing wrong with EV vehicles, scientist just don't have the proper power source for the vehicles yet. And hundreds or thousands of AA batteries are not a proper power source. Until one is invented I will never buy an EV...too dangerous !
People really don’t understand how things work. I just saw a short video from a TH-cam creator who’s at least a very serious car enthusiast if not an expert, with a huge following, and he was practically having an orgasm about how wonderful the small photovoltaic array on the roof of the Fisker Ocean is. It can’t produce a useful amount of electric power, and it’s just one more thing to break, but he was crowing about what a stroke of genius it is.
I agree that solar panels on cars are more of a gimmick than a useful addition to its range. However, EVs have a lot less things to break and are a lot less likely to experience a fire than a car with a fuel tank and a lot more reliable than one with an, exhaust, engine, starter motor, gearbox, fuel pump, water pump etc etc.
- would be overjoyed at my Ford Ranger - - positively huge - that solar unit keeps "all the beverages one could want", cold perpetually... lols (of course half an hour running the alternator does the same thing, but hey, everyone likes a silent camp site. lol..
@@kiae-nirodiariesencore4270 ICE vehicles use components with relatively predictable lifespans; I have a 1989 Mazda that has never let me down because I service it regularly and replace components based on their predicted lifespan and have never had a component failure as a result; over a third of a century of reliable transport for a third of a million km's. As for ICE vehicles being more prone to fires than EV's, this is nonsense; you are referring to fire statistics, which count the many deliberately lit vehicle fires and the rest are vehicles that have faults mostly related to being damaged in an accident or ICE vehicles that haven't been serviced regularly and generally are much older than the EV fleet.
The only reason the Aptera can make use of solar panels is because of the effort to improve its efficiency so much that it doesn't require nearly as much energy to work.
EV number plates could have easily visible lightening bolts on the side of them so emergency vehicles of all sorts know its an EV. The front and rear bumpers could have a quick removal plate, like those on cars where the tow ball would be mounted and allow fire fighters to pull it away and connect their hoses. A pressure release valve in the EV battery would blow open under pressure allowing the brine to flow from one side of the battery to the other cooling and discharging the battery bank. A temp sensor in the battery bank would trip when a critical temp is reached and cause an alarm to sound. Something similar to this would be easy to implement and not cost all that much!
No, the process of discharging the battery also generates heat. Salt water will be separated electrically by the cell energy, then recombine (sodium and chlorine in direct contact - Very exothermic!), generating more heat. Fortunately, the freezing brine will cool that system.
G”day John, I’m not qualified in this area, I do heavy diesel maintenance and have done a lot of work on irrigation and dredges. I don’t know if anyone else has suggested this but as part of the battery flooding system, design in a container of salt so that as water is injected it mixes on the way to the battery, in a similar manner to existing agricultural dry chemical mixers. Also easily designed as a quick connect, portable inline unit so that emergency services can carry a number of preloaded compact units for use with EVs, without needing to carry brine or compromise foam systems. Theres a thesis or two this for some bright spark.
Your suggestion for a quick connection port for firefighters to use is good one, thumbs up on that one John. While we wait, there is a device that has been under development to puncture EV underfloor battery packs. The firefighting device injects water directly into the batteries thus cooling and discharging the batteries at the same time. I will see if I can find the TH-cam link.
I had seen this idea tested about a year ago. It didn't work as well as hoped for. Punching holes in the battey pack ended up shorting out more cells, which added to the heat and pressure build up in the battery pack.
Concerning that, I've seen a solution with some rack that is shoved under an EV, with massive spikes ramming into the battery, and delivering the fire-retardant directly inside the battery.
Hey @John Cadogan, as a volunteer firefighter I've been following the process of fighting these type of car fires since the introduction of the first electric vehicles, and the various tactics and methods that have developed, and I have to say the brine method is simply ingenious. As for a deployment method direct to the battery pack of a EV, Rosenbauer America, a subsidiary of Rosenbauer Germany, which makes top of the line fire fighting appliances (as we call our trucks) for both domestic, airport (The RAAF has Rosenbauer fire fighting tenders) and industry, have developed a method for piercing the battery pack and applying water (see attached youtube videos). This method takes a breathing apparatus cylinder (that magic air breathy thingy that lets us work in toxic environments) and attaches to a control box that drives a spike into the bottom of the battery pack, and then through this spike the pack is flooded. Now, combine this with a dedicated appliance carrying a brine system, you could potentially have a system that could be deployed anywhere to handle a EV fire in thermal runaway. The combination of these two tactics really could be a game changer for us tackling EV fires. th-cam.com/video/xaIAb3XgYVY/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/SPMoZOpN_DA/w-d-xo.html
That system looks very interesting and it is curious that it uses much of an existing on ship fire suppression system (which uses seawater, is that brine also?). Something that Sal Mercogliano from "What is Going on With Shipping" discussed when he covered two ship board car fires was the extreme difficulty of getting firefighters to the vehicles owing to the extreme closeness of the vehicles to each other and the lashings that keep them in place. Sal also explained how the systems work on RoRo ships and the problem of compartmentalizing (or lack of) the decks for fire containment. As a fire chief and former merchant sailor he knows of which he speaks.
Hi John love your work. You mentioned the Spirit of Tasmania, I had been thinking of using this ship for for a self drive holiday to Tasmania but the thought of an Ev fire on one of the roughest seas in the world in the middle of the night has now turned my plans into a fly and hire holiday. Are you aware of any safety procedures for transporting EVs on this ship? Regards Ev
woah starting from 8:30 and then all the thermodynamic terms coming out, it made me remembered the time of me studying thermodynamic class in college lol
When I think about Farenheit being salt water freezing point versus Celsius fresh water freezing it makes so much sense brine would have that property. We spray the stuff on the roads here in the winter in Newfoundland. I doubt it's -19 but interesting to think of it as potentially useful for other things.
John, in the interim, say you had a setup like a pneumatic bellows jack. In the centre there could be a section that would be like a triple lift hydraulic jack with the pad replaced by a pointed and vented spike. They would have at least 75 PSI in the hoses so piercing the battery case from under the vehicle shouldn't be a problem. You would use two such items, sliding under from each side for the FIMI (Fork I Missed It) effect. Our local fire fighters could add salt through a flow through tank in such circumstances. Wouldn't cool as well but would get to the seat of the fire and discharge battery.
I was thinking more like a bed of nails, but with each nail being a hollow perforated tube. Under hydraulic pressure, you slam the bed up into the battery, then pump the brine up through the punctured pack. It might not be a practical solution, but what a fitting end to an EV - skewered!
Correct me if I'm wrong Teslas use a liquid cooling system on their batteries and I guess a number of other manufacturers have similar. An after market mod might be possible. And in any case future models should have this fitted with entry ports where petrol cars have filler caps
Your references from WWII ammunition stockpile management triggered a thought that may be worth your consideration. In mobile vehicles (tanks) they found that wet ammunition storage was the best Defense against “thermal runaway” or ammunition fires. Modern vehicles also have blow out panels etc to help keep the fire out of the crew compartment. No one would want this as it add significant weight and only a hybrid with significantly smaller batteries would be able to tolerate this. It’s amazing that hydrocarbon are still the king of energy density and water is the king of heat dissipation (particularly for dissipating heat where the source is above 100 degrees Celsius) This is all like “the nuclear revolution” … all they do is use a nuclear reaction to boil water instead of burning hydrocarbons. After seeing this demonstration, brine is basically just using Sodium Chloride as the cooling additive, so car coolant also reduces the the freezing temp and increases the boiling temp. Also worth noting that straight water wouldn’t hurt. They already have cooling jackets, they just need to compartmentalise it so that each combustible unit has a water jacket like wet ammo storage. Then you just need a port that connects to the “water jacket” that is rated to handle a fire water pump truck. First, the “thermal runaway” should be contained to only the damaged modules, the modules would have less chance of setting off the neighbouring modules … if a runaway starts (would be evidenced by steam being released from the battery module) … if the fire fighters see the steam release, they know that the battery pack needs more cooling and can connect the water inlet port and turn the pumps on. Ultimately the outlet would probably be the hole that the damage Battery made so the cooling water will past directly to the damaged module and cool it directly, whilst also cooling all of the neighbouring modules … it’s not rocket science. If the battery module has a constant supply of water at 30 deg Celsius and it’s at 500 or more then there is more than enough cooling capacity in water to address the thermal runaway. Honestly, this is another issue that electrical engineers have been given that was solved about 100 years ago by mechanical engineers. Ignorance isn’t an excuse.
Yes the thermal runaway port needs to be one each side ( less chance of being deleted in front/rear shunt I thought about a concrete nail gun making its own port … but that opens more cels
On my brigade's pumper we carry a lance that we ram through a vehicle bonnet( so we don't open the hood and give the fire a boost of air)that is also connected to hose line that then floods engine via inserted lance, but this would be impractical for EVs
Interesting idea John. If this fire suppression system works well, I'm sure all fire brigades will want to adopt this method. However, on land, such as on the street or carpark garaging, the -20C brine I would think would be a bit impractical due to the sheer volume needed. I do like the idea of a standardized dedicated battery box water injection port. Of course, during thermal runaway, the pressure release of gases would prevent water (brine) from being injected. I suggest a varation of this idea where several overpressure vents are attached to the battery box, which vent the toxic gas away from the car's interior, which would relieve the pressure so water could be injected. At this point, we may be able to use the standard fire brigade water supply to pump into the battery box. Since water would now be forced into the problem area, the huge quantity and flow may suffice at extinguishing the fire. The water injection port would need a checkvalve to prevent gas from escaping, thus protecting the fire fighters as they hook up the water supply.
The genius of the brine isn’t just about temp reduction. It’s also that the salt in the water helps discharge the battery to zero. That’s where a chunk of the magic happens.
@@ardencassie5150 Agreed, I was just throwing out ideas to possibly adapt the technique presented in the video with as few modifications as possible to conventional fire fighting techniques. Although the brine does help discharge the battery pack, it also adds to the heat being generated. The main goal of extinguishing the battery pack is to cool it off to stop the thermal runaway.
@@billharris6886 How about this idea of mine for the volumes needed. There is a water blasting system called Dustless Blasting. They mix water and sand together to remove rust ,marks on concrete. Now instead of sand you mix salt and water in the system to spray on the EVs..
@@jamesq3896 Perhaps there is a some way of imbedding a permeable block of plain old rock salt in each EV battery pack. Upon flooding with water of any kind the salt would dissolve and help to discharge the battery cells.
As a EE nerd I really appreciate you John and your honest assessments of all things EVs. BC the completely biased inputs from the ev enthusiastic crowds. With the "everything is perfect" stand point. Doesn't help fix actual real problems. Or bring them to the forefront to be acknowledged and worked on at all. All feedback is important and needed including the negative parts that those people actively avoid and disregard. Keep up the good work John BC there are alot of us EE nerds out there listening to you too.
I would recommend two water injection ports - one at the front and one at the rear of the car. If there is only one you can be sure it will be on the end of the car that is parked tight up against a wall.
Lol Here's a good joke one I heard someone say on my way out on a train the other day. "Oh those EV batteries generate their own oxygen when they burn so why don't they use a fan to suck it out before it can make the battery burn?" "Then we could save it and compress it into a metal cylinder". LOL
Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? The major issue I have with this idea, which may well work for killing a battery in thermal runaway, but there remains the big killer to end all - TIME. In most countries there are regulations which dictate how many fire fighting apliances must be in a certain area due to risks in that area and response times by crews to get to any incident within set timeframes. An ev in runaway will make these response times simply unattainable as such an incident can be 100% involved in fire within 3 minutes, which means anyone trapped inside following an accident is going to die, period! I shudder to think of the potential outcome of a multiple ev collision/pile-up on a major motorway/highway. The more you begin thinking about the possibilities for a negative outcome the more I want to scream at those that would allow this to happen through ignorance.
25 year professional firefighter here from the UK. Back in my day, the biggest exceptional risk we faced in car fires was magnesium wheels, notably on the Fiat x-19 where the spare was stored in the passenger compartment. Move forward 30 years and you have a problem at least 10 times worse with probably 10 times the likelihood of the problem occurring. There are significantly more EVs already than there ever were little Fiat sports cars. One thing nobody has so far mentioned is the batteries in hybrid cars. Are they the same type of battery? Is the risk of thermal runaway the same? Presumably the average hybrid car has a smaller battery pack than a full EV? What's your opinion, John? My fear is that with all the talk about thermal runaway in EV's the problem presented by a far larger number of hybrid vehicles already on the road may be completely overlooked.
Very informative JC, thanks again for another educational lesson of the real world issues that will be solved by some very clever people working as a team
Extremely elegant and super simple solution. The boat might even be able to pump sea water as a start and add extra brine. I thought they had come up with some new chemical like I have seen in Lithium Ion fire extinguishers videos demonstrations but when you said brine I shouted F why didn't I think of that. Draining the battery of charge is a very important part as a dead battery should not reignite.
I cannot like that comment enough! Yes, that is THE solution! When an EV catches fire, surround it by more EVs All the EVs within reach. In fact, I think this could work for ANY fire
I imagine the costs and ability to have such setups everywhere is near impossible. For the foreseeable future, most fires will just be left alone to burn out.
I agree George. It's not practical to have multiple input and output ports and hope everything works perfect and hope the EV is in a place that the brine truck can reach. It's just impractical. And once that fire really starts up then no-one will ever be able to get close enough to hook up to the port. They have to find a new battery that does not start with Li.....Pretty much have to reverse engineer the batteries they use in the UFO's. There's the solution.
I was unsuccessful in trying to find their video online which I found concerning because public awareness to this solution for fighting EV battery fires is so important. I emailed the company to suggest they post a shareable link of the video on their website to facilitate the dissemination of this approach among the general public with the hope of generating political pressure to enact regulations to force EV battery makers to include this fire suppression technology in their batteries. Your suggestion about building in this fire suppression system in all batteries makes even more sense when you consider the perils inherent in large scale grid storage batteries, residential storage batteries and batteries in commercial vehicles with very large batteries. Awesome work dude!!!
The cold brine is an excellent idea, and perfect for RORO or ROPax ferries and car carriers. The early detection is critical, but the 6 minute delay was great to show something close to a realistic situation. Add a standard port like the underground machines would be something manufacturers should be looking at for the future, but they can barely standardise the power charging setup, let alone a safety device that could be useful.
You can build in a delay to simulate crew response but in reality this is likely to be very arbitrary. From Alarm to suited up on scene via wtf is going on may well see a fire spread to other vehicles before it can be contained. A better solution would be to have a dedicated EV deck that can tilt and dump the whole lot into the sea 😂
@@davidferry548it's not such a dumb idea, I thought the same thing but put the ev,s on an upper deck with doors that can be opened and the whole thing jettisoned, maybe even have a pallet under each vehicle or group of them, to make it easier.
You could have an undissolved brine pack on the other side of said proposed suppression circuit hose connection on the EV. So only water would be required to be pumped into the EV suppression port.
An informative video. Awesome. Your proposed idea of the inlet as part of the ADR is awesome, and on a ship could potentially be pre-plugged in with auto- detect runaway. It is potentially a much more addressable problem than an ICE fire if more sciencing money is dropped on this issue. Gotta love fishing.
yes thats not such a silly idea. it would cut the reponse dramatically it could mean that the vehicle is salvagable rather than a pile of scrap. also it would greatly reduce the the damage to other vehicles and the vessel.
Great news and not that complex except for getting the pollies to take notice. In the dark ages when we went camping without a fridge that ran via electricity or gas we had ice chests, and we would add salt to keep them colder for longer.
Speaking of "hauling brine".... Here, in north-east USA many TONS of brine are spread on the roads to reduce ice. These a state-trucks are dedicated to maintaining the roads. We already have the technology to move brine on 100s of state-owned trucks. It seems all we need now is the hookup on the EVs. (When ambient temp. is -10F...there is no need to chill the brine)
LNG ships use a water curtain under the loading connections to prevent any cryogenic liquids (-161 deg. Celsius at atmospheric pressure) from contacting and causing cracks in the hull in case of any leaks. I could only imagine the damage if a deck is deluged with a cryogenic liquid such as LN2.
All these car ev batteries are liquid cooled , so retrofitting a front and or rear port with standard quick connect device, have the system set up with a pressure realise, fire fighter turns up, connects to the car and forces brine through the battery, or some leverage operated piercing device that then through the device pumps brine through the puncture point it created by the device ,something long enough to keep the fire fighters out of harms way .
If in theory a quick connect is added to all EV's for brine, it would then be possible to have the hoses already connected to the vehicle when on a ship or in a carpark building. This way the fire could be contained without any firefighter having to go near the vehicle. It could even be mandated that all charging stations have the connection and the EV will not charge without it connected, this includes in home chargers.
On your question presented on 25:49, 'How would you propose to deliver brine directly to the cells' : I would require EV manufacturers to provide a separate plubming or access to the existing coolant plumbing from the ouside using a standardized hose hookup. Standardization of this safety feature is the only way to go. If the existing coolant plumbing is used, the added cost could be kept to a minimum. Saludos desde Puerto Rico.
Every automotive manufacturer is required to perform a design FEMA (DFMEA)on every vehicle and on new or revised vehicle system or component. An FMEA takes into consideration, Severity, Detection, and Occurrence. All of which are assigned numbers which are added together to indicate a Risk Priority Number (RPN) There is absolutely no way, BEV manufacturers, had a Design FMEA, RPN below 100 relative to the risk of Lithium Battery Fires. This means that the manufacturing companies executives, had to approve the design, with full knowledge of the high Design FMEA RPN, indicating high severity issues related to BEV fires. Severity = (1-10) would have been (10) Occurrence = (1-10) this might have been low say 1 or 2 Detection = would have been high, because there is little to no method to detect thermal runaway. (10) Multiply the result together SxOxD 10x1x10= 100 It would be interesting to see the design FMEA for any BEV.
Amazing video John, As a first responder who previously had no idea how to tackle this problem I now feel a little more comfortable facing this threat. Lucky me I have a brine dam at work. Keep up your awesome work.👍👍 Dave K
Shipping container with the top cut off, wet sand on the bottom, put the burning EV in the container (with a fork truck?) then fill with wet sand. A fire department did this in the states somewhere with great outcome of success!
Storz is the standard coupling used in NSW. The govt. can introduce a ADR for a 38mm Storz connector behind a external flap. 38mm is the min. size we use for vehicle fires.
I wish you taught me science at school. Many classmates would have been offended and parents complained but you explain in a practical application way. I'm in my 40s by the way.
I was thinking exactly what you were suggesting at almost the same time you suggested it. Said port could even be 'tucked' under the bumper much like the exhaust on an ICE vehicle. On EV's that have battery heating/cooling the port could maybe even plumbed into that maybe with some internal burst point so that the pressure of the brine being pumped in (the cooling system on an ev battery is fairly low pressure) bursts and the internal fitting and then floods the battery. I might be over thinking it though.
You're completely right about liquid nitrogen but seemed to struggle explaining it. Try this. Water is 25c at room temperature and has to absorb enough energy to reach 100c to boil. Liquid nitrogen is stored around - 200c and needs to absorb enough energy to boil at - 196c.
One problem I can see is how close together cars are parked on car carrier's, so access would be a problem for the crew. I like your idea of a fire fighting port as every car could be plugged into this system and if a car starts to cook off you flood that cars battery.
method by which a burning battery will self-eject so that it can be directly sprayed and partially immersed. the battery sits in the centre of a high sided tray with a wide resevoir all around. the sides would rise to half the battery's height. during installation, this battery assembly is inserted into the undercarriage and fixed in place using any adhesive or fixing that will reliably fail at the requisite temperature. in the event of severe overheat, the battery assembly would detach and drop to the floor.
There's a lot to like about a system like this. Firstly, the brine being a byproduct of their onboard freshwater plant (be it RO or Evap) means an unlimited and "free" supply. Second, by soft shorting the battery pack like this, they greatly reduce the likelihood of reignition after extinguishment. Third, by using water instead the available chemical options, toxicity and exposure risk for the crew and passengers are significantly diminished. There are waterjet cutting lances (Cobra for example) that are designed to punch a hole through metal/stone/etc and deliver loads of high pressure water to the location of a fire. They were designed for structure fires (roofs, soffits, closed doors w/backdraft risk, etc) but have been demonstrated to work on EVs as well.
Seems like an excellent solution to the issues of EVs and being transported in Ro Ro car carriers. I sent the link to a techo mate and he offered the following: "1. A port that goes straight into your battery is a gateway to instant total destruction by vandalism. Some one pours in a gallon of salt water, that destroys your battery and effectively makes your whole car worthless. 2. Salt is a solution of sodium chloride. If you discharge a DC battery through it, that will generate an ENORMOUS amount of chlorine. This was an experiment I used to do all the time when I was teaching." Thinking about the loading arrangements on a car carrier and the number of crew able to respond to a fire alarm, six minutes might be a little ambitious. The trial vehicle did not have a large number of vehicles close and around it (offering access issues to the attending fire crew that may change the dynamics of the ability to contain to one vehicle). My wife wondered whether the inclusion of a "port" to the battery of the vehicle might benefit firefighters who attend accidents or fires involving EVs. Are they able to generate a increased salt base flow to a port to overcome the need to continually flood the vehicle with thousands of litres of water. On a separate note, it was another Scandinavian company that designed successful hi fog type fitted firefighting systems on ships (replacing gas type systems). Smart people from that area of the world.
An improvement on this could be chilled sodium carbonate solution. The carbonate would both decompose endothermicly into CO2 and Sodium oxide, and once the temperature was low enough, help deal with the HF and other toxic chemicals. For carparks you could add this to the sprinkler system as well with the added benefit of working better for other types of fires too.
An excellent video with a well thought out solution. Problem today with new ideas is that people donot think things through looking at both pros and cons of implementing it. In times past people took time to get it right. Now we cant afford to waste time as money rules - delays cost money hence knee jerk reactions.
Thank you, John, for presenting this. A SOLUTION, simple in its form and design. Well done to TJ and his team. One can only hope that the people of influence take up the suggestions offered.
I have seen all your concerns of these EV fires and there potential Consequences. But this video needs to be shown in as many places as possible because it's the best answers we have so far.
A brilliant solution especially for a ship that's surrounded by weak brine. One concern is the discharging the battery part. The test was done on a small EV, some have several times larger batteries. Also if you're going to have a way to get the brine into the battery I think there needs to be a way for it to flow out as well, say from the top of the battery. That would allow the fluid to flow around the cells. My other concern is some of the latest EVs seem to have totally sealed battery packs, pretty much a block of epoxy or similar.
29:07 That's a very valid point. Isn't it amazing that this hasn't happened already? Brace yourselves becasue it will and when it does, what will the impact be for the EV industry as a whole?
Excuse my ignorance here, in electronics there is a thing called a thermal fuse which trips when something gets too hot, I am also aware of other passive sacrificial one time use devices which when a set of conditions are met, degrade letting an action to occur. I believe wax is a common device. Would it be feasible for battery packs to contain in their sealed case a container of firefighting liquid which would release when certain conditions are met? I'd suggest this would help buy time until authorities arrive to control the situation. I would also suggest that the fact a lot of these cars are already connected to the cellular wireless communication networks that they should be able to let authorities know "hey I am experiencing thermal runaway, my safety system has just gone off please come put me out, here is my gps location (or last known one)" wouldn't that also save precious time? That said your fill port sounds like something that should have happened yesterday.
I agree with the injection port for the saline cooling slurry but would add an exhaust port as well so you can circulate the slurry through the pack and collect most of it. More effective and less mess.
Nice one. As a firefighter and bushfire consultant writing risk management plans and emergency management plans for solar farms with BESS in bushfire prone Victoria (thermal runaway on a severe fire danger day gives me the odd nightmare), I thank Odin for the Vikings. I would suggest if we had ferries designated exclusively for EV's and politicians responsible for safety regulations, we might find the legislative framework updated a little quicker than the normal lifetime.
We add foam through a venturi mixture delivery system that bypasses the pump system (salt ruins our equipment) I would imagine perhaps a brine delivery could be employed in a similar way and fitted to existing firefighting tankers and pumpers for mobile brine delivery, however I am no expert or an engineer, just trying to think outside the box.
The first thing is practicality. It's fantastic for a ferry, not so good round here when we're (on average) 20mins from the call getting placed to us arriving. Whatever we're going to do has to be achievable after that amount of time has elapsed and with 3000L of water, because thats all we carry. We also cant be carrying brine around. We mostly deal with bushfire. Salted earth would also upset the general public I suspect. Maybe you could do the salt thing the way we do foam with a concentrate we add as required, but to make that workable we'd need it to be going in at around a max of 5% of the total volume. More than that will require carrying around a heap more weight on trucks that are quite close to GVM already. I also suspect that the quantity of salt in that brine solution will be substantial. You certainly couldn't get anywhere near the salt content of seawater. So no salt, no cooling it down, no fast response. Perfect solution for their situation, but that's about it. It's not transferable. Next thing is the claim of zero charge left in the battery. I'd want to see some compelling evidence of that, because it's quite a substantial claim. Here's the thing, those batteries are designed to be sealed. Once they start to thermally decompose they will off gas through a vent (or several). Large quantities of hot gas coming out of the vent will make it rather difficult for brine to make its way in. Especially when it's being applied from the passenger compartment that those vents are almost certainly not going to be plumbed into for obvious reasons like HF. At least I'd sure hope not anyway. So if they haven't actually managed to get it to zero charge, you've now got a bunch of cells in that battery that have been exposed to heat well beyond their design limits with a bunch of stranded charge. They heat up again and cause reignition. This is the very reason these cars tend to catch fire a number of times. Regarding ports on batteries, its a great idea, but you need to guarantee zero charge at the end. You also neee to keep them secure enough that they can't be tampered with and still useable to firefighters. Out current practice is to simply let it burn out. Take care of everything exposed, evacuate people etc. It cant catch fire again if its completely consumed already. Environmentally it's probably not great, but when you look at the equipment and water we have available, its the best solution. I'd also suggest that they may be catching fire quite a lot. I don't know, I don't have the statistics, but you'd want to look at them on a per 1M basis when comparing them with ICE vehicles. You would also need to look at those numbers in the context of what caused them. For example, arson, crash, defect in manufacturing or servicing and so on. It may just be a consequence of how often they're reported on in the media compared to ICE fires, but it certainly seems like they catch fire regularly.
John, adding to your EV standard emergency brine port idea. Port has to be high so it can be reached in ship close parking quarters. Most new EVs have coolant system inside of battery module, so your brine port could simply be plumped to that existing coolant system. Add two 60 psi blow out valves, one at brine port and one at lowest battery point. Valves normally keeps battery coolant integrity. During thermal runaway: Fire department securely connect to brine port then pumps > 60 psi. This high brine pressure blows out valves; letting brine into and out of runaway battery.
I'm not sure if all EV's have this but some models of Tesla's have a zero pressure cooling system that appears to be filled with green glycol. The system is used to keep the batteries during normal use. If there was a run away thermal event I figure this system would be breeched in the area of the failing batteries and if there was a connection for a brine water system then you have a way to flood the battery case, especially in the area of the failing batteries. In the cooling system remained intact I suspect that tubing would fail anyway if high pressure water from a fire pump was plumbed into it. There is a video put out by a TH-camr named Rich Rebuilds where his shop did a fix on a Tesla cooling system. I think the video is @ 5 years old now.
Putting out a one car fire on an open air dockside is one thing. However on a crowded car deck it is quite another. Most automotive battery packs are liquid cooled. It would seem that using brine with a system of say 4 universal quick connects together with the overpressure safety valve(s) and the fire fighting ability to overpressure the cars cooling system with an external high pressure high flow brine feed might be the way to get to the core of the problem.
Thanks John, entertaining and informative as always. Once we have our eFire ports, EVs on ferries can simply hook up to the nearest brine-point upon parking for fully autonymous detection & supression. And, as a bonus, it'll give EV owners that nostalgic sensation they used to get as ICE drivers of putting the nozzle into the tank (well, more like H2/LPG but you get the point)..
You could put a port on the cars and cool them all down when they pull up on the ferry. Every car. You could even just put really robust cooling system onboard in the car, think radiators and circulating coolant as standard so that the number of fires goes down to begin with.
My husband was involved in battery industry many years ago and worked with companies researching the use of brine to discharge lithium batteries. It works but the residual waste is a hazardous liquid which needs collection and disposal. He always said, and still says that the technology is not ready.
Spot on John. As a chemical engineer I am fully aware of low probability high consequence events. Incidentally, thees types of events began with railways in the UK in the 1840s. The response, formation of the Railway Inspectorate who investigated every incident and made enforceable recommendations to prevent recurrence.
Can you use salt sea water instead of brine?
@@KubuśpuchatekTVN not really you can only take a couple of degrees of it before it freezes The brine was -16 ?
@@laurabeaumont3593 libtards from google say it's -2°C. Could've checked it earlier 😬
Yep just like what will happen with electric vehicles, problems will occur, smart people will fix them cars will get even safer. Just the leap from petrol to electric is reducing the likelihood of fire by 22 times
@@kylebeetham3679
Interesting and useful solution. Here in UK we are not allowed to take an LPG powered vehicle through the channel tunnel to France and the amount of spare Petrol in containers is strictly limited for FIRE safety reasons. Vehicles are loaded onto a train consisting of separate carriages with fire shutters between each carriage. Occupants remain in their cars for the 35 minute journey. EVs however are WELCOME, they even have charge points in the terminal waiting area. I may have to review my use of the tunnel to get to Europe.
Main reason for the LPG restriction is that there were too many botched conversions with leaks. Same reason why some ferry companies banned them. The per-vehicle incident rate of fire in BEVs vs ICE cars is small. Risk of fire in a BEV is low. It’s also much less likely to get as dangerously explosive as say a petrol fire. They do burn hotter and for longer though…
but still allowed to take a van with lpg on the chunnel and ferries providing the tanks switched off
@@amiddled Love how you koolaid drinkers love saying how rare EV fires are and low risk… And gasoline cars exploding? lol You should quit watching movies. At least you got the EV burns hotter longer right, conveniently left out that it burns itself out even if the fire department is there.
Reality is EV fires do go on thermal runaway on their own, and just like ICE can catch fire due to an accident or something else around it catching on fire..
Like it or not, other than drive train vehicles really aren’t that much different. It’s not like EV’s don’t have an electrical system, brake system and components like wheel bearings that I’ve seen cause vehicle fires. As an automotive technician I’ve seen more electrical fires than drivetrain fires that an EV doesn’t have. And let’s not pretend an electric motor can’t catch fire because they can. Most gasoline related fires I’ve personally seen is one carbureted engines being worked on by someone who probably should educate themselves before trying to turn a wrench but was at least smart enough to have a fire extinguisher, garden hose nearby. Seen a few where the shoveled dirt or sand and threw it on it to put it out. Lots of janky wiring from adding lights or stereo equipment which EV’s will get to share in with time. It’s also just a matter of time “handyman” will be attempting to make his own repairs on EV’s..
Can you still get to Europe after Brexit?
@@MrKOenigma what sort of a question is that? of course we can
Being a professional firie, I always watch and listen to your videos on these issues as you have well thought out ideas and practical solutions based on facts… being an engineer… that’s what you do, and I think you do it well.👍🏻👍🏻
As you pointed out… the fire fighting medium needs to be delivered directly into the cell casing to be effective… thumbs up to the mining industry for engineering that feature into their EV👍🏻
On a practical application for the real world… Another problem for the firefighters is the finite space on a firetruck and having to carry sufficient onboard brine solution as well as water and foam (which is on most urban trucks).
It’s great to learn that the brine solution discharges (and I assume neutralises the battery cells) however there would also be a serious corrosion problem with fire pumps and equipment being made of different metals and brine would make a wonderful electrolyte… and rarely used.
At the end of the day, unfortunately, I think it’s going to be a Ford Pinto situation before EV’s are redesigned to incorporate a dedicated battery firefighting inlet, as that would admit these things are potentially extremely dangerous, and that doesn’t sound very “green” to the customer.
Let’s see what happens…
Thanks for the update John.
@AutoExpertJohnGiveaway G’day John… just noticed this notification to reply to you.
Cheers
Clint
@@clintdart8572 I don't think that's John. It may be a scammer.
Question regarding fuel filler hardware on ICE vehicles in relation to serious road accidents. As a firie have you seen any instances of the fuel filler plumbing shearing to a fuel tank? My train of thought here is a "brine port" to the battery could be flexable in it's construction so location could be anywhere using available construction methods? So the port could in essence be located on the car bodywork in a similar manner to current filling locations with just a simple push to open mechanism hiding the appropriate plumbing beneath. Charging ports are in all sorts of locations depending on make or model so putting the appropriate fire suppression port on a rear quarter panel should not be too much of a stretch for those automotive engineering / design people. The manufacturers will scream blue murder over cost & added complexity but I feel once the nightmare scenario of an EV fire under a shopping centre and or apartment building will force through some suitable knee jerk legislation so we may as well do the debate on locations, fixtures and assorted plumbing before the camel (Race Horse designed by a committee) exits the gate at high speed.
Renault Zoe does have a dedicated fire extinguisher port under the rear seats, you can find this information in the"rescue card" or whatever it's called
Maybe it is possible too just carry the salt (in plastic container) and mix it with the water when needed. Instead of a dedicated brine tank.
Brine has been used for many years to discharge LiPo batteries that have gone a bit puffy when used in the RC industry. Well done TJ and his mates. Science and practicality. 13 out of 10 indeed.
Are there enough Brians to fight Ev fires or will a bunch of Steves be enough ?
As a firefighter who gets called to car fires many times a year, by the time I get to the fire there is no way I can get close enough to connect anything to a car until the fire is out!
bingo, while the Zoe shown is equipped with a port to the battery, in real world scenarios it's basically USELESS.
Asking anyone to get close enough to put a lance through the window is insane.
Battery fires shoot flames out like a rocket., And shrapnel. A quick way to loose your legs.
Great info, thanks.
Note that all the EV and Li-ion battery manufacturers were very well aware of this problem well before they began mass production of EVs.
The earlier problem was expulsion gasses sufficient to lift the car about 100m. One of my colleagues was on the team that solved that issue. They designed expulsion chutes which split into opposing direction exhaust chutes. That's why you see the smoke expelling from under the car on all sides. The previous chutes all pointed down.
I saw videos of impressive nail, crush, and overload testing of these cells at least 10 years ago. I prohibited their use in all our data center design based on that and more recent evidence. I'm amazed all the agencies allowed their use for anything larger than a hand drill.
I like the standardized lance jammed into a receptacle idea. As others mentioned, a single port may work great on new cars, but on the highway burning cars are often also wreaked cars; so your single port may be smashed in, or on the ground.
On a ferry, I think seawater would be a better choice as the suppression agent. I think the chilled brine is not worth the effort, especially if you have a fitting. Without a fitting, on a ferry deck, with 1000 cars, yes chilled brine surely appears to work, but I still doubt it's necessary. If the battery burns at about 400C and seawater in the Temperate Atlantic ranges from 0 to 20C, delta T is 380C worst case. The chilled brine would only add 20-40C, or 5-10% delta T. One could simply increase the flow rate by 10% to match performance. And, they'll not run out of seawater, not have to carry it, not have to chill it. To gain the very nice conductivity to kill the battery, the seawater line could have a very highly concentrated liquid saline solution injected during use.
Most ships that size have seawater cooling systems and fire suppression. I recently set up a barge with a full operating data center aboard. Seawater cooling was really the only plausible way to cool it. We did not use a fire suppression system in that data center because there are no combustible materials within that room.
One last note. The quick connect ports should probably exists on 4 corners, 4 sides, or a combo. They should be blocked until thermally opened. I'm guessing a meltaway plug on the battery side of the pipe. Otherwise, someone may just destroy your battery for the fun of it. And, if you provide a port to inject fluid, you should also provide a port on the opposite side to release that water. Water flowing through would be much better than a pool of stationary water. Perhaps the expulsion chutes could provide this pathway.
yes a thermal fuse plug say made from wax. there are wax stick pens commercially available for temp testing used in metal fab shops to check if a part is at preheat temp. surely that could be adapted here.
Wax thermal plugs are used on ice cooling system thermostats so are well understood technology.
Well said Cycle.
Although I’m not a stem guy, your proposal seems to be the most practicable addressing more of the potential issues .
I will begin by saying that all you said makes sense to me and seems like good logic.
Not arguing with your assertion, but just a thought… because I assume the brains behind this are thinking about this kind of stuff. (I am not an expert, nor do I know profess to be knowledgeable about chemistry) but I would assume that this brine is different from sea water in some way. Lower freezing point? Less elements that interact with lithium batteries? Have no clue. But as with JCs assertions about liquid nitrogen, there is a reason why fire fighters dont use liquid nitrogen. I had that thought, but whether it was chemical, logistical or practical reasons, I figured there was a reason why LN was not used as a suppressant.
If sea water is used, i am guessing that the cooling of the liquid is part of the reason why they dont just say “sea water”.
The only other issue I have with this post is about the cooling port to batteries. You mentioned highway accidents causing excessive damage to cars and wanting 4 ports instead of 1.
I live in California, and major accidents I see on freeways, I am guessing that even if you had 4 ports, by the time fire dept arrived, the fire might be so hot they just had to use the stinger demonstrated in the video anyway.
Again, not arguing… just thinking that the scientific minds behind this have thought of this stuff.
I’d like to hear your thoughts though
The quick connection port is a great idea. Hide it in the charging door just like a conventional fuel filler. If the battery temp gets too high, the charging door automatically opens, allowing for rapid access for responders.
And add an exit port otherwise no flow...
TJ super hero - Thanks John for bringing this report...lets hope the car industry and pollies around the world take action!
They wont because all they care about is Money.......”For the Love of Money, is the root of all Evil”.
@@bobmitchell8012 and orange man o
It’s great to see such cognitive recognition of the real truth of EV’s and battery tech.
The question now is, what will this recognition then cost the consumer? Once the cost of insurance, regular replacement of incredibly expensive parts, exclusion zones based around consumer safety, restrictions on repairs etc etc…
Will the utopian style subsidies be enough for lunacy to prevail long enough to remove established and well understood current transport in such a way that we can’t go back to what we trust?
I seriously doubt it!
Keep up the brilliant exposé John, love your work
Very well done TJ and his mates. At least there is one person (other than yourself) who is taking this EV battery thermal runaway problem seriously as no one else seems to be in the least bit interested. He may well save the lives of the people on his vessels or at least not be left with incinerated hulk of a ship should the worst happen.
Thanks John; this embraces many of my previous comments in relation to EV fires in carparks and RoRo passenger ferries. Interesting to see Smyril Line's ferry participating and I'll be investigating further as I'll be on their Norrana vessel next month. One other point is that AI plus thermography cameras can help early detection of localised thermal abnormality in a ferry car deck ( I investigated this method a while back for municipal incinerator refuse hoppers) to initiate alarms. The inlet cooling port is a great idea. Imagine having a coolant feed pipe hooking up with the EV charging cable, or at home having to connect at least a 15mm hose before your EV could charge if you are brave enough to do that in your garage. As ever, it's going to take the first inevitable mega fire disaster with major loss of life to make legislation catch up.
@@philhealey4443 16 tonne of refrigerated brine is quite a lot but for it to be implemented by by fire brigades worldwide is quite straight forward.
Another thing that could be implemented, in this era of mass communication devices, would be a thermal App. built into the vehicle that automatically sounded an alarm. It would not be difficult, considering the amount of computerized automation required to make them go anyway.
@seanworkman431 That's another good one. There are definitely multiple issues needed to close the loop on this, including escape from the car, how the battery performs thermally
when in trouble, detection, attempts at suppression / methods to prevent spread to surrounding areas including property and other vehicles.
Some excellent ideas in this sub thread. 👍
For some reason they put all the EVs together … If any adjacent EVs got brine on their battery packs those batteries would have to scrapped, maybe the whole car. … Brine is highly corrosive.
A truly excellent video by John Cadogan.
I read in one of the many comments that in the USA, doors are automatically locked when the car is in motion. I remember that when I was in Germany in 1971, I was told that I should not not use the inside security button to lock the door from the inside, because in the case of an accident in which I was rendered unconscious, first responders would not be able to open the door from the outside to drag me out of the car.
John, a great video but I want to straighten the scrum a bit regarding Li metal. When a LiFePO4 battery is in a charged state, much of the lithium is over on the negative electrode intercalated within graphite with a zero valency (ie for all intents and purposes it is there as metallic lithium). The other electrode is in the form of FePO4 where the Fe is in the +3 valence state and the PO4 is 3-. Upon discharge, the Li on the negative electrode surrenders an electron to the outside circuit and becomes Li+ and heads to the positive electrode where you get Li+ + FePO4 + e- = LiFePO4 drawing an electron from the external circuit (the Fe now in the +2 valence state). The actual form of Li ions in the electrolyte is generally in the form of salts as you say like LiPF6. So the Li in the salts is not the issue - it is the Li metal within the graphite negative electrode that is the issue (and the unholy mixture that is the electrolyte).
So is a charged battery(ies) more dangerous/reactive/flammable than a pack that is discharged?
An electropositive metal like lithium reacts by donating an electron to an electron acceptor (oxidant). John is being a little disingenuous when he asserts that there is no lithium metal in a lithium ion battery. Lithium intercalated in graphite is still a very strong reductant and will react violently with water.
@@j.w.8663 , yes, when the Li is in the form of LiFePO4 it is in a lower energy state compared to being there as Lithium Metal. Still lots of material in there that can oxidise, but less likely to begin self-heating.
@@romanpolanski4928 , I don't think John is being disingenuous - I just don't think he understands that much of the Lithium is present in the reduced form (metal) in a charged LiFePO4 battery. I think the firefighting approach at big battery installations of "stay upwind and let it burn" is a good one. Keeping water away from the lithium lessens the risk of a hydrogen explosion and lessens the environmental clean-up.
@@petert4393 If John doesn't understand the electrochemistry of lithium ion batteries he should tone down the snide dismissal of people who know more than he.
The toxicity of lithium salts is another problem. Lithium is biologically active, and is prescribed to sufferers of manic depression.
Thanks for the update on this important story, John. Like you, I once thought having a common standard connection for safety reasons is a "no brainer." You referred to fire department connection points outside of buildings (in Canada they are called stand pipes) that firehoses can be attached to. One would think there is a common (universal) connector, at least in one country - I was surprised to find out it ain't so! As a HS administrator I was involved in several aspects of new school design almost 25 years ago. When the local fire chief met with school, department, and contractor representatives he asked, "What style stand pipe connectors will you be using?" My interjection was "Pardon me? You mean there isn't a national standard?" "Nope, not even a provincial one." So, it should be possible to enforce a standard firefighting connector for autos, but it hasn't been done for buildings.
You made some excellent points about a standardized port to flood the battery pack. Thanks!
Even many more betters, if the fire fighters can connect from a few meters away. Maybe several positions on the battery with lugs where a lance could be connected and the battery pierced, water jet ???
I commented this the last time already, that would address a problem that does not exist anymore. The solution is to manufacture batteries such that they cannot run away anymore - and that is happening right now. The new batteries have highly compatmentalised cells made of high temperature resistant material, so the fire does not propagate from cell to cell anymore. Several car manufacturers are already doing this. So legislating now to fit a water port to every future car, while the runaway issue only exists in old, already on the road cars, is actually not an excellent idea, it is an unnecessary idea that would solve a problem that does not exist anymore by the time it has been legislated and implemented.
It seems that for every technical development we make, introduces a multiple of associated problems. This also indicates that not enough research has gone into those developments before proceeding to manufacture. The internet is just one example that has created more problems, that need to be solved.
I am an ev fan but imagine this happening in an underground car park. And it will.
I’m not an EV fan , and you are right. When the first catastrophic car park fire happens in an apartment or office block, watch councils and state and federal governments start jumping around regulating EVs to death.
They built a new supermarket around the corner from my house a couple of years ago with 2 levels of basement parking...and 2 EV charging stations right next to, of all places, the exit.
Like blackout Bowen's Tesla underneath parliament house.
A fossil fuel car fire is more likely in an underground or multi story car park of any kind. This is due to fuel theft being rife in these places which most of the time are deserted. Data from insurance companies show that there are 100,000 car fires in the UK every year, about 300 a day, leaky fuel and fuel theft are the most common causes. Again using the insurance data and data from highways authorities in the USA, Sweden and the UK, you are at least 25 times more likely to have a fire in a fossil fuel car than in an EV.
And it has :)
I use Lipo's for flying RC planes. Lipo stands for Lithium-polymer battery. A thermal runaway happens with these batteries as well. That's why we take several precautionary steps to make sure this doesn't happen in use, storage, or when tossed. One way that suggested to neutralize these batteries before discarding them is to make sure the neg & pos wire ends are exposed as much as possible and soak them over night in salt water, brine, before tossing them. The whole batter without any covers, in bags/ packaging, tape on the wires ends have to be removed. The pos & neg wire ends have to be completely exposed, any covers, insulation, tape, etc like EV car battery packs have needs to be removed for best results.. I've done this several times over many years and it does work IF you leave the batteries under saltwater for 24 hours or more. And IF I do several batteries at the same time the saltwater, brine, effectiveness diminishes the more batteries I put in the container; I don't know why, I just know it does. When there's too many batteries I have to make a fresh brine solution and repeat to make sure there's no voltage reading when done. I'm no scientist I just know this is what happens and I can still get a voltage reading on some of the batteries even after 24 hours of submerging them, and these are not as lethal as the batteries in EV's. I'm very skeptical about this method. I'm sure it's better then just water, but I still would not trust the car is completely safe after this method. In my, opinion there's nothing wrong with EV vehicles, scientist just don't have the proper power source for the vehicles yet. And hundreds or thousands of AA batteries are not a proper power source. Until one is invented I will never buy an EV...too dangerous !
People really don’t understand how things work. I just saw a short video from a TH-cam creator who’s at least a very serious car enthusiast if not an expert, with a huge following, and he was practically having an orgasm about how wonderful the small photovoltaic array on the roof of the Fisker Ocean is. It can’t produce a useful amount of electric power, and it’s just one more thing to break, but he was crowing about what a stroke of genius it is.
I agree that solar panels on cars are more of a gimmick than a useful addition to its range. However, EVs have a lot less things to break and are a lot less likely to experience a fire than a car with a fuel tank and a lot more reliable than one with an, exhaust, engine, starter motor, gearbox, fuel pump, water pump etc etc.
- would be overjoyed at my Ford Ranger - - positively huge - that solar unit keeps "all the beverages one could want", cold perpetually... lols (of course half an hour running the alternator does the same thing, but hey, everyone likes a silent camp site. lol..
@@kiae-nirodiariesencore4270 ICE vehicles use components with relatively predictable lifespans; I have a 1989 Mazda that has never let me down because I service it regularly and replace components based on their predicted lifespan and have never had a component failure as a result; over a third of a century of reliable transport for a third of a million km's. As for ICE vehicles being more prone to fires than EV's, this is nonsense; you are referring to fire statistics, which count the many deliberately lit vehicle fires and the rest are vehicles that have faults mostly related to being damaged in an accident or ICE vehicles that haven't been serviced regularly and generally are much older than the EV fleet.
The only reason the Aptera can make use of solar panels is because of the effort to improve its efficiency so much that it doesn't require nearly as much energy to work.
@@Knowbody42 Has it past any crash tests yet?
EV number plates could have easily visible lightening bolts on the side of them so emergency vehicles of all sorts know its an EV. The front and rear bumpers could have a quick removal plate, like those on cars where the tow ball would be mounted and allow fire fighters to pull it away and connect their hoses. A pressure release valve in the EV battery would blow open under pressure allowing the brine to flow from one side of the battery to the other cooling and discharging the battery bank. A temp sensor in the battery bank would trip when a critical temp is reached and cause an alarm to sound. Something similar to this would be easy to implement and not cost all that much!
@AutoExpertJohnGiveaway Fake, stay away everyone!
I love how the salt water drains the battery to zero, obviously dissipating the heat that generates as well.
No, the process of discharging the battery also generates heat. Salt water will be separated electrically by the cell energy, then recombine (sodium and chlorine in direct contact - Very exothermic!), generating more heat. Fortunately, the freezing brine will cool that system.
@@gregbailey45 did you watch a different video to me, or you just think John is wrong?
@gregbailey45 that was exactly what he just said
Some American could not come up with this idea? It''s not exactly advanced chemistry.
@@robinsattahip2376 Does it matter who came up with it?
G”day John, I’m not qualified in this area, I do heavy diesel maintenance and have done a lot of work on irrigation and dredges. I don’t know if anyone else has suggested this but as part of the battery flooding system, design in a container of salt so that as water is injected it mixes on the way to the battery, in a similar manner to existing agricultural dry chemical mixers. Also easily designed as a quick connect, portable inline unit so that emergency services can carry a number of preloaded compact units for use with EVs, without needing to carry brine or compromise foam systems. Theres a thesis or two this for some bright spark.
Your suggestion for a quick connection port for firefighters to use is good one, thumbs up on that one John. While we wait, there is a device that has been under development to puncture EV underfloor battery packs. The firefighting device injects water directly into the batteries thus cooling and discharging the batteries at the same time. I will see if I can find the TH-cam link.
I had seen this idea tested about a year ago. It didn't work as well as hoped for. Punching holes in the battey pack ended up shorting out more cells, which added to the heat and pressure build up in the battery pack.
@@billharris6886 Nice to know. 👍
I saw that too. It’s made by Rosenbauer in the US
Concerning that, I've seen a solution with some rack that is shoved under an EV, with massive spikes ramming into the battery, and delivering the fire-retardant directly inside the battery.
s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/gallery/rosenbauer-unveils-new-extinguishing-system-for-ev-fires_2.jpg
Hey @John Cadogan, as a volunteer firefighter I've been following the process of fighting these type of car fires since the introduction of the first electric vehicles, and the various tactics and methods that have developed, and I have to say the brine method is simply ingenious. As for a deployment method direct to the battery pack of a EV, Rosenbauer America, a subsidiary of Rosenbauer Germany, which makes top of the line fire fighting appliances (as we call our trucks) for both domestic, airport (The RAAF has Rosenbauer fire fighting tenders) and industry, have developed a method for piercing the battery pack and applying water (see attached youtube videos). This method takes a breathing apparatus cylinder (that magic air breathy thingy that lets us work in toxic environments) and attaches to a control box that drives a spike into the bottom of the battery pack, and then through this spike the pack is flooded. Now, combine this with a dedicated appliance carrying a brine system, you could potentially have a system that could be deployed anywhere to handle a EV fire in thermal runaway. The combination of these two tactics really could be a game changer for us tackling EV fires.
th-cam.com/video/xaIAb3XgYVY/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/SPMoZOpN_DA/w-d-xo.html
Faroe Islands have a new set of undersea tunnels, that and the ferries are enough reasons to work out how to quench an EV fire. Well done TJ.
That system looks very interesting and it is curious that it uses much of an existing on ship fire suppression system (which uses seawater, is that brine also?). Something that Sal Mercogliano from "What is Going on With Shipping" discussed when he covered two ship board car fires was the extreme difficulty of getting firefighters to the vehicles owing to the extreme closeness of the vehicles to each other and the lashings that keep them in place. Sal also explained how the systems work on RoRo ships and the problem of compartmentalizing (or lack of) the decks for fire containment. As a fire chief and former merchant sailor he knows of which he speaks.
Bribe contains more salt than sea water. On parts of the seafloor, brine lakes kill most local fauna.
Hi John love your work.
You mentioned the Spirit of Tasmania, I had been thinking of using this ship for for a self drive holiday to Tasmania but the thought of an Ev fire on one of the roughest seas in the world in the middle of the night has now turned my plans into a fly and hire holiday.
Are you aware of any safety procedures for transporting EVs on this ship?
Regards
Ev
Thanks
John is a brave man trying to explain heat capacity to an audience half filled with people named Bruce.
Muzz never gets it, either...
woah starting from 8:30 and then all the thermodynamic terms coming out, it made me remembered the time of me studying thermodynamic class in college lol
I suspect that a "cam-lok" style connector would be the one that comes to mind. Fire fighting gear usually has universal connectors of style.
love your somewhat Monty Python-esque high pitched voice!
When I think about Farenheit being salt water freezing point versus Celsius fresh water freezing it makes so much sense brine would have that property. We spray the stuff on the roads here in the winter in Newfoundland. I doubt it's -19 but interesting to think of it as potentially useful for other things.
John, in the interim, say you had a setup like a pneumatic bellows jack. In the centre there could be a section that would be like a triple lift hydraulic jack with the pad replaced by a pointed and vented spike. They would have at least 75 PSI in the hoses so piercing the battery case from under the vehicle shouldn't be a problem. You would use two such items, sliding under from each side for the FIMI (Fork I Missed It) effect. Our local fire fighters could add salt through a flow through tank in such circumstances. Wouldn't cool as well but would get to the seat of the fire and discharge battery.
I was thinking more like a bed of nails, but with each nail being a hollow perforated tube. Under hydraulic pressure, you slam the bed up into the battery, then pump the brine up through the punctured pack. It might not be a practical solution, but what a fitting end to an EV - skewered!
Just build in an irrigation system into the battery case. Then plug the fire truck into it.
Correct me if I'm wrong Teslas use a liquid cooling system on their batteries and I guess a number of other manufacturers have similar. An after market mod might be possible. And in any case future models should have this fitted with entry ports where petrol cars have filler caps
Your references from WWII ammunition stockpile management triggered a thought that may be worth your consideration.
In mobile vehicles (tanks) they found that wet ammunition storage was the best Defense against “thermal runaway” or ammunition fires. Modern vehicles also have blow out panels etc to help keep the fire out of the crew compartment.
No one would want this as it add significant weight and only a hybrid with significantly smaller batteries would be able to tolerate this.
It’s amazing that hydrocarbon are still the king of energy density and water is the king of heat dissipation (particularly for dissipating heat where the source is above 100 degrees Celsius)
This is all like “the nuclear revolution” … all they do is use a nuclear reaction to boil water instead of burning hydrocarbons.
After seeing this demonstration, brine is basically just using Sodium Chloride as the cooling additive, so car coolant also reduces the the freezing temp and increases the boiling temp.
Also worth noting that straight water wouldn’t hurt.
They already have cooling jackets, they just need to compartmentalise it so that each combustible unit has a water jacket like wet ammo storage. Then you just need a port that connects to the “water jacket” that is rated to handle a fire water pump truck.
First, the “thermal runaway” should be contained to only the damaged modules, the modules would have less chance of setting off the neighbouring modules … if a runaway starts (would be evidenced by steam being released from the battery module) … if the fire fighters see the steam release, they know that the battery pack needs more cooling and can connect the water inlet port and turn the pumps on. Ultimately the outlet would probably be the hole that the damage Battery made so the cooling water will past directly to the damaged module and cool it directly, whilst also cooling all of the neighbouring modules … it’s not rocket science.
If the battery module has a constant supply of water at 30 deg Celsius and it’s at 500 or more then there is more than enough cooling capacity in water to address the thermal runaway.
Honestly, this is another issue that electrical engineers have been given that was solved about 100 years ago by mechanical engineers. Ignorance isn’t an excuse.
Yes the thermal runaway port needs to be one each side ( less chance of being deleted in front/rear shunt
I thought about a concrete nail gun making its own port … but that opens more cels
that would be okay if it's spraying salt water, they already have tools like this to fight airliner fires (on the ground, ofc)
On my brigade's pumper we carry a lance that we ram through a vehicle bonnet( so we don't open the hood and give the fire a boost of air)that is also connected to hose line that then floods engine via inserted lance, but this would be impractical for EVs
Interesting idea John. If this fire suppression system works well, I'm sure all fire brigades will want to adopt this method. However, on land, such as on the street or carpark garaging, the -20C brine I would think would be a bit impractical due to the sheer volume needed. I do like the idea of a standardized dedicated battery box water injection port. Of course, during thermal runaway, the pressure release of gases would prevent water (brine) from being injected. I suggest a varation of this idea where several overpressure vents are attached to the battery box, which vent the toxic gas away from the car's interior, which would relieve the pressure so water could be injected. At this point, we may be able to use the standard fire brigade water supply to pump into the battery box. Since water would now be forced into the problem area, the huge quantity and flow may suffice at extinguishing the fire. The water injection port would need a checkvalve to prevent gas from escaping, thus protecting the fire fighters as they hook up the water supply.
The genius of the brine isn’t just about temp reduction. It’s also that the salt in the water helps discharge the battery to zero. That’s where a chunk of the magic happens.
@@ardencassie5150 Agreed, I was just throwing out ideas to possibly adapt the technique presented in the video with as few modifications as possible to conventional fire fighting techniques. Although the brine does help discharge the battery pack, it also adds to the heat being generated. The main goal of extinguishing the battery pack is to cool it off to stop the thermal runaway.
@@billharris6886 How about this idea of mine for the volumes needed. There is a water blasting system called Dustless Blasting. They mix water and sand together to remove rust ,marks on concrete. Now instead of sand you mix salt and water in the system to spray on the EVs..
@@jamesq3896 Perhaps there is a some way of imbedding a permeable block of plain old rock salt in each EV battery pack. Upon flooding with water of any kind the salt would dissolve and help to discharge the battery cells.
@@jamesq3896 Good idea James!
As a EE nerd I really appreciate you John and your honest assessments of all things EVs. BC the completely biased inputs from the ev enthusiastic crowds. With the "everything is perfect" stand point. Doesn't help fix actual real problems. Or bring them to the forefront to be acknowledged and worked on at all. All feedback is important and needed including the negative parts that those people actively avoid and disregard. Keep up the good work John BC there are alot of us EE nerds out there listening to you too.
I would recommend two water injection ports - one at the front and one at the rear of the car. If there is only one you can be sure it will be on the end of the car that is parked tight up against a wall.
Lol
Here's a good joke one I heard someone say on my way out on a train the other day. "Oh those EV batteries generate their own oxygen when they burn so why don't they use a fan to suck it out before it can make the battery burn?" "Then we could save it and compress it into a metal cylinder". LOL
Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? The major issue I have with this idea, which may well work for killing a battery in thermal runaway, but there remains the big killer to end all - TIME. In most countries there are regulations which dictate how many fire fighting apliances must be in a certain area due to risks in that area and response times by crews to get to any incident within set timeframes. An ev in runaway will make these response times simply unattainable as such an incident can be 100% involved in fire within 3 minutes, which means anyone trapped inside following an accident is going to die, period! I shudder to think of the potential outcome of a multiple ev collision/pile-up on a major motorway/highway. The more you begin thinking about the possibilities for a negative outcome the more I want to scream at those that would allow this to happen through ignorance.
25 year professional firefighter here from the UK. Back in my day, the biggest exceptional risk we faced in car fires was magnesium wheels, notably on the Fiat x-19 where the spare was stored in the passenger compartment. Move forward 30 years and you have a problem at least 10 times worse with probably 10 times the likelihood of the problem occurring. There are significantly more EVs already than there ever were little Fiat sports cars.
One thing nobody has so far mentioned is the batteries in hybrid cars.
Are they the same type of battery?
Is the risk of thermal runaway the same?
Presumably the average hybrid car has a smaller battery pack than a full EV?
What's your opinion, John?
My fear is that with all the talk about thermal runaway in EV's the problem presented by a far larger number of hybrid vehicles already on the road may be completely overlooked.
A firefighter told me VWs engine blocks had the same issue. EVs will have such horrible events if this is not addressed.
Very informative JC, thanks again for another educational lesson of the real world issues that will be solved by some very clever people working as a team
Extremely elegant and super simple solution. The boat might even be able to pump sea water as a start and add extra brine.
I thought they had come up with some new chemical like I have seen in Lithium Ion fire extinguishers videos demonstrations but when you said brine I shouted F why didn't I think of that.
Draining the battery of charge is a very important part as a dead battery should not reignite.
Why not just park more evs around the one on fire?
I cannot like that comment enough!
Yes, that is THE solution! When an EV catches fire, surround it by more EVs
All the EVs within reach.
In fact, I think this could work for ANY fire
In one of my previous lives, I was a fire prevention officer. The port is a fabulous idea, John.
I imagine the costs and ability to have such setups everywhere is near impossible. For the foreseeable future, most fires will just be left alone to burn out.
I agree George. It's not practical to have multiple input and output ports and hope everything works perfect and hope the EV is in a place that the brine truck can reach. It's just impractical. And once that fire really starts up then no-one will ever be able to get close enough to hook up to the port.
They have to find a new battery that does not start with Li.....Pretty much have to reverse engineer the batteries they use in the UFO's. There's the solution.
I was unsuccessful in trying to find their video online which I found concerning because public awareness to this solution for fighting EV battery fires is so important. I emailed the company to suggest they post a shareable link of the video on their website to facilitate the dissemination of this approach among the general public with the hope of generating political pressure to enact regulations to force EV battery makers to include this fire suppression technology in their batteries.
Your suggestion about building in this fire suppression system in all batteries makes even more sense when you consider the perils inherent in large scale grid storage batteries, residential storage batteries and batteries in commercial vehicles with very large batteries.
Awesome work dude!!!
Should be a MANDATED design rule for all EV battery packs to have such a flooding port . 1000% in agreement there JC. 👍
well i disagree 10,000%
The cold brine is an excellent idea, and perfect for RORO or ROPax ferries and car carriers. The early detection is critical, but the 6 minute delay was great to show something close to a realistic situation. Add a standard port like the underground machines would be something manufacturers should be looking at for the future, but they can barely standardise the power charging setup, let alone a safety device that could be useful.
So therefore it's obvious, if your EV catches on fire you need to drive it or push it off a pier.
I’m an American and love this channel! You tell it like it is and with some humor. Love it!
You can build in a delay to simulate crew response but in reality this is likely to be very arbitrary. From Alarm to suited up on scene via wtf is going on may well see a fire spread to other vehicles before it can be contained. A better solution would be to have a dedicated EV deck that can tilt and dump the whole lot into the sea 😂
Have you been on a car ferry , they are enormous and vehicles are often tied down so they do not move and capsize the ship.
@@bascomnextion5639 you may notice the laugh 😂. Emoji
It was a joke
@@davidferry548it's not such a dumb idea, I thought the same thing but put the ev,s on an upper deck with doors that can be opened and the whole thing jettisoned, maybe even have a pallet under each vehicle or group of them, to make it easier.
You could have an undissolved brine pack on the other side of said proposed suppression circuit hose connection on the EV. So only water would be required to be pumped into the EV suppression port.
An informative video. Awesome. Your proposed idea of the inlet as part of the ADR is awesome, and on a ship could potentially be pre-plugged in with auto- detect runaway. It is potentially a much more addressable problem than an ICE fire if more sciencing money is dropped on this issue. Gotta love fishing.
yes thats not such a silly idea. it would cut the reponse dramatically it could mean that the vehicle is salvagable rather than a pile of scrap. also it would greatly reduce the the damage to other vehicles and the vessel.
Great news and not that complex except for getting the pollies to take notice. In the dark ages when we went camping without a fridge that ran via electricity or gas we had ice chests, and we would add salt to keep them colder for longer.
John you are the man. Maybe there is hope for the human race to solve the life events in our world.
Speaking of "hauling brine".... Here, in north-east USA many TONS of brine are spread on the roads to reduce ice. These a state-trucks are dedicated to maintaining the roads. We already have the technology to move brine on 100s of state-owned trucks. It seems all we need now is the hookup on the EVs. (When ambient temp. is -10F...there is no need to chill the brine)
One less EV is always good ! Eventually they will do that to themselves.
LNG ships use a water curtain under the loading connections to prevent any cryogenic liquids (-161 deg. Celsius at atmospheric pressure)
from contacting and causing cracks in the hull in case of any leaks.
I could only imagine the damage if a deck is deluged with a cryogenic liquid such as LN2.
Who’s with me for a trash can cam
I am 👋
All these car ev batteries are liquid cooled , so retrofitting a front and or rear port with standard quick connect device, have the system set up with a pressure realise, fire fighter turns up, connects to the car and forces brine through the battery, or some leverage operated piercing device that then through the device pumps brine through the puncture point it created by the device ,something long enough to keep the fire fighters out of harms way .
Bravo TJ. What a champ for developing a solution to this problem
If in theory a quick connect is added to all EV's for brine, it would then be possible to have the hoses already connected to the vehicle when on a ship or in a carpark building.
This way the fire could be contained without any firefighter having to go near the vehicle.
It could even be mandated that all charging stations have the connection and the EV will not charge without it connected, this includes in home chargers.
Nice one dave, we used to live round there, lots of memories, live in the iom now.. cheers love your videos.
On your question presented on 25:49, 'How would you propose to deliver brine directly to the cells' : I would require EV manufacturers to provide a separate plubming or access to the existing coolant plumbing from the ouside using a standardized hose hookup. Standardization of this safety feature is the only way to go. If the existing coolant plumbing is used, the added cost could be kept to a minimum. Saludos desde Puerto Rico.
Every automotive manufacturer is required to perform a design FEMA (DFMEA)on every vehicle and on new or revised vehicle system or component.
An FMEA takes into consideration, Severity, Detection, and Occurrence. All of which are assigned numbers which are added together to indicate a Risk Priority Number (RPN)
There is absolutely no way, BEV manufacturers, had a Design FMEA, RPN below 100 relative to the risk of Lithium Battery Fires. This means that the manufacturing companies executives, had to approve the design, with full knowledge of the high Design FMEA RPN, indicating high severity issues related to BEV fires.
Severity = (1-10) would have been (10)
Occurrence = (1-10) this might have been low say 1 or 2
Detection = would have been high, because there is little to no method to detect thermal runaway. (10)
Multiply the result together SxOxD 10x1x10= 100
It would be interesting to see the design FMEA for any BEV.
Amazing video John,
As a first responder who previously had no idea how to tackle this problem I now feel a little more comfortable facing this threat.
Lucky me I have a brine dam at work.
Keep up your awesome work.👍👍
Dave K
Great idea there John....
Thanks Mate
Shipping container with the top cut off, wet sand on the bottom, put the burning EV in the container (with a fork truck?) then fill with wet sand. A fire department did this in the states somewhere with great outcome of success!
Storz is the standard coupling used in NSW.
The govt. can introduce a ADR for a 38mm Storz connector behind a external flap. 38mm is the min. size we use for vehicle fires.
Makes one wonder what part EV and solar batteries played in the eradication of Lahaina, Maui!
Apart from the flooding port, you also need a rupture disc to let the air out and keep containment intact.
I wish you taught me science at school. Many classmates would have been offended and parents complained but you explain in a practical application way. I'm in my 40s by the way.
I was thinking exactly what you were suggesting at almost the same time you suggested it.
Said port could even be 'tucked' under the bumper much like the exhaust on an ICE vehicle.
On EV's that have battery heating/cooling the port could maybe even plumbed into that maybe with some internal burst point so that the pressure of the brine being pumped in (the cooling system on an ev battery is fairly low pressure) bursts and the internal fitting and then floods the battery.
I might be over thinking it though.
You're completely right about liquid nitrogen but seemed to struggle explaining it. Try this. Water is 25c at room temperature and has to absorb enough energy to reach 100c to boil. Liquid nitrogen is stored around - 200c and needs to absorb enough energy to boil at - 196c.
One problem I can see is how close together cars are parked on car carrier's, so access would be a problem for the crew.
I like your idea of a fire fighting port as every car could be plugged into this system and if a car starts to cook off you flood that cars battery.
method by which a burning battery will self-eject so that it can be directly sprayed and partially immersed.
the battery sits in the centre of a high sided tray with a wide resevoir all around. the sides would rise to half the battery's height. during installation, this battery assembly is inserted into the undercarriage and fixed in place using any adhesive or fixing that will reliably fail at the requisite temperature. in the event of severe overheat, the battery assembly would detach and drop to the floor.
There's a lot to like about a system like this. Firstly, the brine being a byproduct of their onboard freshwater plant (be it RO or Evap) means an unlimited and "free" supply. Second, by soft shorting the battery pack like this, they greatly reduce the likelihood of reignition after extinguishment. Third, by using water instead the available chemical options, toxicity and exposure risk for the crew and passengers are significantly diminished.
There are waterjet cutting lances (Cobra for example) that are designed to punch a hole through metal/stone/etc and deliver loads of high pressure water to the location of a fire. They were designed for structure fires (roofs, soffits, closed doors w/backdraft risk, etc) but have been demonstrated to work on EVs as well.
Seems like an excellent solution to the issues of EVs and being transported in Ro Ro car carriers.
I sent the link to a techo mate and he offered the following:
"1. A port that goes straight into your battery is a gateway to instant total destruction by vandalism. Some one pours in a gallon of salt water, that destroys your battery and effectively makes your whole car worthless.
2. Salt is a solution of sodium chloride. If you discharge a DC battery through it, that will generate an ENORMOUS amount of chlorine. This was an experiment I used to do all the time when I was teaching."
Thinking about the loading arrangements on a car carrier and the number of crew able to respond to a fire alarm, six minutes might be a little ambitious. The trial vehicle did not have a large number of vehicles close and around it (offering access issues to the attending fire crew that may change the dynamics of the ability to contain to one vehicle).
My wife wondered whether the inclusion of a "port" to the battery of the vehicle might benefit firefighters who attend accidents or fires involving EVs. Are they able to generate a increased salt base flow to a port to overcome the need to continually flood the vehicle with thousands of litres of water.
On a separate note, it was another Scandinavian company that designed successful hi fog type fitted firefighting systems on ships (replacing gas type systems). Smart people from that area of the world.
An improvement on this could be chilled sodium carbonate solution. The carbonate would both decompose endothermicly into CO2 and Sodium oxide, and once the temperature was low enough, help deal with the HF and other toxic chemicals. For carparks you could add this to the sprinkler system as well with the added benefit of working better for other types of fires too.
An excellent video with a well thought out solution. Problem today with new ideas is that people donot think things through looking at both pros and cons of implementing it. In times past people took time to get it right. Now we cant afford to waste time as money rules - delays cost money hence knee jerk reactions.
Thank you, John, for presenting this.
A SOLUTION, simple in its form and design. Well done to TJ and his team.
One can only hope that the people of influence take up the suggestions offered.
I have seen all your concerns of these EV fires and there potential Consequences. But this video needs to be shown in as many places as possible because it's the best answers we have so far.
A brilliant solution especially for a ship that's surrounded by weak brine. One concern is the discharging the battery part. The test was done on a small EV, some have several times larger batteries. Also if you're going to have a way to get the brine into the battery I think there needs to be a way for it to flow out as well, say from the top of the battery. That would allow the fluid to flow around the cells.
My other concern is some of the latest EVs seem to have totally sealed battery packs, pretty much a block of epoxy or similar.
29:07 That's a very valid point. Isn't it amazing that this hasn't happened already? Brace yourselves becasue it will and when it does, what will the impact be for the EV industry as a whole?
Excuse my ignorance here, in electronics there is a thing called a thermal fuse which trips when something gets too hot, I am also aware of other passive sacrificial one time use devices which when a set of conditions are met, degrade letting an action to occur. I believe wax is a common device.
Would it be feasible for battery packs to contain in their sealed case a container of firefighting liquid which would release when certain conditions are met? I'd suggest this would help buy time until authorities arrive to control the situation. I would also suggest that the fact a lot of these cars are already connected to the cellular wireless communication networks that they should be able to let authorities know "hey I am experiencing thermal runaway, my safety system has just gone off please come put me out, here is my gps location (or last known one)" wouldn't that also save precious time?
That said your fill port sounds like something that should have happened yesterday.
I wonder if this could be adapted to use on the battery systems like the one near Rockhampton that court fire
I agree with the injection port for the saline cooling slurry but would add an exhaust port as well so you can circulate the slurry through the pack and collect most of it. More effective and less mess.
I suspect that by the time a fire has become obvious it's made its own exhaust port(s)... Worth testing though.
Evisceration, with humour. Priceless.
Nice one. As a firefighter and bushfire consultant writing risk management plans and emergency management plans for solar farms with BESS in bushfire prone Victoria (thermal runaway on a severe fire danger day gives me the odd nightmare), I thank Odin for the Vikings. I would suggest if we had ferries designated exclusively for EV's and politicians responsible for safety regulations, we might find the legislative framework updated a little quicker than the normal lifetime.
We add foam through a venturi mixture delivery system that bypasses the pump system (salt ruins our equipment) I would imagine perhaps a brine delivery could be employed in a similar way and fitted to existing firefighting tankers and pumpers for mobile brine delivery, however I am no expert or an engineer, just trying to think outside the box.
The first thing is practicality.
It's fantastic for a ferry, not so good round here when we're (on average) 20mins from the call getting placed to us arriving.
Whatever we're going to do has to be achievable after that amount of time has elapsed and with 3000L of water, because thats all we carry.
We also cant be carrying brine around. We mostly deal with bushfire. Salted earth would also upset the general public I suspect.
Maybe you could do the salt thing the way we do foam with a concentrate we add as required, but to make that workable we'd need it to be going in at around a max of 5% of the total volume. More than that will require carrying around a heap more weight on trucks that are quite close to GVM already. I also suspect that the quantity of salt in that brine solution will be substantial. You certainly couldn't get anywhere near the salt content of seawater.
So no salt, no cooling it down, no fast response.
Perfect solution for their situation, but that's about it. It's not transferable.
Next thing is the claim of zero charge left in the battery. I'd want to see some compelling evidence of that, because it's quite a substantial claim.
Here's the thing, those batteries are designed to be sealed. Once they start to thermally decompose they will off gas through a vent (or several). Large quantities of hot gas coming out of the vent will make it rather difficult for brine to make its way in. Especially when it's being applied from the passenger compartment that those vents are almost certainly not going to be plumbed into for obvious reasons like HF. At least I'd sure hope not anyway.
So if they haven't actually managed to get it to zero charge, you've now got a bunch of cells in that battery that have been exposed to heat well beyond their design limits with a bunch of stranded charge. They heat up again and cause reignition. This is the very reason these cars tend to catch fire a number of times.
Regarding ports on batteries, its a great idea, but you need to guarantee zero charge at the end. You also neee to keep them secure enough that they can't be tampered with and still useable to firefighters.
Out current practice is to simply let it burn out. Take care of everything exposed, evacuate people etc. It cant catch fire again if its completely consumed already. Environmentally it's probably not great, but when you look at the equipment and water we have available, its the best solution.
I'd also suggest that they may be catching fire quite a lot. I don't know, I don't have the statistics, but you'd want to look at them on a per 1M basis when comparing them with ICE vehicles. You would also need to look at those numbers in the context of what caused them. For example, arson, crash, defect in manufacturing or servicing and so on.
It may just be a consequence of how often they're reported on in the media compared to ICE fires, but it certainly seems like they catch fire regularly.
John, adding to your EV standard emergency brine port idea. Port has to be high so it can be reached in ship close parking quarters. Most new EVs have coolant system inside of battery module, so your brine port could simply be plumped to that existing coolant system. Add two 60 psi blow out valves, one at brine port and one at lowest battery point. Valves normally keeps battery coolant integrity. During thermal runaway: Fire department securely connect to brine port then pumps > 60 psi. This high brine pressure blows out valves; letting brine into and out of runaway battery.
I'm not sure if all EV's have this but some models of Tesla's have a zero pressure cooling system that appears to be filled with green glycol. The system is used to keep the batteries during normal use. If there was a run away thermal event I figure this system would be breeched in the area of the failing batteries and if there was a connection for a brine water system then you have a way to flood the battery case, especially in the area of the failing batteries. In the cooling system remained intact I suspect that tubing would fail anyway if high pressure water from a fire pump was plumbed into it. There is a video put out by a TH-camr named Rich Rebuilds where his shop did a fix on a Tesla cooling system. I think the video is @ 5 years old now.
Putting out a one car fire on an open air dockside is one thing. However on a crowded car deck it is quite another. Most automotive battery packs are liquid cooled. It would seem that using brine with a system of say 4 universal quick connects together with the overpressure safety valve(s) and the fire fighting ability to overpressure the cars cooling system with an external high pressure high flow brine feed might be the way to get to the core of the problem.
Thanks John, entertaining and informative as always. Once we have our eFire ports, EVs on ferries can simply hook up to the nearest brine-point upon parking for fully autonymous detection & supression. And, as a bonus, it'll give EV owners that nostalgic sensation they used to get as ICE drivers of putting the nozzle into the tank (well, more like H2/LPG but you get the point)..
TJ and his crew have made great strides in making EVs safer for all. Awesome
You could put a port on the cars and cool them all down when they pull up on the ferry. Every car. You could even just put really robust cooling system onboard in the car, think radiators and circulating coolant as standard so that the number of fires goes down to begin with.