Evidence of EV battery fire risk

3461 Views 44 Replies 24 Participants Last post by A_Camera, 2 mo ago

sidehaas

Discussion Starter · 2 mo ago

Overheard someone in the office today wittering about the risk of battery fires with EVs and how he thought no evidence was being made available in case it put the Government's 2030 target at risk.
I felt like countering this but realised I didn't have any actual evidence with which to do so. I realise EV batteries can suffer thermal runaway (LiFePo excluded?) but as far as I understand the batteries are well protected from fire risk and the actual incidence of EV fires is very low?
Would appreciate any links to good, straightforward evidence on the topic if it exists.
Thanks

Save

1 - 4 of 45 Posts

A_Camera

· #20 · 2 mo ago

sidehaas said:
Overheard someone in the office today wittering about the risk of battery fires with EVs and how he thought no evidence was being made available in case it put the Government's 2030 target at risk.

Is there any evidence that the Government is involved in keeping EV fires a secret...?

Save

Reactions: 2

A_Camera

· #27 · 2 mo ago

garycat said:
Government data show gasoline vehicles are up to 100x more prone to fires than EVs

Aside from the argument that gasoline vehicles operate via combustion, a study shows how prevalent gas vehicle fires are compared to EVs.

electrek.co

Study: Hybrids, ICE Cars Far More Likely Than EVs To Catch Fire

The data says hybrids are the most prone to catching fire, while EVs are the least prone, although when they do catch fire, they are harder to put out.

insideevs.com

View attachment 174249

That's what I'd expect also. EV fires are really rare, but the problem with EV fires is that when it is burning, IT IS REALLY BURNING and fire brigade is helpless. It is much easier to fight ICE fire than EV fire. Also, actually the fumes are more toxic as far as I know.

Save

A_Camera

· #44 · 2 mo ago

SueH said:
It avoids setting the terminal on fire and blocking it to other vessels.

Very logical. I work with aviaton and been working with for the last three decades. I am also a pilot. After this post I will propose that the authorities issue new directives to all pilots... "In case of emergency, don't try to land on the nearest airport. Land on sea, lake or any other terrain (not cultivated if possible) far from populated areas to avoid blocking the use of airport or causing more damage to property, goods or people." I think that would be a very good idea, we would save a lot of money and no airport or runway must be closed, not causing delays for anyone. I mean, the current directives of "land on nearest airport" must be totally wrong, isn't it...? Let's NOT try to save people, let's save costs instead.

Save

A_Camera

· #45 · 2 mo ago

SueH said:
They've introduced a new H&S regime on the Isle of Wight ferries: if a fire breaks out on an EV the protocol is not to try docking but to run the vessel aground. (They've been known to do that anyway!

Do you have any link to such stupid decision or directive...? I mean, some evidence of stupidity would be welcome. Or is this just another fake news created by ICE lovers..?

Save

1 - 4 of 45 Posts

Government data show gasoline vehicles are up to 100x more prone to fires than EVs

Study: Hybrids, ICE Cars Far More Likely Than EVs To Catch Fire

Top Contributors this Month