6 March 2023

What happens when an EV catches fire? ACT firies say it's 'sobering'

| James Coleman
Join the conversation
29
A zero-emission Tesla on fire

Firefighters putting out a Tesla fire overseas. Photo: Screenshot.

The ACT firefighters union has raised “sobering” concerns over what happens when an electric vehicle (EV) catches alight as the ACT Government looks at ways of speeding up the uptake of zero-emission transport.

The government heard from a variety of stakeholders last week as part of the Inquiry into EV Adoption in the ACT, as it looks to ban the sale of new fossil-fuel-powered cars by 2035.

There were 73 submissions made by members of the public, building owners and owners corporations, businesses and unions, and motoring organisations.

In its recently published submission, the ACT Branch of the United Firefighters Union of Australia (UFU ACT Branch) created a hypothetical scenario with many questions that have yet to be answered by policy or precedent.

READ ALSO EVs will have ‘material impact’ on ACT electricity network, Evoenergy tells inquiry

Here’s the scenario: An EV collides with a safety barrier on Parkes Way at the foot of Black Mountain and adjacent to Lake Burley Griffin. The battery is damaged, leading to a jet of flame from the battery.

Given that it’s a lithium-ion battery fire, the firefighters must figure out how they can get hold of up to 60,000 litres of water they might need to put out (and there are no hydrants on Parkes Way). How can it be transported fast enough? And how can it be deployed without causing significant erosion and environmental damage to the land around it? What about the fumes? How long would traffic be disrupted?

An unlikely scenario? Maybe not.

Something like it happened on 30 May 2021 at the Fyshwick recharging station for the Beam e-scooters.

The fire was extinguished, but emergency services stayed on site for another two days in case the fire reignited. One battery did, on 1 June, and then again six weeks later on 14 July.

Worksafe ACT launched an investigation and closed the warehouse. It’s still under investigation.

Still, it’s not exactly common.

Reported experience from overseas says EV fires account for 1 in 40 of all car fires. In his 2019 article entitled ‘A Better Fire and Rescue Service for the ACT: Context, pressures and organisational challenges’, Professor David Hayward noted, “these vehicles are no more likely to be involved in fires than conventional vehicles”.

“But when they are involved with fires, the fire management risks are high.”

As of 6 March, 3552 battery electric vehicles are registered in the ACT, a growth of more than 3000 in three years. And that’s before we count e-bikes, e-scooters, hoverboards, electric motorbikes and electric trucks. Not even the light rail vehicles – with one to two tonnes of battery coming on board soon – is exempt.

There will be an accident one day, and our firefighters want to be ready for that day.

The UFU ACT Branch stands for the “industrial, professional, health, safety and wellbeing interests of career firefighters and communications officers employed by ACT Fire and Rescue”. It describes itself as “generally supportive of greater uptake of EVs”.

“The UFU has a significant record in advocating for measures aimed at addressing climate change, and the challenges posed to firefighters by extreme weather events,” the submission reads.

READ ALSO Prioritising light rail to blame for ‘neglect’ of health, housing, roads: Canberra Liberals

But their submission included a YouTube video compilation showing several instances of EVs catching fire overseas.

The fire danger of lithium-ion batteries stems from something called ‘thermal runaway’.

In the same way a mobile phone heats up when being charged, when a battery is damaged or pierced, the energy escapes in the form of extreme heat. A fire or explosion can result, with temperatures reaching 1600 Celsius.

In the meantime, all car fires are highly toxic, but lithium-ion battery fires emit what specialists often refer to as ‘The Terrible Twins’: carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide. These poison the body’s organs when inhaled and, in the case of related gas, hydrogen fluoride, cause swelling and scarring to the lungs. Future cancer certainly isn’t out of the question.

The trouble is, traditional firefighting foam doesn’t work to put it out and water can make it even worse.

“Cooling the battery to suppress the thermal runaway can be effective, however, there are reports of water causing an explosion,” the union said.

‘Drowning’ the fire seems to be the only current option. Typically, this requires a deluge of 1125 litres of water per minute and between 2000 and 60,000 litres of water in total.

For perspective, the average Canberra home uses 200,000 litres per year, while the average conventional car fire uses less than 1400 litres.

Three firefighters standing next to truck

ACT Fire and Rescue trucks carry about 1400 litres of water – insufficient to extinguish an EV fire. Photo: Michael Weaver.

This is where it gets tricky because the pumper trucks in ACT Fire & Rescue’s fleet can only hold about 1400 litres of water. This means around 43 truckloads of water could be required to put out an EV fire where there’s no access to a hydrant.

It’s not over then, either.

Once the battery is cool, emergency services must wait 45 minutes and retest for heat. And the vehicle has to be stored at least 15 metres from other objects to avoid a domino-effect fire. And all this without the firies being “effectively electrocuted while trying to manage the fire”.

“Noting the requirements for thermal runaway suppression, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario which typifies some of the challenges in the context of Canberra’s environment,” the union said.

The union has seven recommendations for the ACT Government, starting with an education program for emergency services workers in the police, fire and ambulance fields and general road users.

“That ACT Fire & Rescue approval be required in the setting of standards and thresholds pertaining to the fire safety and suppression features of ‘Electric Vehicle Ready Buildings’,” reads another.

And “that the ACT Government support the further research of the work health and safety implications of firefighter chemical exposure arising from thermal runaway events”.

They also call for the government to adopt an Australian standard when it comes to the storage of batteries and charging facilities.

“The matters raised herein are by no means comprehensive; however, they are somewhat sobering,” the submission concluded.

“Swift action by all levels of government is required to ensure that fire services are not overwhelmed by the proliferation of this developing technology.”

Submissions to the inquiry closed on 26 August 2022. The Committee will discuss the submissions with a final reporting date to be announced.

Join the conversation

29
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Stuart Coulton10:59 am 09 Mar 23

Interestingly there is a solution for contain EV fires which comes out of Norway where they currently have over 600,000 Ev’s on the road. The Fire Services in Norway use a Car Fire Blanket which they pull over the vehicle which smothers the Fire but contains the Lithium Battery fire under the vehicle. The blanket contains all the smoke and chemicals and no water is used, it enables the fire brigade to follow there Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for EV fires to let them burn out and limit any fire spread without the need for 60,000 litres of water and all the associated contaminated water run off.

Capital Retro6:16 pm 09 Mar 23

Can they recycle the blankets because there will be lots needed.

it’ll be much safer driving around in mini Hindenburg’s containing one of the most flammable substances known to humans. Far more flammable than gas or petrol. Look on YouTube for hydrogen explosion and decide if you want them driving around you.
As for ev batteries the clueless UFU doesn’t even differentiate between LifePo which all new EVs have moved to and the older more vulnerable Lithium cobalt ones and even then they don’t explode like petrol. Something that burns is already safer than something that explodes. You can literally drill right thru a lifepo battery cell. Want to do that with your petroleum tank?
No UFU submission about hydrogen vehicles, lol
Besides, standard SOP for ev fires is to just let them burn and limit any fire spread. That way you don’t need to worry about it catching fire again later, all the batteries have been burnt. Much prefer that to a standard vehicle fire where you need to put it out to stop fuel exploding.

Not The Mama6:50 pm 12 Mar 23

The hydrogen that would be used in EVs is not stored as a gas at low pressure as it was in the Hindenburg. It’s not even stored as a pressurised gas. It’s stored absorbed in solid or liquid carriers which (currently) have to be heated to release the hydrogen.

“standard SOP for ev fires is to just let them burn and limit any fire spread” – Yes because they don’t have a clue how to put them out and its far too dangerous to try… that’s what we did in the 2003 fires, remember what happened then?

Echos what ive been postin on here for ages.

Canberra will need a sky crane firefighting helicopter and EV’s should be banned from underground carparks.
We should also only allow the best of the best EV’s to prevent fires during charging while in the garage. LiFePo rather LiFe.

Some of the fire blanket tech looks promising. However the batteries are self discharging pulling oxygen from the water. We don’t save much in the long run when the EV’s burn everything to ashes.

It sounds like there is some more research required on understanding how to extinguish battery fires (this includes homes). These battery systems are all over the world. Everyone will have the same problem

Not The Mama5:30 pm 06 Mar 23

Well. There are other EV technologies, including other types of batteries. I think that the problems with Lithium Ion battery EVs are very big and intractable, so much so that they outweigh the environmental benefits. And I will be dancing with joy when (if – Like fast rail I’m not sure that it will ever happen) we abandoned this technology as a dead-end solution. My hope, for what it’s worth, is that we’ll go big on Green Hydrogen and Green Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered EVs. That technology has problems too, but I think that they have scientific and engineering solutions that would be implemented if we all committed to it in the way that we seem to have with Lithium-Ion battery EVs.

Yes, it’ll be much safer driving around in mini Hindenburg’s containing one of the most flammable substances known to humans. Far more flammable than gas or petrol. Look on YouTube for hydrogen explosion and decide if you want them driving around you.
As for ev batteries the clueless UFU doesn’t even differentiate between LifePo which all new EVs have moved to and the older more vulnerable Lithium cobalt ones and even then they don’t explode like petrol. Something that burns is already safer than something that explodes. You can literally drill right thru a lifepo battery cell. Want to do that with your petroleum tank?
No UFU submission about hydrogen vehicles, lol
Besides, standard SOP for ev fires is to just let them burn and limit any fire spread. That way you don’t need to worry about it catching fire again later, all the batteries have been burnt. Much prefer that to a standard vehicle fire where you need to put it out to stop fuel exploding.

Malcolm Street5:41 pm 09 Mar 23

If you want a dead-end solution it’s hydrogen for cars. (Yes, it may have a niche in heavier vehicles). Ask Toyota how their strategy of promoting hydrogen instead of BEVs has worked out for them.

Green hydrogen has to be produced through electrolysis which is energy intensive. Most estimates I’ve seen show only about 45 % of the energy put into creating the hydrogen comes out again in the fuel cell vs. c. 90% from a battery. Then there’s extra energy used in transport costs. I’m amused when people (not you) say the grid can’t support BEVs and then in the same breath talk about hydrogen as an alternative

So… with a BEV you charge a battery on or off the grid with electricity and use it to run an electric motor. With Green hydrogen you use electricity to produce hydrogen, transport it a filling station for it to be used, fill up the car with hydrogen, then use a fuel cell to, wait for it, produce electricity to run an electric motor. Makes far more sense to me to just use the electricity you’re going to use to produce the hydrogen to power the car in the first place and cut out the middle man.

There is a staggering amount of R&D work going into batteries, and we already have a far less volatile alternative in lithium-ion-phosphate, let alone what’s going to come out in the next few years. We’re going to get safer batteries way before, if ever, we get viable hydrogen cars and infrastructure.

Imagine what the discussion was when the horse and cart was replaced with a vehicle sagging around with an inflammable substance … shock horror, ban the car lol
If there is one thing that brings out the dinosaurs, its new technology that they just don’t understand

Capital Retro3:44 pm 06 Mar 23

Careful with with using that dinosaur word Robz. With new technologies there are new risks. With EVs the greatest risk is thermal runaway and even a dinosaur like me can understand what happens.

You also chose a piss-weak analogy when comparing horse and carts to the first ICE powered cars. Whatever you do, don’t let the facts get in the road of rent-seeking virtue signalers.

Capital Retro containing about others not letting the facts get in the way whilst below stating that an EV fire in a basement would require the demolition of the building.

Too funny.

Not The Mama5:21 pm 06 Mar 23

Are you really saying that firefighters are dinosaurs that don’t understand chemical fires? It seems to me that they researched the concern well, using experience from overseas where the Li-Ion EVs are more common and have experience with such things. They are not even saying ban EVs, they are saying don’t push for their widespread uptake until we have a plan with dealing with these very serious events.

Capital Retro8:05 pm 06 Mar 23

The Rural Fire Service still doesn’t know how to fight a fire in a bird blender turbine and the Greens have wedged them by getting them an electric fire engine.

Best way to lose a career in the ACT public service is to criticize the government.

That’s sobering too.

Capital Retro10:01 pm 06 Mar 23

Yes chewy, you can mock me all you like but it hasn’t happened, yet. There are certain facts you may like to consider here, also: https://premium.goauto.com.au/ev-fires-loom-large/

And late last year I had to do some ceiling repainting in the highest part of my house. The existing paint had started to separate from the plasterboard. I went to the nearest large hardware store and bought a well known brand of acrylic primer/final coat and before applying it I removed all the loose and flaky paint already there followed by a light sanding and cleaning with a high pressure air source.

The paint was then applied and after only 30 minutes it started to bubble. I rang the manufacturers’ help line and described what had happened. They asked if my house had been exposed to bushfire smoke in the 2020-21 bushfires and when I confirmed this they said many people from Canberra had reported the same problem so research was carried out to see if there was a link with the bushfire smoke and the failure of the new paint to adhere. They said it had been confirmed that chemicals in the smoke had caused the problem and they would remain on all house surfaces indefinitely. The only solution was to thoroughly clean the area to be painted with sugar soap which I did. The paint stayed on. It was great advice that worked. It also means that nasty chemicals from smoke can adhere to surfaces in living areas.

Are you still laughing?

CR,
Yes I am still laughing because none of what you just wrote remotely backs up your claim that buildings will have to be demolished due to EV fires in basement garages.

You’ve firstly made another link (unsurprisingly from the same anti-EV source as previously) which was shown to be incorrect on the stats of EV car fire prevalence before.

No one has denied there are challenges to address with EV take up, just that they are no worse than the existing problems with ICE vehicles.

You’ve then gone on a weird tangent about how you couldn’t paint your house properly because of bushfire residue.

I’m surprised when you found out about it, you didn’t call in the bulldozers to raze the house to the ground. Surely that’s the only way to make sure you’re truly safe right?

Oh, I forgot, those type of ridiculous suggestions only get made when it has something to do with EVs or renewable energy.

If you’re worried about poisonous chemicals, how about you take a look at what your precious coal fired power plants put out daily?

Capital Retro9:39 pm 07 Mar 23

I referred to bushfire smoke, not bushfire residue. Again, mock me all you like.

Re the alleged poisonous chemicals that coal fired power plants allegedly produce, most of the doom and gloom ads the warmists put out about evil coal fired power stations depict steam coming out of the cooling towers. Yes, water vapour is really dangerous.

The residue is the part of the smoke remaining sticking to your house. You do know what the word residue means right?

And surely even someone as unbalanced as yourself on these issues isn’t going to attempt to deny the air pollution impacts of coal fired power stations which has been researched for decades?

This isn’t about climate change and the dinosaurs that won’t admit it exists, we are talking about verified impacts on air quality caused by the poisonous compounds emitted from these stations. Something the energy industry has tried very hard to lessen over a long period of time.

Alleged? You’re off your tree.

https://www.gem.wiki/Air_pollution_from_coal-fired_power_plants

Capital Retro11:51 am 08 Mar 23

You said bushfire residue. That means ash – that is what remains when materials in the path of the fire are combusted.

The chemical laden smoke ends up many kilometers from the fire. But you knew that, didn’t you?

It’s impossible for you to admit that you got something wrong. You would rather try and spin your way out of it like an uncontrollable bird-blender.

My tree was destroyed by the last bushfire but it will grow again.

“You said bushfire residue. That means ash – that is what remains when materials in the path of the fire are combusted.”

You do know what smoke is made up of right?

I can’t believe your trying to argue a difference between bushfire residual and smoke residual.

Woeful attempt at deflection to avoid how categorically wrong your statements in this entire thread have been.

You are absolutely off your rocker if what coal power plants pump out is ‘alleged’. It is absolute fact – it is ultimately a chemical reaction, and burning coal creates more than just H2O. That is simple scientific fact.

But hey, facts only matter when they suit you don’t they?

Malcolm Street5:44 pm 09 Mar 23

“You also chose a piss-weak analogy when comparing horse and carts to the first ICE powered cars. “

Er, ICE powered cars introduced the use and mass transportation though public places of a highly inflammable liquid and so created a major fire risk where with horses there was none before. It was a much greater hazard increase than that with EV batteries.

Capital Retro6:18 pm 09 Mar 23

Keep on spinnin’, chewy.

devils_advocate1:05 pm 06 Mar 23

Ban EVs they’re too dangerous.

What would be the damage if an EV caught fire in an underground shopping centre or apartment carpark? More or less than an ICE vehicle?

Capital Retro1:38 pm 06 Mar 23

The toxic smoke would force evacuation of the whole building and the building would then have to be demolished because of the toxic residue left by the smoke.

Some body corporates may be having difficulty in arranging building and public liability insurance as a result.

It’s a Mr Fluffy 2.0.

devils_advocate9:37 am 07 Mar 23

Yes – the entire basement has to be fire separated and more powerful ventilation systems installed, probably an easier solution is for the body corporate to ban EVs

Utter nonsense. Making up dribble doesn’t make it true.

devils_advocate7:29 pm 09 Mar 23

Not sure what the “dribble” is you’re referring to but talk to any builder or developer doing a class 2 or above development, and ask about the “special hazard” assessment that has to be done.

This is for NEW developments, existing developments may not be capable of being compliant.

Finally, this compliance is just to guard against the risk of an electric vehicle being PARKED in the premises – the likelihood of the incidence would go up exponentially if the vehicle was being parked there permanently and charged. Not sure when insurance companies will start refusing claims outright or refusing to insure.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.