To put in context, 50k gallons is about the size of the largest in-ground pool you might see in the back yard of an upscale suburban home. A normal tanker trailer you see on the highway carrying gasoline or whatever has a 7,500 gallon capacity, so over six of those. Quite a bit of water to dump on one car.
It's also worth keeping in mind that rural fire departments that all have tanker trucks typically carry only 1,500-3,000 gallons and need to continuously fill up from a pump site, drive to the scene, dump in a pond, and continue. Typical gasoline car fires will take less than 1,000 to extinguish. EVs are challenging from this perspective, and departments are just now starting to learn how to deal with them, it's a whole new ballgame.
To put in context, I'd need to know how many gallons it normally takes to extinguish similar fires. I do agree that's a large volume of water but unclear if it's comparatively a lot?
they were dumping it on a semi not a car, it seems like fire dept just needs to get more efficient, hopefully they are not trying to fight these fires in the same traditional way
As a firefighter/paramedic, pray tell, how would you suggest we "just get more efficient"? Part of the challenge is access, between heat and explosive risk.
It's not about being more efficient - it's about kicking out one or more legs of the fire triangle, with water, that being heat and oxygen. The problem is that physics dictates that overcoming the BTUs being put out by a battery fire requires rather a lot of water.
Use of other liquids to absorb this heat is ... problematic. One, you have to transport it to the fire, and two, runoff. It's bad enough having structure fire water runoff going to the ground and water supply, let alone another (most likely noxious) chemical.
There was an article some time ago about how this is handled for a normal sized car like a model S. Basically they put out the flames with traditional foam spraying, then dump the whole car in a large container with water. Let it sit under water for a few days until the battery fire is done.
The battery fire is self sustaining, so only way to stop it is large amounts of continuous cooling for a long time. That's what the water container is for.
At least that's the method used in the Netherlands. Which obviously isn't practical for a semi truck sized fire.
A big battery "fire" is not really a fire, in the normal meaning of that word.
The job the FD faced might better be described as "supply continuous cooling, until the self-powered/no-oxygen-needed battery meltdown runs low on electrical energy". Though if the FD's training & equipment is for traditional fires - then they are stuck using a "pretend it's a fire, and call in 10 more tanker trucks" playbook.
Legislators really need to come up to speed on Tesla and crack down on this shit. There are going to be many collisions involving these trucks. Doesn't even have to be the fault of the driver or Tesla. That's simply life on the highways.
ICE vehicle fires take about 1000 gallons, and the average fire hydrant puts out about 500-1000 gallons per minute. Structural fire engines carry about 1000 gallons and the heavy duty nozzles and ground monitors/deck guns put out 500-1000gpm. This is a LOT of water for a vehicle.
More like 300-400 gallons for your average urban engine. That's enough (with not much to spare) to knock down your average ICE car fire, but it's really there to allow the crew to get to work while they ship a hydrant.
I had the same thought, how many gallons is a diesel semi truck fire?
The part that concerns me is once electric cars are more ubiquitous, say 50% of cars on the road. How will we handle a pileup, where there could be five cars that all need the same level of fire department effort? Could there be some domino effect?
I read the fire sheets for other tesla cars and they say 8k gallons to suppress a battery fire. However, the Semi's sheet does not give a qty estimate.
That's low for an electric vehicle fire. An average car takes 500-1000 gallons. Teslas can take up to 30000-40000 gallons. Fwiw, most fire trucks only carry up to like 3000 gallons.
Most "Fire trucks" - I'm assuming you mean Engines - carry 500-1000 gallons, usually more on the 500 size. A "Water Tender" generally around 2000 gallons.
Maybe semi-truck sized electric vehicles should not be allowed to use a battery technology subject to thermal runaway. Either lithium-iron phosphate, or, once it works, solid state battery technology.
They definitely need to be prohibited from using tunnels that don't allow flammable cargo. There are many tunnels that don't allow gasoline tankers.
Sodium-ion sounds pretty nice also. You don't have the restrictions of a standard passenger vehicle (you have more space).
I imagine in the future they'll look back on when we drove cars that were so combustible (ICE or lithium-ion) like how we look back at when everyone had lead-based house paint or asbestos ceilings.
A few weeks ago I randomly thought, "is there a market for a startup that creates EV fire extinguisher technology?" It seems even Tesla's recommendation right now is to just dump a ton of water on it.
I'm not sure the volume is there right now to justify a new company, but maybe 10 years from now? Just thinking out loud.
Seems like something you'd, ideally, want to develop and license to an existing fire suppression tech company. One that already has all the municipal sales figured out.
If you really did go it alone, I think you could target the FDs in metros with outsized EV populations. I believe San Diego is among the top of the list.
There is no great solution because these fires are self-oxidizing and produce a hell of a lot of heat. If you could blow it apart with a bomb then that might spread the stuff out enough for it to quickly burn out. But other than that all they can do is wait for it to burn out and maybe cover it. Metal fires such as those in these batteries are uncommon but far from new, yet nobody has found a solution in decades.
EV fires seem to be less discussed when talking about going fully electric. They create their own fuel and as far as I know, there isn't a better option than taking it somewhere and letting it burn itself out or using crazy amounts of water for a long time (relatively)
If someone was able to hack and root the computer(s) system(s) on the Tesla,
but having no physical access car, could they strain/force/heat the battery to the point it will catch fire or something else that may be dangerous?
If that is possible, can it be done while the car is parked as well?
Readit News
Source: Firefighter in a rural dept
Seems like it was a precaution, rather than needed.
Deleted Comment
It's not about being more efficient - it's about kicking out one or more legs of the fire triangle, with water, that being heat and oxygen. The problem is that physics dictates that overcoming the BTUs being put out by a battery fire requires rather a lot of water.
Use of other liquids to absorb this heat is ... problematic. One, you have to transport it to the fire, and two, runoff. It's bad enough having structure fire water runoff going to the ground and water supply, let alone another (most likely noxious) chemical.
The battery fire is self sustaining, so only way to stop it is large amounts of continuous cooling for a long time. That's what the water container is for.
At least that's the method used in the Netherlands. Which obviously isn't practical for a semi truck sized fire.
Edit: Here is a picture from a news article: https://i.regiogroei.cloud/4561b78f-d49a-3ecc-adb4-6f535f896...
A big battery "fire" is not really a fire, in the normal meaning of that word.
The job the FD faced might better be described as "supply continuous cooling, until the self-powered/no-oxygen-needed battery meltdown runs low on electrical energy". Though if the FD's training & equipment is for traditional fires - then they are stuck using a "pretend it's a fire, and call in 10 more tanker trucks" playbook.
Also, this was a little ironic…
> The Tesla truck, driven by an employee, was headed to the company’s battery factory in Sparks, Nevada
The part that concerns me is once electric cars are more ubiquitous, say 50% of cars on the road. How will we handle a pileup, where there could be five cars that all need the same level of fire department effort? Could there be some domino effect?
I don’t think that’s standard vehicle fire practice.
https://www.tesla.com/firstresponders
EDIT: 500 gallons was originally just a wild guess, but here's an article where some firefighter gives 500-1000 gallons range: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/tesla-crash-dri...
They definitely need to be prohibited from using tunnels that don't allow flammable cargo. There are many tunnels that don't allow gasoline tankers.
I imagine in the future they'll look back on when we drove cars that were so combustible (ICE or lithium-ion) like how we look back at when everyone had lead-based house paint or asbestos ceilings.
I'm not sure the volume is there right now to justify a new company, but maybe 10 years from now? Just thinking out loud.
a rare case when "ton" is an understatement. 50,000 gallons is almost 200 tons.
If you really did go it alone, I think you could target the FDs in metros with outsized EV populations. I believe San Diego is among the top of the list.
[1]
https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals-archived/signals-2018-cont...which is around 210 cubic meters. Is my math off?
Has it been studied or researched?
https://www.ri.se/sites/default/files/2020-12/FRIC%20D1.2-20...
> Environmental impacts - electrical vehicles
> • Water analyses of selected metals relevant for batteries in electric vehicles did not show any lithium, and only low concentrations of cobalt.
> • This indicates that batteries in electric vehicles did not contribute to pollution of nearby water resources.
If that is possible, can it be done while the car is parked as well?