Ferry Companies Grapple With Rising Threat of EV Fires

[scotjimland]

Ferry companies, which carry both large and varied numbers of vehicles and a multitude of passengers, could be particularly at risk from fires breaking out on board. This is likely to grow as more and more EVs, powered by lithium-ion batteries, are adopted for private and commercial use. The large numbers of passengers carried on ferry routes also present additional safety concerns not found on ro-ro vessels.

In 2023 several fires took place on large ro-ro vessels carrying sizable quantities of EVs. The most recent of these, onboard the Fremantle Highway, led to the death of one crew member and gutted the vessel. While it has not yet been fully ascertained whether an EV was the primary cause of the fire, the number of vehicles transported has led many to draw this conclusion. The Fremantle Highway fire follows several other cases. Some of these, such as the fire on board the Felicity Ace, led to the total loss of the vessel when it sank off the coast of the Azores.

Complicating matters further is the fact that supplementary safety guidance released can be contradictory. A recent study from the International Association of Marine Insurers (IUMI) concluded that on ro-pax vessels passengers may want to charge their vehicles on board and this should be permitted subject to relevant risk assessments and control measures. According to the study, this is because built-in safety mechanisms are usually activated during charging. Despite this, operators such as DFDS and Brittany Ferries have recently banned the charging of EVs on board.

Ferry companies grapple with rising threat of EV fires

Ferry companies, which carry both large and varied numbers of vehicles and a multitude of passengers, could be particularly at risk from fires breaking out on

rina.org.uk

 

[nicholsong]

Cannot the fire risk of EVs be solved by isolating the battery in the same way as turning off gas cylinders?

 

[SpeedyDux]

Cannot the fire risk of EVs be solved by isolating the battery in the same way as turning off gas cylinders?

I don't think so. I expect Grom will tell you I am wrong ...

Every EV needs to be on an open deck with a nearby fork lift and brave crew member available to chuck the EV overboard ASAP if it ignites.

 

[Jev88]

Cannot the fire risk of EVs be solved by isolating the battery in the same way as turning off gas cylinders?

Garages have a system they have to run to isolate the voltages before they can work on them so maybe but might need a geek with a laptop ????

 

[scotjimland]

Maybe they should be fitted with a big red battery isolating switch on the roof ..

or just ban them.. job done..

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PaulyP]

I don't think so. I expect Grom will tell you I am wrong ...

Every EV needs to be on an open deck with a nearby fork lift and brave crew member available to chuck the EV overboard ASAP if it ignites.

Good idea, personally they should be dumped overboard even if they are not on fire

 

[scotjimland]

A recent study from the International Association of Marine Insurers (IUMI) concluded that on ro-pax vessels passengers may want to charge their vehicles on board and this should be permitted subject to relevant risk assessments and control measures.

what's that all about .. is their range so short they can't get off the ferry ?

never seen a petrol or diesel pump on a ferry ...

 

[Tombola]

While it has not yet been fully ascertained whether an EV was the primary cause of the fire

EV fires on board would be far less common than existing fires caused by traditional vehicles fuel.

the current data shows ICE fire percentages are far higher in the real world so why would it be any different on a ship. I'd actually go as far as to say, the rocking and rolling of a ship could pose more of a fire risk of fuel spillages and ignition from sparks.

NO fires on ships to date have been attributed to an EVs apart from the biased unfounded opinions.

but there have been many regarding those carrying liquid fuels, which is why the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has issued guidelines for the safe transport of vehicles on ships, including specific requirements for fuel tank venting and electrical systems.

Its the systems to extinguish the problem fires that needs looking at, not the facts of if it will happen with Evs, we know its possible, but far less possible than many tanks full of explosive fuel sloshing around.
Post 3 probably has it right if space allowed

apart from that, I seen this, which in theory is easier than trying to put out a deck full of sloshing around fuel
but to summarise, that article you posted is bollocks

 

[Guigsy]

Recent stats from Norway are suggesting that BEV fires are less common that ICE fires. And in collision accidents, they are generally lower fire risk because the fire will occur several minutes after a collision.

The risk on car transporters can be partly mitigated for ICEs by putting the bare minimum of fuel in them. But you can't do the same for an BEV, they still burn just as well even when they are flat. And if the one next to it catches fire, having the battery isolated won't help. But then all cars are pretty flamable regardless of whether they are ICE or BEV.

Given that many BEVs now have Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries, the risk is decreasing anyway?

 

[Jim]

or just ban them.. job done..

Not sure of the truth, but I was reading somewhere recently that EV are significantly less likely to start a fire than an ICE car, so no need for the isolator switch on the roof. Seems the trouble occurs when parked next to an ICE car that starts the fire as at Luton recently.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[scotjimland]

Not sure of the truth, but I was reading somewhere recently that EV are significantly less likely to start a fire than an ICE car, so no need for the isolator switch on the roof. Seems the trouble occurs when parked next to an ICE car that starts the fire as at Luton recently.

yes, tongue firmly in cheek post..

 

[PaulyP]

EV fires on board would be far less common than existing fires caused by traditional vehicles fuel.

the current data shows ICE fire percentages are far higher in the real world so why would it be any different on a ship. I'd actually go as far as to say, the rocking and rolling of a ship could pose more of a fire risk of fuel spillages and ignition from sparks.

NO fires on ships to date have been attributed to an EVs apart from the biased unfounded opinions.

but there have been many regarding those carrying liquid fuels, which is why the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has issued guidelines for the safe transport of vehicles on ships, including specific requirements for fuel tank venting and electrical systems.

Its the systems to extinguish the problem fires that needs looking at, not the facts of if it will happen with Evs, we know its possible, but far less possible than many tanks full of explosive fuel sloshing around.
Post 3 probably has it right if space allowed

apart from that, I seen this, which in theory is easier than trying to put out a deck full of sloshing around fuel
but to summarise, that article you posted is bollocks

As there are much more ice vehicles than ev’s there are bound to be more fires attributed to ice vehicles, my concern would be its easier to contain, control and extinguish an ice vehicle fire but seems to be a big problem with ev fires.

 

[Tombola]

As there are much more ice vehicles than ev’s there are bound to be more fires attributed to ice vehicles, my concern would be its easier to contain, control and extinguish an ice vehicle fire but seems to be a big problem with ev fires.

Not at all according to facts, , Thats why I said percentage, and why I said post 3 had it right
and also why I linked the video, and also why I said about burning fuel sloshing around a ships deck in heavy seas. What do you think would be easier to extinguish then? a vehicle sat in one place that a fire cloak can be placed over by trained staff, or burning fuels running into drains and decks everywhere.

 

[haganap]

Dam you Tombola Jim Guigsy
Getting in the way of another EV horror story.. the MSM will have your number.... they won't be happy.

Ive just checked in with Terry Tesla to make sure he's not on fire ...

When will this neighsleighing end...

EVs are here to stay....

 

[MitchandJenny]

Maybe they should be fitted with a big red battery isolating switch on the roof ..

or just ban them.. job done..

The roof is where the big winding key goes.
Mitch

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Nigel P]

Whoops!

 

[A-Mech]

Some fire brigades totally submerge car in water, starving of oxygen, or soaking in foam. Sprayed water will not put out battery fire.
The recent fire in a airport was started by PHEV vehicle and the fire can be seen around the 48volt system area on cctv. So saying it was a ICE vehicle that started fire is partially correct, but reason was electrical fire.

From school days, do you remember submerging a small piece of phosphate under water in test tube and when you brought it out of water, the phosphate reignited.

Dealers do have to make EV cars safe when working on electrical system and a small number of authorised staff have this training and ability.
Once made safe, an "approved" technician can work on that EV car.
When he's finished working, the authorised technician reinstates the electric system.
You can have "informed" technician who can only carry specific jobs, such as jump starting 12volt battery.
A normal technician with no EV training can work on EV car. (changing tyres, brake pads, wiper blades, etc OK)

MESSAGE TO ANYONE WITH EV CAR. IF IT HAS AN "ORANGE" CABLE, LEAVE IT ALONE IT CAN KILL YOU!!!

 

[ceejayt]

Not sure of the truth, but I was reading somewhere recently that EV are significantly less likely to start a fire than an ICE car, so no need for the isolator switch on the roof. Seems the trouble occurs when parked next to an ICE car that starts the fire as at Luton recently.

I also read this. It was a Too Gear report firstly debunking the Luton EV story and secondly saying no more risk than a petrol vehicle.
The difference is petrol vehicle may well explode but EV vehicle fire is hard to put out.
Lots of fake news re EVs generally

 

[bilM]

Lots of fake news re EVs generally

Mostly on MH Fun.

 

[Richard n Ann]

In the rare event of a ICE car starting a fire...

It's usually the battery



Sorry, I just made that up

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

I don't think so. I expect Grom will tell you I am wrong ...

Why would I when you are correct?

 

[Gromett]

Every EV needs to be on an open deck with a nearby fork lift and brave crew member available to chuck the EV overboard ASAP if it ignites.

This bit I disagree with though. Better methods of dealing with the risk could relatively easily be developed. I have plenty of ideas myself but better minds are working on it. But here are a few for you.
Sensors under each vehicle looking up to monitor temperature before entering the vessel and then in each parking bay. The early warning this gives would be sufficient to get fire mitigation gear in place before a full outbreak.
Fire blankets have been proven to be very effective in EV cars.
They are surround by sea, so water is not in any great shortage for drenching a specific vehicle.

But those are just off the top of my head.

 

[Gromett]

Garages have a system they have to run to isolate the voltages before they can work on them so maybe but might need a geek with a laptop ????

Isolating the battery from the vehicle would not help. In pretty much all cases it will be a cell failure causing an internal thermal runaway and nothing to do with the vehicle.

 

[jumar]

MHs with Lithium, eBikes, eScooters all present a risk whilst in transit....
So it's not only EVs....

 

[Guigsy]

MHs with Lithium, eBikes, eScooters all present a risk whilst in transit....
So it's not only EVs....

Except the lithium batteries in motorhomes and an increasing number of EV cars use the lithium battery chemistry that doesn't burn.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

Except the lithium batteries in motorhomes and an increasing number of EV cars use the lithium battery chemistry that doesn't burn.

I suspect that is where a dividing line will be made. some cars ie those with LiFePO4 chemistry will be allowed on. Those with the volatile chemistries may be banned or charged more and put in a separate section with monitoring and control provisions?

Just a though...

 

[seasideBill]

MHs with Lithium, eBikes, eScooters all present a risk whilst in transit....
So it's not only EVs....

Yes, used the railway in Spain recently and noticed they were about to introduce a eScooter ban, presumably for the same reason?

 

[vzac]

EV fires on board would be far less common than existing fires caused by traditional vehicles fuel.

the current data shows ICE fire percentages are far higher in the real world so why would it be any different on a ship. I'd actually go as far as to say, the rocking and rolling of a ship could pose more of a fire risk of fuel spillages and ignition from sparks.

NO fires on ships to date have been attributed to an EVs apart from the biased unfounded opinions.

but there have been many regarding those carrying liquid fuels, which is why the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has issued guidelines for the safe transport of vehicles on ships, including specific requirements for fuel tank venting and electrical systems.

Its the systems to extinguish the problem fires that needs looking at, not the facts of if it will happen with Evs, we know its possible, but far less possible than many tanks full of explosive fuel sloshing around.
Post 3 probably has it right if space allowed

apart from that, I seen this, which in theory is easier than trying to put out a deck full of sloshing around fuel
but to summarise, that article you posted is bollocks

Perhaps all ev's should have a foam sprinkler system installed along with smoke detectors. Would that not solve the problem, and with the extra weight reduce there distance they could travel.

 

[nicholsong]

If one's MH suffers collateral damage from an adjacent vehicle fire who does one sue? The ferry company(do they have an exclusion in T&Cs?) ? Or the TP insurers of the responsible vehicle, assuming the fire was not so intense and so many vehicles torched that the offending vehicle cannot be identified?

 

[Tombola]

If one's MH suffers collateral damage from an adjacent vehicle fire who does one sue? The ferry company(do they have an exclusion in T&Cs?) ? Or the TP insurers of the responsible vehicle, assuming the fire was not so intense and so many vehicles torched that the offending vehicle cannot be identified?

Or the ship sinks

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}