What technology could be used to make electric automobiles much more fire-safe?

[JohnDBarrow]

Number One: what methods could be used to greatly reduce the risk that fire will will result from the batteries? 

Number Two: what technology could be used to protect people and dogs inside the car from death or serious injury in case a battery-related fire did break out (or was on the verge of breaking out) while people and dogs were still in the car, parked or moving?  There is both a very hot and violent burning hazard and a highly toxic smoke hazard.  A fuel-related fire inside the engine compartment of a gasoline automobile, at least, is going to burn rather tame and the engine compartment and firewall is going to keep the flames and heat away from people inside the cabin for a while anyway. No flames are going to shoot out from the sides in a gasoline car. But how in the devil are you going to step outside of an EV with the blow-torch flames shooting right out where the door entrance is? 

There seems to be no federally-mandated fire safety standards for EVs at this time. How many people will burn to death inside these things antil Uncel Sam "does something" about it? 

 

Videos like this scare me:

 

 

[LaurieAG]

The best place to start looking would probably be the reports made by the people who have to put out the fires.

 

 

[JohnDBarrow]

Maybe just get rid of these overheating, thermal runaway and fire-prone less-energy-dense lithium-ion batteries altogther. Since making this thread, I have just discovered solid state batteries under development now by Toyota and I find it an exciting revelation. Our future progeny might be saved from going back to Amish horse buggies after all!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zofx59CLb4A

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23 by JohnDBarrow

[iNow]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I have just discovered solid state batteries under development now by Toyota

Toyota has been talking about those for over 15 years already yet here we are, still waiting for this emerging technology to emerge.

http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2010/12/toyota-announces-4-layer-all-solid.html

[JohnDBarrow]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Toyota has been talking about those for over 15 years already yet here we are, still waiting for this emerging technology to emerge.

http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2010/12/toyota-announces-4-layer-all-solid.html

From the standpoint of physics and chemistry, is solid state battery tchnology a real practical possibilty as a lithium-ion battery alternative to power electric automobiles? 

Is it merely politics and big bsuiness that has been holding this up? 

[JohnDBarrow]

I'm hoping our dependence upon fossil fuels will become extinct like the dinosaurs that made it and the sooner the better. But it has to be SAFE and PROVEN to boot. 

And if those rave-review solid state batteries should prove to be the newly-gotten Holy Grail, the magic bullet, of portable energy, what (thinking outside the fossil fuels box) is going to produce the electricity to even recharge them? Ocean tide power? Wind? Solar (pump the sun)? Nuclear? Green hydrogen?  

Edited June 23 by JohnDBarrow

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I'm hoping our dependence upon fossil fuels will become extinct like the dinosaurs that made it and the sooner the better. But it has to be SAFE and PROVEN to boot. 

And if those rave-review solid state batteries should prove to be the newly-gotten Holy Grail, the magic bullet, of portable energy, what (thinking outside the fossil fuels box) is going to produce the electricity to even recharge them? Ocean tide power? Wind? Solar (pump the sun)? Nuclear? Green hydrogen?  

The answer to that question is all around you. Wind, solar and nuclear already provide a big proportion of electricity generation. Wind and solar are now less costly than fossil fuel generation. 
 

Battery fires are very rare, much rarer than with fossil fuelled vehicles, though certainly harder to extinguish. 

[iNow]

Just to amplify exchemists last point, the foundational premise of this thread that fires are a bigger problem in EVs is simply false and is likely an example of buying into the unfounded partisan propaganda on this topic. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2024/04/21/electric-vehicles-not-guilty-of-excess-short-term-fire-risk-charges/#

EVs represented far less of the reported fires than might be expected given their market share. Estimates by the Phosphorous, Inorganic & Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association reported 55 fires per billion miles travelled in ICE vehicles and five fires per billion for EVs. A report from AutoinsuranceEX said EVs exhibited 61 times fewer fires per 100,000 sales than ICE vehicles.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/mythbusting-evs/mythbusting-world-evs-are-electric-cars-susceptible-catching-fire
 

The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) reported 23 fires in 611,000 EVs during 2022, or 0.004 per cent in a year, which makes it 20 times less likely to happen than ICE car fires, which burned 3,400 times in 4.4 million cars, or 0.08 per cent. MSB has also recently proven a new way to extinguish battery fires fast.

Edited June 23 by iNow

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Videos like this scare me:

That means somebody's spin doctor degree is paying off for the fossil fuel industry. "Fear progress!" has been the cry of almost every modern industry that stifles competitors while reaping maximum profit so they can afford to hire folks to make videos that scare people away from change. 

Stop and think about how many more nice conveniences and amenities you could have if we stopped funding oil and made solar electricity super dirt cheap. There are so many goods to be manufactured that are waiting for the costs of the energy to power them to go down. Much of that has been stifled by shenanigans with battery patents big oil holds or held. 

EVs and solar power need to be supported. We're going to get around the obstacle of big oil eventually. I heard we now have ink that can print a solar panel, so it's obvious that progress is trying to help while ICE and oil proponents want us stuck in the tar pits.

[JohnDBarrow]

I'm still really excited about the notion of the advanced SOLID-STATE battery. What I would like to see is some exciting automobiles and light-duty trucks built on this technology. I want elegant, fun, stylish, roomy, comfortable, sporty, handsome and even fast cars, wagons, vans, SUV's and pickup trucks to run on this new clean-green stuff. What if one, with the necessary bucks, could take a 1957 Ford Fairlane, 1965 Cadillac convertible, 1970 Dodge Challenger, 1979 Lincoln Town Car or 1985 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham coupe and completely convert them to 100% solid-state battery EV while still preserving the original body and interior? Just imagine. Would solid-state EV tech practically support these heavy old cars? 

Edited June 23 by JohnDBarrow

[iNow]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I want elegant, fun, stylish, roomy, comfortable, sporty, handsome and even fast cars, wagons, vans, SUV's and pickup trucks to run on this new clean-green stuff.

https://www.gmc.com/electric/sierra-ev/denali-edition-1

https://www.jaguarusa.com/all-models/i-pace/index.html

https://www.rolls-roycemotorcars.com/en_US/showroom/spectre.html

https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/ferraris-first-ev-will-cost-over-1235661037/amp/

Edited June 24 by iNow

[Ken Fabian]

There are Lithium batteries all through our home now - phones, shavers, remote speakers, torches (lanterns), leaf blowers, push mower, ride-on mower, brushcutter, drills, grinders... oh, and solar batteries that are much more than all those added together, and I'm sure I've missed a few.* Not an EV yet but only until costs come down and/or the used EV market grows. Some are Lithium Iron Phosphate (solar batteries, ride-on mower) that don't catch fire - although every electrical appliance can potentially catch fire from electrical faults, which can go on to start battery fires.

Seems to me keeping the quality high - having safety standards - is more important than any "free" market access to cheap low quality batteries and chargers. Or to EV's with batteries and chargers that don't meet minimum standards. Those standards are likely to keep getting reviewed and updated in light of real world incidents as well as testing regimes, as they should.

Fears that China will flood the world with cheap EV's (can't make this stuff up) are seeing efforts to save ICE manufacturers (who got what they wanted and in Aesop's race style have rested on their ICE achievements) with big tariffs and import bans. But any imports into markets like US, Europe or here in Australia DO have to meet stringent safety standards - and Chinese manufacturers appear as capable as anyone else of meeting and beating them.

*(Add on edit - missed the laptop I've been typing on; talk about missing what is right in front of me. 2 in use plus another older one, rarely used)

Edited June 24 by Ken Fabian

[StringJunky]

From what I understand about Lithium ion is that trying to recharge a battery that has been discharged below the actual minimum safe discharge level, 2.7v, which is lower than the designed automatic cutoff voltage, 3v, creates the possibility of producing elemental lithium. Caused by a faulty voltage detection component, for example. Lithium's reaction with oxygen is highly exothermic...

The safest behaviour with them is to recharge when the device says so at about 20% charge left. Going lower degrades the battery and its service life.

Edited June 24 by StringJunky

[MigL]

Batteries have to be carried around and are a built in inefficiency; Lithium is scarce and highly reactive.

A better system would involve distributed power, where the 'road' ( or its equivalent ) would supply power to the much smaller, lightweight  vehicle.
Why waste half of your available power accelerating batteries and motors ?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why waste half of your available power accelerating batteries and motors ?

It’s cheaper and more scalable than overhauling the infrastructure everywhere, especially in rural areas and lower traffic remote roads and regions 

[MigL]

Are you sure ?
Infrastructure will already need upgrading to accommodate 1 or 2 EVs per household.
Even if it's a two step process that begins with cities, where 'rural use' vehicles switch to distributed power when entering city limits.
And if those lower traffic remote roads and regions have homes or lights along them, they already have a distributed power grid; instead of using suspended wiring, the power would be carried to them by the 'road' equivalent. You just need technology to 'extract' power from the road as your vehicle travels along it without also 'frying' people or local wildlife.

Edited June 24 by MigL

[iNow]

I would advocate for both and, not either or.

I do, however, believe infrastructure at the scale we’re discussing will cost more than point of service updates at the individual vehicle level, yes… at least in the US.

I readily stipulate that I’m rooting this in intuition more than fact and that I’ve not done research or discovery sufficient to properly defend this based on studies and forecasts et.al, but it was easier for Elon to rollout teslas than for Eisenhower to implement interstates. 

Edited June 24 by iNow

[MigL]

I suspect Musk's 'ease' was for reasons different than Eisenhower's.

[JohnDBarrow]

 

 

Electric automobiles WILL work if we have fossil-fuels alternatives and a robust EV infrastructure to even recharge them. Wind, solar, tidal power, green hydrogen, biofuels and nuclear. Dinosaur juice won't last forever. I'm betting on those promised high-density, smaller. lightweight, fire-safe, greatly-extended-range solid-state batteries to go inside automobiles. Who says they have to power just automobiles? Why not also trailer trucks, buses, trains, airplanes, helicopters, boats, ships, earthmovers and many kinds of heavy industrial machinery? But railroads would be a good place to electrify by overhead cable and at sea, what's wrong with using sailing ships once again? 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Who says they have to power just automobiles?

Nobody 

[zapatos]

On 6/23/2024 at 6:10 PM, JohnDBarrow said:

What I would like to see is some exciting automobiles and light-duty trucks built on this technology. I want elegant, fun, stylish, roomy, comfortable, sporty, handsome and even fast cars, wagons, vans, SUV's and pickup trucks to run on this new clean-green stuff.

Getting away from fossil fuels will be much more useful if it is not replaced wasteful amenities. The harm to the earth from cars does not simply come from fossil fuels, it also comes from mining, water usage, pollution, waste piles, chemical waste from processing, etc.

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

 

 

Electric automobiles WILL work if we have fossil-fuels alternatives and a robust EV infrastructure to even recharge them. Wind, solar, tidal power, green hydrogen, biofuels and nuclear. Dinosaur juice won't last forever. I'm betting on those promised high-density, smaller. lightweight, fire-safe, greatly-extended-range solid-state batteries to go inside automobiles. Who says they have to power just automobiles? Why not also trailer trucks, buses, trains, airplanes, helicopters, boats, ships, earthmovers and many kinds of heavy industrial machinery? But railroads would be a good place to electrify by overhead cable and at sea, what's wrong with using sailing ships once again? 

Why don't you do a bit of reading about the energy transition? Many of the issues you mention are already being actively addressed, but you need to get a bit more granular in the applications to understand how they are tackled. Batteries for trains are one example. There are already battery operated trains for short shuttle services, where one can easily recharge the train at either end. However for long distance the obvious answer is indeed by providing a supply of electricity along the track, as has been done all over the world for a century already, either by overhead catenary or a 3rd rail.  Ships are exploring ammonia as fuel, which is effectively a way to store hydrogen without needing to handle high pressures. Sail is being tried again, as a way to reduce fuel consumption rather than to rely on 100%. However, like trains, ship fuel consumption per tonne-km is very low so it is less high up the priority list than other modes of transport. Trucks and planes may need hydrogen or other non-fossil sourced fuel for burning, as batteries of any kind are inevitably rather bulky and heavy for very large power demands.

So it is not and never has been all about batteries and, while the issue of (very rare) battery fires should not be dismissed, it is not a barrier to the take-up of battery technology. So I think we could do with a little less of the anti-EV propaganda videos from you on that point. Hidden agenda much, eh? 😁

   

Edited June 25 by exchemist

[JohnDBarrow]

I don't know much about science but I think many humans desire practical and affordable energy forms for modern living conforts that are not harmful to health, safety or the planet as a whole. Any possibilties, not just batteries, should be put upon the open table here. There is still the possibilty that man will chiefly go back to horse and buggy again for land transportation and sailing ships for sea freight before he becomes totally extinct from this planet. 

I came up with the term CRESTAS which is Spanish for "crests" as in the crests of waves.  This should be our future energy objective. 

Clean Renewable Energy Solution That's Also Safe

 

Yes, car lithium-ion battery fires are rare but very horrible whenever they do happen. Typical car gasoline fires are much milder by comparison to lithium-ion battery fires. I refuse to willingly get into any vehicle powered by lithium-ion batteries. I'm still optimistic about the solid-state batteries for automobiles. 

Edited June 28 by JohnDBarrow

[Sensei]

On 6/23/2024 at 4:07 AM, JohnDBarrow said:

Number Two: what technology could be used to protect people and dogs

What about the cats?

 

[JohnDBarrow]

I'm now looking 1000's of years into the future. There is no way there is enough fossil fuels left in the ground to keep cars going for 1000's of more years at the rate we are using them today. The sun, a big source of energy, has about another 5 billion years to go before burning out for good. I don't want to pay out of pocket any more for energy costs than I really have to while still maintaining my modern civilization living comfort level.

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

What about the cats?

 

Automobile makers started putting "cats" in cars around 1974 to cut gasoline ICE emissions.