At Last . . . .Some Hydrogen Sense

[Peter Cobbold]

But petrol or diesel fires can be extinguished with water or foam. Lithium and water react to generate hydrogen.... so conventional extinguishers make the fire worse. EV batteries contain hundreds of individual cells and it only takes one of those to catch fire and they all ignite.

[stuart]

Best way to extinguish an EV fire is a Telehandler and a swimming pool

Stuart.

[RobH]

33 minutes ago, stuart said:

Best way to extinguish an EV fire is a Telehandler and a swimming pool

You may jest but that is exactly what has been used. A water-filled skip that the whole car is dunked in. 

 

Some interesting quotes from here:

https://www.ife.org.uk/IFE-Blog/tackling-fires-in-electric-vehicles-

"Putting out EV fires

Fire services basically have two main options, let the fire burn out or extinguish it.

The obvious choice seems to be to extinguish the fire, however many EV manufacturers actually advise for a controlled burn. This is where the fire services allow the vehicle to burn out while they focus on protecting the surrounding area."

(Obviously not a good plan in a tunnel, multi-storey or on a ship.)

"The fire that keeps on burning 

Once the fire has been extinguished, the problem remains that electric vehicle fires can reignite hours, days or even weeks after the initial event, and they can do so many times, making disposal and storage of a fire-damaged vehicle a challenge."

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by RobH

[stuart]

36 minutes ago, RobH said:

You may jest but that is exactly what has been used. A water-filled skip that the whole car is dunked in. 

 

Some interesting quotes from here:

https://www.ife.org.uk/IFE-Blog/tackling-fires-in-electric-vehicles-

"Putting out EV fires

Fire services basically have two main options, let the fire burn out or extinguish it.

The obvious choice seems to be to extinguish the fire, however many EV manufacturers actually advise for a controlled burn. This is where the fire services allow the vehicle to burn out while they focus on protecting the surrounding area."

(Obviously not a good plan in a tunnel, multi-storey or on a ship.)

"The fire that keeps on burning 

Once the fire has been extinguished, the problem remains that electric vehicle fires can reignite hours, days or even weeks after the initial event, and they can do so many times, making disposal and storage of a fire-damaged vehicle a challenge."

 

Yes I believe the German fire service were the first to try mobile water tanks for EV fires. Also I note a company has developed a fire blanket for EV fires too. https://electricvehiclefireblanket.co.uk/

Stuart.

Edited July 26, 2023 by stuart

[stillp]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66310280

[stillp]

From the link above: "A Dutch coastguard spokesman said the fire was probably caused by one of 25 electric vehicles on board the ship.". Also "Last year a cargo ship carrying 4,000 luxury cars caught fire and sank off the Azores. Lithium-ion batteries in the cars caught fire and firefighters needed specialist equipment to put out the fire."

Yes, EVs are statistically far less likely to catch fire than diesel or petrol vehicles, but the results of an EV fire are far more serious. Similarly, nuclear power stations are far less likely to have problems than coal or oil fired power stations, but the results of nuclear accidents are catastrophic.

Pete

[Bleednipple]

Based on a large scale study by a US insurer last year, it appears that the fire risk picture for EVs is actually a game of two halves. The figures for all EVs are massively skewed by the very high fire incidence in hybrids - about twice that of petrol/diesel vehicles. Meanwhile, fires in 'pure' BEVs appear to be extremely rare, whether after accidents or spontaneously.

The hybrids issues might be associated with particular models/designs, but in general the combination of high voltage electrics with petrol needs little highlighting.

Nigel

[Mick Forey]

From the earlier discussion, hydrogen storage has fire and compressed gas safety issues to find engineering solutions for mass production, even if green hydrogen can be produced and distributed economically without significant leakage.

EV battery construction and chemistry is rapidly moving away from the current flammable Lithium-ion batteries which use a liquid electrolyte, which is the primary source of the fire risk. BYD's Blade battery, now in production and being delivered to customers, dramatically reduces the risk of fire during a crash or failure by changing the construction/chemistry. It is not just a pouch battery, plenty of those in EVs already, just like the first one in the following test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSGESKhtZD0

Solid state battery construction/chemistry is a further step in the direction of improving safety as the liquid electrolyte is replaced by a non-flammable solid. These batteries are not in production yet but the whole industry is spending lots of money to be the first one to market. Even Toyota is trying to be first. A Chinese company is claiming to be the first later this year, others are saying 2025.

https://ts2.space/en/toyotas-revolutionary-breakthrough-a-solid-state-battery-with-745-mile-range/

Then there are all sorts of other chemistries further down the line including sulphur and silicon, all aimed at improved safety, reduced cost & weight and higher capacity. The industry is only at the start of a long development cycle.

As far as I can see. the biggest difference between hydrogen fuel cell EVs and battery EVs appears to be the amount of money being invested in them and the infrastructure to support them by private companies and governments around the world.

[JohnG]

9 hours ago, Mick Forey said:

Nothing is without risk:

Ain't that the truth

[john.r.davies]

All this frothing about how dangerous is hydrogen.   Yes, it is.

But so is a lithium battery.  The number of  FATAL lithium battery fires has quadrupled in the last two years, injuring 190 people and killing 12.  Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill House of Lords – Committee Stage (electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk)

An ESF spokesperson said that an e-bike battery fully charged has as much energy as six hand grenades.

Both lithium batteries and hydrogen are immature technologies.  So were petrol and cars in the first part of the 20th Century.  The roads had no stop signs, warning signs, traffic lights, lane lines, street lighting,.  Cars had no brake lights, almost no brakes, poor headlights and skinny tyres.     There were no traffic cops, driver's education, driver's licenses or speed limits.    Drinking-and-driving was not considered a serious crime until the 1960s and seat belts didn't appear until the 1980s.   As a result, as more and more vehicles appeared on the roads, deaths in traffic incidents rose sharply:

Yes, as they say it's going to be a bumpy ride, but buckle up, we're going!

John

Edited July 27, 2023 by john.r.davies

[stillp]

23 minutes ago, john.r.davies said:

Drinking-and-driving was not considered a serious crime until the 1960s and seat belts didn't appear until the 1980s.   

 

I think you have those dates transposed John. My Mum's 1966 Chamois was fitted with seatbelts from the factory. Drink-driving was socially acceptable through the seventies and well into the eighties, although illegal since 1925.

Pete

[RogerH]

27 minutes ago, stillp said:

I think you have those dates transposed John. My Mum's 1966 Chamois was fitted with seatbelts from the factory. Drink-driving was socially acceptable through the seventies and well into the eighties, although illegal since 1925.

Pete

+1

 

Roger

[john.r.davies]

Whatever, cars and petrol were and are dangerous.   It took half a century before the technology was mature enough to reduce casualties.  No doubt EV and HV tech will be the same.

John

[Charlie D]

1 hour ago, stillp said:

...Drink-driving was socially acceptable through the seventies...

In 1969 I was stopped for speeding on the North Circular Road.
As the copper got off his motorcycle and walked towards me, my passenger said:

“Just tell him that you are drunk and didn’t realize how fast you were going. I’ve got a mate who uses that excuse all the time.”

I declined the suggestion and simply said: “It’s a fair cop”.

Different times.

Charlie.

[RobH]

1 hour ago, john.r.davies said:

Whatever, cars and petrol were and are dangerous.   It took half a century before the technology was mature enough to reduce casualties.  No doubt EV and HV tech will be the same.

 

You are conflating two very different things John.   The high casualty rates in the past had little-to-nothing to do with the fuel being used, and part of it would be road layout too so nothing to do with vehicle design. 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by RobH

[john.r.davies]

4 hours ago, RobH said:

You are conflating two very different things John.   The high casualty rates in the past had little-to-nothing to do with the fuel being used, and part of it would be road layout too so nothing to do with vehicle design. 

No, Rob, two technologies were involved, petrol and ICE vehicles.   The first enabled the second, but my point is that it took a LONG time before casualties were diminished.

John

[Motorsport Mickey]

And then the alternative viewpoint endorsed by the experts.

[RobH]

1 hour ago, john.r.davies said:

No, Rob, two technologies were involved, petrol and ICE vehicles.   The first enabled the second, but my point is that it took a LONG time before casualties were diminished.

 

But had the electric car taken off at the time, instead of ICE, the exact same curve would probably have resulted. 

[boxofbits]

 

I would say the development of conventional fuel, like battery, is also at the thin end of the wedge, with new evolutions of liquid fuels gaining ground quite rapidly. 

In fact, the authorities got it badly wrong by banning the internal combustion engine, and instead should have banned by 2030 the fuel in its current form, which would have forced the development of conventional fuels that thanks to private enterprise we are now seeing, and saving immeasurable amounts of CO2 building new electric cars and all the paraphernalia that goes with them! 

One such company leading the way is Coryton who produce the ‘Sustain Classic Racing 50 Fuel’ as one example. Yes, the price is currently not aligned with that of conventional petrol, it’s still a sibling product and time must be given for ongoing development and given funding and support, into commercial supply, which Coryton appear to be confident about. 

Price dependant, I wouldn’t mind betting that this fuel will end up the winner, as a logical solution. I think we should debate ostensibly on sound scientific principals and not on sporadic events such as fires and accidents, which will ultimately not win an argument.

If it takes 5 minutes to fuel a petrol car, but 40 minutes to properly charge a BEV, this would mean a busy refuelling station would need not 10 terminals but around 80 or more just to maintain the same ratio of availability . Even if you deduct for home/work charging, the sites and infrastructure/ CO2 cost would be huge!

Figures published show that a typical medium sized family car will create around 24 tonnes of CO2 during its life cycle, while an electric vehicle (EV) will produce around 18 tonnes over its life. 

Below is the specification of Coryton’s Super 80. It’s plant based, therefore absorbing carbon from the atmosphere to grow, which then gets burned and then reabsorbed - a perfect reciprocal process. Surely a greener and more efficient option than breaking up the Earth’s surface to obtain lithium? And then the ‘recycling’ of lithium batteries and the CO2 emitted in that operation alone. Some even suggest putting an old lithium car battery into your cupboard under the stairs for back up power….!

SUPER 80

Created with 80% renewable content.

Delivers a GHG saving of more than 65%, compared to fossil fuels.

98RON (Super Unleaded) EN228 Compliant.

Multifunctional deposit control additive package reduces existing      

            deposits and maintains engine cleanliness and performance with 

            regular use.

Priced from £4.65 per litre.

So….if we assume that one single fully grown tree sequesters 24kg CO2 per year, and the net difference in emissions is only 6 tonnes between a petrol and battery car during a life cycle ( say 10 years), this would mean just 25 trees over 10 years would account for the net difference of 600 kg per annum per vehicle.

But then take into account the 65% reduction in CO2 emissions, or GHG which Coryton claim in the specification for their fuel. If we factor this in, 24 Tonnes of CO2 emissions at just 35% of conventional petrol, the new fuel will produce just 8.4 Tonnes.  In comparison to the 18 tonnes of CO2 produced by a BEV, that would mean we are not ‘net zero’ but effectively in credit by almost 10 tonnes of carbon every 10 years. That is without gains made by planting trees, which is currently an initiative run by the FBHVC I believe. 

Even Volvo claim that production of an EV in comparison to a petrol model is 70% higher and will take up to 9 years to equal the CO emissions.

I think those who are already blinkered by BEV’s as the answer,  cannot see the wood for the trees, and all classic car clubs including the TR Register should get behind and be quite vocal in their support of these fuel initiatives. Mini Spares will be running the Fastest Mini in the World race again this year at Brands Hatch on August 6th, demonstrating how Coryton fuel actually outperforms fossil fuel . A superb photo of the race and short article is on page 6 of this week’s Classic Car Weekly which I can’t post as it’s still in print.

Coryton Fuels

 

 

Kevin

Edited July 28, 2023 by boxofbits

[RobH]

5 minutes ago, boxofbits said:

If it takes 5 minutes to fuel a petrol car, but 40 minutes to properly charge a BEV, this would mean a busy refuelling station would need not 10 terminals but around 80 or more just to maintain the same ratio of availability

And also consider that 5 minutes ICE refuelling  may be good enough for several days of motoring  (my daily driver does ∼700 miles on a tankful)  whereas the 40 minutes for a BEV can be twice or more on a single trip depending on battery size. 

[boxofbits]

4 minutes ago, RobH said:

And also consider that 5 minutes ICE refuelling  may be good enough for several days of motoring  (my daily driver does ∼700 miles on a tankful)  whereas the 40 minutes for a BEV can be twice or more on a single trip depending on battery size. 

Yes Rob good point, coupled with battery deterioration (non tuneable unlike an engine), which will occur over its life cycle.

[Bleednipple]

2 hours ago, boxofbits said:

Figures published show that a typical medium sized family car will create around 24 tonnes of CO2 during its life cycle, while an electric vehicle (EV) will produce around 18 tonnes over its life. 

Source? And based on current or projected near-future grid carbon intensities?

[boxofbits]

I used this website

https://www.insnet.org/electric-cars-emit-more-co2-than-traditional-cars-at-production/

I dare say many sites will have differing figures, some more in favour of BEV, some not so.

The figures are dated 8/21.

[Bleednipple]

2 hours ago, boxofbits said:

I used this website

https://www.insnet.org/electric-cars-emit-more-co2-than-traditional-cars-at-production/

I dare say many sites will have differing figures, some more in favour of BEV, some not so.

The figures are dated 8/21.

Thanks. I agree there are lots of very different figures/analyses out there to choose from. I had seen this one, done by McKinsey this year:  

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/life-cycle-emissions-evs-vs-combustion-engine-vehicles/ 

It estimates lifetime emissions of 39 tonnes for BEVs versus 55 tonnes for ICE. So not actually all that different, proportionately from what the Inset article says. BUT that's based on global average grid carbon intensity; given that the UK's is only 60% of that average level would reduce the UK BEV lifetime figure to perhaps 29 tonnes which is a little over half that of ICE. And that divergence will increase with the continued growth of renewables in the generation mix.

Nigel

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Bleednipple

[JohnG]

In some ways, I hope that this is faked, unfortunately, I fear it is for real.

 

Two electric cars have collided and burst into flames