Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Netexporter

 some regulations are coming out that domestic batteries should not be fitted in certain areas. Is this scaremongering as well?

It's more about additional hazards in the event of fires from any cause, rather than the batteries themselves causing fires. For example, the ban on installation in roof-spaces, where having a quarter of a tonne of battery falling through a burning ceiling would be a severe hazard to firefighters. Home batteries are virtually all LFP chemistry, now, so the fire risk from them is very low.

JKenH

Netexporter said:

 some regulations are coming out that domestic batteries should not be fitted in certain areas. Is this scaremongering as well?

It's more about additional hazards in the event of fires from any cause, rather than the batteries themselves causing fires. For example, the ban on installation in roof-spaces, where having a quarter of a tonne of battery falling through a burning ceiling would be a severe hazard to firefighters. Home batteries are virtually all LFP chemistry, now, so the fire risk from them is very low.

It seems to me it is about the fire risk from batteries.

The new PAS 63100 regulations change that significantly and states that the best location for battery storage is outbuildings and/or away from habitable rooms. Where it is not practicable to locate batteries outdoors some basic requirements are provided for locations containing storage batteries, based on the principles that:

• batteries are separated from habitable rooms, and means of escape for inhabitants, by suitable fire compartmentation
• Fire detection is provided for battery location, interlinked to a fire alarm system to warn inhabitants of a detected fire; and
• means for escape for inhabitants are not inhibited

It should be noted that fires from energy storage batteries are extremely rare. The majority of domestic batteries use Lithium Iron Phosphate technology (LiFePO4). Whilst this technology makes for a heavier battery, it is known to be very safe and does not catch fire under any normal circumstances.

Under the new P63100 standard, batteries shall not be installed in any of the following locations:

• rooms in which persons are intended to sleep
• routes used as a means of escape that are not defined as protected escape routes including landings, staircases and corridors
• corridors, shafts, stairs or lobbies or protected escape routes
• firefighting lobbies or staircases
• storage cupboards, enclosures or spaces opening into rooms which persons are intended to sleep;
• outdoors within 1m of escape routes, doors, windows, or ventilation ports
• voids, roof spaces or lofts
• within 2m of stored flammable materials and fuel storage tanks or cylinders; and
• cellars or basements that have no access to the outside of the building

https://www.pluginsolar.co.uk/?p=12189

I noticed GivEnergy are pushing back against this.

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

I think the problem here is you are choosing to dwell on one (an extreme one) out of the many statistics quoted in the Honest John article 

I think the problem here is "journalists" posting articles without applying any common sense or proof-reading what they publish.
"a fire accident per 210 miles travelled" is clearly nonsense, yet it still got published.

Netexporter

I noticed GivEnergy are pushing back against this.

Probably because Tesla were consulted on the new rules, which recommends outside installation where possible. Surprise, surprise, Powerwalls are IP rated for outdoor installation.

Coastalwatch

I was surprised, no, delighted when informing our property and contents insurance company that we had acquired PV an EV, an EV charger and 34 kWh's of storage batteries only to learn that this was all covered under our policy with no surcharge required. In addition should friends or relative charge their vehicle from our charger then this woud be covered also.

I would imagine if there was a significant risk of fire from EV's & storage batteries then insurance companies would be the first to hike up premiums in order to mitigate any potential risk.

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

I think the problem here is you are choosing to dwell on one (an extreme one) out of the many statistics quoted in the Honest John article 

I think the problem here is "journalists" posting articles without applying any common sense or proof-reading what they publish.
"a fire accident per 210 miles travelled" is clearly nonsense, yet it still got published.

Yes, it should have been “ a fire accident per 210 million miles travelled” or 5 fires per billion miles as also quoted. At least that was a mistake , which can’t be said for the EV FireSafe figure of 488 EV fires in 14 years. Based on the “fire accident per 210 million miles”  I think fires in Tesla vehicles alone would have been an order of magnitude higher, so perhaps overall it could be two orders of magnitude higher. 

JKenH

Trying to get back to the original post regarding car parking this document may be useful in understanding the position of the car park owners. (Please note I have not had the time to read the whole document.) 

Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV)
T0194 – Covered car parks - fire safety guidance for electric vehicles
Interim guidance to support parking and/or charging of electric vehicles and the installation of electric vehicle chargepoints in covered car parks

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65bb7b5ccc6fd600145dbe1a/covered-car-parks-fire-safety-guidance-for-electric-vehicles.pdf

As mentioned, I haven’t had time to read the whole document but within the document but did note that it does highlight that the risk of an EV fire occurring is an order of magnitude lower than with an ICE car (see section 2.6). Nevertheless the document has been issued with recommendations considered necessary for protecting against the risks posed by EVs. As more experience is gained the situation and recommendations will be reviewed but until then it appears that caution is the order of the day. 

Magnitio

JKenH said:

EVFireSafe on their website also look to be keen to promote EVs as well as advise organisations how to fight fires that, in their words, rarely occur. 

Transport using internal combustion engines (ICE) accounts for more than 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making personal & commercial travel a major contributor to global warming. 

Electric vehicles have a lower carbon footprint, are easy to charge at home, simple to drive, require less servicing & have no tailpipe emissions. This is particularly important for cleaner air in our communities & places where children live, learn & play.

https://www.evfiresafe.com/electric-vehicles

In essence, EV FireSafe’s approach is to grow their business by promoting the environmental merits of EVs as opposed to ICE vehicles and playing down the risk of EVs catching fire but when they do we can show you how to deal with it. It’s not that different to if the  private medical industry were to understate the risks of smoking then offer their services when you get ill.

The data reported by EV FireSafe is well researched; it is part of their raison d'être. The figures quoted relate to fires in EV's that involve the traction battery, so do exclude other sources of combusion. The organisation is interested in the safety of EV's and of the firefighters that have to deal with incidents. Your comments above suggest that you would like to disregard their finding because they don't agree with your views. You also seek to question their integrity because they they made factual statements to provide some context as to why electric vehicles are becoming more common; again, something that you appear to be unhappy about.

Magnitio

JKenH said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Magnitio said:

"One Tesla vehicle was involved in a fire accident per 210 miles travelled from 2011 to 2021." Really? What is this supposed to mean?

Clearly, that issue has been resolved since 2021.
This week, I did the normal commute to the office at the start of the week, 100 miles round-trip.
Then I travelled away for work and back, 300 miles round trip and did not catch fire once.
Then, I did a 180- mile round trip the following day and, again, still did not catch fire.

I think the problem here is you are choosing to dwell on one (an extreme one) out of the many statistics quoted in the Honest John article when the whole point of me linking the article was to demonstrate the wide range of statistics quoted both pro and anti EV. You are then applying your personal experience to make the argument that as it hasn’t happened to you that statistic must be rubbish. I could just as easily make the argument that my grandad smoked 20 cigarettes a day and lived to be 80 so any report that says smoking causes cancer must be rubbish.

The problem for authorities assessing the risk of EV fires is not their incidence but the problems they pose in extinguishment. Look at it that way and there may be some merit in playing it safe. I’m not sure if this has happened yet but I think some regulations are coming out that domestic batteries should not be fitted in certain areas. Is this scaremongering as well?

edit: I am guessing your comment was tongue in cheek

Let's not dwell on just one out of the many statistics quoted. Let's look at another:

 The risk of a Tesla car catching fire in 2024 is 0.8%

With approximately 5 million Tesla's on the road, that would mean 40,000 catching fire this year. 109 Tesla's every day catching fire. Do you really believe this? If not, why do you post such alarmist information?

JKenH

Magnitio said:

JKenH said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Magnitio said:

"One Tesla vehicle was involved in a fire accident per 210 miles travelled from 2011 to 2021." Really? What is this supposed to mean?

Clearly, that issue has been resolved since 2021.
This week, I did the normal commute to the office at the start of the week, 100 miles round-trip.
Then I travelled away for work and back, 300 miles round trip and did not catch fire once.
Then, I did a 180- mile round trip the following day and, again, still did not catch fire.

I think the problem here is you are choosing to dwell on one (an extreme one) out of the many statistics quoted in the Honest John article when the whole point of me linking the article was to demonstrate the wide range of statistics quoted both pro and anti EV. You are then applying your personal experience to make the argument that as it hasn’t happened to you that statistic must be rubbish. I could just as easily make the argument that my grandad smoked 20 cigarettes a day and lived to be 80 so any report that says smoking causes cancer must be rubbish.

The problem for authorities assessing the risk of EV fires is not their incidence but the problems they pose in extinguishment. Look at it that way and there may be some merit in playing it safe. I’m not sure if this has happened yet but I think some regulations are coming out that domestic batteries should not be fitted in certain areas. Is this scaremongering as well?

edit: I am guessing your comment was tongue in cheek

Let's not dwell on just one out of the many statistics quoted. Let's look at another:

 The risk of a Tesla car catching fire in 2024 is 0.8%

With approximately 5 million Tesla's on the road, that would mean 40,000 catching fire this year. 109 Tesla's every day catching fire. Do you really believe this? If not, why do you post such alarmist information?

You are being extremely selective. I posted an article to demonstrate that you can quote statistics which will support almost any argument one cares to make and people will believe what they want to believe. It wasn’t  to argue whether EVs catch fire more or less frequently than ICE cars. You decided I was taking sides. In attempting to prove my bias you have omitted to mention that in addition to the Tesla statistics you focussed on I also quoted the following:

• 218 Tesla car fires were confirmed from 2013 to February 2024. 
• 35 fire-related incidents involving a Tesla car were reported globally in 2023.
• From 2016 to 2019, only five Tesla cars caught fire per billion miles travelled. 

You also appear to have ignored that in linking the OZEV document I pointed out that the statistics in the document suggest that the risk of an EV fire occurring is an order of magnitude lower than with an ICE car.

 I only pointed out the apparent bias in the EV FireSafe statistics because you had chosen one report at the end of the spectrum that favoured EVs and appeared unable to see the potential bias yourself. The data from EV FireSafe is not actually well researched - they say their data is not exhaustive. 

If you want to continue arguing about the statistics, please go ahead but it won’t add anything to our understanding of why EVs were banned from a car park because it’s not about statistics or misinformation about the number of EV fires or people not liking EVs - it’s more probably about risk, insurance and the guidance in the OZEV document.