EV Discussion thread

Magnitio

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Australian fire authorities are playing it ultra safe over EV chargers but the EV industry is lobbying against strict fire regulations specifically aimed at EVs. 

Vehicle or hazard: New rules treat EV chargers like firework factories

Property developers say new requirements from fire and rescue services are making electric car chargers almost impossible to install in apartment buildings at a time they are in highest demand.

The rules, in Queensland and NSW, even indicate electric cars should not be allowed inside car parks without significant fire protection, including sprinklers and smoke management systems.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/19/vehicle-or-hazard-new-rules-treat-ev-chargers-like-firework-factories/

Fire department wants restrictions on EV parking and charging in big buildings

“FRNSW does not recommend EV parking and/or charging to any building not protected by an AS 2118 fire sprinkler system, including a building protected by an FPAA101D or FPAA101H fire sprinkler system which have lesser performance,” it writes.

“Any request for consultation or referral to FRNSW relating to any new building that intends to incorporate EV parking and/or charging, should adequately identify the hazards and risks and demonstrate how they are being address within the design.”

The EV industry is concerned that this is a case of over-reach, and while the FRNSW position is yet to be formally incorporated into new building standards, they effectively already are because developers are being told that approval will not be forthcoming without them. The industry says the costs to smaller apartment buildings could be prohibitive.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/06/fire-department-wants-restrictions-on-ev-parking-and-charging-in-big-buildings/

This needs to get sorted quickly, after the cladding fires it does not surprise me that buildings would apply a precautionary principle.  EV fires are much rarer than ICE fires but if the former could (but we don't know due to less experience) take out a building whereas the latter we have lots of experience of and they don't take out buildings then we need to plan accordingly.  If it is a false alarm then we need the evidence to prove it.

Perhaps the most likely reason for an EV to catch fire is that the ice car next to it catches fire, if that threatens a building where an ice to ice fire spread would not then it is a problem.

I think that sums it up well. 

There have been plenty of examples where buildings have been destroyed by car fires, long before the existence of EV's. The Luton Airport car park fire shows the damage that can be done without an adequate sprinkler system. The appropriate fire safety precautions should be taken with all indoor parking facilities regardless of the energy source of vehicles which are parked there.

Netexporter

The hospital that has banned EVs from the car park beneath the building should also ban ICE vehicles from parking there, as they present a higher risk of fire.

Grumpy_chap

Driving home today and I knew I would need to stop to charge.  The destination I wished to aim for said I would arrive with zero percent charge.  Though that was a bit risky so had to stop earlier, though the route planner did not instruct the same.  Would I have got away with it?

JKenH

Magnitio said:

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Australian fire authorities are playing it ultra safe over EV chargers but the EV industry is lobbying against strict fire regulations specifically aimed at EVs. 

Vehicle or hazard: New rules treat EV chargers like firework factories

Property developers say new requirements from fire and rescue services are making electric car chargers almost impossible to install in apartment buildings at a time they are in highest demand.

The rules, in Queensland and NSW, even indicate electric cars should not be allowed inside car parks without significant fire protection, including sprinklers and smoke management systems.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/19/vehicle-or-hazard-new-rules-treat-ev-chargers-like-firework-factories/

Fire department wants restrictions on EV parking and charging in big buildings

“FRNSW does not recommend EV parking and/or charging to any building not protected by an AS 2118 fire sprinkler system, including a building protected by an FPAA101D or FPAA101H fire sprinkler system which have lesser performance,” it writes.

“Any request for consultation or referral to FRNSW relating to any new building that intends to incorporate EV parking and/or charging, should adequately identify the hazards and risks and demonstrate how they are being address within the design.”

The EV industry is concerned that this is a case of over-reach, and while the FRNSW position is yet to be formally incorporated into new building standards, they effectively already are because developers are being told that approval will not be forthcoming without them. The industry says the costs to smaller apartment buildings could be prohibitive.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/06/fire-department-wants-restrictions-on-ev-parking-and-charging-in-big-buildings/

This needs to get sorted quickly, after the cladding fires it does not surprise me that buildings would apply a precautionary principle.  EV fires are much rarer than ICE fires but if the former could (but we don't know due to less experience) take out a building whereas the latter we have lots of experience of and they don't take out buildings then we need to plan accordingly.  If it is a false alarm then we need the evidence to prove it.

Perhaps the most likely reason for an EV to catch fire is that the ice car next to it catches fire, if that threatens a building where an ice to ice fire spread would not then it is a problem.

I think that sums it up well. 

There have been plenty of examples where buildings have been destroyed by car fires, long before the existence of EV's. The Luton Airport car park fire shows the damage that can be done without an adequate sprinkler system. The appropriate fire safety precautions should be taken with all indoor parking facilities regardless of the energy source of vehicles which are parked there.

No doubt fire services and building control agencies around the world will make their decision on perceived risk - that is the likelihood of a fire starting and the potential for fire spread and damage - based on the information available to them and act accordingly. There is more than a hundred years experience of petrol fires and presumably authorities feel safe that they will not be criticised for leaving things as they are in relation to ICE fires. EVs are a new risk (not necessarily a bigger one) but given the high profile of EV fires (justified or not) one it is almost impossible to ignore without retrospectively being accused of being asleep at the wheel. Remember, it is nearly always the media that drives the agenda nowadays and politicians (local and national) are obliged to show they are listening. 

JKenH

Study Finds Just 2.5% Of EVs Have Had Their Battery Replaced

Recurrent Auto has looked at over 20,000 EVs and found that, on average, just 2.5% of vehicles had their batteries replaced. This is highly dependent on the year of manufacturing, and, unsurprisingly, the older the EV, the more likely it is to need a new battery. An older Recurrent study said 1.5% of EVs had their batteries replaced.

The new study found that battery replacement rates for EVs built before 2015 are as high as 13%, but for vehicles from 2016 or newer, they drop to 1% or less. The oldest EVs included in the study were from 2011, and about one in three needed a new battery, but this was due to several factors, not just their age.

https://insideevs.com/news/720398/study-battery-replacement-rates-evs/

TBH, I was quite surprised at the level of batteries that have been replaced. One would expect the overall % of batteries that have been replaced to be low given that the vast majority of EVs have only been put on the road in the last 3 years but the % needing new batteries is (according to the Recurrent surveys) increasing just when one might have expected it to decrease as the average age of the fleet is reducing.  Is it significant that over 3% of 2020 EVs have had their batteries replaced? (Numbers in previous years were higher but these were down to battery recalls.)

InsideEVs warn: 

“If you own an EV and plan to keep it for a long time, you have to prepare for the moment when you'll have to swap its battery pack for a new one when it loses capacity below a point when it becomes impractical.”

michaels

Netexporter said:

The hospital that has banned EVs from the car park beneath the building should also ban ICE vehicles from parking there, as they present a higher risk of fire.

Each individual ice is more likely to catch fire.  However that is not the same as the consequences of an ice and EV fire being the same.

Did Luton Airport burn hotter or longer because the fire spread to EVs?

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Netexporter said:

The hospital that has banned EVs from the car park beneath the building should also ban ICE vehicles from parking there, as they present a higher risk of fire.

Each individual ice is more likely to catch fire.  However that is not the same as the consequences of an ice and EV fire being the same.

Did Luton Airport burn hotter or longer because the fire spread to EVs?

Are you suggesting that ICEV's be banned instead then? 

ABrass

JKenH said:

Study Finds Just 2.5% Of EVs Have Had Their Battery Replaced

Recurrent Auto has looked at over 20,000 EVs and found that, on average, just 2.5% of vehicles had their batteries replaced. This is highly dependent on the year of manufacturing, and, unsurprisingly, the older the EV, the more likely it is to need a new battery. An older Recurrent study said 1.5% of EVs had their batteries replaced.

The new study found that battery replacement rates for EVs built before 2015 are as high as 13%, but for vehicles from 2016 or newer, they drop to 1% or less. The oldest EVs included in the study were from 2011, and about one in three needed a new battery, but this was due to several factors, not just their age.

https://insideevs.com/news/720398/study-battery-replacement-rates-evs/

TBH, I was quite surprised at the level of batteries that have been replaced. One would expect the overall % of batteries that have been replaced to be low given that the vast majority of EVs have only been put on the road in the last 3 years but the % needing new batteries is (according to the Recurrent surveys) increasing just when one might have expected it to decrease as the average age of the fleet is reducing.  Is it significant that over 3% of 2020 EVs have had their batteries replaced? (Numbers in previous years were higher but these were down to battery recalls.)

InsideEVs warn: 

“If you own an EV and plan to keep it for a long time, you have to prepare for the moment when you'll have to swap its battery pack for a new one when it loses capacity below a point when it becomes impractical.”

Except that's not what the study shows. It's the opposite.

https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last

The study is of the Recurrent uses, which is skewed to older models. Using it as a fleet average is misuse of the data.

JKenH

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Study Finds Just 2.5% Of EVs Have Had Their Battery Replaced

Recurrent Auto has looked at over 20,000 EVs and found that, on average, just 2.5% of vehicles had their batteries replaced. This is highly dependent on the year of manufacturing, and, unsurprisingly, the older the EV, the more likely it is to need a new battery. An older Recurrent study said 1.5% of EVs had their batteries replaced.

The new study found that battery replacement rates for EVs built before 2015 are as high as 13%, but for vehicles from 2016 or newer, they drop to 1% or less. The oldest EVs included in the study were from 2011, and about one in three needed a new battery, but this was due to several factors, not just their age.

https://insideevs.com/news/720398/study-battery-replacement-rates-evs/

TBH, I was quite surprised at the level of batteries that have been replaced. One would expect the overall % of batteries that have been replaced to be low given that the vast majority of EVs have only been put on the road in the last 3 years but the % needing new batteries is (according to the Recurrent surveys) increasing just when one might have expected it to decrease as the average age of the fleet is reducing.  Is it significant that over 3% of 2020 EVs have had their batteries replaced? (Numbers in previous years were higher but these were down to battery recalls.)

InsideEVs warn: 

“If you own an EV and plan to keep it for a long time, you have to prepare for the moment when you'll have to swap its battery pack for a new one when it loses capacity below a point when it becomes impractical.”

Except that's not what the study shows. It's the opposite.

https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last

I’m not quite sure what it is you are disputing. 

The 2023 Recurrent survey said 1.5% of EVs had their battery replaced. The current study says 2.5%. 

2023

Recurrent Auto studied 15,000 various EVs and learned that – outside of battery replacement recalls – only 1.5% of them have had their battery packs replaced.

2024

Across all years and models, outside of big recalls, only 2.5% have been replaced.

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Netexporter said:

The hospital that has banned EVs from the car park beneath the building should also ban ICE vehicles from parking there, as they present a higher risk of fire.

Each individual ice is more likely to catch fire.  However that is not the same as the consequences of an ice and EV fire being the same.

Did Luton Airport burn hotter or longer because the fire spread to EVs?

Are you suggesting that ICEV's be banned instead then? 

I don’t want to put words into @michaels mouth but what I think he is saying is that ICE fires are containable - until they spread to an EV.