[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Limey

Which is why I prefer regular batteries.

regular = lead acid batteries. .

[bcsnave]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

regular = lead acid batteries. .

So Coach.....if that is "regular" then what is a "LARGE"?

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Q&A: Fire on board the Fremantle Highway ship – DW – 07/30/2023

not the first car carrying ship to burn down by lithium ion batteries. .

one other on sunk in the atlantic. .

another one has a time lapse video of the cars on deck going from all okay to all burned overnight. . I can't find it at the moment. .

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by bcsnave

So Coach.....if that is "regular" then what is a "LARGE"?

That would be a "Venti" battery...

(With a nod to Paul Rudd... https://youtu.be/Tbb7a404i78?si=RFggLnxHcn5U8Tug)

[bcsnave]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

That would be a "Venti" battery...

(With a nod to Paul Rudd... https://youtu.be/Tbb7a404i78?si=RFggLnxHcn5U8Tug)

Ah...thanks for the clarification...so a Venti battery is 20oz battery..which is different than a 6v golf cart battery (approx. 60-70lbs)..must me more like a 9v battery... I am glad that is cleared up

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Q&A: Fire on board the Fremantle Highway ship – DW – 07/30/2023

not the first car carrying ship to burn down by lithium ion batteries. .

one other on sunk in the atlantic. .

another one has a time lapse video of the cars on deck going from all okay to all burned overnight. . I can't find it at the moment. .

The ship that burned was carrying EVs. That does not mean that lithium ion batteries burned the ship down. It *could* be the case that the batteries started the fire and it *could* be the case that the batteries made the fire worse. It also could be the case that the other 3300 vehicles had something to do with it.

The Allianz insurance company records that 209 ship fires were reported last year. That is the highest number in a decade, up 17% on 2021. Thirteen of those fires occurred on car carriers — but it is not clear how many of them involved electric vehicles.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by bcsnave

So Coach.....if that is "regular" then what is a "LARGE"?

large is relative sizes of same types of batteries

D Cell versus Marine Deep Cycle cart battery is small versus large

Ryobi lithium tool battery versus golf cart battery is small versus large

DBD

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The ship that burned was carrying EVs. That does not mean that lithium ion batteries burned the ship down. It *could* be the case that the batteries started the fire and it *could* be the case that the batteries made the fire worse. It also could be the case that the other 3300 vehicles had something to do with it.

The Allianz insurance company records that 209 ship fires were reported last year. That is the highest number in a decade, up 17% on 2021. Thirteen of those fires occurred on car carriers — but it is not clear how many of them involved electric vehicles.

hmmm, circumstantial evidence, yes, and in public trial here in the villages . .

I saw two videos of electric cards on deck on a very small cargo ship, the first video was of waves coming over the deck and the cars starting on fire, and the last video was of all the cars burned on the deck. . .

now that was not circumstantial, but a very specific example of why transportation departments want to ban electric vehicles from under deck, but the above deck is more hazardous with contact with sea water.

So the world is getting into a circular argument of agreeing that lithium ion batteries are a higher risk, that the world of green believes that this is the future so we can't stop, and that the safety protocols and systems are lagging and need updating to something yet to be determined as safe as gas powered vehicles . . .

however, if all you are fighting is circumstantial versus factual evidence, that doesn't change the increased risk with lithium ion versus lead acid batteries, and the type of fire and extinguishment is hotter and harder, which is factual. .

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

hmmm, circumstantial evidence, yes, and in public trial here in the villages . .

...


however, if all you are fighting is circumstantial versus factual evidence, that doesn't change the increased risk with lithium ion versus lead acid batteries, and the type of fire and extinguishment is hotter and harder, which is factual. .

There is certainly an increased risk with lithium vs lead batteries but is there an increased risk with batteries in EVs vs gasoline in cars? The statistics in the article show that fires happen, even on ships not carrying cars. Fires do happen on car carriers, though this article that seems to be implying that lithium batteries are dangerous doesn't provide statistics to show that lithium batteries were involved.

While correlation does not prove causation, the information in the article does not even show correlation.

I am not ready to give up my electric cart or my electric hedge trimmer or my e-bike (if I owned one) because one of 13 car carriers that burned had an EV onboard (500 out of 3800) or because there was a fire on at a BMW dealership and some BMWs are EVs (did they even have vehicles on the 3rd floor?).

Be aware? Yes. Be concerned? Maybe. Avoid EVs and other e-stuff because of batteries? Not at this point.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

There is certainly an increased risk with lithium vs lead batteries but is there an increased risk with batteries in EVs vs gasoline in cars? The statistics in the article show that fires happen, even on ships not carrying cars. Fires do happen on car carriers, though this article that seems to be implying that lithium batteries are dangerous doesn't provide statistics to show that lithium batteries were involved.

While correlation does not prove causation, the information in the article does not even show correlation.

I am not ready to give up my electric cart or my electric hedge trimmer or my e-bike (if I owned one) because one of 13 car carriers that burned had an EV onboard (500 out of 3800) or because there was a fire on at a BMW dealership and some BMWs are EVs (did they even have vehicles on the 3rd floor?).

Be aware? Yes. Be concerned? Maybe. Avoid EVs and other e-stuff because of batteries? Not at this point.

Yes gas vehicles catch fire also but lithium fires burn hotter, explode more readily and release toxic gasses. They are exponentially more difficult to put out and can reignite as long as 24 hours later. Gas vehicles do not easily explode and are much easier to put out. The explosion that you hear from a gas vehicle fire is more likely the tires than the gas tank. Ask any firefighter.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

Yes gas vehicles catch fire also but lithium fires burn hotter, explode more readily and release toxic gasses. They are exponentially more difficult to put out and can reignite as long as 24 hours later. Gas vehicles do not easily explode and are much easier to put out. The explosion that you hear from a gas vehicle fire is more likely the tires than the gas tank. Ask any firefighter.

I bet a large number of those 3,300 gas vehicles on the car carrier that burned did explode. Lithium batteries do not easily explode and, since they are metal, rarely catch fire.

But that is entirely beside the point!

100% agree that a lithium battery fire is dangerous. No argument.

Were either the BMW dealership fire or the car carrier fire caused by lithium batteries? Just because lithium batteries were in the vicinity does not mean they were involved or were the cause.

It is possible that some of the EVs were located on the ship such that they were involved in the fire. It is possible that some of the batteries caught fire due to the extreme temperatures they would have been subjected to. This might have extended the duration of the fire. But with two "possible"s and one "might" it is far less than certain that the lithium batteries were a factor.

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by TomPerry

The Government WILL NOT ALLOW lithium batteries in the cargo hold of airplanes, but the Government WANTS you to have lithium batteries in your EV in your garage where you and your family live!!!!!!!!!

No but they do allow them on the plane. Try checking in with a 5 gallon can of gas the next time you get on the airplane and see what the FAA says..........

[Southwest737]

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has two lithium ion batteries used to supply backup power.

[ron32162]

This is also happening with the Electric bikes

[TomPerry]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And why is that?

Is it because lithium batteries are exploding left and right leaving destruction in their wake and keeping the insurance companies and home builders in business?

Or, is it because there is a risk with lithium batteries, just as there is a risk with gasoline or compressed gases, and the Govt is not ready to accept that risk with 100+ lives.

Gasoline in a vehicle tank being stored in a garage with no action being taken on it is extremely less hazardous than lithium batteries being in a garage hooked up to a charger and charging at a high rate!! But then again, “arguing facts and logic with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end”.