Why Do Electric Cars Sink Ships? 

Some observations from myself as a Fire Engineer. 3:58 - this is called a backdraught - it is when a ventilation controlled fire (called a fire post flashover, where it have moved from fuel controlled to vent controlled) gains new air and causes a significant deflagration with associated temperature rise and pressure wave. 6:00 - most suppression foam actually doesn't remove heat or oxygen, what is does it is uses highly reactive substances (usually containing bromine or similar) to react with all the intermediate free-radical molecules in the combustion reaction. The oxygen stays, the heat stays, but the combustion reaction is halted through removal of the chain reaction caused by the free radicals. This is an explanation for why the "fire triangle" is too simplistic and many refer to a "fire pentagon".

I work in aviation and there is a huge focus on lithium battery fires. An uncontained fire is just about every pilot's worst nightmare so lots of extra training for us, and you'll hear lots of announcements like "if you notice your batteries are damaged or getting hot please contact the crew immediately". These are from portable electronic devices though, not an entire car, or multiple cars...

I hadn't realised the Felicity Ace had gone down. I worked on that ship a few times when it came to the Port of Tyne a few years ago, loading Nissans and discharging various other vehicles.

Do transport ships dream of electric cars?

I've help ship Tesla Megapacks for their recharge stations out to Hawaii before and basically the company told us that if one catches fire don't bother trying to put it out just abandon ship. Also as far as I'm aware no shipping company will take damaged Evs off the islands meaning that they're stuck there when they crash.

The best explanation I’ve heard as to how and why electric vehicle fires are hard to stop.

The title of the video is misleading since the NTSB investigation concluded - "The NTSB determined the probable cause of the fire aboard the Höegh Xiamen was Grimaldi Deep Sea’s (who time chartered the vessel) and SSA Atlantic’s (Grimaldi’s contractor for stevedores) ineffective oversight of longshoremen, which did not identify that Grimaldi’s vehicle battery securement procedures were not being followed. This resulted in an electrical fault from an improperly disconnected battery in a used vehicle on cargo deck 8. Contributing to the delay in the detection of the fire was the crew not immediately reactivating the vessel’s fire detection system after the completion of loading. Contributing to the extent of the fire was the master’s decision to delay the release of the carbon dioxide fixed fire extinguishing system.' In a recent incident in the UK, a fire at an airport multi-storey car park destroyed 1500 vehicles. The cause of the fire was determined to be a fault on a car with a diesel engine.

Hi Kym, seems we made almost the same video in quite different ways 🙂 Please allow some remarks: Re Hoegh Xianmen: The fire dampers could not be operated automatically but had been converted to manual ones some time ago. The NTSB report assumed that the ventilation had not been properly closed, rendering the CO2 attack ineffective. Note: the recommended fire fighting system according to SOLAS is water mist, CO2 only being an alternative option. The explosion in the vent house was a backdraft, meaning that overheated smoke ignited when the air came in. That caused the devastating effect. It should also be a reminder that we have to do coordinated attacks and only ventilate when we can actually put water on the fire. Re Freemantle Hightway: the electric vehicles had not been involved in the fire. An interestin observation: when we look at the footage of the burning ship, it seems like the smoke is coming from the vent houses on deck, suggesting a problem with ventilation again. Will see when the report is out. Thank you for the video and keep up the great work, always enjoy watching your vids ❤ Best, Marie

On the Northlink boats to Shetland we have had many discussions about what to do in the event an electric car catches fire. Since there is no standard way of dealing with it yet and no tools designed to help we made your own, which you can attach to a hose and slide it underneath the car to direct the water upwards towards the battery. Its just a few pipes with a few sprinkler heads attached securely to it directed upwards. Easy to use but never been tested and hopefully we never will need to.

What came to my mind is military aircraft hangars that can be flooded with foam in case of fire. Could they use an FSS system that does something similar? It wouldn't stop the EV fires but it could isolate them. I guess the biggest obstacle would be the size and weight constraints of the system. Or even the weight of the foam if you pump in seawater to generate it.

The idea of having a fire alarm system that requires you to turn it off at a point in which your cargo is most likely to catch fire (Running cars) is such a fundamental flaw they should have never been allowed to operate with.

I think the only real solution would be much smaller compartments that can be flooded if necessary. And even then you might need to think about how to vent steam pressure and add new water

There is a detail that needs to be noted, with any Alkali metal fire you should never use water as it can make the situation far worse, as these metals *love* to liberate hydrogen gas from water. This is why there are fire extinguishers made explicitly for metal fires.

Maybe the solution isn’t with shipping companies but car manufacturers. Instead of putting the battery in at the factory and using boats, why not put the battery in where you are shipping it to. It’s not a perfect idea but it would work for some I think

I’m an engineer working on safety in EV batteries. This was a really well researched video! One note though is that the role of water in extinguishing a battery fire is to remove the heat because both fuel and oxygen are contained within the battery. It will be crucial to rethink both the fire suppression and ventilation of ships in as we move to transporting more and more electric vehicles.

Didn't the shipping company tell us that all the EVs.where untouch by the fire on the Fremantle ship. Was that not the case?

What an amazing video -- keep up the great work!

I think large Lithium battery packs should have their own passive fire suppression systems. These don't necessarily need to stop a fire completely, but should at least slow down its spread considerably so current external fire suppression systems would be effective.

Another great video. Also I got my Little Captain last month ❤!

I remember hearing about the Felicity Ace when Lamborghini had to temporarily restart production for the Aventador Ultimae since they had cars on that ship.

I remember hearing in the news about Fremantle Highway burning for days. What a terrible situation to just sit and observe, since there is nothing one could do to stop it.

Hopefully the IMO have a good idea as to how to tackle this problem. Could the crews of RORO ships be provided thermal cameras? That way they can go through the decks to see if vehicles are taking a bit too long to cool down from running temperature. Doesn't prevent problem vehicles from being put onboard, but it might at least help with making a start on getting that 10,000 L of water on to the problem.

I used to service NORAD here in Rhode Island where all the Audi Volkswagen’s come off the boat from overseas. They have damaged vehicles all the time come off the boat. It’s fine when they are gas and they can put them back together. And the best part is there a mechanic shop is considered factory so you would never know if they had to put a whole new front end on it as they don’t report it. Regardless the issue with electric vehicles is if they’re not secured properly, they risk lithium batteries being damaged and the whole boat is a loss if it has a fire. And in some cases they may just sink the boat as a total loss.

I personally think each EV manufactured should have a internationally standard entry port that connects to a series of pipes that run directly to the vehicles battery. Ships are then going to have to install multiple hoses; all directly connected to each EV. If a fire was to break out, the fire suppressant can instantly be activated and suppress the fire of that EV. This connect point can also be used by firefights attending an EV fire as well as a safety feature installed at domestic properties.

A very good video. The hazards of lithium battery fires have been known for a long time. People who mess with large lithium batteries in bikes, cars, computers, or wherever they may be found; need to understand the risks and take precautions. The computer industry (as far as I can recall) had the first of these fires. A quick scan with google reveals laptop fires on airplanes is still a thing. Even fires caused by power tool batteries is a thing (and how careful is a construction crew on a job site?).

I work on ropax ferries and electric cars are always our biggest fear, we're not well equipped to fight them, weve only recently received electric car blankets and the "specialist training" that some of us are sent on is by no means an absolute science, we've pushed back against higher ups wanting to implement onboard vehicle charging because of this, as good as electric cars can be I think this aspect of them is largely forgotten, or rarely brought up

Absolutely love your channel! So glad you are a human walking this earth!

I think the fire alarm on a ship designed to carry vehicles should have a better solution than just deactivating the entire system during loading. Make it go into a less sensitive mode or something.

Didn't electrics cars actually survived without burning on this ship which cought fire close to Netherlands?

I seem to recall at least one of these accidents was attributed to the loaders driving the EV cars at speed over bumps and smashing the batteries against things on the deck. The loading crew were either paid per vehicle or penalised if they didn't load a certain number within a certain time.

The fire on Freemantle Highway could not have been caused by electric cars, as all have been removed from the ship, showing no or only minor damage. Initial reporting claimed that it was because of electric cars on board, but even the coast guard, at that time, stated that the source was no known. Turns out, they were not the cause.

Loce the details in the videos

@Casual Navigation I'd recommend you upload your videos in 4k even if they're rendered in 1080p because RU-vid gives 4k videos a much higher bitrate which would really help during 7:09 where the particle effects caused the quality to tank because of the low 1080p bitrate. Upscale this video to 4k and upload it as a private video to see the difference. I really think it would help increase the video quality.

Couldn't you just use a kind of deck flush system like what is installed in the decks of US aircraft carriers? Doesn't solve the issue of water quantity, but it would allow you to spray the burning batteries from below. Very useful to have when carrying around things like fighter jets full of fuel and loaded with ordnance. And surely, if the USN can build a system that can withstand the kind of forces experienced when fighter jets (and sometimes also much bigger craft) take off and land, a civilian vessel could be equipped with one that can withstand cars driving over it.

1:54 I now understand that it's SOP for the fire alarm system to be disabled while vehicles are rolled on board. It makes sense to accommodate exhaust fumes from vehicles. Does the same SOP for loading of e-vehicles apply even though they won't have an exhaust? 3:09 I'm guessing the black smoke is from the tyres burning? 0:30 Isn't it pronounced Herg (i.e. the sound made by someone who has hit the whiskey too hard)?

I think the soulution would be shipping the cars and their batteries seprarately.

Sounds like to me electric cars need to be isolated from regular cars. As it seems in these cases it was regular cars that started the fires, but electric cars that then perpetuated them. So if the ships were sailing with the cars segregated by a fire-proof divide the electric cars wouldn't have caught fire and the ships may have been saved.

There was a ship with many EVs on fire off the coast of the Netherlands. Big news on all channels and especially in the yellow press. When they found out that the fire broke out on a deck without any EVs around it disappeared from the news as if it never happened.

I wonder if we will see sprinklers embedded in the deck for under vehicle and I have a feeling specialized decks but yeah, we outpaced safety again

Hey, Jacksonville! Duuuvvvaaalll!

This is why new battery chemestries are so important right now and its generally disapointing that we haven't really had a new generation of batteries turn up since EVs became mass production. But to be fair a next-gen EV battery needs to be alot of things. Very energy dense, 12+yr life, Recyclable, No rare/toxic matirials, Crash Safe, Fire Safe, mass producable etc. EV fires make the news because its super hard to put out but also rare. EV-started fires are a fraction of ICE per 100k cars.

late july a ship faring (electric)cars caught fire near the Dutch coast. after the fire was under control the schip was towed to a port. the strange part here was that most electric cars showed far less damage than expected, with a lot of batterie packs stil intact.

Exceptional explanation, as always!

why they keep the main ramp completly open ? it was working like a fire box. on our cases we seal the ship specially fire dampers and ramps, only a small side door give access to squads, and incase we succesfully put out the fire we open rump after 3 days in order to give time to the garage to reduse tempetures and to reduse the risk of regnision

The simple solution is too force all car manufacturers to use safe lithium batteries such as LiFePo4's. The range would be reduced, but not drastically.

thanks for the reflective and thoughtful presentation of that issue. I am glad that lithium ion batteries are only a gap technology until solid state batteries are feasable to use on vehicles.

4:00 Sounds like a classic back draft.

Hiya @CasualNavigation, I know this was a couple days ago, but this channel called Found and Explained used some clips of yours without crediting you in a video about stealth ships. Hope this finds you well

Battery packs on cars should be made removable - obligatory. Even if a car requires a unique type of battery and cannot be interchanged with a battery from another car, it too should be removable and transported in a specialized container, far from the actual cars. In the event of a fire the batteries would be separate from cars and that would greatly increase safety and ease of putting out the flames.

I'd like to point out that on the Fremantle Highway, all EVs where on the lowest decks and weren't damaged whatsoever. I think this is important to point out as almost all media reports at the time pointed at EVs as the cause of the fire.

maybe its a dumb question but why us fire and water quantity to put it down a problem for ships? can a ship pump seawater wherever it finds fire and drain it back somehow

What model of auto that initially caused also your depiction looks like a ice not even

why not use thermal cameras instead of smoke detectors, if fire was noticed beforehand damage would have been minimal.

I and probably a lot of swedes would love to see a summary of the accident that happend to the ferry Marco Polo earlier this year in southern Sweden.

Well most fires fall under fire triangle but metal and or chemical reaction fires usually fall under fire tetrahedron. Looks like there might need new regulations on transporting electric cars maybe transport them separately from their battery's and or dedicate an deck/level for only battries.

Some say the "pusher vehicles" that are used to assist loading of broken-down or very used vehicles, are often the cause of the initial fire. I wonder if that's the case?

Well, for the fremantle highway the shown information is in fact completely wrong. It was assumed from all the media that the electric cars onboard caused the fire or at least held the fire active so long. In the investigation quite the opposite was the case. Most conventional cars were burned to the ground (upper decks) and only a hand ful of battery electric vehicles (mostly in the lower decks were there was no excessive fire) were even involved in the fire and the one Mercedes EQE/EQS shown (some smoke after it was dropped in a water container, likely the battery was not water tight anymore and the water shorted it in the container) was not burned down like it might be after a severe battery fire. So, the fremantle highway fire had nothing to do with the BEVs onboard! STOP TELLING THESE LIES! And similar could be for the Felicity Ace one year earlier. Back then I thought it might propably be a BEV fire, but after Fremantle Highway I think the propability of the BEVs would have had a significant role (either fire start or kept the fire burning longer/hotter then ICE cars would have) is rather small. Its 4.000 m under the sea, so we will likely not know ever, but as long as it is not proven, for me it was a "normal car transporter fire" and not a "BEV burned down a car carrier" since the media hysteria was the same in both cases...

Seems the most obvious reaction is to dump the burning cars overboard, perhaps with a machanism that pulls them out by the chains that secure them to the decks . This is much more economically viable for commercial shipment of cars as products or waste, as opposed to personal cars being transported on ferries or as belongings . For prevention, I'd recommend discharging batteries as low as is safe (lower if batteries are to be scrapped upon arrival, batteries for use need to be kept at a certain minimum level to remain usable) . The energy stored in batteries is like stored fuel that can power a fire if something goes wrong . This is like emptying the fuel tanks on regular cars, but with very different tools and training.

Wow, no intrusive ads included in the video, might have to subscribe again..

Irrelevant to this video but I’d love to see you do one on the MV Rocknes

Lithium battery fires are terrifying to me

I can see EV'S either being restricted to car carriers having a limit on the amount - hell, I'd say they should be put on the top deck ready to push into the sea if one went up. If firefighting fails with a large number of EV'S going up in smoke, then the best thing to do, is "remove the fuel". Either that or they get container only service in a certain area of a vessel that can be isolated quickly if one goes up.

Something alternative should be find what not that (or not at all) fire hazardous like li-ion / li-polimer batteries. It will take some time while industry could react in large scale (if, there is an alternative, already?).

those protocols of disconnecting the battery of and capping the anode with a plastic is only good if you pay the staff enough to care. I guess that's not the case with the shipping industry in china, so here we go.

I laughed when I saw "eco drive" written in every car.

You can’t blame electric cars for these sinkings if the crew didn’t even follow disconnecting procedures.

So they're basically the rare but super dangerous class D fire? Its basically when something that shouldn't burn, like metal, is on fire. Ive heard of these from my father who was a sailor on aircraft carriers. An example is a fighter plane crashes and bursts into flames on the flight deck. But the way the navy deals with those fires is to push the aircraft overboard into the ocean. If the car carriers had some whay to do that then they be able to save the ships.

I'm from the area and work in the industry. I'll say it. The local ILA longshoremen who load cars are known for their "amazing" work and "attention to detail". This group which primarily loads cars plus drives vehicles at ports to load up drivers to take to other vehicles need to load can't even master parking out in front of their ILA hall

It was known before this disaster that EVs catch fire on their “ own” . It was predictable!!!!

Problem with EV fires is they just dont extinguish until the lithium is burnt out and adding water makes it worse. They've tired removing oxygen with a fire resistant cover but until the lithium is gone it would just continue to be on fire especially the moment air gets back in. Over the past 3 years EV fires are becoming more common, they really need to take a step back and work out why. When it comes to shipping I think it could be the sea air getting into the batteries, might need to put cars in boxes to prevent it.

if you wanna void this or your battery getting damage don't fully charge your battery charge it maybe like 30 to a max of 85% to prevent it tho mainly this is for preserving battery life

This might look dumb and hilarious, but what if, the car carriers are designed with each zone being water tight compartments. with that, in an event of a fire, an entire zone could just be sealed and flooded and the ship's ballast can be adjusted to compensate for the change in the ship's weight distribution. This does mean that the ship would be more expensive to build and maintain but it would prevent a total lost of the ship in case of a fire.

Everybody knows that loose lips sink ships

If you think this is doing major pollution, you should see the process required to manufacture electric vehicles EDIT: Also, water doesn’t “cool down” a fire, it smothers it because water is not flammable

To mis-quote the navy, "Class D (Burning metal) fires go in the water, one way or another."

Similar to the aviation industry's policies on lithium-ion batteries: on a plane, it's difficult to contain the fire until it burns out, which is the usual strategy for battery fires on land. At the same time, you certainly couldn't tell people not to take them on planes at all; that technology is too important to just ban, as with EVs on ships.

Wait until there is a lithium fire on a ferry or in a tunnel. It's going to happen.

Not a single electric car on the Fremantle highway was damaged. So it is impossible, they made the fire worse, let alone started it.

In this video you reveal that after investigation they found that the fire was most likely started by someone not following a safety procedure. They were supposed disconnect the negative from the battery, and put caps on, but they had not done it for whatever reason on this vessel. I would imagine something like that is the most likely cause for most of these situations. People out there thinkin about how bathtubs are reverse boats instead of the job at hand while the CEO billionaires are trying to hire less people so they can save $5. The world is fun! Doomed, but fun!

Can you make a video about the HMHS Britannic

- LCO (LiCoOxide) batteries are NOT used in EVs. Those types of batteries are used for electronic devices like laptops, smartphones, tablets, watches and so on. - Fires in EVs are 60 times LESS likely to occur compared to ICE cars. Most cases are due to rare manufacturing defect or after physical damage to the battery. - EV battery packs have sophisticated fire retardant materials and system designed to stop and contain the spread of thermal runaway. Unless there is an external source of fire that keeps the temperatures high for long time, the chances of fire staring from EVs is extremely low. - Hybrids on the other hand, do not have adequate protection and are usually quite poorly build, packed with wires and harnesses. - In many EVs the battery pack is made out of LFP batteries which do NOT burn even when damaged or even punctured.

The EVs on the Freemantle Highway were on one of the few decks not reached by the fire. So not only did they not start the fire, they also did not make it worse. They weren't in on the fun at all. So even a load of ICE cars full of fuel and plastics are already impossible to extinguish.

So the firefighters got the idea to send air in to a compartment filled with some of the most flammable smoke possible. Those guys are a walking insurance claim. :D

Most likely….not a ver6 good conclusion Regular cars have tanks of gasoline and all have tires that burn. But must blame electric cars

The solution for EVs is simple. a) charge the battery to max 30%. This ensures they can't thermally run away. b) disconnect the main battery during transit. c) Transport German EVs, like mercedes, separately due to their old battery tech, making them prone for catching fire spontaneously at high states of charge.

Lithium cobalt batteries not only have the energy, but also the oxygen for combustion. Lithium iron batteries do not supply oxygen. You can drill through a lithium iron battery and only get toxic gases. If you drill a lithium cobalt battery it will burst into violent flames. But lithium iron has a lower energy density than lithium cobalt and are heavier. That's why lithium iron is often used for stationary applications. Lithium cobalt is used for mobile applications. Your mobile phone has a lithium cobalt battery.

Meaning, we need either new kind of batteries or new kind of extinguishing liquid

They should ad all toxic gases from these fires to sum up the pollution from these "clean" cars. If you do not calculate all environmental costs* for a EV-car you are cheating. Battery production (mining etc) and fires burning for days ...

Perhaps there should be a jettison button that can release EVs into the ocean. It's pollution. But the lesser of two evils: a section of cars Vs entire ship of cars

I expect to see batteries shipped separate to the cars to fix this. If batteries are even shipped in a separate compartment with IR monitoring, faults can be detected early and addressed before the fire starts.

I think it's fair to assume, that there's a good chance of a used vehicle having an aftermarket product. Often wired by the owner, often wired incorrectly or poorly.

The 500 ev cars on the Fremantle highway where basically untouched by the fire. Poor research in this video unfortunately.

With all due respect, this video is highly misleading. The example you lead with is a ship that sunk as a result of internal combustion cars, not electric cars. And then only afterwards do you offer examples of ships that sunk where it's simply suspected that electric cars were at fault, not proven. What's _really_ sinking ships is the industry failing to properly invest in appropriate firefighting technologies to combat lithium-ion fires.

Is a chemical reaction that creates it's own oxygen and burns hot enough to melt steel a problem in a giant steel box whose primary fire suppression system is otherwise to shut off the ventilation? I wonder 🤔

Look a the panel at 1:50 "DISABLE SYSTAM". No wonder the ship got in trouble when even the panels were of this quality.

Do not restrict the finger pointing to EV batteries. The biggest problem is plastic. The excessive use of plastics, everywhere, in motor vehicles is the most common cause of fires in motor vehicles. The noxious gasses produced by the burning plastics aggravate illness and cause more deaths due to smoke inhalation. Hot melting plastics cause much more serious burn injuries. Thick, noxious smoke makes fire fighting more difficult, more dangerous and less effective. Even after fires are extinguished, hot plastics give off gasses which can combust spontaneously, reviving the fire. Use of plastics in vehicles should be restricted to insulation, components which need to be insulated and some tubing for fluid systems. Even these should not be made of plastic where safer materials are available.

I work in a car dealership and if a ev goes up we have a heavy fire blanket we are supposed to pull over the car,but no one seems keen to want to go near a burning car. Luckily its not happened yet....

Did some looking up of lithium-ion battery chemistry for the (as of 2023, apparently) most common types of lithium-ion battery. It's complicated: Pure lithium cobaltate as LiCoO[2] is actually the discharged(*) chemical in a lithium-ion battery (of the type that uses these elements -- other types of lithium-ion battery also exist -- see below). The energetic form would be a lithium-deficient form of this (as nominally LiCoO[2].CoO[2](**)) on the cathode, and graphite with intercalated lithium (nominally LiC[6](***)) on the anode. Both lithium and graphite can burn (with great release of energy), but in addition, lithium-ion batteries contain partially organic electrolyte solution, which, being liquid, can burn very readily in the oxygen released by thermal decomposition of lithium-deficient lithium cobaltate; this solution also contains lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF[6]), which reacts with water (including water vapor from combustion of organic materials) to produce lithium phosphate + hydrogen fluoride, which is very toxic. Note that batteries using lithium cobaltate without other metals are actually not the most common type now (among other reasons, cobalt being hard to get(****)) -- instead, today most batteries use a mixed oxide containing lithium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel in the cathode, with the manganese and nickel replacing some of the cobalt noted above, but with the manganese dioxide (MnO[2]) remaining electrochemically inactive (although it could act as an oxidizer in a fire) and serving to stabilize the cathode material. Lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxides leave are similar, but leave out the manganese in favor of aluminum, whose sesquioxide (Al[2]O[3]) is even more electrochemically inactive (and it won't release oxygen even in a fire, although the accompanying reactive metal oxides will still do so). (*)Unless over-discharged, in which case you get Li[2]O + CoO and a battery that can't be fully recharged, and has to be recycled to get back a fully rechargeable cathode. This is why smartphones have provision to shut off purposely rather than discharging beyond a certain point. For the mixed oxide batteries, substitute Mn (or Al) and/or Ni for some of the Co, except that the Mn or Al always remains oxidized and acts to stabilize the crystal structure. (**)Something approaching pure cobalt dioxide (less than 1 lithium for every 2 cobalt) would represent an overcharged battery, which is also a bad thing, since even cobalt to oxygen even in a ratio of 2:3 (Co[2]O[3]) without something else to help hang onto the oxygen is unstable (the highest oxide of cobalt that is stable by itself is Co[3]O[4]; but the addition of lithium enables further oxidation to make a compound will stay together as long as it is not heated excessively). Again, for the mixed oxide batteries, substitute Mn (or Al) and/or Ni for some of the Co, except that the Mn or Al always remains oxidized and acts to stabilize the crystal structure. (***)As mentioned in the video, pure lithium metal in a lithium-ion battery would be a bad thing, but for a different reason: In addition to the risk of the lithium metal undergoing further reactions to get into an unusable form, it can also form dendrites which can pierce the membrane separating the anode and cathode, and cause a short circuit. It is possible for lithium metal to form instead of lithium intercalating into the graphite if the battery is charged incorrectly: too fast and/or too cold, both of which are errors that could occur at a mass processing facility (think of a faulty charger slipping through inspection without being caught, or even a door being left open on one side of the facility on a cold day due to delivery trucks going in and out). (****)Cobalt resources tend to be in politically unfriendly and/or politically unstable parts of the world. Individually, a properly manufactured and maintained lithium-ion battery is unlikely to catch fire. However, in an environment where something else catches fire nearby (whether another lithium-ion battery or something else), it will ignite, and if other lithium-ion batteries are nearby, then they will ignite in turn, each supplying both its own fuel and oxidizer. The use of other lithium-ion battery technologies may solve some of the above problems, although not all of them. In particular, lithium iron phosphate batteries have iron instead of cobalt, with nominally LiFePO[4] (actual electrode material may be more complicated) replacing LiCoO[2] and the other mixed oxides as the discharged cathode material, and nominally FePO[4] (again, actual electrode material is more complicated, and pure FePO[4] apparently gets you a dead although at least not especially dangerous battery) as the corresponding charged cathode material. (Lithium iron phosphate is stable enough to occur as a natural mineral, although the natural mineral is of insufficient purity for direct use in making batteries.) Although Lithium iron phosphate batteries can still be rendered unusable by improper charging or discharging, when properly cared for, they have a longer cycle life than lithium cobalt oxide or lithium cobalt manganese oxide batteries, which can make up for their lower initial capacity. While a fire of these batteries is still possible, it is less likely -- the organic materials can still burn, and the lithium hexafluorophosphate can still react with the water vapor of combustion (as well as water from firefighting or submersion) to make hydrogen fluoride, but at least the cathode material won't have the oxygenic thermal runaway of the lithium cobalt oxide and mixed oxide batteries. In addition, since they do not require cobalt, acquisition of raw materials is easier (lithium being the remaining material that is hard to get). Apparently patents on lithium iron phosphate battery technology were holding up the use of these batteries outside of China, but now that the patents expired in 2022, they are also increasing in use elsewhere. So the upshot is that technology is apparently moving in a favorable direction for safety, and you can blame patents for holding up the adoption of safer technology.

Just another reason, why electric cars based on lithium batteries, aren't good replacement for conventional cars

So EV advocates want to reduce use of a limited fossil resource (oil), by extracting other limited fossil resources (lithium, cobalt, etc). (Which are generally thought to be extracted under deplorable conditions in Africa... and then sent to be refined under questionable working conditions in Asia). The batteries occasionally burst into thermal runaway, burning at thousands of degrees hotter than a conventional fire, while releasing incredibly toxic gases via a chemical reaction that land-based fire departments struggle to deal with. These fires last for days, and in *all* instances thus far, elicit a response of spraying the hull with water for days or weeks, resulting in the ship and all of it's cargo being destroyed. (With the associated environmental damage). The costs of retrofitting existing vehicle transport ships to deal with transporting a new, volatile cargo may be unviable. Building brand new ships better equipped to deal with these hazardous cargo would presumably be very expensive. (Especially that any new technology is essential unproven), Insurance on EVs is currently skyrocketing in many countries, often attributed to: 1) Poor forecasted resale value (ie The concern about buying an EV with an 8 year old battery) 2) Risk of catastrophic battery failure (eg Thermal runaway). One could suggest that the current desire to "fast track" EVs into the global market may have some unintended consequences. 🤔