4 ms·

I'm not saying I agree with the condo association but I am confused by the counterpoint the article author tries to make. Their response is regarding the odds o

by tssva 5y ago

I'm not saying I agree with the condo association but I am confused by the counterpoint the article author tries to make. Their response is regarding the odds of an EV catching fire vs the odds of a ICE catching fire. They even state that if the odds of an ICE catching fire is equal or greater than an EV than ICE's should also be banned. But the associations argument against EVs in the garage isn't based mainly around the odds of them catching fire vs an ICE. The garage has a sprinkler system and is designed to allow fire fighters to bring enough water to bare to put out an ICE fire. EV fires can't be put out with water so the sprinkler system is of no use and the garage doesn't provide the access needed to allow fire fighters to deliver the required volume of chemical fire retardants to extinguish an EV fire.

Arrath 5y ago
One (redundant and costly) solution might be for building code to require two side-by-side sprinkler systems for garages, one that sprays water and another that sprays chemical fire retardants suitable to fighting battery fires and the like.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  ...and a simple alternative to an expensive fix is to simply ban the cars. I would expect that if fire codes require retrofixes, similar bans will become widespread (and popular).
  - Arrath 5y ago
    Certainly. I was imagining a more forward-looking requirement with grandfather clauses for existing systems. EV's will only become more widespread, fires will naturally be an occasional fact of life, and it seems untenable to ban keeping them in garages forevermore.
    - adriancr 5y ago
      > it seems untenable to ban keeping them in garages forevermore. Concern is if something bad happens it's catastrophic, even if the chance that it happens is slim... So, until buildings are retrofitted to deal with EV fires this proposal seems reasonable. It's going to be interesting when EVs become the majority, but by that point they can be self driving and shared vehicles / always running and doing something.
- busterarm 5y ago
  You need not only chemical fire retardants but a fume extraction system. Lithium battery fires are extremely toxic.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    And for some reason it wasnt needed for a ICE car fire?
    - busterarm 5y ago
      Sure a burning car isn't good for you, but lithium metal is famously toxic and will cause severe GI & neurological problems and is potentially fatal.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  I'm unaware of chemical fire suppressants for EVs. The FAA's advice is to use lots of cold water, which brings the batteries temperature below the auto ignition point. (The concern for hydrogen production is moot in a fire scenario due it not being pure, free lithium.)
listenallyall 5y ago
The article is an example of twisting stats and data to make a false or misleading point. The author (who owns Tesla stock, according to the bio) is claiming that ICE cars are more likely to catch on fire. Perhaps, but irrelevant. The condo is not concerned with what happens out on the road. But it is very concerned about what happens while parked in the garage, and EVs are more likely to combust in the garage than ICE cars (at least according to some sources), which puts the building at risk. I wouldn't be surprised if the condo board is also twisting stats to an extent, however the fact that Chevy, Hyundai and Ford have all had battery-related recalls prompted by fire risk gives their stance a bit of credence.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
busterarm 5y ago
I think if more people had an idea of just how quickly an EV fire consumes the car and just how much hotter they burn than ICE car fires, they would be a lot less keen on having those vehicles parked anywhere near their property. And yes, not only will the sprinkler systems not do anything, but Lithium is highly reactive with water.

by tssva 5y ago

Arrath 5y ago

One (redundant and costly) solution might be for building code to require two side-by-side sprinkler systems for garages, one that sprays water and another that sprays chemical fire retardants suitable to fighting battery fires and the like.

listenallyall 5y ago
...and a simple alternative to an expensive fix is to simply ban the cars. I would expect that if fire codes require retrofixes, similar bans will become widespread (and popular).
- Arrath 5y ago
  Certainly. I was imagining a more forward-looking requirement with grandfather clauses for existing systems. EV's will only become more widespread, fires will naturally be an occasional fact of life, and it seems untenable to ban keeping them in garages forevermore.
  - adriancr 5y ago
    > it seems untenable to ban keeping them in garages forevermore. Concern is if something bad happens it's catastrophic, even if the chance that it happens is slim... So, until buildings are retrofitted to deal with EV fires this proposal seems reasonable. It's going to be interesting when EVs become the majority, but by that point they can be self driving and shared vehicles / always running and doing something.
busterarm 5y ago
You need not only chemical fire retardants but a fume extraction system. Lithium battery fires are extremely toxic.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  And for some reason it wasnt needed for a ICE car fire?
  - busterarm 5y ago
    Sure a burning car isn't good for you, but lithium metal is famously toxic and will cause severe GI & neurological problems and is potentially fatal.
errcorrectcode 5y ago
I'm unaware of chemical fire suppressants for EVs. The FAA's advice is to use lots of cold water, which brings the batteries temperature below the auto ignition point. (The concern for hydrogen production is moot in a fire scenario due it not being pure, free lithium.)

listenallyall 5y ago

The article is an example of twisting stats and data to make a false or misleading point. The author (who owns Tesla stock, according to the bio) is claiming that ICE cars are more likely to catch on fire. Perhaps, but irrelevant. The condo is not concerned with what happens out on the road. But it is very concerned about what happens while parked in the garage, and EVs are more likely to combust in the garage than ICE cars (at least according to some sources), which puts the building at risk. I wouldn't be surprised if the condo board is also twisting stats to an extent, however the fact that Chevy, Hyundai and Ford have all had battery-related recalls prompted by fire risk gives their stance a bit of credence.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

busterarm 5y ago

I think if more people had an idea of just how quickly an EV fire consumes the car and just how much hotter they burn than ICE car fires, they would be a lot less keen on having those vehicles parked anywhere near their property. And yes, not only will the sprinkler systems not do anything, but Lithium is highly reactive with water.