3 ms·
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
by 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 agoCertainly. 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 agoYou need not only chemical fire retardants but a fume extraction system. Lithium battery fires are extremely toxic.
- NikolaeVarius 5y agoAnd for some reason it wasnt needed for a ICE car fire?
- busterarm 5y agoSure 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 agoI'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.)