Fire risk with electric vehicles

[Haliotis]

Reading various media articles about this problem, the inference is that EVs, including hybrids, are much more prone to catching fire than ICE vehicles.  Fire services report difficulties in extinguishing EV fires, and toxic fumes making them more hazardous, with possibilities of an extinguished vehicle reigniting after several hours.  It is also reported that hosed out remains of a burnt out Battery can damage the environment, particularly if the slurry gets into a water course.  Recommendations have occurred for EVs to have larger parking bays in order to reduce the risk of adjacent vehicles being engulfed in a blaze.   When there is a blaze involving several vehicles in a parking area, if any EVs are affected the media immediately jump on this, even though the blaze may have been started by an ICE vehicle.

This raises two questions:  (a) Is the government’s planned programme of getting ICE vehicles replaced by EVs too premature?     (B) Are the insurers using these fire risks as an excuse to further inflate the premiums? If this is the case, then should not the insurers be regulated to pay a refund at the end of the annual insurance where an EV has not been the subject of a vehicle fire?  Whilst accepting that insurers must remain solvent in the interests of both their businesses and there clients, some relief for the overcharging of careful drivers whose cars have not caused problems is well overdue.

[Rhymes with Paris]

Risking the justified accusation of whataboutery,has anyone thought about the chargers and batteries of the illegal electric bikes and scooters that cause house fires.

[Bper]

Hi Albert,The government's planned program of replacing ICE vehicles with EVs does raise concerns about fire risks associated with EVs. While reports suggest that EVs, including hybrids, may be more prone to catching fire than ICE vehicles, it's important  to assess this risk comprehensively. Factors such as Battery technology, vehicle design, and safety regulations play significant roles. Emergency services facing difficulties in extinguishing EV fires highlight the need for enhanced response protocols and public awareness. Concerns about toxic fumes and environmental damage from extinguished EV fires underscore the importance of addressing these risks effectively. Insurers adjusting premiums based on fire risks associated with EVs could prompt discussions about fair practices and regulatory oversight. Implementing measures to mitigate fire risks and ensuring proper safety protocols are essential for a responsible transition to widespread EV adoption.

[FROSTYBALLS]

22 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

should not the insurers be regulated to pay a refund at the end of the annual insurance where an EV has not been the subject of a vehicle fire?

Do you get a refund on your life insurance policy, if you survive the policy without dying?

Err .... No.

[Bper]

A man walks into a life insurance office and says to the agent, "So, if I pay you all this money every month, and then I don't die, do I get all that money back?"

The agent replies with a patient smile, "Sir, that's not life insurance, that's hoping for a miracle."

[Cyker]

TBH it's overblown and biased reporting for the most part; The main danger with EVs is they're much harder to put out if they catch fire, but except where there is an actual fault they don't seem much more prone to catching fire than any thing else carrying a lot of energy.

I think there is an issue with regulation, as I see a lot of batteries in things like e-scooters which clearly never passed any sort of scrutiny before being imported into this country, and with irresponsible manufacturers who push the limits of the Battery too far just to get a marketing edge, but where it's done right I think the risk is minimal - For instance I can't remember any Toyota hybrid that had a fire caused by the traction Battery, and if it was an issue wed be seeing lots of Prius2s on fire everywhere by now  .

The only high profile flamey Battery cases I know of were for the Chevy Bolt and I think the Hyundai/Kia Kona/eNiro, which they blamed on a manufacturing fault by LG Chem, although I personally suspect it's because they pushed the battery margins too far (Those vehicles have the longest range per rated kWh of any EV which I initially thought was because of good efficient engineering, but after the fires now I'm more suspicious they just used the whole pack instead of leaving a safety margin), but even the Chinese, who are notorious for cutting corners or not bothering to do things properly (Safety? Pah!), have managed to avoid it for the most part as they's pretty much standardised on Lithium Iron Phosphate for all their batteries, which has a good chunk less energy but is a lot harder to set on fire, unlike the Manganese-Cobolt cells which the West tend to use for its higher capacity.

And once solid state cells finally get to market (I'm still waiitiiinggg!) that should put to rest the whole flamey battery thing.

 

As for the questions, I do think pressuring people into getting EVs is premature - they're just not ready for general use. There are some specific cases where they are objectively better, but there's nothing that e.g. comes close to the utility and compactness of my Mk4 Yaris (Or in fact any Yaris!). But as we now know this nothing to do with the environment and all about money.

And Insurers are totally using it as an excuse, although they do have some truth as mentioned in a previous thread - Because there is no officially sanctioned way to repair a traction battery, if it even gets a dent in it, they're not allowed to repair it and have to replace the whole thing, which is ridiculous and why the repair costs are so high. I think when the powers that be pull their finger out and mandate repairability, instead of saying they will but not doing anything about it, that will help reduce the costs and therefore the insurance, significantly.

[Haliotis]

13 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Do you get a refund on your life insurance policy, if you survive the policy without dying?

Err .... No.

Not quite the same thing, Mike.  Life insurance is based upon a finite event, even though the time scale is a variable.   Car insurance is based upon a “what if” situation and a bit of actuarial guesswork, with the figures massaged to squeeze the maximum out of vehicle owners.

[Mjolinor]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

Car insurance is based upon a “what if” situation and a bit of actuarial guesswork, with the figures massaged to squeeze the maximum out of vehicle owners.

+300 to 500 %

[Parts-King]

I have been in the job 50 years, I have never seen a Toyota Hybrid burst into flames, not saying it has never happened. Of course the modern batteries in plug in's are pushed to the limit, and when one does go on fire, you cannot put it out easily therefore the car will be a total loss. It really does amaze me that our fire services still come to us for hybrid training, info on how to power down a Hybrid is often explained by us as a dealer, you would think after 25 plus years of Toyota Hybrids they would have training in place for them

[Mjolinor]

Do they still put the Battery disconnect on the Battery like my Prius?

I know that if that Battery was overheating I wasn't going anywhere near that thing to pull it. It should be as far away from the battery as it is possible to be. 4 metres of thick cable is not an unreasonable expense considering the need in an emergency.

 

[Cyker]

4 hours ago, Parts-King said:

I have been in the job 50 years, I have never seen a Toyota Hybrid burst into flames, not saying it has never happened. Of course the modern batteries in plug in's are pushed to the limit, and when one does go on fire, you cannot put it out easily therefore the car will be a total loss. It really does amaze me that our fire services still come to us for hybrid training, info on how to power down a Hybrid is often explained by us as a dealer, you would think after 25 plus years of Toyota Hybrids they would have training in place for them

I'm impressed they do! AFAIK there isn't any standardised training for fire brigades on how to deal with Battery fires as every car is so different - Different chemistries, different Battery construction, even the cut-loop to de-power the Battery is in a totally different place in every car, nevermind every manufacturer. I'm surprised they still haven't mandated a standardised location for such things, like there is on e.g. busses.

To my knowledge the current practise is to just drown the car in water to get the fire under control, and then dump what's essentially a giant fire blanket over it so when the lithium re-ignites its ability to set anything else on fire is limited, which is a bit more practical than what I've seen the germans try, which is to bring a giant open container of water and drop the car in it  

 

Edit: Unless by power-down, you mean "Turn them off", as in press the start button or turn the key off, in which case yes I am surprised that isn't common knowledge yet    But I guess they're taking that advice of Don't Make Assumptions...

[Parts-King]

4 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

Do they still put the battery disconnect on the battery like my Prius?

They do, not that I would be anywhere near it in a fire, they look to power it down in an accident just to be safe, oh and to wear the appropriate safety gloves 

[Mjolinor]

1 hour ago, Parts-King said:

They do, not that I would be anywhere near it in a fire, they look to power it down in an accident just to be safe, oh and to wear the appropriate safety gloves 

and jewel protecting explosion proof underpants.

 

[Haliotis]

I am afraid to say that when I next change my car, it will be back from a hybrid to an ICE car.  Being retired, any loss in MPG will be negligible and, if insurers are going to vilify electric vehicles, a possible lower premium may help to offset any loss in MPG.

[jcps001]

I love electric cars, because those things can be very fast and are silent. But yes, there is a fire risk, so much so, they're getting even more difficult and more expensive to insure.

Make no mistake, the electric engine is a marvel. The Battery that powers it is not. The electric engine is let down by the Battery. But yes, we are reaching a point where we are realizing that powering an electric engine with a Battery has more disadvantages than advantages. Repairs are terribly expensive on electric cars, which also drives insurance up.

Biased info or not, the sad fact is insurance companies are making electric vehicles way more expensive, due to the added risks.

It also does not help that in China, the world's largest EV manufacturer and seller, the reports of EVs catching fire and/or exploding with fatalities are more and more (mainly due to cheap materials and manufacturing).

I think it is a sad fact, because I love the electric engine. But I hate the battery. More weight, fire and explosion risk, extremely expensive to buy and manufacture, and environmentally horrible (much more so than fossil fuels).

I still hope this changes in the future. But so far, almost twenty years have passed since these new generation EVs were released, and all the promises made are not being fullfilled. And fining car brands for not making EVs is a soviet minded stupidity, that may cost us dearly.

[Bper]

I don't believe you are alone,I think a few owners have looked at the insurance costs and have already or are now considering changing back to a ICE car. Many retired owners who perhaps do not drive as many miles as they used to feel they are being unfairly treated for owning these cars despite having in many cases unblemished driving records .

The problem seems to be the cost of repairs and parts with these cars which the insurers are having to reflect in the insurance premiums.

I must admit whilst I haven't got the benefit of the bells and whistles of a new car my insurance is in the £200s and my car tax £20 a year. I could afford to buy a new car but it suits our needs and mileage we do a year.

[Mjolinor]

The worst bit is yet to come when they introduce legislation to make it illegal to fix yourself. It has happened with gas plumbing and more recently electrical wiring in houses and in both cases it is wrong. They tried to do it with LPG conversions on cars but did not get very far but that was mainly due to lack of interest in LPG rather than failing to make it legislated.

It will happen with electric cars I think and it is wrong.

 

 

[Haliotis]

Before retirement, I spent my whole career in engineering, and motor maintenance was my hobby.  I have rebuilt every aspect of car maintenance (mechanical and electrical) but, having read the protocols for the maintenance of EVs, I would say that DIY owners, regardless of how competent they consider themselves, should keep clear of DIY on electric vehicles.

[Yugguy1970]

My issue is charging, and not necessarily the time taken but the fact they are not universal.

I know there is some platform sharing and you can register with different charging companies but right now I can go to ANY brand petrol station and get fuel.  I can't do that with EV charging.

[Cyker]

Yeah it's ridiculous that contactless payment still isn't already universal for them; If you don't have a smartphone then you basically can't drive an EV.

And even for chargers that take them, you often get penalized with higher costs for using contactless, and I'm pretty sure that is illegal!

EVs generally should be as easy to work on as normal cars - More so since there are less fluids sloshing around. The only tricky bit will be the high-voltage stuff, but anyone with common sense should be fine (So not many then  )

The biggest issue is software - All the horrible blocks from the computer world are making their way into cars and I fear it will be like Apple phones, where replacing the part isn't a problem, but knowing the secret code to tell the ECU to recognise it, is.

[Haliotis]

I understand that kits are available for variable charging points for EVs that are not self-charging.  That’s a backward step - they should have brought in an industry standard at the start.

Regarding repair and maintenance, the personnel in dealership service departments will have had specialist training for EVs as they do for ICE cars.  Conveniently ignored by the insurers, of course!

Earlier this week, on TalkTV, a discussion panel briefly touched on electric vehicles, and some opinions were made to the inference that EVs were a gimmick that will fade into extinction at some future date. The common knowledge that owners have been reverting to ICE cars gives this factor some credence.

[Fire Isolator]

We have been developing a method to contain electric car fires in the past years that is called ' Fire Isolator'. This method focusses on the containment of EV car fires, more than extinguishment. EV fires are very rare and not always more dramatic or dangerous than ICE car fires. But because lithium ion batteries in thermal runaway are very hard (impossible) to put out with water (unless the car is submerged in it), we focus on containment and prevention of collateral damages.

After a live fire test at the Toyota HQ in Ontario, Canada by our dealer SSI Canada, this method of a high temperature resistant fire blanket, aerosol units and water mist has proven to be effective. You can watch the hybrid Rav4 we used for this test here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUJB_aFxYp8&pp=ygUNZmlyZSBpc29sYXRvcg%3D%3D

 

To learn more about our concept(it is sold to car manufacturers and dealerships globally now), please visit https://fireisolator.com

 

[Haliotis]

In newsletters from comparison websites, there is frequent mention of “risks” that insurers consider, and a number of them are clearly excuses for money-making.  Like the one that says a driver who starts to get quotes at the 30 day period is a nervous driver.  Or the use of a garage being hazardous. Because the car might get scratched during entry or exiting.  All wild supposition.

So, back to my suggestion of a refund if no claim is made during the active 12 months of a car policy.  The cost of the premium is charged against supposed incapabilities of a driver to take due care to avoid an accident, and without any knowledge concerning a driver’s personality (unless a driver has a previous record).  Therefore, on such a basis, is it not logical that, where an insurer has applied charges based upon what “might” happen, then a refund should be made when the supposition was wrong?

Under normal circumstances I would agree that this a refund shouldn’t be necessary, but we are not in normal circumstances - we are quite aware that car insurers are ripping us off with lame excuses.  Most drivers need the use of their vehicles, and unreasonable premiums are a threat to the mobility of drivers (and their dependent families).

Take my own case - Confused.com have come up with a projection of £1,900 pounds for my next premium for my 2021 Toyota C-HR Hybrid.  My driving record - one fault claim in over 70 years, and that was a slow speed caravan manoeuvre on a seething M-way services.  And the scrape was between two caravans, with no motor vehicles damaged.  That was in 2011 - some 13 years ago.  There must be thousands of drivers who show similar low risk, but are being brutally ripped off by these unscrupulous insurers.