Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[Vixen]

Already answered, numerous times. Leaking liquid fuel.

Let me get into my listening pose whilst you explain to me as though I were a five-year-old, how a 'leaking liquid fuel' spill 'accidentally ignites' a nearby EV facing forward (as in the CCTV clip), with its back near to the wall and its nose perpendicular to that of Vehicle Zero, bearing in mind the nearby EV not having any fuel tank at all.


Talk me through the steps.

 

[phiwum]

Uncontrollable lithium-ion fire, obvs.

This is ambiguous.

Are you saying that the first vehicle to catch fire had a lithium ion battery which burned uncontrollably? That's more or less inconsistent with the latest press release (unless a non-hybrid/EV for some reason has or is transporting such a battery).

Are you saying that while the first vehicle evidently did not have a lithium-ion battery, at least one other vehicle had such a battery and caught fire? If so, then okay. I don't think that's implausible and I don't think the press release had said anything at all about the vehicles which subsequently ignited.

Of course, whether such a vehicle is the *reason* that the fire led to such a disastrous outcome would require some evidence, but at least it seems reasonably likely that the fire included a hybrid or EV at some point.

 

[junkshop]

Consider this: Car Zero is a diesel car. Not parked in a bay. It has an electrical fault. Since Liverpool, multi-storey open car parks are now designed to obviate fuel fire lines along the ground, i.e., any such spillage drains away properly and not onto lower floors.

Car #1: a petrol-hybrid (ha!) is the car that goes into thermal runaway, as petrol ignites very easily and Car #1 or #2 or #3 is the real cause of the uncontrollable fire with intense levels of heat that cause the steel rebars to deform by bending causing the concrete to collapse and literally melt in places.

Question: was Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service being 100% honest when it hammered the public over the head that the fire was not caused by any kind of electric vehicle?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Any chance you could ask a version of this question with less straw thrown about the place? That's a fire hazard. Very careless.
.

 

[GlennB]

Consider this: Car Zero is a diesel car. Not parked in a bay. It has an electrical fault. Since Liverpool, multi-storey open car parks are now designed to obviate fuel fire lines along the ground, i.e., any such spillage drains away properly and not onto lower floors.

Car #1: a petrol-hybrid (ha!) is the car that goes into thermal runaway, as petrol ignites very easily and Car #1 or #2 or #3 is the real cause of the uncontrollable fire with intense levels of heat that cause the steel rebars to deform by bending causing the concrete to collapse and literally melt in places.

Question: was Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service being 100% honest when it hammered the public over the head that the fire was not caused by any kind of electric vehicle?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes. They were talking about car #0, which set the chain of events moving.

Your whole point has been that the fire was started by an EV. Here you've taken a small step away from that, so 'bravo' ... I suppose.

 

[JayUtah]

Talk me through the steps.

Step 1: Vixen assumes the only thing on a car than can catch fire is the fuel.
Step 2: Reject the conspiracy theory based on that assumption.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes. They were talking about car #0, which set the chain of events moving.

Your whole point has been that the fire was started by an EV. Here you've taken a small step away from that, so 'bravo' ... I suppose.

It didn't take Vixen very long at all to hire a small crane so that she could move the goalposts.....

 

[phiwum]

Supermarket shelves are a tiny part of it. It was one example.

A notable example of a chartered accountant (assuming she still has her membership) with a science ackground is Thérèse Coffey, who served in the cabinet positions of Environment Secretary, Health Secretary and Work and Pensions Secretary. A member of the Conservative Party.

She had a PhD in Chemistry before transferring her skills to professional accountancy. https://www.theresecoffey.co.uk/about-therese

Would you claim she is 'not a scientist' because she is now a politician? If not, why not?

There is no reason why someone with an arts background couldn't do the same but they might well not get the exemptions from the certificate level.

She's a scientist because she has an advanced degree in a scientific field, not because she's a chartered accountant, for ****'s sake. This is just lame.

Of course, this whole nonsense about whether accountants are broadly speaking scientists is quite a silly digression to begin with. If you were a scientist, Vixen, it would not be because you are an accountant, but rather because of some other education or professional work. It would be because you do science, not because you do accounting.

Duh.

 

[junkshop]

Let me get into my listening pose whilst you explain to me as though I were a five-year-old, how a 'leaking liquid fuel' spill 'accidentally ignites' a nearby EV facing forward (as in the CCTV clip), with its back near to the wall and its nose perpendicular to that of Vehicle Zero, bearing in mind the nearby EV not having any fuel tank at all.


Talk me through the steps.

When a thing that is on fire comes into contact with a second thing that is not yet on fire, sometimes the second thing subsequently catches fire, due to the fire.

Hope that helps.

 

[phiwum]

Since Liverpool, multi-storey open car parks are now designed to obviate fuel fire lines along the ground, i.e., any such spillage drains away properly and not onto lower floors.

The Liverpool report identified a risk in car parks and wrote, "Designers should consider the likelihood of running fuel fires, when designing floor layouts and ramping systems that incorporate vehicle parking."

From this, you figure that all open car parks have solved this issue and it's not a risk any more? Just because a single fire report suggested something should be done it totally and definitely was done? And all within, what, six years? And also for all existing car parks, not just new construction[1]?

Holy cow, you really, really have faith in the government. And a tremendous ability to make **** up. You really did just go from one sentence that something ought to be done to a bald pronouncement that the problem has been solved and the solution implemented on the basis of not a damned thing.

And since the problem has totally been solved, clearly car fires in parking garages no longer spread to other cars, which makes the Luton fire very suspicious indeed. That's sound reasoning, that is.

[1] I'm making a guess here that the Luton car park was constructed prior to 2017, but it's almost certainly so.

 

[junkshop]

2019.

 

[Vixen]

The Liverpool report identified a risk in car parks and wrote, "Designers should consider the likelihood of running fuel fires, when designing floor layouts and ramping systems that incorporate vehicle parking."

From this, you figure that all open car parks have solved this issue and it's not a risk any more? Just because a single fire report suggested something should be done it totally and definitely was done? And all within, what, six years? And also for all existing car parks, not just new construction[1]?

Holy cow, you really, really have faith in the government. And a tremendous ability to make **** up. You really did just go from one sentence that something ought to be done to a bald pronouncement that the problem has been solved and the solution implemented on the basis of not a damned thing.

And since the problem has totally been solved, clearly car fires in parking garages no longer spread to other cars, which makes the Luton fire very suspicious indeed. That's sound reasoning, that is.

[1] I'm making a guess here that the Luton car park was constructed prior to 2017, but it's almost certainly so.

Built 2019

Many people are questioning the lack of sprinklers in the Luton airport car park. The fact that the structure was relatively new, having been built in 2019 at a reported cost of £20 million, has also added to this.14 Nov 2023

Construction Management

 

[Vixen]

This is ambiguous.

Are you saying that the first vehicle to catch fire had a lithium ion battery which burned uncontrollably? That's more or less inconsistent with the latest press release (unless a non-hybrid/EV for some reason has or is transporting such a battery).

Are you saying that while the first vehicle evidently did not have a lithium-ion battery, at least one other vehicle had such a battery and caught fire? If so, then okay. I don't think that's implausible and I don't think the press release had said anything at all about the vehicles which subsequently ignited.

Of course, whether such a vehicle is the *reason* that the fire led to such a disastrous outcome would require some evidence, but at least it seems reasonably likely that the fire included a hybrid or EV at some point.

Must have been very early on for the firefighters to have had to retreat from the building pronto.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. They were talking about car #0, which set the chain of events moving.

Your whole point has been that the fire was started by an EV. Here you've taken a small step away from that, so 'bravo' ... I suppose.

You'll note that it has also been Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service, Full Fact, Jasper Jolly and numerous others' 'whole point' and number one obsession that 'You can't pin the Luton Airport car park fire on an EV'.

 

[Vixen]

Step 1: Vixen assumes the only thing on a car than can catch fire is the fuel.
Step 2: Reject the conspiracy theory based on that assumption.

Perhaps you can help. Tell us how this relatively low grade electrical fire, now turned 'fuel leak' according to catsmate, let's say this fuel leak is even aflame. Explain how it sets off the EV, given its relatively low temperature at that early stage.

 

[Vixen]

When a thing that is on fire comes into contact with a second thing that is not yet on fire, sometimes the second thing subsequently catches fire, due to the fire.

Hope that helps.

Really? Are you claiming therefore that EV's are ultra dangerous?

 

[phiwum]

2019.

Built 2019

Construction Management

Thanks for the correction. Only one sentence turned out to depend on this false assumption.

The primary point still stands, Vixen. You pretend that because the Luton carpark was built two years after the Liverpool fire, the fire in Luton could not have spread in the same manner as in Liverpool. You've given no evidence that in two short years, construction standards had been updated so that it is unlikely for a car park fire to spread to adjacent vehicles.

Your basic argument is: Liverpool's report said something should be done to decrease fire spread, so clearly something was done prior to the construction of Luton and hence a normal car park fire would not have spread in Luton. Thus, there is something special about the Luton fire.

 

[phiwum]

Must have been very early on for the firefighters to have had to retreat from the building pronto.

Well, perhaps one of the first cars to catch was an EV or hybrid. Of course, you're only guessing, but some guesses can turn out to be correct.

Perhaps we'll learn more when the report comes out.

 

[JayUtah]

Tell us how this relatively low grade electrical fire...

What is a "low grade electrical fire?"

Explain how it sets off the EV, given its relatively low temperature at that early stage.

Let me know the minute you can properly list all the things on a car that can catch fire. And be sure to let me know where you're getting the measured data for "relatively low temperature" and "early stage."

 

[phiwum]

You'll note that it has also been Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service, Full Fact, Jasper Jolly and numerous others' 'whole point' and number one obsession that 'You can't pin the Luton Airport car park fire on an EV'.

Did they really say something so broad? Or did they say that, contrary to what certain folks are guessing, the initial car was not an EV or hybrid?

You do recall that the primary reason folks suspected EV/hybrid for the first vehicle was the video that did the rounds. They looked at a picture and said that couldn't be an ICE fire. You were one of those people. It's good to see that you now accept that the initial vehicle was an ICE. It does entail, of course, that you're not so good at identifying a Lithium-Ion fire just by looking at a picture.

Anyway, given that people were specifically saying that vehicle 0 involved an Li-ion battery, it's pretty reasonable for Fire & Rescue and others to point out that this just wasn't the case. That doesn't mean that no Li-ion battery was involved, but simply that a prevailing theory involving a video was just wrong.

If a Li-Ion battery played a significant role in the spread of the fire or the destruction of the car park, then perhaps we'll learn it in the final report. Of course, that presumes that a fire like this leaves sufficient evidence of how it spread, etc.

 

[junkshop]

When a thing that is on fire comes into contact with a second thing that is not yet on fire, sometimes the second thing subsequently catches fire, due to the fire.

Hope that helps.

Really? Are you claiming therefore that EV's are ultra dangerous?

No.

I tried to explain how a fire can spread from one thing to another, as if i were talking to a none-too-bright child. I thought it was funny.

You, apparantly, misunderstood.

Now I don't think it's funny anymore. Now the whole thing makes me sad.