Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[jimbob]

Not so. It emits highly toxic vapours and projectile jets of flames with debris as well, as the unstable cells form dendrites. If you douse it with water, the water becomes highly toxic with hydroflourides.

See here a van in thermal runaway at Heathrow:



https://youtu.be/mIIdMkwKLp4?si=Fm9cS6qrRoslrb0i




Mercedes Vito electric van in thermal runaway near Heathrow Airport

emits highly toxic vapours¹ and projectile jets of flames with debris as well, as the unstable cells form dendrites². If you douse it with water, the water becomes highly toxic with hydroflourides.³

1. As do many fires

2. The dendrites form within the cells and contribute to the short circuit that leads to the fire, but it's not anything particularly scary of itself.

3. This can be a problem

But it's somewhat irrelevant as the fire started in a diesel vehicle.

 

[Mojo]

Need to have it confirmed that the vehicle in the video is the initial one.

Why?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...

But it is usual for the papers to mention make of car. For example, a story just today about a swan on the motorway. Caused a red Vauxhall Corsa to catch fire as it collided with another car ...

You previously said you expected make, model and year to assuage your suspicions. Which year of Corsa is vulnerable to swans? Was it a hybrid? What are they hiding? What was the make, model and year of the other car? Was it also red?

Most importantly what colour was the swan in this unlikely event?

Very suspicious.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not so. It emits highly toxic vapours and projectile jets of flames with debris as well, as the unstable cells form dendrites. If you douse it with water, the water becomes highly toxic with hydroflourides.

This has been a danger with car engine fires since the 80s. It's not specific to EVs.

 

[smartcooky]

You previously said you expected make, model and year to assuage your suspicions. Which year of Corsa is vulnerable to swans? Was it a hybrid? What are they hiding? What was the make, model and year of the other car? Was it also red?

Most importantly what colour was the swan in this unlikely event?

Very suspicious.

Suspicious alright Jack. I'm not convinced the photo in the article is really a swan. Looks fake to me.

And how do we knew that the government didn't put out the swan story as a cover to hide the fact that it was an EV which caught fire spontaneously. I mean, the car is obviously burned out... surely if it wasn't an EV, "it is probable it would have been put out by the fire brigade easily"

How do we know that Wildlife in Need and the Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service haven't been instructed to lie about the real cause.

For the avoidance of doubt, this post is sarcasm and satire

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... EV's are more likely to be very new. You are not comparing like to like. When an EV catches fire, it is likely to be completely destroyed and/or difficult for the flames to be put out. It is not so that an ICE vehicle catching fire in a car park will automatically spread because a lot of research has been done on this, as per the Liverpool Fire Report:

There needs to be a special word for this unironic cherry-picking of evidence which is immediately contradicted in the very source from which you are quoting.

You're quoting the Liverpool fire report to support your claim that ICE car fires in a car park are unlikely to spread. You cherry-pick the report's describing 2010 regs which in turn refer to 1960s research. But you didn't quote what immediately follows - its observations on them: "This is based on out-dated research on old vehicles and requires further consideration" and ” This was clearly not the case at this incident and requires revision" etc.

It would be hard to find a clearer case of confirmation bias than what you wrote here. You saw something that seemed to support what you wanted to be true and ripped it out of context where it was being criticized as being outdated and no longer true.


https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf Pages 10 and 11.

 

[catsmate]

Do you have any evidence that isn't just a random, barely-relevant YouTube video?



Straw man. No one is claiming EVs are not fire risks. No one is downplaying fire risks in parking structures.

You are claiming a particular fire in a particular structure was caused by an EV, contrary to the findings of competent authority, and that there has been a conspiracy to cover this up by government edict to benefit certain politicians. We're waiting for your evidence for that, not whatever YouTube cartoons or other offerings you find agreeable.

I assume "MGUY" is theresult of Vixen's frantic googling to find something sinister about EVs, especially given her abject failure to support her claim that "many experts" support her conspiratorial fictions.

Of course a look at "MGUY" (and, as an aside, isn't it amazing how YouTube becomes the font of all knowldge when someone there supports Vixen, but is full of worthless "anonymous commentators" when they don't support her) shows that he's got a heavy anti-EV bias, leavened with ACC denialism.

 

[Vixen]

Well, she claims to have been a forensic accountant and once to have worked on a criminal case. This implies she understands what constitutes evidence, what constitutes a standard of proof, and how to construct a line of reasoning from evidence to conclusion that can withstand a vigorous challenge. However, we find in practice that Vixen doesn't seem to know how to read and apply laws, how to evaluate regulatory frameworks, what constitutes evidence for a claim, or how to avoid such obviously specious reasoning as an argument from silence. Faced with the discrepancy between her claimed background and her demonstrably poor performance, the conclusion is clear: Vixen has no concept of how to investigate anything, how to develop evidence, or how to create a valid line of reasoning—a typical armchair detective. However, characterizing the person is not the end goal. It is often an instructive side quest, but the real goal is to evaluate the claims.

Here the claims stand entirely without evidence upon a foundation made mostly of the proponent's imagination, and bereft of any brand of defensible logic.

Stop spreading false personal information.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Stop spreading false personal information.

Stop claiming false, entirely made-up "facts" about e.g. the Ministerial Code, or what the Liverpool report has to say about car fire spread.

 

[Vixen]

There needs to be a special word for this unironic cherry-picking of evidence which is immediately contradicted in the very source from which you are quoting.

You're quoting the Liverpool fire report to support your claim that ICE car fires in a car park are unlikely to spread. You cherry-pick the report's describing 2010 regs which in turn refer to 1960s research. But you didn't quote what immediately follows - its observations on them: "This is based on out-dated research on old vehicles and requires further consideration" and ” This was clearly not the case at this incident and requires revision" etc.

It would be hard to find a clearer case of confirmation bias than what you wrote here. You saw something that seemed to support what you wanted to be true and ripped it out of context where it was being criticized as being outdated and no longer true.


https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf Pages 10 and 11.

Yes, outdated in the sense that it was largely based on some models going back as far as the 1950's when cars were smaller and lighter. Given that the Liverpool ECHO fire and Luton car park fire were 2017/8 and 2023 respectively, in both cases, cars would be heavier and wider and both car parks built in modern times, so they are pretty much like-for-like.

 

[GlennB]

Stop spreading false personal information.

You've demonstrated the truth of the highlighted section countless times.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes, outdated in the sense that it was largely based on some models going back as far as the 1950's when cars were smaller and lighter. Given that the Liverpool ECHO fire and Luton car park fire were 2017/8 and 2023 respectively, in both cases, cars would be heavier and wider and built in modern times, so they are pretty much like-for-like.

So you agree that you made another false claim. What you cherry-picked was outdated and no longer valid so your claim, that ICE car fires in car parks are not considered likely to spread, was unsupported.

 

[Agatha]

BTW: I couldn't find the 'Where there's muck there's brass' quote in my Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable (15th Ed). What is it under, or what page...?

I have the 20th Edition; it's under "where" on page 1473. But it is cross linked from both "brass" and "muck".

 

[Vixen]

Speaking of regulatory frameworks etc:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ks-fire-safety-guidance-for-electric-vehicles
Published 11 July 2023
Last updated 8 February 2024

The document is here for those keen to get to the meat. Some caveats but in summary for available data (page 21): [qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1213663a4e630dd57.png[/qimg]



Also note
I haven't finished greping the latter.

As we can see in the Fire Risk Assessment - see Appendix A-78, a standalone car park with a mix of ICEV/EV's parked as normal represents a 'substantial' level of fire risk should one catch fire.

Fire
occurring
within an
ICEV/EV

Mitigation of this risk is listed as a sprinkler system and wider spacing*.

Increase spacing
of car park
spaces. The car
park owner
believes this will
also help make
spaces more
accessible for
modern vehicles.
Provide waterbased
suppression to
limit spread of fire
from car of fire
origin and limit
growth/heat of
fire.

ETA: The recommendation therefore states:

Considerable resources might have to be allocated to reduce the risk. If
the building is unoccupied, it should not be occupied until the risk has been
reduced. If the building is occupied, urgent action should be taken.

ibid

Given this was also recommended in 2018 re Liverpool and came out July 2023, updated from earlier in the year, one has to wonder what seriously went wrong at Luton that it did not have a sprinkler system and furthermore, fire spread so incredibly quickly to the upper level. There was wind but then so was there wind at Liverpool, and of course, a lithium-ion battery fire self-oxygenates anyway.

*Although, given flames from one ignited car can leap across unfilled spaces (cf Merseyside Fire Report into Liverpool King's Dock fire) it is not clear how wider spaces can help significantly.

 

[catsmate]

I think developing news can be useful because once people have been arrested and the investigators become involved, all fresh news shuts down.

Nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

I have the 20th Edition; it's under "where" on page 1473. But it is cross linked from both "brass" and "muck".

Ah, as I thought, neither of those references are in mine, which goes up to page 1182. Imagine overlooking that one. (It might be apposite to notice under, 'Where', the phrase: "Where's the fire?"*







*Humorous, to mean someone in a hurry. (Straker in Final Witness 1963. That's moi. Pip-pip.)

 

[Vixen]

So you agree that you made another false claim. What you cherry-picked was outdated and no longer valid so your claim, that ICE car fires in car parks are not considered likely to spread, was unsupported.

Of course it was valid. It was an explanation of BRE standards and research to date as of 2018. It acknowledged that research was being updated all the time. As a result of the updated research, Merseyside Fire made recommendations as a result of the Liverpool Fire, which clearly were not implemented at Luton Airport car park, of which construction was commenced and completed, with water pipes installed but no sprinklers, in 2019/20.


In which way is that 'cherry picking'? I don't understand your objection.

 

[catsmate]

Not so. It emits highly toxic vapours and projectile jets of flames with debris as well, as the unstable cells form dendrites. If you douse it with water, the water becomes highly toxic with hydroflourides.

1. I note that you fail to mention that the video was from a fire safety test.
2. You fail to mention the toxic products, actually generally similar except for the halides, from fuel fires.
3. You fail to mention that the majority of toxic emission from vehicles fires are due to the structure and materials, which are the same in the case of EV, ICE or hybrid.
4. You fail to mention the vastly greater rate of fires in ICE vehicles, 7-11 times that of EVs.
5. You fail to address the greater risk of fire spreading from a flammable fuel vehicle.

Of course none of your evasions effects the determined fact that the Luton airport carpark fire began in a diesel ICE vehicle.

 

[catsmate]

How many thermal runaways have you seen in person? How many deflagrations have you seen that look like this that were not thermal runaways? What evidence can you present to establish that you are a reasonably informed authority on this point such that your judgment should be considered evidentiary?

If I may jump in on this, I've witnessed exactly one despite working in the ICT field, where lithium batteries have been ubiquitous for decades.
And that was a first-gen battery in '99.
I've actually seen/been involved with more ICT related fires due to main electricity, Pb gel batteries or diesel generators.

Wait until Vixen finds out about diesel runaways, and what happens to diesel engines when it happens.

(Hint - they catch fire.)

I saw one such late last year. A quiet autumn morning, my walk to work was interrupted by a smoking car on a nearby bridge. Much consternation and vehicular abandonment.
Luckily there's a DFB station about 600m from the bridge.

Over the years I have seen several vehicle fires, none in EVs.

 

[catsmate]

Whilst ICE cars statistically show more instances of fires,

Yes, 7-11 times as many.

that is meaningless outside of context.

Which is?

Most such fire start whilst the car is being driven or just parked.

Often it is fairly minor and easily put out.

When an EV catches fire, it is likely to be completely destroyed