With the EV fires in floods

Do you think the OEMs will take a harder look at waterproofing?  Preventing shorts?  Or will they just roll with it?

News story as an example, not any specific commentary: https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2024/09/30/video-shows-electric-car-catching-fire-in-garage-due-to-saltwater-flooding/

Nope. They will hide behind they built to it to all applicable standards. I have no problem with that. The owners are the problem which then turns into an insurance nightmare imo.... I mean "gassers" would do the same thing just that they are on such a smaller scale.

Ranger50 said:

I mean "gassers" would do the same thing just that they are on such a smaller scale.

is that true? Battery chemistry is significantly different between the 12V lead acid battery in a gasser vs the HV propulsion battery in an EV.

The effective energy in a 12V is also significantly less than an EV pack. The ability to release most of that in a short time is the real challenge. a 12V may blow up, but the EV pack can get into runaway conditions based on the fact that the chemistry in less resistant to water dilution.

Will manufacturers do anything? Only if they are required to. Something about costs and development time...

In reply to stafford1500 :

I would agree that until told otherwise, they won't do anything.  Especially since gas cars are totaled when flooded, too.  The only real change is the risk for insurance companies to rebuild structures.

This is not a new thing.

Fiskar Karma / Hurricane Sandy 2012

Apexcarver said:

This is not a new thing.

Fiskar Karma / Hurricane Sandy 2012

The scale is new.

And since when did Fiskar make good decisions?

Apexcarver said:

This is not a new thing.

Fiskar Karma / Hurricane Sandy 2012

I always marveled at Fisker's decision to name the new car Ocean, when the ocean had killed his previous company. 

But also, a house inundated with saltwater to the point that the EV in the garage was submerged was already likely "catastrophicly damaged" whether that EV caught on fire or not. Not to say there's not an issue, but the circumstances surrounding the higher incidence of battery fires (saltwater flooding from a major hurricane) cause all manner of issues for ICE cars, battery cars, houses, crops, roads and infrastructure, etc etc. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Not like that hurricane just snuck up on them. Leave/move your car, if at all possible.

Spearfishin said:

But also, a house inundated with saltwater to the point that the EV in the garage was submerged was already likely "catastrophicly damaged" whether that EV caught on fire or not. Not to say there's not an issue, but the circumstances surrounding the higher incidence of battery fires (saltwater flooding from a major hurricane) cause all manner of issues for ICE cars, battery cars, houses, crops, roads and infrastructure, etc etc. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Not like that hurricane just snuck up on them. Leave/move your car, if at all possible.

The water level in the video likely wouldn't be catastrophic damage to a house, right?  (I'm not experienced in the ways of hurricane life in FL).

Having to move your car is going to be interesting.  Hurricane comes and everyone in the neighborhood parks their cars on the street?  What happens to the snowbirds that haven't arrived for the season yet? 

I agree they wont make changes to address this unless a regulatory body forces the change.

It will likely just increase insurance rates.   Both home and car.

"Do you own an EV?'

"Do you park it in the garage?'

aircooled said:

It will likely just increase insurance rates.   Both home and car.

"Do you own an EV?'

"Do you park it in the garage?'

We can probably look at the GM car that had that issue (Bolt?) for an example.of that.

EV's catching on fire because of salt water, and several years ago it was BMW with fire issues of some sort.  Ferrari had adhesive melting and dripping on to the manifolds causing fires, and Hyundai even told owners not to park some of its vehicles indoors ... because of fires.

I don't know where I'm going with any of that beyond "smh."

Spearfishin said:

But also, a house inundated with saltwater to the point that the EV in the garage was submerged was already likely "catastrophicly damaged" whether that EV caught on fire or not. Not to say there's not an issue, but the circumstances surrounding the higher incidence of battery fires (saltwater flooding from a major hurricane) cause all manner of issues for ICE cars, battery cars, houses, crops, roads and infrastructure, etc etc. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Not like that hurricane just snuck up on them. Leave/move your car, if at all possible.

Ah, but if the house is flooded AND catches fire, they can argue amongst themselves if it should be covered under fire or flood insurance.

Being trapped in your house while it floods in a hurricane is bad.  Now, lighting it on fire at same time is exponentially worse.  I'm not generally a fan of more rules, but I think some regulation is in the public's best interest.

Assuming the battery chemistry and designs aren't changing, is the solution a matter of hermetically sealing all HV connections?

https://globalnews.ca/news/10778893/cell-phone-charging-overnight-risks/

Why stop at cars. Still lots of unknowns with Lithium.

Brotus7 said:

Being trapped in your house while it floods in a hurricane is bad.  Now, lighting it on fire at same time is exponentially worse.  I'm not generally a fan of more rules, but I think some regulation is in the public's best interest.

Assuming the battery chemistry and designs aren't changing, is the solution a matter of hermetically sealing all HV connections?

Would also need some form of sealed, internal fuse.  As soon as salt water gets to the positive and negative cables it doesn't matter what you do externally to prevent it

stafford1500 said:

The effective energy in a 12V is also significantly less than an EV pack. The ability to release most of that in a short time is the real challenge. a 12V may blow up, but the EV pack can get into runaway conditions based on the fact that the chemistry in less resistant to water dilution.

Will manufacturers do anything? Only if they are required to. Something about costs and development time...

Also, the amount of energy generated through saltwater that a 12V battery can generate is exponentially less than a 360V (or whatever it is) battery pack. Watts = V^2 / R. "R" in this case is the resistance of seawater and the same in both cases, so the high voltage pack will generate 900 times as much heat. How much of that is carried away by the water before it causes serious trouble is unknown.

Ranger50 said:

Nope. They will hide behind they built to it to all applicable standards. I have no problem with that. The owners are the problem which then turns into an insurance nightmare imo.... I mean "gassers" would do the same thing just that they are on such a smaller scale.

If "gassers" would do the same thing, they would be doing the same thing.  They are not.  Just EVs.  

Given that the battery holds the energy of 2-4 gal of gas in them, and releasing that via a short would be a very large amount of sudden energy being released.  That's the issue we are worried about here.

Mr_Asa said:

aircooled said:

It will likely just increase insurance rates.   Both home and car.

"Do you own an EV?'

"Do you park it in the garage?'

We can probably look at the GM car that had that issue (Bolt?) for an example.of that.

You mean the 16 cars out of 140,000 that caught fire?

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Mr_Asa said:

aircooled said:

It will likely just increase insurance rates.   Both home and car.

"Do you own an EV?'

"Do you park it in the garage?'

We can probably look at the GM car that had that issue (Bolt?) for an example.of that.

You mean the 16 cars out of 140,000 that caught fire?

 

Yep. Exactly those.  What was insurance's response to the 139,984 owners who did not?  Thats likely to be the same thing insurance will say to the owners of all the EVs that havent caught fire because of flooding.

aircooled said:

It will likely just increase insurance rates.   Both home and car.

"Do you own an EV?'

"Do you park it in the garage?'

My MIL lives in a condo building in Gulfport FL on a finger of land between two canals with immediate access to the intercoastal waterway. She was adamant about getting an all electric Volvo XC40 (she's 2nd gen Swedish) when they came out. In her building all the parking is on ground level and she has one of the two garages in her unit. When she wanted to add a charger to her garage she got a lot of push back and requirements from the town's fire chief and building department. Outlet had to be 8' up, she had to have a 24 hr monitored ADT system in the garage and she had to carry a $1M umbrella insurance policy. Plus the plaque outside the garage saying there was an EV vehicle inside. She bitched and moaned but eventually did all the things. As a zone A, she had a mandatory evacuation and bugged out (i her EV) to her son's house in St Pete. The ground level of her place got probably 4-5' of water. After all the news stories of EV's burning houses down she gets it now.

I predict anyone listing a primary address for an EV, with a charger or not, will be required to carry similar coverage (or more) in the very near future.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Mr_Asa said:

aircooled said:

It will likely just increase insurance rates.   Both home and car.

"Do you own an EV?'

"Do you park it in the garage?'

We can probably look at the GM car that had that issue (Bolt?) for an example.of that.

You mean the 16 cars out of 140,000 that caught fire?

 

FWIW, a gas car will get a recall for the potential of a fire- mostly after one car catches on fire.  Had that happen for a car that sold over 300k/year.  So 16/140k would certainly force a recall.  

Fire is a very bad thing, and gets among the highest priority among all failures.

Insurance companies requiring customers to move vehicles when a storm is approaching is not uncommon. 
 

I built a CDJR dealership in Beaufort SC.  The elevation of their previous site was considered a potential flood risk. Every time a severe storm was incoming their insurer (Lloyds of London) made them move every single car to higher ground. Over 450 of them.  Then after the storm, they had to move them back. Several times a year.
 

If they didn't move them and they were damaged, they were told they would not be covered by insurance.
 

Note... the old site never flooded.