California firefighters had to douse a flaming battery in a Tesla Semi with about 50,000 gallons (190,000 liters) of water to extinguish flames after a crash, the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday.

In addition to the huge amount of water, firefighters used an aircraft to drop fire retardant on the “immediate area” of the electric truck as a precautionary measure, the agency said in a preliminary report.

Firefighters said previously that the battery reached temperatures of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit (540 Celsius) while it was in flames.

The NTSB sent investigators to the Aug. 19 crash along Interstate 80 near Emigrant Gap, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) northeast of Sacramento. The agency said it would look into fire risks posed by the truck’s large lithium-ion battery.

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    Maybe don’t use water to put out a fire that can’t be put out with water. Aren’t these supposed to be professionals?

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      3 months ago

      The purpose of the water is to cool the wreck and the area around it while the metal fire burns itself out, because waiting it out is the safest option for the firefighters.

    • shaun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Flooding the batteries with water is the best way to put out a lithium-ion battery fire.

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          3 months ago

          Maybe for smaller things, a regular car maybe.

          But by the time a suitable digging machine arrives on scene and digs a big enough hole for a semi it’d probably be faster to flood it with water. Not to mention what might be underneath the ground, so they’d also have to spend time determining if there’s any gas lines or whatever before they dig so they don’t make a much bigger problem

            • rtxn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sure you would, now. It’s easy to be virtuous when the only things at stake are fake internet points.

              I’d love to see you show the same heroism when an excavator in fire department livery comes to your house, rips up your front lawn, damages your water line and underground cables, potentially damages your basement’s walls, and carries off two cubic metres of soil to put out somebody else’s vehicle fire somewhat faster than water would. I’m sure you’d feel great about the damage you’d have to get fixed, even if you ignore the cost. Or do you think that fire departments would just buy dumptrucks to haul soil to fires on the off chance that the reporter correctly identifies the involved vehicle as having a lithium battery?

              It’s not ideal, but water with fire retardant is the most practical solution.

    • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      For as much as people want their Musky circlejerks. This is really just a problem with the switch the EVs that people aren’t willing to accept.

      There is no way to really stop an EV battery fire.

      The batteries in these cars are made up of several cells, packed into a watertight, fire resistant box. When just one of those cells goes it’s over. It can create a chemical reaction that can ignite the cells without the need for oxygen, pure heat will set them off.

      The only real way of dealing with them is to let them burn themselves out, and even after that they aren’t safe and could reignite.

        • Fosheze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s not the electrolyte that’s the issue, it’s the lithium. Solid electrolyte batteries wont make any difference. Unless by solid state you mean, no chemical reaction and we just switch to electrostatic cells, but that is nowhere near viable.

            • Fosheze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s less likely, but if they do get lit on fire then you still have a class D fire on your hands. Unfortunately with car accidents and that much energy being stored in one place, fires are going to happen.

            • glitchdx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              honestly, i don’t expect an answer. New battery tech gets announced every year, claiming to revilutionize energy storage. None have made it to market in any meaningful way, if at all. Lithium batteries hit the sweet spot of price to performance, and nothing else can compete. Looking forward to the day that changes.

              • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                So, you actually can buy solid state batteries now at least as external battery packs to charge phones and whatnot, but they’re still lithium based,

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Massive changes have been happening in the battery field for decades, they just aren’t fast. Our rechargeable batteries are smaller, more energy-dense, longer-lasting, and cheaper than they were 40 years ago. They aren’t magical, last forever, infinite power, instant recharge batteries, though, that’s correct.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Two.

        The best policy is to not puncture batteries, and train others to not do so.

        The next best is to know to smother them.

        • shoulderoforion@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          how do you smother a semi fire on the highway, a) with a water tanker or b) with a sand tanker, how many municipalities have a sand tanker on hand, how do those sand tanker hoses work again, lots of sand tanker slingers round your parts cowpoke?

            • Goronmon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Isn’t that foam what we are discovered is leeching into ground-water supplies everywhere and is super unhealthy for everyone?

            • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Foam suppressant is appropriate for liquid fuel fires like oil. It is not appropriate for metal fires.

                • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Not who you responded to, but that’s an interesting source. I’m intrigued by a textile company claiming to be experts in lithium ion fires.

                  It sounds more like options for preventing a fire to spread. It’s also including CO2 extinguishers under “foam” which they very much aren’t, making me doubt the rest of their blog post.

                  Extinguishing fires can work largely in two different ways. Either by smothering a fire or by cooling a fuel below it’s flash point. Quite often they put out a fire by doing both. A fire that contains an oxidizer cannot be smothered, but smothering can help prevent other materials in a vehicle from being able to burn along with the batteries. Cooling down a large, vehicle sized lithium ion fires takes an incredible amount of water. However, the cells themselves contain so much energy that their failure produces more thermal energy than water is able to remove.

                  Is water the best to put out large EV fires? Nope.

                  Is water good at preventing fires from spreading? Yep.

                  Is water easily accessible and carried on every fire truck and engine and available through hydrants? Also yep.

                  A lot of agencies are including car sized fire blankets as well that help smother the fire some and make burnt/burning EVs safer for tow trucks to move to a safe locations where they can be left to burn out. Sometimes for over a month! You might see fire engines literally escorting tow trucks because even with the blanket and being doused with tens of thousands of gallons, it’s still at risk of reigniting during transport.

                  The other big issue that agencies are facing with EV fires is that the water used to suppress these fires essentially becomes hazmat. So there are issues with letting it just run off into the storm system or the environment.

                • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  a foam extinguisher containing CO2, powder graphite, ABC dry chemical, or sodium carbonate

                  Huh? modern foam suppressants do not use dry chemicals or powders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighting_foam).

                  The Wikipedia article has this:

                  The original foam was a mixture of two powders and water produced in a foam generator. It was called chemical foam because of the chemical action to create it. In general, the powders used were sodium bicarbonate and aluminium sulfate, with small amounts of saponin or liquorice added to stabilise the bubbles. […] Chemical foam is a stable solution of small bubbles containing carbon dioxide with lower density than oil or water, and exhibits persistence for covering flat surfaces.

                  Which sounds like what your article is talking about, but nobody uses that anymore, it’s from 1904:

                  Chemical foam is considered obsolete today because of the many containers of powder required, even for small fires.

                  Was this article written by an LLM copying text from other sources? It’s basically just an ad for this company’s products. I wouldn’t trust this source for real-world firefighting information.

      • Paddzr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Anyone dealing with batteries would have. It is more common than you think and not just people being keyboard warriors.