Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
A truck full of lithium-ion batteries is burning in Los Angeles, shutting down ports and a bridge. It’s not clear what the batteries were for — but LA’s Vincent Thomas Bridge, leading to the Port of Los Angeles and the next-door Port of Long Beach, has been shut down for at least 15 hours now while local firefighters let the truck burn. State Route 47 was also closed in both directions as of a couple of hours ago.
Amazingly, a local towing company caught the explosion on camera from a nearby drone:
Both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach have shut down a number of terminals while the fire continues to burn. As of 12:10PM PT on Friday, the truck was still on fire, and both the ports and bridge were still closed, Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) spokesperson Ren Medina told The Verge.
Firefighters are nearby and are actively monitoring the situation; as of 10PM PT on Thursday, the fire was expected to last “at least another 24-48 hours.”
As we’ve seen with several EV battery fires, big concentrated lithium battery fires can be very difficult to put out: firefighters sometimes douse them with thousands of gallons of water only to see the fire restart as additional battery cells heat up to the point that they combust. Once a cell gets hot enough, it’s said to go into “thermal runaway,” at which point it can sometimes restart a fire. The LAFD confirms this is a case of thermal runaway.
EV packs are particularly dense with cells, but we don’t yet know if they were involved here — the LA Fire Department spokesperson says it’s not clear who owns the truck, let alone what it was carrying. The LAFD could only confirm they are lithium-ion batteries at this point.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 28, @11:03AM (2 children)
The video makes it obvious that the truck was wrecked, and lying on it's side, before the fire started. So, it's probably not a matter of faulty batteries just igniting. Fortunately, it's a smaller shipping container with batteries inside. In fact, the container doesn't look like a standard container, and may be less than 20 feet long. I'm thinking that it may be a single battery for a solar installation, because it's so small. Just swing it into place with a crane, nothing to unpackage. Hook up electrical cables, and job is finished.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28, @02:27PM (1 child)
FTFY.
(Score: -1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28, @02:53PM
You meant FTUFY? Fucked That Up For You. 6.096 meters is a very odd number, don't you think? Pretty obviously derived from something that actually measures 20 feet. You've forgotten the rule about not fixing things that aren't broken.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fraxinus-tree on Saturday September 28, @11:11AM (5 children)
A profoundly negligent truck driver toppled a load of a known dangerous material. Here in EU, as well as in a lot of other places, one needs an ADR licence in order to carry things like these around.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28, @01:00PM (1 child)
> A profoundly negligent truck driver
As the video pans wide, it looks like there is a road at right angles to where the truck landed, it seems likely that the driver was making a 90 degree left turn, and rolled onto the right side. This is fairly easy to do with a load that has a high center of gravity.
Here's a two page engineering overview of this type of accident, along with a list of nearly two dozen possible contributing factors, http://www.triodyne.com/safety~1/b_v6n1.pdf [triodyne.com]
tl;dr -- until there is an investigation, it's too early to assign all the blame to the driver.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 28, @02:25PM
I'll add that there is nothing available that makes the truck driver obviously at fault. He is probably presumed to be at fault by law, but we don't know what happened prior to, or during the accident. For all we know, at this time, a Tesla self driving car rammed his steering tires, toppling him over. OK, not likely, because we don't see a crumpled Tesla in the video, but still, we don't know what happened.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 28, @02:41PM
You are presuming a lot. For starters, we have a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) in the US, probably equivalent to your ADR. Additionally, there are a number of endorsements available for CDL holders. The guy driving the truck in the video would have had an endorsement for air brakes and haz mat, for starters. He may or may not have additional endorsements, but those two are obviously necessary, from the visible evidence.
"Profoundly negligent truck driver"? Jump to conclusions, much? At this point in time, we have zero idea how the accident happened, or who was at fault. The accident didn't happen in a vacuum. That is, the driver probably wan't driving all alone on an otherwise empty roadway, and just decided to cut his wheels as sharp as possible, causing a jackknife and rollover. Something was happening around him, and some other party may be at fault.
FWIW, I've driven in and out of that port. Only during the wee hours of the morning can you call traffic condition "light". From about 4:00 till after 22:00, the traffic varies from "heavy" to "congested". All manner of crazy things happen in heavy traffic, and you can't blame it all on the truck drivers. I've searched for stories on this truck, and found absolutely nothing to indicate how the accident happened.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Username on Sunday September 29, @12:15AM (1 child)
In the US you need a special license as well. A CDL with proper endorsements. The problem, and probably the reason for your downmod, is that CA is loaded with illegal immigrant drivers working without a license.
This looks like someone took the turn too fast, evident by the fact that no other vehicles involved. So, I've also come to the conclusion, it's someone who doesn't know how to drive hauling hazardous materials. No experienced driver would risk this kind of thing.
(Score: 2) by fraxinus-tree on Sunday September 29, @07:16AM
Ah, I see. The hazmat endorsement is probably the equivalent to our ADR thing. On the other hand, the "unlicensed" part at least here is irrelevant - whoever keeps the hazardous material here is required to check the proper licensing of whoever gets it next. And finally, the hazmat part is irrelevant because not toppling a high-center-of-mass vehicle looks like a basic driver competence. It looks obvious for me (B category driver, i.e. up to 3.5 tons, up to 8 passengers, non-commercial) that I have to drive my motorhome differently than my cars in order to get where I am travelling to.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Saturday September 28, @12:34PM
Lithium-ion pouch cells are easily susceptible to damage, and something that penetrates and causes a short circuit can generate enough heat for a single pouch to self-ignite. That can cause a runaway effect with neighbouring cells heating up and igniting.
A load, packed tightly together, combined with an accident that causes an object to penetrate a single cell can cause this.
This is why there are rules about shipping Lithium-ion cells.
Letting it burn out is probably the fire department's strategy for this type of fire. Attempting to remove the non-burning cells is likely dangerous, and prone to spreading the fire.
(Score: 3, Funny) by HiThere on Saturday September 28, @01:53PM (3 children)
If the problem is heating, why not use dry ice (CO2) extinguisher?
Perhaps they can't get it in sufficient volume, but they *ought* to be able to do so. Water is cheaper, but using it on an electrical fire is often the wrong choice. (Not to mention oil fires, etc.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RS3 on Saturday September 28, @02:41PM (1 child)
I'm not expert, and I like your thinking, but my thermodynamic knowledge based hunch is that: 1) the CO2 won't have anywhere nearly enough cold to cool the intense battery fire, and closely related: 2) you wouldn't be able to get enough cold into the heart of the fires to quench them. They're self-oxygenating so the smothering effect of CO2 won't help either.
Water can cool them, but it's very difficult to get any water into where the fire is happening, because the fire is so aggressive that it blasts the water away. IE, fire shields itself.
However enough cooling, CO2, water, some other process, might cool the entire batch enough to slow or stop the advancing fire.
I was a bit apprehensive when I learned that EVs have battery cooling systems. Hopefully the cooling is only needed occasionally / rarely.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28, @07:45PM
> apprehensive when I learned that EVs have battery cooling systems.
EV battery packs are mostly liquid cooled, but the original Nissan Leaf and probably some other "short range" BEVs have air cooled batteries. In some cases they may also be liquid heated, all in an attempt to keep the battery in the temperature sweet spot. The cooling might be used most when rapid charging, but also if doing a lot of high power driving (hill climbing?) If the battery gets too hot, there is internal sensing that will limit the power (the car may slow down, or the high power charging may be slowed down). Batteries have internal resistance and putting current in (or taking it out) heats them up.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 28, @02:49PM
I watched a video somewhere about using CO2 on metal fires. Strangely enough, the metal strips the oxygen atom from the CO2 molecule, and uses the oxygen for further combustion. This guy does a good job of explaining, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEN-h5FN3yk [youtube.com]
You mention dry ice, and you mention CO2 extinguishers. Those are not the same. But if you watch the video, you will see a bit of magnesium placed within a block of dry ice, set afire, and allowed to burn. The dry ice will not cool the metal enough to extinguish the fire.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday September 28, @03:10PM
Clearly for heating.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday September 28, @03:41PM
Considering how much disruption a single truck full of batteries can create, if I was a foreign power intent on attacking the US, I'd look into shipping containers full of batteries with some sort of timed circuitry to short them all at the same time when the truck passes by critical infrastructure, like power stations for example. It would be a really cheap way and safe way to create real problems without resorting to using high-profile, frowned upon conventional terrorist weapons like explosives. Not to mention, the intensity of the fire would essentially obliterate any evidence.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Saturday September 28, @03:54PM (1 child)
Perhaps it was some sort of nefarious actor testing out the cheapest and most effective way to shut down a major transportation artery for two days. Apparently, a coordinated effort, with a half dozen battery-filled trucks, could severely cripple a major city.
Maybe "the experts" need to come up with a better strategy that to sit around and watch it burn.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Saturday September 28, @03:57PM
FYI, Coltrane's post was not there when I wrote this. I did not see it until the page refreshed when I submitted mine.
(Score: 3, Informative) by lars on Saturday September 28, @04:29PM
From the photos, it is obvious this is not a container full of batteries. Probably just a single one for a solar system. You can tell it was never very intense from the fact that it's painted white and there are no scorch marks and no dark spots from the paint being exposed to high heat. I feel it hasn't been moved because of policy issues, not actual danger. They can't put it out because it is in a sealed box, and have a policy against moving anything still on fire, no matter how small the fire. Just a guess.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Saturday September 28, @05:09PM (4 children)
The reason I ask is I am currently designing some Lithium Iron Phosphate ( LiFePO4 ) based energy storage systems based on those 304AH 3 Volt Rectangular cells made by CATL in China.
They were purported to be much safer than the Lithium Ion cells, They don't have as high of energy or power density of Li-ion.
if I find out these are LiFePO4 cells I will abandon my project. I simply will not design a thermal bomb for sale. I cannot guarantee the cells won't get "dinged" by an errand forklift or similar. I am already stretching things by using R-290 ( Propane - standard barbeque gas ) as a refrigerant to make ice...using the phase change of a water-glycol ( common automotive antifreeze ) mix to make a slush (like an ICEE beverage ) , which i use for caching thermal energy. Designing stuff to be safe AND environmentally responsible is quite a design challenge.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Saturday September 28, @06:39PM
I wouldn't base a safety case around anecdotal evidence from a truck accident followed by a fire in its load. I would suggest doing a fairly comprehensive literature search,
If you look at BEV designs, they tend to have pretty robust battery enclosures to prevent mechanical damage to battery cells in anything but the most high-energy accidents. I would suggest that if there is a risk of the battery containers being 'dinged' by fork-lift trucks (especially the forks, which can penetrate metal drums with ease), then the battery containers will need to be very robust indeed.
As for thermal runaway, both NMC and LFP cells exhibit the behaviour, but the temperature threshold for runaway with LFP is higher. Both need good battery/cell management.
But do your own research.
(Score: 2) by chucky on Saturday September 28, @08:48PM (1 child)
I have to ask here one thing. It used to be normal, that people had houses and the energy storage was next to it, in a separate building. It was the barn and there was wood and hay inside. All highly flammable. Why don’t we do the same today?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 29, @01:02AM
Easy answer, our ancestors (something over 100 years ago) drank the cool aid from Standard Oil and the other oil & natural gas companies. Maintaining a barn and paying taxes on a wood lot went by the wayside. Now there are too many people crammed into cities to easily go back to the old (local energy storage) ways...although some have enough space & money to install solar cells & backup batteries.
But as with many "modern" trends, not everyone bought into them. Still plenty of corners of the world where you can chop your own wood and have it heat you twice. Seems that Thoreau didn't invent this phrase, but famously included it in "Walden", https://www.gutenberg.org/files/205/205-h/205-h.htm [gutenberg.org]
Walden Pond isn't out in the wilderness anymore -- https://maps.app.goo.gl/hk1XTaaEzmgFeU2g8 [app.goo.gl]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 28, @09:03PM
Every battery will generate some combination of heat and kinetic output because it's a store of energy. Better to design it so that said energy is contained (and difficult for said errant forklift to get at) rather than some elaborate heat containment strategy that is as vulnerable to failure as the battery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28, @09:02PM (1 child)
Right where i almost got a ticket once.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28, @10:12PM
Cool story bro