The ship is expected to keep burning for weeks.
Actually, it might also sink and release up to 2,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (plus molten plastic, metals etc.) to the Wadden Sea which is on the UNESCO World Heritage List as an important biosphere reserve.
Nice! Good to know!
yeah, tug it back to the customers/producers.
This is also the reason why they aren’t extinguishing the fire as normal. Because flooding the boot with water will guarantee it to sink.
"Of the 3000 cars onboard, 25 are electric and one of those has apparently set light to the whole cargo"
BULLSHIT!
Nobody said so.
But "journalists" nowadays are full of shit and all reporting "currently there's no proof that some electric car started the fire" (always with #electriccars) - what everyone reads as "yeah, sure the electric car was it!"
meanwhile electric cars are actually LESS likely to start a fire and still nobody in the know has actually claimed electric cars had ANYTHING to do with it.
The article linked in the post says:
A spokesman for the Coast Guard said earlier today that the fire is believed to have started in one of the electric cars. Later in the evening, the Coast Guard said that nothing is yet known about the cause.
So yeah they aren't sure but it's coming from the coast guard not the journalist.
Other people actually reported that coast guard not only responded with "we don't know anything yet", but also with "nobody of us would have told you a cause and we don't know who did"
I've not seen any proof apart from wild speculation by owner/journalists yet.
And yes, the owner too pointed at electric cars - but neither people on board nor anybody near the ship was telling about that. So I'd guess that's just repeating headlines too.
My point was: don't claim "maybe it was electric cars"! because people don't understand "maybe"
Its easy to put out car fires but when it comes to the batteries EVs have its a different game. Entirely possible it started with one or with something else. But once an EV is on fire and the batteries go, theyll need special equipment and training to put that out. Likely they didnt have those.
because it's impossible that the other 3000 cars filled with an explosive liquid could have ignited the fire. No, it's definitely impossible, those fuel tanks never leak, and gas vapor never explode
They dont ship cars with gas in them
I mean statistics are clear on that one… :D
Dutch authorities have said that the fire was started by an electric cars battery.
yeah, right now there's a lot people claiming that it was probably some electric car.
it's now a different scenario to right at the start, when we had nobody in the know giving that claim.
it will be another scenario again, when we finally have people look at it scientifically - after everythig has settled down. But then again that's the point when nobody will care anymore.
What journalist?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hembrow
If you read the actual article by a journalist they don't say it's a certainty. Maybe the problem is people like you who can't tell a journalist from a random guy.
If you read the actual article by a journalist they don’t say it’s a certainty. Maybe the problem is people like you who can’t tell a journalist from a random guy.
did you even read what I wrote?
I specifically said that journalists are writing "there's no proof that it wasn't" and that other people are reading "it was" into it.
It's exactly that. People are unable to read/understand.
Whether you like it or not, our modern society can't function without cars entirely, we still need delivery vehicles etc. Focusing on the fact this vessel dares to carry cars, rather than the fact the fire was able to spread between presumably multiple decks, and cause the entire cargo to burn.
Sprinkler systems on vessels is very much a thing.
Nobody here wants everything with rubber wheels banned. We just want cars to be a form of personal transport to be the lowest prioritized compared to other forms like buses, trains, etc.
If we only had cars where they are needed, for emergency and delivery vehicles etc, then the demand for these sorts of things would reduce massively and the likelihood of something like this happening would plummet.
Yeah but then rich people will have to ride public transit together with the poors. Obviously we can't have that
Good luck fighting a burning EV with sprinklers!
The aim of a sprinkler system is to contain a fire, not necessarily to extinguish it. A sprinkler system can, will, and has kept a burning EV from spreading to other vehicles.
Now, gasoline on the other hand, that floats on water, which is very annoying to put out.
can’t function without cars entirely, we still need delivery vehicles etc.
yeah, okay. But we need far fewer than we have. So producing them and shipping them around the globe needs to be reduced dramatically. So that point still kinda stands?
And yes "this should have been made safer" is another point - but that doesnt invalidate the other.
This is probably the most braindead take I've seen in a while. Fuck cars but this dude is presenting it as if Satan himself was in the cargo hold.
...alright, maybe this is a stupid question, but how is it we can't get 8 ships out there meant to suck up sea water and blast it onto the fire until its out? How is it that waiting for it to burn out our best option here?
Water stops fire because it spills over the burning mess and starves it of oxygen.
A burning lithium cell releases both oxidizer and fuel, which, because of the temperature, can now burn more of the lithium cell and release more oxidizer and fuel.
Which essentially burns down to LiPos can burn underwater and water won't quench them.
Also, blasting a ship with water means that it will, eventually, sink. Spilling its own heavy fuel, and all the cargo onboard into the sea.
Water does not stop a lithium fire.
They corrected the number of cars up to 4000 (:
And electric cars to about 500
