It took 50,000 gallons of water to put out Tesla Semi fire in California, US agency says - eviltoast

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.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      But it the most available and least toxic fire suppression, especially on a highway.

      Foam is full of PFAS, etc and the cost (in CO2 and money) of air dropping, and having to wash the foam off the highway afterwards - leading to runoff - is huge.

      Imagine that happening 100 times per day on American highways (when electric trucks become commonly used).

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is a very confident statement. Surely you have the qualifications and certifications to back up your confidence?

      • curiousaur@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        How about a google search then you dunce:

        “water should not be used on fires involving electrical equipment, grease, or certain types of chemicals.”

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Mmhmm mmhmm. So by any chance do you know why it shouldn’t be used on those types of fires…?

            • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              “I tried to act smart but I lack the supportive data and citations, so I’m just going to revert to the 8th grade with a good-ol’ no u and tell them to look it up themselves. I’m the smartest person in the room!” -you

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Nnnno, I’m sorry, you’ve misunderstood - I was airing my (fairly reasonable) doubt that you don’t know why it shouldn’t be used on those types of fires.

              It is, I admit, also not my responsibility to educate those too stupid to google stuff, but just for fun: Electrocution risk, grease fires explode when doused with water, unknown chemicals may interact with water unpredictably.

              Water is absolutely used to combat battery fires. It won’t extinguish them, but since firefighting is more complicated than “it puts the water on the flames or else it gets the hose again”, that’s not really the goal. It’s to keep the chassis/batteries cool, douse the surrounding area to prevent the fire from spreading and keep any toxic combustion products from spreading via smoke (yes, that means they get washed into the environment. Not ideal, but better than breathing it.)

              • curiousaur@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Water is in fact use, very often. I said it’s not “the best”. You yourself said it’s not ideal, completely agreeing with me.

                Can you make clear your point other that picking fights on the Internet?

              • curiousaur@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Maybe I’d even consider answering if you show my where I said that. And don’t count that quote of the first google response, that was just an example of how easy stuff is to look up.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  So to summarize, people that don’t google things or educate themselves are ‘stupid’ and ‘dunces’ and your example of this, a quote from google that turns out to be wildly incorrect in this context, isn’t evidence I can use, because it’s just an example of how easy it is to look things up.