There has been a lot of hype and bluster around the problem of EV fires. Even though they tend to catch fire less than traditional ICE-powered vehicles, when they go, they really go. In an effort to quash these tough-to-extinguish blazes, the Waltham Fire Department of Waltham, Mass., has enlisted a new tool in the fight.
The problem with EV fires is quite simple. When lithium-ion cells get hot enough, they enter a self-sustaining reaction called thermal runaway. When this happens, the heat of the self-destructing cell causes its flammable contents to ignite, and tends to incite similar behavior amongst surrounding cells in the pack. As the contents of the battery are undergoing a heat-generating (exothermic) reaction, it’s possible for EV batteries to even reignite themselves after the initial fire is put out, even underwater. That’s what makes them so difficult to tackle.
One of the prime solutions to this problem is to simply douse an EV battery in a truly ridiculous amount of water, cooling them down enough that they stop freaking out. That’s precisely what the Tactical Thermal Reducing Cylinder is intended to do.
Waltham Fire Department is proud to team up with Fire-Ground Tactical to purchase the new TTRC (Tactical Thermal Reducing Cylinder). The TTRC will be on Engine 2 as another tool to combat EV fires, exposure protection and a multitude of other applications pic.twitter.com/NRRsGqYYwh
— Waltham Fire Dept. (@WalthamFireDept) July 8, 2024
The Tactical Thermal Reducing Cylinder is the product of Fire Ground Tactical, an equipment supplier to fire departments across the country. The idea for the device came when firefighter Ryan Twombly was responding to an electric car fire. The company’s website tells the story:
While operating on the nozzle less than 3 feet from the undercarriage of the cribbed electric vehicle, the firefighters realized their position and method carried more risk to them and less tactical advantage to the overall operation.
After that event, the crew realized they needed to create a more effective way to suppress the hazard, reduce exposure time, and mitigate some of the risks involved.
The result of this event was the development of the TTRC. The long, low-profile metal cylinder effectively acts as a massive water-discharging nozzle that can be deployed safely at a distance.
A demonstration of the TTRC, albeit on a Nissan Altima, which is not an EV.
It delivers quite a spray.
It has four large carry handles for easy handling and stabilizing feet on the bottom to keep it oriented correctly in use. When hooked up to a firefighting hose, it delivers a massive deluge of water in a wide spray via nine outlets, while remaining stable on the ground. The stabilizing feet also act as push points. This allows a firefighter to use an axe, pole, or other tool to push the TTRC into position while minimizing their exposure to heat and flames.
Obviously, it’s of great use when tackling an EV fire, where a huge amount of water needs to be delivered quickly. However, the company notes it can also be used in other contexts—such as regular vehicle fires, basement fires, and for exposure protection, where the water output from the device is used to shield adjacent structures.
View this post on Instagram
The TTRC being used on a vehicle fire.
The TTRC in action at the electrical car fire. Big thanks to Fire Ground Tactical for the equipment pic.twitter.com/nPtW6nxnnB
— Waltham Fire Dept. (@WalthamFireDept) April 14, 2025
One presumes this might have been a Wrangler 4xe, which has a hybrid battery that could prove difficult to extinguish.
Fundamentally, it’s a simple engineering solution to the EV fire problem. It’s a big, stable nozzle that sits wherever you stick it. It lets firefighters deliver huge amounts of water to an intense battery fire while remaining at a safe distance themselves.
We’ve seen other unique solutions to this problem before; giant car-sized blankets being the most amusing amongst them. Ultimately, EV fires may be challenging, but they’re a problem that it is possible to solve. Beyond new, safer battery technologies, fire departments and emergency equipment suppliers will continue to work to better handle these difficult blazes when they do occur.
Image credits: Waltham Fire Department, Fire Ground Tactical via YouTube screenshot
The simple answer is to require every manufacturer to have a UL 9450A (maybe one day expanded to cover mobile applications) listed battery pack in the cars. A lot was learned from some fairly catastrophic stationary battery fires installed per NFPA 855 and UL9450A. It’d be nice if some of that knowledge base on never allowing the chain reaction to start trickle over to the mobile batteries…
Bah, that’s evolutionary.
Check out this thing- it’s basically a water jet cutter/pressure washer thing to make a hole in the battery pack and inject water directly into it. Revolutionary.
https://youtu.be/1FWY3LNuPU4
Can you please explain your statement that EVs burst into flames without reason less often than ICE cars? Please work into the situation that EVs make up like 2% and show ICE CARS have intermittent unexplained fires 1008% more often than EVs. It’s a math thing if there are billions of more ICE cars of course they combust more often but you have to base this on percentage of the total market not just total, and not just modern total sales but all the ICE cars on the road today.
From Google: “data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), gasoline cars catch fire at a rate of 1,529.9 fires per 100,000 vehicles, compared to 25.1 fires per 100,000 EVs. Sep 25, 2024″
But does that account for age? Most EVS are < 10 years old, with automatic braking and other safety features. There’s millions of ancient ICE junkers that are more likely to have a wiring problem, or more likely to get in a crash that causes a fire.
Way more data than anyone wanted on vehicle fires from the people who actually fight the fires. There is a distinct jump in fires at 14-15 year vehicle age. They also separate out fires caused by accidents vs. fires caused by the vehicle: https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/vehicle-fires
NFPA officially notes here: https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/electrical/electric-vehicles
“How often do electric vehicles catch fire?
It is hard to answer that question. While NFPA publishes a report on vehicle fires in the U.S., existing data collection systems do not yet adequately measure the frequency of EV fires in the U.S. There is no current evidence to suggest EVs are more likely to be involved in a fire than ICE vehicles.”
I thought the goal was wide adoption of anaerobic foam to combat lithium fires? Thermal runaway’s easier to combat if the material surrounding it removes the oxygen and dissipates the heat, and water only does the latter half of that.
Wonder how much that stuff costs and whether it’s toxic or its combustion suppression by-products are. Airport firefighting foam containing PFAS have contaminated numerous local aquifers.
I imagine there’s a few cost benefits to the TTRC over anaerobic foam:
Holy crap. I’ve written a Mercedes-length essay on this. Sorry!
Disclosures: I was a firefighter back in the 80’s, with a degree in fire science and a Firefighter-I certificate. I readily admit my knowledge is both old and rusty. I have no affiliation with the manufacturer of the TTRC, so this isn’t a sales pitch. Just speculation from a fire nerd who enjoys this kind of mental exercise.
*(Do you know the difference between a fire engine and fire truck? A lot of people don’t. Fire engines carry water and pumps, for “putting the wet stuff on the red stuff.” Fire trucks carry lots of other special-purpose gear: specialized ladders, rescue gear, ventilation saws and fans (for letting out the smoke), and whatever else a fire department might want to be able to call on occasionally. Of course, there’s a lot of overlap as well as variation between departments.)
**(AFFF, or “A-triple-F,” is Aqueous Film-Forming Foam. If you need to put out a burning tank or puddle of gas/diesel/oil/whatever, you connect an inducer pipe about 18” long between two sections of hose. A smaller tube comes off the side of that pipe. You stick the tube in a bucket of concentrate, and when you start the water flowing through the hose, Bernoulli suction pulls concentrate out of the bucket and mixes it with the water, forming foam. Put the end of the hose just inside the tank of burning liquid and gently, gently let the foam float on top and smother the fire. If you try to extinguish burning oil with plain water, the tendency is to hit it hard which just causes the burning material to spatter everywhere. Plus, most fuels float on top of water which contributes to the fuel spread. The last thing you need is to make your day worse.)
Shout out to WFD. Great city, good to see an innovation there.
How would this work, say in LA?
Sorry, too soon?
I’ve seen the claim that that evs are less prone to have a fire than ICE, but has anybody ever analyzed these stats to take into account vehicle age/mileage?
Aren’t most ICE cars that burn due to old age problems with fuel systems and electrical wiring where evs are all pretty much recent builds?
No, yes.
You are correct it is EV supporters ignoring proper math and like normal economics
Not ignored, hard to do until the EV fleet ages. Assertions that most ICE cars that burn are due to old age is also ignoring “proper math”. I’ve never seen stats that factor in the age of the vehicles, if you have those numbers please share, but without that it’s only assumptions.
See response above – NFPA breaks it down way more than I ever thought. Except for EV vs PHEV vs ICE…
I need one of these for my kids to play in during the summer. There’s a hydrant in front of my house, so water supply is no issue when you have your own hydrant wrench.
NASA
“Hold my beer” (no idea if the video link will work. Kennedy flows 500,000 gallons of water on the pad during the 30 seconds around a launch. Not to cool the pad but to knock down the engine noise).
https://youtu.be/h8q1gbsXVTk
Do they have a reclaimed water process
I do not know but I expect not.. I know they aren’t using pumps for the flow, but large tanks that are under pressure and blow the water out. During a launch, a significant amount of the water turns into clouds because of being blown around and boiled by the exhaust of the rockets. I expect that since the system is normally used in this duty and they only launch a couple times a year, they likely don’t bother with trying to collect the water they used.
Agreed, Hoser. Plus, Cape Canaveral is basically an oceanfront marsh. Reclaiming water is important only where it’s scarce. (Like, e.g., central California where I live!)
As I think about it, though, that marsh water is brackish so the engineers would have to mitigate salt damage to the system. If it were me, I’d just leave those tanks empty until right before launch, then fill them up with marsh water. After launch, you can go back and rinse the tanks and pipes with a relatively small amount of fresh water, then leave them dry until needed again. (A reclamation system for that fresh water might be a good idea, though. I don’t know how available THAT is in that area.)
I wouldn’t bother doing a lot of flushing. They have oodles of nitrogen there. Blow them out with nitrogen and keep a couple pounds of nitrogen on the system. Rust doesn’t happen in a nitrogen environment because there isn’t enough free oxygen available.
Huh. Good idea! What’s all the nitrogen for? Or is it a by-product of producing LOX? Don’t they chill the atmosphere and tank LOX for future use?
Cheapest way to pressurize stuff. What they have (I’m sure) is a system where they come in with a semi-truck full of liquid nitrogen and fill up a tank that isn’t at much pressure at all. They take the liquid and pump it up to whatever pressure they want (6000 psig isn’t uncommon) and then run it through what looks like a giant reverse radiator. The nitrogen goes from a liquid to a gas and they can use that to push almost anything out of a pressure vessel. Water (like this system), liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, whatever. It’s a fairly cheap system to run given how useful it is. I’ve been to several test facilities and any one that can flow anything significant had a liquid nitrogen/ vaporizer system.
Actually,I think Nitrogen might be the way to put out EV fire. Back a truck with a big tank of nitrogen up to the burning EV, clear the area and blow the nitrogen onto the burning vehicle creating a vehicle sized cloud of nitrogen where there isn’t enough oxygen for the fire to keep going.
I could design it, but you don’t want me to. I tend to overkill my designs. My customers always say “we want X” then say “we want 2X” and then get upset when what I design can’t go over 10X. I would make a fire putter outer that would go in the bed of a F450 and allow the F450 to hit 60 mph in less than 2 seconds with the parking brake set.
This will be great for my industry (contaminated site remediation). That bad boy is sure to spread those toxins everywhere. The old adage is dead wrong, the solution to pollution isn’t dilution thanks to the delightful process of bio-accumulation. In general the contaminant clean up of EV fires is a poorly studied and understood potential negative to shifting to electric cars. As always though, we put the chemicals out into the world and then find out a couple of decades later how many people will develop diseases from their presence. Go capitalism!
You make a good point. Is it better to just barricade these things off for a week and come back to clean up the carcass after it’s at ambient temp ?
Forget a week, dump a couple gallons of LOX (Liquid Oxygen) on it and sweep it up a couple minutes later.
Horrible devastating toxins won’t matter much because if we don’t all switch to EV’s by 2035 all life on earth will be destroyed by global warming.
Or global cooling. On the bright side Obama and many Democrats are willing to buy Ocean front property cheap despite claiming it will be underwater in 20 years. They are such great people.
Anything to support the EVs are the future claims while attacking Tesla.
They really need to get LFPs and solid state chemistries working, speaking as someone with 2 out of 3 EVs using NMC chemistry. I feel perfectly safe driving them around, at least as safe as when driving around 15 gallons of gasoline near multiple sources of active ignition, but when there’s a proven better option available now, that doesn’t require much tooling changes to start using, yeah, that should be done like now.
EV cars are just so stupid and wasteful. This was the collective “best solution”?
Imagine if we just gave up on every industry or technology because it wasn’t perfect on the first few iterations.
I get what you are saying, for sure. However, it’s been at least a decade and nothing has changed, other than finding more inhumane ways to source the elements.
It’s the exact opposite of what was the goal.
Yeah! My personal favourite thing about ICE cars is that it’s completely impossible for them to ever catch fire! And even in some hypothetical fairy-land where impossible things happen and one DID catch fire, any fire that’s burning mixed lighter-than-water hydrocarbons is famously easy to extinguish.
I didn’t say that, did I?
Full EV’s aren’t a better solution as it stands right now.
Why would you be weird about the facts?.
It was a beautiful day, an EV fire
I hit the radio alarm and started driving
Time went by, me and Del were spraying
Thermal runaway, I was crying
Now I’m spraying down a Leaf
It never occurred to me
that EVs are a mystery, the fire just never recedes
Spraying down a Leaf
Is it even tactical if it’s not painted black, bro?!
Camo, man. Needs to be painted camo.
Is that actually a Wranger 4xe with a battery fire or is it just revenge on some dickhead that blocked a charger with an ICE vehicle?
I like how the example model is a car that never came as an EV or Hybrid.
Nope, just a “certain car” that can no longer menace the streets of Waltham.
Wow, nissan created an obituary page.
https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/discontinued.html
Nissan made Altima Hybrids up to 2011. Had a couple as rentals. They actually sucked slightly less than the standard car. Slightly.
yeah, but that’s a maxima.
The post says it’s an Altima. I could not be bothered to look closely enough to tell the difference.
Oh I see that now! I wouldn’t have checked either in that case. Silly author. Needs to learn his Nissan species better. Interesting that he specifically commented that it is not an EV, but missed the more obvious, it’s not an Altima.
Yeah, but they likely got paid to get rid of it.
So an EV catches fire, it’s gonna be totaled, because if the fire doesn’t get it, the water will.
Pretty acceptable trade off in my opinion considering just how dangerous a lithium fire can be if not controlled.
Tbh the only way I see getting rid of a BEV fire while saving the BEV is having the pack suspended by explosive bolts. Pull a lever, pack falls to the ground, and provided the BEV has enough ground clearance (which would have to be built into the design) you could roll the chassis out of the way.
You’d need a whole new battery pack, which is a massive portion of the car cost overall, and currently there isn’t a massive availability of standalone factory new battery packs, but it’s really the only way I think one could save the BEV and put out the battery fire, as the battery fires are oxygen independent and self sustaining.
Isn’t that the case with almost all car fires?
Yes, yes it is. Your car catches fire, that smell NEVER gets out of it, it will be totaled.
How do I know? Even cars that were very close to a dealership fire decades ago, but didn’t actually get burned, got totaled. They tried to use ozone machines, etc… and some just had to be a loss.
Meh, I had a Volvo catch on fire. Put it out with the extinguisher I had in the car, fixed the thing (replaced the janky wiring harness and the oil leak that said harness caught on fire), and it was back to it’s usual POS self in a day. Depends on the extent of the fire, of course.
You can put out an ICE car fire very easily in most cases. I made the mistake of putting out the fire in my ’82 Volvo Turbo with the little extinguisher I carried in the car. Should have let the POS burn to the ground. The bio-degrading engine wiring harness sparked and caught the leaking oil on fire. No big deal to put it out, and since I also cut the battery cable, it wasn’t going to reignite on it’s own. Fixed it in a few hours in my garage. No water needed for many if not most car fires, as long as they are caught before the thing is fully engulfed.
THAT is the big difference – EVs may catch fire nominally less often, but when they do it’s a MUCH, MUCH bigger problem, and you simply are not putting it out with anything readily available. Even massive amounts of water like here doesn’t actually put the fire out, it just keeps more cells from joining the party. The cells that are already burning are going to burn until all the chemicals are used up.
So just like literally any car ever?