BIG BATTERY BLAZE.

First of all, worth noting that this "news" is of a single event which occurred 2 years ago. No-one was hurt.

Obviously the Mail has put it's spin on it and reading the actual reports from the fire service (which are in the public domain) casts quite a different light: The reference to inadequacy in the Mail article, in context, is a mere factual description that the volume of water required was sufficient from the local hydrant so they got additional water from further afield. Not quite the drama it is made out to be. And the local crew attending did not know what the industrial process was when attending (in the middle of the night) so approached the containers with sensible caution, but within 21 minutes of attending had established the relevant facts and within 37 minutes there was liasion with the overseas operators and owners.

In fact the attending crew did pretty well: The fire was contained to a single unit and did not spread. The biggest impact arising from this fire, from my perspective, was the generation of rather nasty smoke in an built up area... but, hopefully not to downplay it too much, how many urban industrial fires could you already say that about?

It is certainly true that thermal runaway is a recognised hazard of Li-ion batteries, and mitigating the risk is an important consideration through all parts of the project lifecycle. It is a major topic of consideration in the industry which materially impacts procurement, design, installation and operation. There were, and are, lessons from this event which are being taken into account with the planning of new projects.

As for the "explosion", from my reading of the report it would appear that there was no pressure relief system on the containers and there might have been issues with the gaseous fire suppression system activating as intended. From CCTV images in the report it was not the Hollywood-syle conflagration one might imagine from the article. Granted it would not be sensible to be nearby (and this is a specific hazard for fire crews), but this is not an issue that could not be designed- (or maintained/commissioned) out.

Hopefully that puts it in a bit of context. As I say, the fire service's reports are in the public domain for those who want to learn more.

For the record I have no connection with the site in question, although I do have an interest in the industry.

PS - As a point of fact this has nothing to do with "the hydrogen economy". The site has batteries only. They are, I presume, providing support services to National Grid, e.g. frequency response or balancing via arbitrage. The main alternative providers for this service are diesel generators running in standby...which of course also have an energy store and are also far slower to respond.

First of all, worth noting that this "news" is of a single event which occurred 2 years ago. No-one was hurt.

Obviously the Mail has put it's spin on it and reading the actual reports from the fire service (which are in the public domain) casts quite a different light: The reference to inadequacy in the Mail article, in context, is a mere factual description that the volume of water required was sufficient from the local hydrant so they got additional water from further afield. Not quite the drama it is made out to be. And the local crew attending did not know what the industrial process was when attending (in the middle of the night) so approached the containers with sensible caution, but within 21 minutes of attending had established the relevant facts and within 37 minutes there was liasion with the overseas operators and owners.

In fact the attending crew did pretty well: The fire was contained to a single unit and did not spread. The biggest impact arising from this fire, from my perspective, was the generation of rather nasty smoke in an built up area... but, hopefully not to downplay it too much, how many urban industrial fires could you already say that about?

It is certainly true that thermal runaway is a recognised hazard of Li-ion batteries, and mitigating the risk is an important consideration through all parts of the project lifecycle. It is a major topic of consideration in the industry which materially impacts procurement, design, installation and operation. There were, and are, lessons from this event which are being taken into account with the planning of new projects.

As for the "explosion", from my reading of the report it would appear that there was no pressure relief system on the containers and there might have been issues with the gaseous fire suppression system activating as intended. From CCTV images in the report it was not the Hollywood-syle conflagration one might imagine from the article. Granted it would not be sensible to be nearby (and this is a specific hazard for fire crews), but this is not an issue that could not be designed- (or maintained/commissioned) out.

Hopefully that puts it in a bit of context. As I say, the fire service's reports are in the public domain for those who want to learn more.

For the record I have no connection with the site in question, although I do have an interest in the industry.

PS - As a point of fact this has nothing to do with "the hydrogen economy". The site has batteries only. They are, I presume, providing support services to National Grid, e.g. frequency response or balancing via arbitrage. The main alternative providers for this service are diesel generators running in standby...which of course also have an energy store and are also far slower to respond.