• homoludens@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Cegorach@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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.

    • mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Cegorach@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”

      • azdood85@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • vaultdweler13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure they don’t ship cars with gasoline in em, thats extra weight that doesnt need to be there let alone the fire hazard.

        The electric cars on the otherhand most likely have the batteries built into the fucking frame.

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tbh all cars have at least one battery. Or it might have been some order random accident that has nothing to do with the cargo. I think we need more info on this

          • vaultdweler13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            While that’s true I was more pointing out the falsehood in the other commentor, and while most cars have batteries lets not pretend a batter the size of a cinder block is the same as one the size of a mattress.

            • Cegorach@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              well that and it’s different chemistry (lead vs lithium)

              …aaaand EVs have those old lead-acid batteries too. (btw: we should finally ditch those for LiFePo or similar)

        • Noughmad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          This particular ship does. It’s essentially a giant ferry that new cars are driven on to, not loaded.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Necronomicommunist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        imagine a nationalized train system where you essentially own and park your own traincar. shit could be so efficient you could replace power lines and roads with one

    • Cegorach@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Kempeth@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So producing them and shipping them around the globe needs to be reduced dramatically. So that point still kinda stands?

        The supply side is the wrong place to tackle this problem though. If you limit the amount of new cars that may be produced, people will simply drive their older ones for longer.

        • HamBrick@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Driving an older car, and by extension not buying a newer car, decreases demand and would improve the amount of these cargo ships on the sea, thus lowering the opportunity for this to happen. I’m not sure if your comment was for or against people driving their older cars, but I think driving an older car is better than upgrading and buying a newer car

          • Kempeth@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            An older more polluting car migth not be the better option. But if the new car is one of those giant murde boxes then it’s not going to be an upgrade either.

  • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    …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?

    • anakronos@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gotta love the industrial-technological system. It really improves life for everyone!

    • oo1@kbin.social
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      a high concentration of large lithium batteries might make the fire a bit worse.
      so if this was 100% petrol cars, i think the risk and severity of fire is lower.

    • mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fewer shipments would be needed for more efficiently sized vehicles, so it would happen less.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cargo containers are a standardized sizes and they fit a certain number of cars, the only way to fit more is to make cars small enough that they’re simply unsafe in an accident.

        • mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Smaller cars are great. “Unsafe in an accident” is dependant on speed, and if you’re just driving in a city you don’t need a vehicle designed for highway speeds.

          Also other vehicles do exist.

  • Mandy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Calm your fucking tits david, you can say this shit about any export product to ever exist

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you? Bet a ship full of bikes wouldn’t burn like that and their ecological impact while in use wouldn’t be the same.

      • Mandy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So bikes are transported on little dingies and not giant oiltankers than?

  • Redex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.