Are EVs Really the Main Fire Risk on Car Carriers?
The data says no. EU Lash Fire research finds EV fires no more frequent or severe than ICE — the real car-carrier exposure is detection, not powertrain.
No — the evidence does not support battery-electric vehicles being the dominant fire risk on car carriers. EU-funded Lash Fire research and IUMI's own position find EV fires no more frequent, and no more severe by total heat release, than conventional-vehicle fires. The car-carrier exposure that keeps producing total losses is detection and suppression on enclosed decks, regardless of what is parked there.
What the research actually shows
IUMI's position, set out by Secretary-General Lars Lange in September 2023, is blunt: 'fires in battery EVs are not more dangerous than fires in conventional vehicles, nor are they more frequent.' It draws on the EU-funded Lash Fire project, the Danish Institute of Fire and Security Technology, and NFPA data, which found fewer fires from EVs than from conventional vehicles over the same distance driven, and no increase in total heat released versus an ICE-vehicle fire.
Then why do the headline casualties involve EVs?
Because the recent total losses carried large vehicle counts where EV presence was visible and quotable, not because EVs were proven as the dominant cause. Morning Midas sank in the North Pacific on 23 June 2025 after a three-week fire, carrying about 3,000 vehicles including roughly 800 EVs and hybrids. Fremantle Highway burned in July 2023 with 3,783 vehicles aboard, 498 of them battery-electric. Felicity Ace was lost in 2022 with around 4,000 vehicles and an estimated cargo value above $400 million. In several of these, the cause was never conclusively pinned to an EV.
What does change with a higher EV mix
The fire-frequency case for EVs is reassuring; the suppression case is not. A lithium-ion fire in thermal runaway resists conventional agents, can reignite hours later, and produces an off-gas phase before flame that fixed deck detectors are not built to catch. So the operational shift is not 'EVs burn more' — it is that the established suppression playbook, written around ICE fires, fits the lithium-ion failure mode poorly. That is a detection-and-response problem, and it applies to a deck whether its EV share is 5% or 30%.
What it means for owners and underwriters
For shipowners, the takeaway is to stop arguing about powertrain percentages and invest in earlier detection and EV-appropriate suppression — the variables that actually move loss outcomes. For underwriters, the Lash Fire evidence undercuts blanket EV surcharges but reinforces pricing on detection capability: the rateable difference is whether a vessel can catch a developing fire in its pre-smoke window, not how many EVs are on the manifest.
Sources
- 1. IUMI / Lars Lange on EV vs ICE fire risk, citing EU Lash Fire project, Danish Institute of Fire and Security Technology, NFPA (September 2023) — maritime-executive.com
- 2. Morning Midas — ~3,000 vehicles incl. ~800 EV/hybrid, sank 23 June 2025 ~360 nm off Alaska — gcaptain.com, maritime-executive.com
- 3. Fremantle Highway (3,783 vehicles / 498 BEVs, 2023) and Felicity Ace (~$400M cargo, 2022) — Dutch Safety Board/EMSA, commercial.allianz.com, gcaptain.com
Questions, answered
Are electric vehicles more likely to catch fire on a car carrier than petrol or diesel cars?+
On the available evidence, no. The EU-funded Lash Fire project and data cited by IUMI found fewer fires from EVs than from conventional vehicles over the same distance driven, and no increase in total heat released versus an ICE-vehicle fire. The dominant car-carrier risk is early detection and suppression on enclosed decks, not the powertrain mix.
If EVs aren't more dangerous, why were recent car-carrier total losses linked to them?+
Largely because those ships carried visible, quotable EV counts — Morning Midas (~800 EV/hybrid of ~3,000 vehicles, 2025), Fremantle Highway (498 BEVs of 3,783, 2023). In several cases the cause was never conclusively pinned to an EV. The losses reflect how hard any vehicle fire is to contain on a full enclosed deck, not proof that EVs were the cause.
So does a higher EV share change anything for a car carrier?+
Yes, but on the suppression side, not frequency. A lithium-ion fire in thermal runaway resists conventional agents, can reignite hours later, and emits off-gas before flame that fixed deck detectors miss. The established ICE-oriented suppression playbook fits this failure mode poorly, which is a detection-and-response issue regardless of whether EV share is 5% or 30%.
What should underwriters take from the Lash Fire findings?+
That blanket EV surcharges are hard to justify on fire-frequency grounds, but detection capability is rateable. The meaningful difference between two vessels is whether each can catch a developing fire in its pre-smoke window and suppress a lithium-ion event, not how many EVs appear on the manifest.
Continue the thread
What Causes EV Fires in RoRo Ships?
The headline answer is "lithium-ion batteries." The operational answer is more useful — five compounding factors that turn an unremarkable fault into a casualty.
The EV-Percentage Tipping Point Nobody Wants to Quote
Public statements from operators talk about "mixed cargo" — internally the conversation is about a hard percentage above which sailings should be re-routed. That number is moving.
Multi-Modal Sensor Fusion — Temperature, Gas, Smoke as One Decision
Each sensor modality has different blind spots. Multi-modal fusion is not a buzzword — it is the only architecture that survives the marine failure modes.