The crew of the Morning Midas had to abandon ship in lifeboats off the coast of Alaska.
ship transporting 3,000 cars was abandoned in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday after a massive fire broke out. As of Friday, the ship was still burning. The blaze may have been fueled by the vehicles’ lithium-ion batteries, which are notoriously difficult to extinguish once ignited.
The ship, named Morning Midas, was reportedly carrying 3,000 cars on a journey from Yantai, China to Lázaro Cárdenas, Mexico. Of those vehicles, about 750 were fully electric or partial hybrids, powered at least in part by large lithium‑ion batteries that can short‑circuit and ignite extremely hot fires. Although the exact cause has yet to be determined, the Morning Midas crew reported smoke rising from the deck around midnight on Tuesday.
A representative from Zodiac Maritime, a UK-based ship manager overseeing the vessel, told The Register that the 22 sailors on board responded to the fire on Tuesday and attempted to extinguish it using the available onboard fire suppression systems. It wasn’t enough. As the blaze grew out of control, the crew reportedly issued a distress call and abandoned the ship in lifeboats. A nearby merchant vessel responded and rescued all 22 sailors, according to a statement released by the U.S. Coast Guard.
As for the Morning Midas, it remains afloat and burning in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, approximately 304 miles south of Adak, Alaska. It’s unclear what makes or models of cars were aboard—or whether any of them will be recoverable.
In a statement sent to Popular Science, Zodiac Maritime said the decision was made to prioritize safety crew and abandon the vessel due to the intensity of the fire. Zodiac has appointed salvage company Resolve Marine to respond to the ongoing fire. A separate team of salvage specialists are expected to arrive on the scene by June 9. Zodiac says it’s continuing to monitor the Midas’ status via its onboard satellite-connected systems.
“As the search and rescue portion of our response concludes, our crews are working closely with the vessel’s manager, Zodiac Maritime, to determine the disposition of the vessel,” US Coast Guard Seventeenth District Commander Rear Admiral Megan Dean said in a statement. “We are grateful for the selfless actions of the three nearby vessels who assisted in the response and the crew of motor vessel Cosco Hellas, who helped save 22 lives.”
What makes EV battery fires so hard to put out
You’ve likely seen images of firefighters struggling to put out fires in Teslas and other large EVs. While EVs are statistically less likely to catch fire than vehicles with internal combustion engines, the fires that do occur are significantly more difficult to extinguish. That’s due to a phenomenon known as thermal runaway. The large lithium-ion batteries that power EVs can short-circuit, triggering a chain reaction that eventually leads to ignition.
Thermal runaway can take days, or even weeks, to manifest. But once ignited, these fires burn much hotter than those caused by traditional internal combustion engines. They can also reignite after being extinguished, making them especially challenging for firefighters to manage.
Cargo ships are a perfect breeding ground for potentially dangerous fires. They’re often tightly packed with vehicles and have limited ventilation, meaning a fire in one vehicle can quickly spread to others. And while ships are typically equipped with some firefighting systems, those measures may be insufficient once a blaze spreads across multiple vehicles.
In 2022, a cargo ship transporting 4,000 vehicles caught fire in the Atlantic Ocean and eventually sank. Just a year later, another ship carrying around 3,000 vehicles caught fire off the Dutch coast. That incident killed one person and injured several others.
EV batteries are getting safer
Carmakers and battery suppliers are making efforts to improve the durability and reduce the risk of lithium ion fires. Just this week, Texas-based Alkegen, a major supplier of cell spacers used in batteries, announced commercial production of a new type of aerogel insulation they say can protect EV batteries from thermal runaway. Other companies have made improvements in monitoring systems to keep tabs on a battery’s health and more intelligent charging protocols that prevent damage from occurring from overcharging.
Even with those improvements though, the sheer scale of new EVs being shipped to meet increasing global demand means fires, either on ships or out on streets, aren’t likely to go away anytime soon.
An interesting article, and after reading that it is full of EV’s, one wonders if the ‘Environmentalists’ who purchase such vehicles ‘To save the planet’, will now loudly protest about the ‘Pollution’ that this ‘major fire’ is creating, and if they don’t, why not?
If (As I suspect) there will be a ‘Deafening silence’ about this ‘extremely polluting’ fire, it will then be interesting to watch how such individuals attempt to justify that stand, while still presenting themselves as the climate ‘saviours’ acting on behalf of the common man.
Popcorn anyone?.
Komata:—
Not if, but when the ship goes down, there will be enough Olympic size pools per car of water to put the fires out.
One would think there is enough thermo-reactivity plus water to power a steam electricity generating turbine for some time.
After that would it prove that prove the battery concept is not sustainable despite being Net Zero.???
Sort of like here in New Zealand when the “Gulf Livestock 1” when it main engine went down, for whatever reason which led to the ship being capsized by a big wave caused by a typhoon in the East China Sea which drowned all but 2 of the crew.
It seemed to become a big celebratory ‘song & dance’ was about the unfortunate drowning of 6,000 cows. on the way to China, where a crises was to be used to stop all livestock transport of animals from New Zealand.
New Zealand did this by that MPI which already had very detailed robust checks and balances in place to ensure the welfare of livestock.
But the push was to strengthen parts of the Animal Welfare Export Certificate (AWEC) process, so further new requirements for the safe transport of livestock by sea were put demanded & put in place.
That ship had a history of being flagged for deficiencies which was one of the real problems.
….. the 18 months prior to the Gulf Livestock 1 sinking, Indonesian and Australian authorities recorded dozens of safety breaches aboard the ship, including critical failures of its propulsion and navigations systems, …..
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/480511/gulf-livestock-1-abc-investigation-reveals-history-of-concerns-over-ship-before-fatal-sinking
Then there is what was behind the Captain’s reasoning to not change course & steer away from the typhoon,
To be a fly on the wall, of just what correspondence, radio, emails, texts, demands? to & from the owners of the vessel & the Captain seems to be never looked into?
Particularly when the Captain & Chief Engineer would have known about some of these problems, so would have been even more regard to the weather & seas & baby that ship.
https://filipinotimes.net/latest-news/2020/09/05/pinoy-captain-of-missing-cargo-in-japan-ship-due-to-come-home-to-meet-4-month-old-son-for-the-first-time/
—— ——- ——-
Surely all ev owners are required to check on the suitability of how their vehicle is transported !
Like how the minerals, like cobalt, lithium, etc is mined with sustainability? …yeah right …
As the supposed consumer, as the customer is always right & how we are told, the by the mantra & meme, the consumer demands all of the “this & thats”.
…… yeah right …. just a self important virtuous circle.
After all, shipping is supposed to get down Net Zero Carbon emissions & have all those feelz too, but some how, at some stage there will be further consequences.
When the crew abandoned ship, why did the crew not open the valves and sink it.
The fires not going out and the are just delaying the inevitable.
Mind you a couple of torpedoes, wouldn’t goes amiss now.
Removing a “hazard” at sea, is a duty, & good reason for a torpedo.
At this stage it has lighting by fire at night-time & the smoke for daytime, and as high enough above sea-level for eyesight & radar to make other shipping to be well aware of plus many radio alerts. ; unless sleeping while on watch.
However which has the go ahead, to have a good burn out to the air pollution, not only from the batteries, and the bunker oil
As the sea luvvie duvvies will complain out about the oil seepage and how it effects the environment ecological niches of marine life.
No one is complaining about all the explosive volatility from the armaments & munitions making conspicuous amounts of hot smoke, being supplied to the Ukraine.
If it’s sailing from China to Mexico and it’s now ‘off the coast of Alaska’, has it drifted a long way or was the journey made by hugging the coastline around the Pacific?
Ocean currents are a factor when choosing routes for cargo ships. Even a 1.5 knot favourable current saves a lot of fuel when compared with the effort required to sail against it. A rum line (shortest distance) is not always the quickest or cheapest.
The northern Pacific, like the southern, is comparable to a huge washing machine. In the north the currents run parallel along the equator then head up towards Japan then across to Canada & down to Mexico. The southern equivalent is the “roaring 40s” which flow below NZ towards Chile.
It’s the quickest way. If you look at a globe and measure it with a piece of string, it’s quicker than what it looks like on a flat map..
When travelling around the world, the shortest distance is not always the fastest
Excellent come. The more the merrier.
Ship full of ev’s so thats 3000 cars, but only 750 where ev or hybrid? Well thats a waste of petrol cars the whole lot needed to be ev. In saying that modern cars are just junk anyway