能源、气候与材料2024papers.ssrn.com
电池家用储能与一般住宅火灾的火灾风险评估比较
Fire risk assessment of battery home storage compared to general house fires
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：家用电池储能系统基础、锂电池安全常识、概率统计基础
导读
这篇论文评估家用电池储能系统的火灾风险，并与一般住宅火灾、燃油车/电动车、烘干机、光伏等其他火源比较。核心结论是电池储能起火概率较低，大致与烘干机相当，低于一般住宅火灾；但作者也提示概率低不等于后果轻，电池火灾的严重性取决于安装位置，且相关数据仍有较大不确定性。
HN 关注点：家庭储能和电动车普及背景下的锂电火灾概率、后果严重性及监管与数据可靠性。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 1 补充 2 亲历 1
支持结论是电池起火概率低，但严重性可能更高；评论者仍考虑光伏加储能。
文末结论是：家用电池储能或电动车起火的概率低于普通住宅火灾或燃油车；电池储能起火风险大致与烘干机相当。但电池在家中的安装位置会影响后果，一旦起火，严重程度可能高于其他家电火灾。作者原本担心结论会显示更高风险，读到风险低感到欣慰；不过也认为大容量锂电火灾可能很糟。他仍想装屋顶光伏，几年前觉得电池太贵，现在情况似乎在改变。
kelnos查看英文原文
To save others the clicking and scrolling (if you're mainly interested in the conclusion, as I was), the summary at the end says that the risk of fire starting in your battery energy storage (or in your EV) is lower than that of your average house fire (or in your ICE car). They liken the risk of a fire starting in the battery storage to that of fire starting in a clothes dryer. But, depending on the placement of your batteries in/around your home, the severity of a fire, if one should happen, could end up being worse than a fire that starts in some other household appliance. I was pleased to read that the risk of fire is reasonable and low; I wasn't sure what to expect, but was afraid the conclusion would be that they're higher-risk. I suppose I expected to see the result that a fire that included large batteries could be a much worse fire. Li ion battery fires can be pretty bad, and those batteries are much larger than what you'd find in your phone or other small electronics. I still would like to add rooftop solar to my house (even though California's metering system is all kinds of anti-rooftop-solar now). When I last looked into it a couple years ago, battery storage seemed like it was a little too pricey to be worth it, but it seems like that's been changing.
补充用平均间隔更直观，但概率不等于后果，锂电火灾后果和长期数据仍不确定。
按年化百分比很难直观理解，取倒数更清楚。论文给出的各类事件平均间隔：一般住宅火灾 360 年、燃油车火灾 1100 年、电动车火灾 4200 年、电池储能火灾 20000 年、烘干机火灾 27000 年、光伏系统火灾 71000 年（作者称电池储能的数据尤其不可靠）。但只看发生概率看不出致命性和破坏性；锂电池火灾两方面都很糟，和烘干机类比意义有限。电动车起火率虽低于燃油车，但对生命的危险未必更低；且电动车队年轻，老化故障率仍未知，未来可能上升也可能因电池改进下降。
lolc查看英文原文
I can't relate to per-year risk percentage numbers. But the inverse is quite illustrative I find. Here is the expected time between events for each category according to the paper: General house fire: 360 years ICE fire: 1100 years EV fire: 4200 years Battery storage fire: 20'000 years Tumble dryer fire: 27'000 years PV system fire: 71'000 years This way I can understand that while I might see my house burn, the battery storage is very unlikely to pop in my lifetime. Because these numbers are not very accurate anyway, I've rounded to two digits. The authors note that the number for battery storage in particular are very unreliable. On the other hand: just looking at probabilities of events does not tell you how lethal or destructive the event will be. And lithium fires are very bad in both categories. Comparing to tumble dryers is not very useful when you factor in the properties of the fire. Quite possibly the danger to life is higher with an EV compared to an ICE, even if the ICE is assumed to catch fire at four times the rate of the EV. In addition, the wear-out failure rate of EV is to be discovered yet, because the fleet is so young. The EV rate may still climb. Or maybe battery manufacturers improve and the danger will be reduced? Some things do get better after all!
亲历风险低但后果未知、缺乏处置经验和成熟规范，因此观望。
近十年附近有房子丙烷罐爆炸；调查发现按建筑规范丙烷罐离房子太近，新闻还说相当比例住宅丙烷罐位置不合规，很多预制房屋因没有传统融资而缺少同样检查，最终房子爆炸。家用电池系统起火风险可能更低，但后果未知。我经历过发动机、炉灶、油炸锅、火炉和烟囱起火，知道怎么应对；电池起火我完全不知道怎么处理。加上相关规范可能不够成熟、执行也不足，我宁愿先等等。
debacle查看英文原文
We had a home near us in the last decade where the propane tank exploded. I don't know the details, there are a lot of things that go into something like that happening, but one of the things found during the investigation was that, per the building code, the propane tank was too close to the house. The news went on to say that some non-trivial percentage of residential propane tanks were positioned in a way that wasn't up to code. Because most manufactured homes don't have traditional financing, they aren't subject to the same code inspections, yadda yadda, house goes boom. The risk of a fire with a home battery system might be lower, but the outcome is an unknown. I've had engines and stoves and fryers and furnaces and chimneys start on fire on me. I know how to deal with those things, even if they are scary. A battery fire, I have no idea how to deal with. Coupled with code standards that are probably not as mature as they should be, and may not see the enforcement they should, and I am content to wait.
补充认证监管是关键；NYC 电动自行车/滑板车充电火灾严重，建议改用 LFP 并强制认证。
这是德国的情况：有安全法规摘要，要求由认证实验室做安全测试。纽约消防局称锂离子电池火灾已是纽约火灾和火灾死亡的主要原因之一，并推动纽约市要求锂电池通过 UL 或等效测试；这对市内销售有效，但亚马逊上仍有假 UL 标签电池。纽约的大问题是公寓和商店里给电动自行车、滑板车充电，每年数百起且往往很严重，整家电单车店都爆炸过。在固态电池可负担前，这类产品应改用磷酸铁锂；还建议要求所有进口的含锂电池或带插头的产品通过 UL 或更高认证。
Animats查看英文原文
This is Germany. Here's a summary of the safety regulations.[1] Safety testing by an "accredited laboratory" is required.[2] The New York City Fire Department reports that lithium-ion battery fires are a leading cause of fires and fire deaths in NYC.[3] NYFD got the city to require UL or equivalent testing for lithium battery fires.[4] This is working for sales within NYC but Amazon is still selling batteries with fake UL stickers. NYC's big problem is e-bikes and scooters being charged in apartments and stores. Several hundred of those a year now, and they tend to be severe fires. Entire e-bike stores have blown up. Those things need to be lithium-iron phosphate until solid state batteries become affordable. (A good political move would be to get the incoming administration to require UL or better certification for anything imported that has a lithium-ion battery or a wall plug.) [1] https://www.batterietechnikum.kit.edu/downloads/Safety_Guidelines_Li-Ion_20150217(1).pdf [2] https://www.tuvsud.com/en-us/resource-centre/blogs/mobility-and-automotive/understanding-the-new-eu-battery-regulation [3] https://www.nyc.gov/site/fdny/news/Y40203/fdny-warns-lithium-ion-batteries-now-leading-cause-fires-fire-deaths-new-york [4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fdny-is-trying-to-curb-lithium-ion-battery-fires-but-online-sellers-may-be-putting-new-yorkers-at-risk/ar-AA1uL2pY
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
- 视频与演讲
历次讨论
- 2024Hacker News 讨论帖185 分 · 205 评
同领域还值得读
一种工程化 PET 解聚酶用于分解和回收塑料瓶
An engineered PET depolymerase to break down and recycle plastic bottles
通过蛋白质工程改造 PET 解聚酶，使其在较高温度下仍保持活性，从而更有效地把废弃 PET 瓶解聚为单体；随后再将单体重新聚合成符合工业强度、延展性和色泽标准的水瓶，展示了实验室…
能源、气候与材料2020 · 250 分 · 85 评专业 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选直射阳光下低于环境温度的被动辐射制冷 (2014)
Passive radiative cooling below ambient airtemperature under direct sun (2014)
这篇 Nature 论文（斯坦福 Fan 组，2014）展示了在直射阳光下实现低于环境气温的被动辐射制冷：用高反射率（约 95% 以上）的背面反射层配合二氧化硅等选择性发射结构，…
能源、气候与材料2021 · 145 分 · 66 评进阶 · 约 40 分钟编辑精选出现超出人类耐受极限的高温高湿天气
The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)
研究了全球范围内湿球温度（wet-bulb temperature）的观测记录，发现某些沿海地区已出现接近或超过 35°C 人类生存理论上限的高温高湿天气，比气候模型预测的时间更…
能源、气候与材料2020 · 570 分 · 509 评入门 · 约 45 分钟硬化木材：替代钢材与塑料的可再生材料
Hardened wood as a renewable alternative to steel and plastic
这篇发表在 Matter 上的论文提出一种“硬化木材”工艺：通过去除木质素并压缩等处理，使木材的硬度、强度大幅提升，号称可作为钢材和塑料的可再生替代品（据报道甚至可制成能切牛排的…
能源、气候与材料2021 · 315 分 · 274 评入门 · 约 45 分钟通过针对全球高污染电厂来减少 CO2 排放
Reducing CO2 emissions by targeting the world's hyper-polluting power plants
研究如何通过针对全球高污染发电厂来减少二氧化碳排放。
能源、气候与材料2021 · 289 分 · 219 评进阶 · 约 25 分钟