Friday, October 08, 2021

Fire tests show that Austria's tunnels are fit for electric cars

Business Announcement

GRAZ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Electric Vehicle Fire in Tunnel 

IMAGE: ONE OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL FIRE TESTS: IF AN E-VEHICLE BURNS IN THE TUNNEL, IT BECOMES HOTTER, BUT NOT FUNDAMENTALLY MORE DANGEROUS IN THE TUNNEL. view more 

CREDIT: © LUNGHAMMER - TU GRAZ

The actual potential danger in the event of an accident with an e-car is still relatively unknown, but unsettling images of e-vehicles on fire are already widespread. We know that the energy storage systems of e-vehicles based on lithium-ion technology behave differently than conventional car engines in the event of a fire. But what exactly happens when e-vehicles catch fire in a tunnel? How hot does it get and what gases are produced? What dangers are there for people who are in the tunnel at the time of the accident? What risks are emergency personnel exposed to? What damage is there to the tunnel infrastructure? And what is the most efficient way for fire services to extinguish a burning e-vehicle in a tunnel?

In the FFG-funded project "BRAFA – Fire Effects of Vehicles with Alternative Drive Systems", Graz University of Technology (TU Graz), the University of Leoben, the Austrian Fire Brigade Association and the consulting firm ILF Consulting Engineers Austria, supported by ASFINAG and the Federal Ministry for Climate Protection, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology, investigated the safety-relevant effects of fires involving battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in road tunnels and evaluated methods for fighting fires. The results of the comprehensive experimental and numerical investigations provide valuable insights, but above all one thing: reassurance. On the basis of these investigations, the potential risks are not to be assessed as significantly more critical than in the case of fires in passenger cars with conventional combustion engines. "Austrian tunnel systems are fit enough for the challenges posed by burning e-vehicles," concludes Peter Sturm, professor at the Institute of Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics at TU Graz.

"However, our results indicate a significantly increased potential risk of e-vehicle fires in multistorey car parks (essentially indoor stacked car parks). And there is also an urgent need for more funding for further investigations into tunnel fires involving battery-electric commercial vehicles, i.e. e-buses and e-trucks."

Burning new cars in "Zentrum am Berg"

While the previous state of knowledge was based on tunnel fire tests with individual battery cells and small battery packs, and the potential risk of entire burning cars was derived from this, the project team gained new knowledge from large-scale real fire tests for the first time.
In the new tunnel research centre "Zentrum am Berg" of the University of Leoben (director: Robert Galler, Professor of Subsurface Engineering), battery modules as well as three electrically powered and two diesel-powered vehicles were deliberately set on fire. The vehicles – compact cars, SUVs and vans – were partly new cars built in 2020 and equipped with the latest lithium-ion battery technology available on the market.

Researchers and the fire brigade initially found themselves in a conflict of interests during the project's fire tests. The fire brigade wanted to extinguish the deliberately caused fires as quickly as possible, whereas the researchers were concerned with collecting data during the fire. As a compromise solution, extinguishing attempts were only started after an unhindered fire time of ten minutes. "That is also roughly the escape time and the time until the emergency services arrive. We were able to gain valuable data in those first ten minutes, after that it was the fire brigade's turn," says Peter Sturm.

CAPTION

In the course of the project, the fire brigade was able to test different extinguishing methods for burning e-vehicles in tunnels.

CREDIT

© Lunghammer - TU Graz


Heat release and fire gas emissions

More than 30 temperature sensors were used to measure the heat release rate, i.e. the fire load of a vehicle. The fire load of a conventional car is around 5 megawatts (MW), or roughly equivalent to a burning stack of 25 wooden pallets. The heat release rate of the burning e-vehicles in the tunnel, at 6 to 7 MW, was somewhat higher than that of the diesel-powered comparison vehicles, but this does not entail any new risks or dangers. In comparison, the fire load of a conventional truck is around 30 MW – and tunnel systems are also designed for this. "It does get a little bit warmer when e-vehicles burn, but it doesn't make it fundamentally more dangerous in the tunnel. The measured temperatures in the escape area are below the 60 degree Celsius limit for all fire tests. It's not a pleasant temperature, but escaping and firefighting are still possible," sums up Peter Sturm.

The only exception is if there is a spontaneous reaction in which the entire battery is fully on fire at once, a noticeably higher heat release of up to 10 MW can be expected over a few minutes. "However, we deliberately induced this spontaneous reaction in order to be able to investigate this worst case scenario. In the real case, a so-called thermal runaway occurs in the battery, in which the overheating and the fire spread from one cell to the next like a chain reaction. That's why such battery fires also last a long time," reports Peter Sturm.

Emitted gases and heavy metals were also the focus of the project and were collected and measured using targeted air extraction and suspended fleece blankets. Additionally, higher amounts of hydrogen fluoride and carbon monoxide were detected in the fires of the e-vehicles. "However, the thermally induced smoke stratification in the tunnel causes these highly concentrated fire gases to collect predominantly in upper areas of the tunnel and thus outside the area relevant to humans. This means that the escape routes are not affected," explains Peter Sturm. But as an afterthought: "A large part of the comparatively low risk in road tunnels is due to the ventilation systems. These do not exist in multistorey car parks, for example, or at least not to a comparable extent. This means that fires involving e-vehicles in garages are a different matter in terms of danger and urgently need to be investigated more closely. In any case, our measurement results indicate a serious hazard."

CAPTION

Project manager Peter Sturm is responsible for the area of "Transport and Environment" at the Institute of Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics at TU Graz.

CREDIT

© Lunghammer - TU Graz


Risk assessment and tunnel infrastructure

Since the "Turismo" risk model currently used in Austria, like models in other countries, completely excludes the fire of battery-electric vehicles, the safety risk for people in the tunnel was also calculated as part of the project. Bernhard Kohl from the project partner responsible for risk analyses determined that in the extreme case – i.e. when there are only electric vehicles in the tunnel – the overall risk increases by about 4 per cent, and the fire risk by about 12 per cent compared to 100 per cent combustion engines. However, it must be taken into account here that it is difficult to derive general conclusions on the basis of these few fire tests. For the structure and materials of the tunnel structure, the drive type of the burning vehicle makes no relevant difference. Concrete damage due to spalling is to be expected in fires of commercial vehicles in both vehicle categories; the damage pattern is roughly the same.

Fire fighting and contaminated extinguishing water

As part of the fire experiments, the Austrian Fire Brigade Association tested various extinguishing methods. Conventional firefighting with water worked best. "Water is the extinguishing agent of choice because of its very good cooling effect. However, experience shows that with lithium-ion batteries, fire extinguishing only becomes successful when the water can reach the inside of the battery. External cooling of an only marginally damaged battery is hardly effective. Previous operations have shown that the extinguishing time and the extinguishing agent requirement increase and several 1000 litres of extinguishing water may be required. If necessary, the emergency services have to use the extinguishing water available in the tunnels," says Stefan Krausbar of the Austrian Fire Brigade Association.

Flame-smothering extinguishing blankets do not add any value from the moment the fire spreads to the battery. The reason for this is the strong flames near the ground, which make it extremely difficult to cover the entire vehicle tightly with the fire blanket and the oxygen self-sufficiency of the battery. The use of extinguishing lances that inject water directly into the battery housing, on the other hand, has proven to be very effective. However, handling the lances is complicated and not without danger, so this method requires special training for the emergency services.

The extinguishing water used to fight the fire showed increased heavy metal contamination, especially with nickel. "It therefore goes without saying that the contaminated extinguishing water collected in the retention basin is more expensive to dispose of," says Günter Rattei from ASFINAG.

Further fire tests with commercial vehicles urgently needed

Despite the many lessons learned, project leader Peter Sturm emphasizes that further research is more than desirable. "The project budget of 250,000 euros left us very little room for manoeuvre." The fire effects of battery-electric commercial vehicles – buses and trucks – could thus only be scaled up by means of numerical simulations based on assumptions about fire development, fire duration and pollutant release. There is currently no robust metrological verification for these assumptions. Comprehensive fire experiments in large-scale tests would therefore significantly improve the quality of the information. The same applies to the concrete danger of electric vehicle fires in multistorey car parks. "Despite all the joy about the advance of alternative drive systems, such safety-relevant 'homework' must not be neglected," says Peter Sturm, appealing to legislation and research funding.

###

At TU Graz, this research is anchored in the Field of Expertise "Mobility & Production", one of five strategic research foci.

BRAFA – Brandauswirkungen von Fahrzeugen mit alternativen Antriebssystemen (06/2019 to 09/2021)

Project partner:

  • TU Graz | Institute of Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics (Lead)
  • TU Graz | Vehicle Safety Institute
  • ILF Consulting Engineers Austria GmbH
  • Austrian Federal Fire Brigade Association
  • University of Leoben | Department Zentrum am Berg

Funding bodies and professional support:
FFG | BMK | ASFINAG

1 in 3 Americans might consider abolishing or limiting Supreme Court, Annenberg survey finds


Reports and Proceedings

ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Public opinion on the Supreme Court (1 of 2) 

IMAGE: SURVEY SHOWING THE RESPONSE (AGREE/DISAGREE) TO THE STATEMENT: "IF THE SUPREME COURT STARTED MAKING A LOT OF RULINGS THAT MOST AMERICANS DISAGREED WITH, IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO DO AWAY WITH THE COURT ALTOGETHER." SOURCE: ANNENBERG CIVICS KNOWLEDGE SURVEY, SEPT. 7-12, 2021, AND PRIOR YEARS. view more 

CREDIT: SOURCE: ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER

As the Supreme Court’s fall term begins, a new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania finds that more than a third of Americans say they might be willing to abolish the Supreme Court or have Congress limit its jurisdiction if the court were to make decisions they or Congress disagreed with.

The nationally representative survey conducted in September found sharp increases in the proportion of Americans willing to consider getting rid of or reining in the nation’s highest court.

The survey found that 34% of Americans said “it might be better to do away with the court altogether” if it “started making a lot of rulings that most Americans disagreed with.” And 38% said that when Congress disagrees with the court’s decisions, “Congress should pass legislation saying the Supreme Court can no longer rule on that issue or topic.”

“Respect for judicial independence appears to be eroding,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC). “The willingness of more than 1 in 3 Americans to entertain the idea of abolishing the court or stripping jurisdiction from it is alarming.”

The findings are consistent with trends in other recent surveys that posed related questions. Gallup reported in September that the Supreme Court’s approval rating plunged to 40%, a new low, from 49% in July. A Marquette Law School Poll in September found the court’s approval rating falling to 49% from 60% in July.

The Annenberg Civics Knowledge Survey was conducted September 7-12, 2021, among 1,008 U.S. adults. The survey was conducted for APPC by SSRS, an independent research company, and has a margin of error of ± 4.0 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Additional details and the questions are in the Appendix.

A turbulent year

The findings follow a contentious year with increased media coverage of the powers, functions, and prerogatives of the three branches of government. Among the past year’s events were a pandemic in which legislatures and courts grappled with health and safety restrictions; a disputed election and unsuccessful efforts to overturn the results in the courts, including the Supreme Court; and Supreme Court rulings on controversial issues, including a ruling that rejected efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and the court’s refusal to review the Covid-19 vaccine mandate for students and employees at Indiana University. Just before the September survey was fielded, the Supreme Court refused, 5-4, to block a Texas law restricting abortion access.

In recent months, four justices have made public statements defending the independence of the court. One justice, Stephen Breyer, was nominated by a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, and three by Republicans: Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, who were nominated by President George H.W. Bush, and Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by President Donald Trump.

In September, following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Texas abortion law, Barrett appeared before an audience in Kentucky at the 30th anniversary of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she said, according to the Louisville Courier Journal. “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” she added.

‘Do away with’ the Supreme Court

Abolish the court: One-third of respondents (34%) strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “If the Supreme Court started making a lot of rulings that most Americans disagreed with, it might be better to do away with the Court altogether.” That is a significant increase from the last time we asked this question, in 2019, when 20% agreed. From 2005 to 2018, those who agreed ranged from 17% to 23%.

Jurisdiction stripping: 38% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “When Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decisions, Congress should pass legislation saying the Supreme Court can no longer rule on that issue or topic.” That is significantly higher than the 28% who agreed when the question was asked in 2018. The response was 22% to 23% from 2007 to 2013.

What motivates Supreme Court justices

Personal and political views: Asked to think about individual Supreme Court justices, 59% of Americans said the justices set aside their personal and political views and make rulings based on the Constitution, the law, and the facts of the case. That is about the same as in 2020 (56%), and significantly higher than in 2019 (49%).

Party leanings: Over a third of Americans (37%) say that justices are more likely to make rulings that reflect the political leanings of the presidents who nominate them – that justices nominated by Democratic presidents are more likely to make liberal rulings and justices nominated by Republicans are more likely to make conservative rulings, regardless of the Constitution, the law, and the facts of the case. The response is about the same as in the prior two years.

Civics knowledge and the high court

 

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Constitution Day Civics Survey, part 1 of this Civics Knowledge Survey, which was conducted in August and released in advance of Constitution Day (September 17), found that a growing number of Americans correctly named the three branches of government and the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. This year, 56% of Americans named all three branches, which is a new high in the survey and significantly higher than the 51% in 2020 and 39% in 2019.

But the survey also found that a sizable number of Americans misunderstood other basic facts about government. While 61% knew that when the Supreme Court rules 5-4 in a case “the decision is the law and needs to be followed,” a third of respondents (34%) said the decision is either sent back to the federal court of appeals to be decided or to Congress for reconsideration.

An analysis of the Supreme Court survey data by Ken Winneg, Ph.D., APPC’s managing director of survey research, finds that taking a high school civics course has a significant indirect effect on protecting the Supreme Court. Using path modeling, we found that people who said they took a high school civics course are more likely to have higher levels of civics knowledge. Those who have higher levels of civics knowledge are more likely to disagree with statements calling for abolishing the court or having Congress strip the court of some of its jurisdiction.

This analysis is compatible with findings reported in a 2008 article by Jamieson and Bruce Hardy in the journal Daedalus, which found that high school civics predicts increased knowledge; increased knowledge predicts increased trust in the judiciary; and with increased trust comes “a heightened disposition to protect judges from impeachment for popular rulings and the judiciary from stripped jurisdiction. Trust also increased the belief that the Supreme Court should be retained in the face of unpopular rulings.”

Full data for the survey is in the Appendix.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

 

Health care spending for working Americans reaches all time high

















Per-person spending reached $6,000 in 2019, driven predominantly by price increases

Reports and Proceedings

HEALTH CARE COST INSTITUTE

WASHINGTON (October 5, 2020) — Average annual health care spending for individuals with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) rose 2.9% to $6,001 per person in 2019, according to the Health Care Cost Institute’s annual Health Care Cost and Utilization Report. Between 2015 and 2019 spending increased by 21.8% or $1,074 per person. While prices continued to grow each year, utilization of health care services declined slightly in 2019, leading to slower year-to-year spending growth.

“While most of the world’s focus appropriately remains on the COVID-19 pandemic, the fact remains that health care spending in the US continues to grow at unsustainable rates” said Niall Brennan, president and CEO of HCCI. “Unit price increases continue to drive increases in spending. Hospital prices increased by almost 31% from 2015-2019, leading to a 14.4% increase in spending despite a 12.5% decline in hospital utilization.”

Despite recent increases in use, changes in the mix of services, and demographic shifts, rising prices remain the primary driver of spending growth between 2015 and 2019 - responsible for nearly two-thirds of total per-person spending growth.

The report examines four groups of health care services. Of the four major categories, outpatient visits saw the highest spending increase from 2015 to 2019 (31.4%). Other notable trends include:

  • Professional services.
    • Spending per person increased 14.8% over 5 years.
    • Prices increased 10.5% while the utilization of professional services increased 3.9% over 5 years.
  • Inpatient spending.
    • Spending per person on inpatient admissions rose 14.4% between 2015 and 2019, though the 2019 spending growth was lower than previous years due to declining utilization.
    • Prices for inpatient admissions grew 30.8% over 5 years, the highest price increase of any service category.
  • Outpatient
    • Increases in prices and use led to a 31.4% increase in spending over 5 years.
    • Prices increased 22.5% while the utilization increased 7.3% over 5 years.
  • Prescription Drugs
    • Spending on prescription drugs increased 28.4% over 5 years.
    • Prescription drugs was the only service category that saw utilization grow faster than prices from 2015 to 2019. Point-of-sale prices for prescription drugs increased 13.0% while utilization increased 13.6% over five years.

Out-of-pocket spending increased $91 per person over 5 years. Half of the out-of-pocket spending in 2019 was for professional services. Study authors stressed that the analysis does not consider other potential out-of-pocket costs related to health care.


Methodology. Since 2011, HCCI has tracked, independently analyzed, and reported health care spending, utilization, and prices each year in its Health Care Cost and Utilization Report, using deidentified claims data of people up to age 65 with employer-sponsored health insurance. HCCI analyzed data from more than 2.5 billion medical and prescription drug claims for approximately 55 million individuals annually between 2015 and 2019. Claims data come from CVSHealth/Aetna, Humana, and Blue Health Intelligence — representing one-third of the employer-sponsored insured population. Measures of drug spending reflect discounts negotiated from the wholesale price of drugs but do not include manufacturer rebates that are provided through separate transactions. Thus, drug prices reflect the point-of-sale prices. Nationally, Black and Hispanic populations are underrepresented in employer-sponsored insurance. The racial and ethnic distribution of the population in HCCI’s data is similar to the national employer-sponsored insurance population, as such health care spending and use among these individuals are likely under-represented in the findings in this report.


###


About the Health Care Cost Institute
The Health Care Cost Institute’s mission is to get to the heart of the key issues impacting the U.S. health care system — by using the best data to get the best answers. HCCI stands for truth and consensus around the most important trends in health care, particularly those economic issues that are critical to a sustainable, high-performing health system. Launched in 2011, HCCI currently holds one of the largest databases for the commercially insured population, and in 2014 became the first national Qualified Entity (QE) entitled to hold Medicare data. Academic and government researchers interested in licensing our commercial data can learn more at https://healthcostinstitute.org/dataaccess-hub. For more information, visit healthcostinstitute.org or follow us on Twitter @healthcostinst.



When a free cancer check finds something, could cost keep patients from following up?


Two new studies show potential out-of-pocket costs for tests in patients after initial screening for lung and cervical cancer

Peer-Reviewed Publication

MICHIGAN MEDICINE - UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Eleven years ago this month, the scans and exams that hold the most power to spot the early signs of cancer became available for free to many American adults.

Now, two new studies show that when those screening tests reveal potentially troubling signs, patients could face hundreds of dollars in costs for follow-up tests.

The studies, by teams from the University of Michigan and Duke University, could inform efforts to ensure that patients follow up on abnormal test results and don’t delay care due to cost. Such delays could lead to cancer going undiagnosed and progressing, potentially leading to worse patient outcomes and high medical costs.

The studies look at out-of-pocket costs billed to older adults who had CT scans to screen for lung cancer, and to women after an abnormal Pap smear or cervical exam.  

The first paper, led by radiologists Tina Tailor, M.D., from Duke and Ruth Carlos, M.D., M.S. of U-M’s Michigan Medicine, looks at what patients were billed for the lung biopsies and other invasive procedures used to follow up on an abnormal lung CT scan. It’s published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.

In all, 7.4% of the patients who had a lung cancer screening CT went on to have at least one follow-up invasive procedure. While 20% of this group was diagnosed with lung cancer, the rate of procedures “downstream” of the screening CT is higher than what was seen in the clinical trials of this type of screening. Such studies established the value of lung CT screening in certain older adults and led to no-cost access in 2013.

Over half of the patients who had a procedure after their lung scan were asked to pay something, sometimes hundreds or even thousands of dollars out of their own pockets. Forty percent paid nothing for their follow-up care.

Now that more American adults are eligible for free lung cancer screening, due to new evidence about its ability to spot disease early, the authors say insurers may want to consider ways to reduce the cost burden on those with abnormal scans who need follow-up care to determine if cancer is present.

The second paper, published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology by a team led by U-M internal medicine professor A. Mark Fendrick, M.D., and OB-GYN assistant professor Michelle Moniz, M.D., M.Sc., looks at what women paid out of their own pockets for a type of cervical exam called colposcopy. Conducted after a Pap smear, HPV test or routine cervical exam gives abnormal results, a colposcopy can include a biopsy or other procedures.

Women who had a colposcopy without further procedures paid an average of $112, while those who had cells taken for further examination paid $155 on average. Those who had further procedures faced hundreds of dollars more in costs -- and this out-of-pocket cost rose sharply during the 13 years studied. By 2019, a woman who had additional care beyond a biopsy could expect to face a total bill of nearly $1,000.

“Costs much lower than these have been shown to prevent women from obtaining recommended healthcare,” said Moniz. “So it is high time we consider eliminating financial barriers to recommended care to prevent cancer.”

“The Affordable Care Act requires enhanced preventive care coverage for over 150 million Americans, including initial screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer.” said Fendrick.  “Since screening for these cancers often requires multiple steps, health insurers should remove barriers that may create financial hardship or deter an individual from completing the screening process.”

Carlos, Fendrick and Moniz are members of the U-M Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation. Fendrick directs the Center for Value-Based Insurance Design.