In the first half of 2026, there were 15 consecutive fires involving energy storage systems worldwide—how can we break the deadlock on energy-storage safety?
Release time:
2026-08-31
Since 2026, a wave of energy‑storage safety incidents has repeatedly made headlines worldwide, spanning diverse settings such as large‑scale power stations, commercial and industrial installations, residential storage systems, logistics and warehousing facilities, data centers, and research laboratories. The key to addressing energy‑storage fires lies in shifting from “reactive post‑incident firefighting” to “end‑to‑end, source‑level prevention.” By integrating three pillars—material‑intrinsic safety, multi‑layered technical safeguards, and robust regulatory implementation—we can establish a closed‑loop solution that fundamentally mitigates fire risks.
July 21, 2026, In the heart of Bautzen, Saxony, Germany A 1.5-megawatt lithium‑battery containerized energy storage facility experienced a sudden fire, adding another incident to this year’s global string of energy‑storage safety concerns. According to a city spokesperson, the system consists of lithium‑battery units housed in four containers, with a total capacity of 1.5 megawatts. The cause of the fire remains undetermined, and authorities have contacted the facility’s owner.
This accident is highly representative, Affected by the unique characteristics of lithium batteries—thermal runaway and a tendency to reignite— Firefighters were unable to extinguish the flames in the usual manner and could only continuously cool the equipment and contain the hazard by applying 5,000 liters of water per minute. , while also leveraging drones for round-the-clock fire monitoring.
Since 2026, a spate of energy-storage safety incidents has dominated headlines worldwide, spanning diverse settings such as large-scale power plants, commercial and industrial installations, residential systems, logistics and warehousing facilities, data centers, and research laboratories.
Since the beginning of 2026, 15 energy-storage-related incidents have occurred, with details as follows:
This series of incidents spans diverse settings, including large-scale power plants, commercial and industrial facilities, residential systems, transportation and warehousing, data centers, and research laboratories. It is evident that today’s energy‑storage safety risks are no longer confined to a single piece of equipment or a single application; rather, they are distributed across multiple links, sectors, and the entire lifecycle. As a result, conventional industry‑wide safety‑management approaches can no longer adequately address the current complex risk landscape.
01 Lead-acid batteries, the oft-dismissed “traditional killer”
Many people believe that lead-acid battery technology is mature and its risks are manageable, but the cases of Global Switch and NorthC demonstrate that potential hazards often arise at the implementation level:
>>> Ventilation design is virtually ineffective: Although regulations mandate ventilation, the proportion of ventilation systems that are actually operating effectively remains low.
>>> Hydrogen detection is merely a formality: The detector is installed arbitrarily, making it difficult to trigger an alarm at the very first sign of a hazardous concentration.
>>> IT operations fatigue has become the norm: The environmental monitoring system lacks sufficient accuracy in online measurement of parameters such as internal resistance, and frequent false alarms have led to operator fatigue.
As a result, everything that should be in place is indeed there, but the actual implementation falls far short.
02 Lithium batteries: an “internal fire” that does not rely on oxygen
The essence of thermal runaway in lithium batteries lies in the self-decomposition of the materials inside the cell, which releases heat and flammable gases—without any reliance on external oxygen. This is the most critical aspect, meaning:
>>> Traditional fire extinguishing agents have lost their effectiveness: Heptafluoropropane and IG‑541 extinguish fires by either cutting off oxygen or lowering the temperature, but they cannot halt the chemical reactions within the battery cells. While they may appear to put out the visible flames, this is merely a “pause” rather than a permanent “termination.”
>>> Thermal runaway continues to spread: Even after the surface flame is extinguished, the battery pack may continue to react internally, with heat continuously accumulating.
>>> Extremely high risk of reignition: If cooling is not maintained after extinguishing the fire, a secondary ignition could occur at any time.
2025 Daejeon, South Korea Data The central fire battery remains cold. but
During the 2024 fire at Singapore’s Lo Data Center, which lasted 36 hours, most of the time was spent on cooling efforts to prevent reignition.
In 2025, a fire at the Daejeon data center in South Korea also required prolonged, continuous cooling of the batteries after the open flames were extinguished.
1. ISO 3941:2026 —— Class L fires officially recognized
The new standard, released in January 2026, officially classifies “lithium cells/battery packs that do not contain metallic lithium” as a separate Class L fire, clearly identifying their potential for thermal runaway chain reactions, spatter hazards, electrolyte leakage risks, and re‑ignition risks. The new standard acknowledges… The fundamental differences between lithium‑battery fires and conventional fires ：
① Thermal runaway chain reaction
② Release of toxic and flammable gases
③Explosion risk in confined spaces
④ Cell and electrolyte injection
⑤ Potential risk of reignition
This means that, from fire‑monitoring design and extinguishing‑agent selection to emergency response, everything must be centered around… Class L fires are subject to specialized reconstruction.
ISO standards provide definitions, but there remains a significant technical gap between these definitions and their engineering implementation. At present, the industry has yet to establish a unified quantitative model for Class L fires, authoritative testing and classification criteria, or a standardized experimental framework. —This is precisely the challenge that the industry must tackle collectively in the next phase.
2. A New Consensus on Fire Safety in Europe and the United States : Shifting from “extinguishing” to “controlling”
The American Clean Power Association (ACP) and the European Association for Storage of Energy (EASE) have reached a consensus in their 2025 guidelines: provided that safety boundaries remain under control, the optimal strategy for handling lithium‑battery fires is to prioritize controlled combustion while fully isolating and cooling the surrounding area, rather than rushing into the fire to attempt an aggressive extinguishment.
The lesson for data centers is clear: the core objective of fire‑protection design should shift from “how to extinguish a fire” to “how to prevent a fire from spreading.” Passive measures such as fire compartmentation, thermal isolation, and directional smoke exhaust are no less critical than automatic fire‑suppression systems themselves. Aggressively attempting to fight a fire not only yields limited results but can also pose electrical‑conduction risks, lead to the accumulation of toxic gases, and give rise to secondary hazards involving heavy metals. 。
Of course, “controlled burning” does not mean laissez-faire; rather, it entails simultaneously implementing emergency response and rescue measures while ensuring perimeter security.
The key to addressing energy‑storage fires lies in shifting from “post‑incident, passive fire suppression” to “end-to-end, source‑level prevention.” By integrating three dimensions—material intrinsic safety, multi‑layered technical safeguards, and the effective implementation of regulatory frameworks—we can establish a closed-loop solution that fundamentally reduces fire risks.
#01 - Material side: Eliminate fire risks at the source.
- Prioritize the intrinsically safe battery approach: give preference to aqueous zinc–nickel batteries with non‑flammable electrolytes and sodium‑ion batteries boasting excellent thermal stability, thereby eliminating the fundamental conditions that could trigger thermal runaway at the cell level. These battery technologies have already undergone large‑scale field validation in backup power applications for data centers and computing hubs.
- Upgrading passive fire‑protection base materials: replacing traditional rock wool, which is prone to moisture‑induced degradation, with high‑performance fire‑resistant and flame‑retardant structural materials. When the active protection system fails, these materials rely on their physical structure to prevent the spread of fire, thereby safeguarding the ultimate safety barrier.
#02 - System side: Building a multi-tiered intelligent protection system
- Early‑stage cell‑level early warning: By deploying advanced multi‑modal sensing technologies, it captures multidimensional signature signals—such as gas emissions, temperature, and micro‑pressure—during the very earliest stages of thermal runaway, addressing the longstanding issue of delayed warnings in conventional BMS and extending the risk‑mitigation window by several hours.
- Module-level physical isolation: A fire‑resistant, thermally insulating barrier is installed between battery packs to prevent a single cell failure from propagating throughout the entire battery cluster, thereby containing any thermal runaway within the smallest possible unit.
- Cabin‑level precision fire suppression: Employing proven, full‑scale fire‑tested solutions such as a perfluorohexanone–nitrogen mixed‑gas system and liquid‑nitrogen‑based explosion‑suppression technology for electrochemical energy‑storage stations, this approach addresses the high re‑ignition rates associated with conventional gaseous fire‑extinguishing systems, enabling precise fire control.
#03 - Operations and Standards Division: Addressing Security Gaps Across the Entire Lifecycle
- Clarifying the fire safety accountability chain: Drawing on Qinghai Province’s pioneering electrochemical energy storage fire‑safety regulations—the “Administrative Measures for Fire Safety of Electrochemical Energy Storage Power Stations in Qinghai Province”—the framework assigns specific responsibilities to designated individuals and sets detailed requirements for routine inspections, hot‑work operations, and the rectification of identified hazards. Effective February 2026, these regulations have officially come into force, offering a replicable “Qinghai model” for nationwide energy‑storage safety management.
- Strengthening specialized emergency response capabilities: In light of the characteristics of energy‑storage fires—prolonged burn times, a high risk of reignition, and highly toxic smoke—establish dedicated or volunteer fire teams at each site, conduct regular, real‑world drills, and integrate energy‑storage fire safety into the national comprehensive fire and rescue force’s professional capability‑building framework, thereby enhancing integrated land‑and‑air rescue capabilities.
- End-to-end lifecycle security coverage: Extending safety management across the entire process—from manufacturing and transportation to operations and decommissioning—eliminates vulnerabilities like those seen in 2026, when a Tesla energy storage system fell and caught fire during transit, thereby enabling closed-loop risk management across all scenarios.
----------------------------------------------
Source of information: Another fire! In the first half of 2026, there were 15 consecutive fires involving global energy storage systems!
Related News
Mailbox:admin@zincpower.com.cn
Address: No.2 Factory Building of Tongqiu Group, Tianyuan Road, Yunyang Street, Danyang City, Jiangsu Province
Copyright©2023 Zincpower ( JiangSu ) New Energy Technology Co.,Ltd IPV6