As energy storage systems (BESS) continue to grow across utility, commercial and industrial sectors, fire protection remains a critical issue.
Speaking with FSJA, Lance Harry, P.E., CEO and President of Fireaway Inc., discusses the unique risks associated with energy storage system (ESS) installations, evolving standards and the role condensed aerosol systems can play in fire suppression.
What unique fire risks do energy storage system installations present and how are these being addressed?
ESS is a unique hazard environment. It’s grown very quickly and every fire protection manufacturer is focused on trying to find solutions. What makes it particularly interesting and challenging from a fire protection standpoint is the level of density associated with the equipment, wiring, batteries and everything contained within these units, whether they’re containerized or modular in nature.
It’s a densely packed environment that requires design consideration. The obvious hazard is the batteries themselves, but the electrical components and infrastructure that go with them are equally, if not more, important. That’s something that frequently gets lost.
Batteries get a lot of headlines because of the hazard level, but the industry has done a good job of identifying those risks and reducing hazard elements through different chemistries and designs. The electrical infrastructure is what needs more attention, because that’s what typically starts the fire.
Battery energy storage systems vary from utility scale to containerized and building solutions.
How do you tailor fire protection strategies across those applications?
The key is the modularization of our system. It’s very well suited to these hazards, where you can have different sizes and geometries. It depends on the size of the Stat-X suppression unit you need and how many are required.
We’ve found relatively simple design solutions for many ESS and BESS deployment types and constructions. Standards are shaping fire safety in ESS.
How do you ensure compliance while delivering practical protection solutions?
It’s a challenge, particularly with a rapidly evolving industry like ESS. With growth happening so quickly, regulatory environments and standards organizations are slower to evolve and react.
Usually that’s not a problem because industries also move relatively slowly, but ESS is unique because things are moving very quickly. Regulatory groups are trying to catch up. We stay closely aligned with global standards organizations, participate in many of them and keep track of requirements, what end users are looking for and what local authorities will need to provide compliant solutions.
We’re also heavily engaged with industry associations like the Fire Suppression Systems Association (FSSA). These organizations are helpful in providing guidance to end users and regulators to create a standards environment that is safe, provides the necessary level of protection and is still practical.
I’m currently Vice President of FSSA and will be president starting in February 2027, so both personally and as an organization, we’re closely tied to these groups. In addition, we do our own testing and research to ensure we’re keeping up with regulatory evolution and aligned with what regulatory bodies are asking for.
Sometimes those things don’t always align. It’s a balancing act between practicality and what can sometimes be a more idealized regulatory view.
What advantages do condensed aerosol systems offer over traditional fire suppression methods in ESS environments?
It extends to other applications as well, but within ESS, one of the biggest advantages is the reduced footprint. Aerosol containers are typically installed along the wall or ceiling and take up zero floor space. That’s significantly different from clean agent systems, CO2 or inert gases, which rely on pressurized containers.
Our Stat-X containers are not pressurized while awaiting activation, which is a significant advantage. Any clean agent, inert gas or water mist system contains some form of pressurization, which adds hazard potential and increased service and maintenance requirements.
Cylinder leakage is probably the number one issue with those systems. Our units are not pressurized and many end users prefer not having Suppression pressurized containers in their space. There’s also no piping required. In gaseous systems, the extinguishing agent must be piped from a central storage location to the hazard area and discharged through nozzles. That’s not the case with aerosol systems.
Everything is contained within the Stat-X canister and once activated, the aerosol is discharged directly from that point. Another often overlooked factor is buoyancy. Although aerosol is a very fine particulate, the particles are so small they stay buoyant in the air more effectively than many gases. By comparison, agents like FK-5-1-12 are heavier than air and can leak from enclosed spaces relatively easily.
When discharged, those agents settle and find leakage paths quickly. With Stat-X, the particulate is so light and buoyant it can remain suspended for a long time. We’ve seen hold times of 20 to 30 minutes, whereas similar clean agent systems may only provide six to 10 minutes. That can be a significant advantage in retaining extinguishing density longer.
How important is early detection and integrated sensor technology in preventing thermal runaway?
It’s probably the most critical part of minimizing thermal runaway risk. You have to catch any event related to thermal runaway in its incipient stages to have a decent chance of mitigating it. Our data and testing suggest Stat-X aerosol can mitigate the risk of thermal runaway propagation, but it’s not going to put it out or stop it completely.
It can help keep an event from growing too large or spreading from cell to cell, module to module or rack to rack. From a detection standpoint, if you can catch issues before thermal runaway occurs — such as detecting off-gassing from a failing battery — that’s critical.
Likewise, if you can detect other fires very early, such as overheating wires, circuit shorts or failing PCB components, and discharge an aerosol system to suppress those events, then you may never reach thermal runaway. If you can eliminate or reduce those fires before they grow into something capable of triggering thermal runaway, you’re addressing the majority of the risk.
What role does modular, maintenance-free suppression play in reducing lifecycle costs and disruption?
It’s key. We believe our system is differentiated enough to provide that modular, minimal maintenance approach. It provides peace of mind for both ESS manufacturers and end users and gives people confidence they’re protected and can reduce operational disruption.
No suppression system will eliminate all damage, but the goal is always to minimize what happens. That goes back to early detection and rapid suppression before thermal runaway can begin. These are the features that give manufacturers, owners and operators the confidence they need to reduce lifecycle costs.
There are credible industry reports showing more than 85% of fires in ESS environments start outside the battery cell or module. That means all the other electrical infrastructure present in these spaces is where most fires begin. We’re comfortable telling ESS manufacturers and end users this is a cost-effective approach that supports lifecycle cost reduction.
These units are operating constantly or may be called on to operate at any time, so they need to be ready. That’s the peace of mind people need when owning and operating an ESS unit.
The company is exhibiting at the NFPA Conference in Las Vegas, which takes place week commencing June 22. Visit stand 1138 to find out about its solutions.
