Demand for the energy storage is as high as ever, and is about to triple-quadruple. The development of technology is at unprecedented phase, and even within a single project you may face different cell, battery or container generations. This pace reshapes how we think about battery energy storage safety, from enclosure design to emergency response. We sat down with Noah Ryder from the Fire and Risk Alliance to unpack how BESS has evolved from walk-in containers to dense, modular “refrigerator” units—and how the move to liquid cooling, tighter layouts, and higher amp-hour cells impacts both opportunity and risk.

We explore the real jobs batteries do for the grid: shifting solar and wind, replacing peaker plants, stabilizing frequency, and powering microgrids. Then we zoom into the fast-growing edge case: AI-hungry data centers integrating batteries at the rack level for modularity and speed. That flexibility has a cost. Less free airspace and larger cells mean faster gas accumulation, higher heat flux into insulated enclosures, and a credible explosion hazard from a single failure. We walk through the failure timeline—monitoring anomalies, venting, immediate versus delayed ignition, sustained fire, and potential propagation—and identify practical interventions at each step.

Noah lays out the tradeoffs many teams avoid: accept that a damaged unit is a write-off, or try to save modules at all costs? Should we prefer a known flame over an uncertain blast by using intentional spark ignition? How should NFPA 855’s push toward gas-triggered mechanical ventilation and deflagration venting influence spacing, panel placement, and vent direction? We also dig into enclosure construction—non-combustible insulation, steel skins, coolant flammability—and how better insulation can safely cut spacing by slowing heat penetration and reducing internal temperature rise.

Looking forward, stacking feels inevitable. The smarter approach is to treat batteries not just as a cause but as a fuel, borrowing tested methods from high-rack storage: quantify heat release and radiant exposure, model gas evolution and overpressure, orient vents to manage flame jets, and define acceptable loss before design begins. If you care about real-world energy storage—utility sites, microgrids, or data centers—you’ll leave with a clearer framework to make informed, defensible choices.

If you would like to learn more about Noah and the Fire and Risk Alliance, you can find them online here: https://fireriskalliance.com/

Enjoy the conversation, then subscribe, share this episode with a colleague, and leave a review to help more engineers find the show.

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

This week, in the Fire Science Show, we host a roundtable discussion on complexities in fire safety science and engineering.

Most safety failures don’t come from a single mistake—they emerge when people, technology, and institutions misalign. In an ever-changing field in which complexities just go up, we open up a debate on how to cope with that so that the entire field goes in the right direction. For this podcast roundtable debate, I've invited Steve McGuirk, who represents Fire Sector Confederation, and Professor Brian Meacham from Crux, a lifelong contributor to understanding systems in fire safety.

The conversation starts with Grenfell as a case study in systemic breakdown, then stretches into the “fire chain” of policy, design, construction, occupation, incidents, investigation, and remediation. Along the way, we confront the half-life of crises, the overload of regulations, and the real-world trade-offs that shape housing, affordability, and risk.

We push beyond “add another rule” and ask better questions: How do incentives drive design decisions? Where does culture—of fire services, engineers, and politics—help or hinder outcomes? What would it take for standards bodies, professional institutions, and regulators to speak with a more unified voice? We explore convergence research as a practical method to break silos, inviting small, diverse teams to co-create solutions instead of defending old paradigms. From single-stair mid-rise housing to lithium-ion hazards, we dig into how to balance life safety, property protection, and community needs without freezing progress.

Technology shows up as both a tool and a trap. AI and modelling can map complexity and test scenarios, but they cannot replace critical thinking or ethics. We share grounded advice for practitioners: define the problem before you simulate, involve the right stakeholders early, make risk choices explicit, and design for how people actually behave. Competence, mentoring, and integrity are not nice-to-haves; they’re the core of public safety.

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

In this episode of the Fire Science Show we invite dr. Antonela Čolić from the OFR Consultants, to break down the performance of adhesives used in CLT in fire, what differences between the glues are observable at the microscale and how they show up in real structure fires.

We compare common polyurethane adhesives: one that softens near 200–220 C and one that resists softening, crosslinks, and ultimately chars. Through thermogravimetric and calorimetric testing, we map pivotal transitions like glass transition and softening. Then we scale up. With small shear-lap coupons and meter-long cantilevers under controlled heat flux, we see how mechanical load amplifies normal strains at the bond line—especially in cross-laminated elements where grain orientation concentrates stress. The result is a clear picture of when heat-induced delamination begins, how it differs from char fall-off, and why heat flux often dominates the story.

Moisture emerges as a powerful, often overlooked driver. Using neutron imaging, we visualize vapor moving toward and across the bond line, slowing as it crosses the interface. That temporary moisture retention can make an adhesive appear to “fail at a lower temperature,” not from chemistry alone but from local pore pressure and hydration dynamics. We translate these findings into actionable guidance: specify adhesives that char rather than soften, control lamella thickness, consider parallel lamellas to preserve capacity after a ply loss, and model realistic heat flux and shear demands instead of relying on a single critical temperature.

If you design or review mass timber, this conversation gives you the tools to ask better questions: Which adhesive? What heat flux history? How much shear at the bond line? And how will moisture in use and during fire shift the thresholds you’re counting on?

Interested in further reading? Got your back.

• Paper on microscale experiments on adhesives
• Book Chapter on Compartment Fire Dynamics with Timber
• Full scale experiments on CLT with different adhesives

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.