Not who you responded to, but that’s an interesting source. I’m intrigued by a textile company claiming to be experts in lithium ion fires.

It sounds more like options for preventing a fire to spread. It’s also including CO2 extinguishers under “foam” which they very much aren’t, making me doubt the rest of their blog post.

Extinguishing fires can work largely in two different ways. Either by smothering a fire or by cooling a fuel below it’s flash point. Quite often they put out a fire by doing both. A fire that contains an oxidizer cannot be smothered, but smothering can help prevent other materials in a vehicle from being able to burn along with the batteries. Cooling down a large, vehicle sized lithium ion fires takes an incredible amount of water. However, the cells themselves contain so much energy that their failure produces more thermal energy than water is able to remove.

Is water the best to put out large EV fires? Nope.

Is water good at preventing fires from spreading? Yep.

Is water easily accessible and carried on every fire truck and engine and available through hydrants? Also yep.

A lot of agencies are including car sized fire blankets as well that help smother the fire some and make burnt/burning EVs safer for tow trucks to move to a safe locations where they can be left to burn out. Sometimes for over a month! You might see fire engines literally escorting tow trucks because even with the blanket and being doused with tens of thousands of gallons, it’s still at risk of reigniting during transport.

The other big issue that agencies are facing with EV fires is that the water used to suppress these fires essentially becomes hazmat. So there are issues with letting it just run off into the storm system or the environment.

a foam extinguisher containing CO2, powder graphite, ABC dry chemical, or sodium carbonate

Huh? modern foam suppressants do not use dry chemicals or powders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighting_foam).

The Wikipedia article has this:

The original foam was a mixture of two powders and water produced in a foam generator. It was called chemical foam because of the chemical action to create it. In general, the powders used were sodium bicarbonate and aluminium sulfate, with small amounts of saponin or liquorice added to stabilise the bubbles. […] Chemical foam is a stable solution of small bubbles containing carbon dioxide with lower density than oil or water, and exhibits persistence for covering flat surfaces.

Which sounds like what your article is talking about, but nobody uses that anymore, it’s from 1904:

Chemical foam is considered obsolete today because of the many containers of powder required, even for small fires.

Was this article written by an LLM copying text from other sources? It’s basically just an ad for this company’s products. I wouldn’t trust this source for real-world firefighting information.