Power under pressure, with Fike Corporation

Fike Corporation’s Brad Stilwell and Mark Kendall break down why fire protection needs a custom approach in energy transition projects 

Fire protection in the alternative energy sector presents a growing set of technical challenges, as energy storage, hydrogen systems and wind infrastructure become more widespread. To understand how these risks differ from traditional energy systems—and what fire protection strategies are proving most effective—IFSJ spoke with Mark Kendall and Brad Stilwell from Fike Corporation.  

Mark is Director of the Fire Solutions Group for the UK and Europe, where he leads efforts to protect emerging technologies through specialised detection and control systems. Brad, Fike’s Director of Corporate Mechanical Engineering, brings over three decades of experience in special hazard fire suppression, with a focus on designing systems for critical and high-consequence environments. 

In this interview, the pair explain how their backgrounds have positioned them to address fire risks in alternative energy. Mark shares insights from his work adapting detection technology for non-standard fire scenarios—risks that didn’t exist a decade ago.

Brad describes how his team develops suppression solutions where traditional sprinklers fall short, such as in lithium-ion battery installations where water damage would cause prolonged downtime. Together, they explore what practical, site-specific fire protection now looks like across the energy transition. 

What are some of the key fire risks associated with alternative energy sources like battery storage, hydrogen and wind power? 

Mark: Right now, battery energy storage—particularly lithium-ion—is attracting the most scrutiny. That’s partly due to how widespread the technology has become and partly because the consequences when something goes wrong are serious and visible. Failures in grid-scale storage setups have drawn attention in both the press and regulatory circles. Getting these systems through planning stages is becoming harder as a result. We’re seeing more environmental and safety-based restrictions and in the UK, Defra is expected to introduce new licensing requirements for battery storage sites next year.

The regulatory climate is changing in real time and much of it is reactive to events that have already occurred. 

Mark Kendall

Brad: The way I look at it, the bigger issue is often that people don’t fully understand the risks they’re working with. End users will say, “I’ve got a fire marshal involved, so I must need fire protection,” but that starting point is sometimes too simplistic. In battery energy storage, fire is just one of the risks. There’s also a very real threat of explosion, especially if off-gassed hydrogen builds up and encounters an ignition source. That’s a similar concern in hydrogen production, where a leak combined with a spark can quickly escalate.

The real problem is when people approach these systems asking for a fire solution, when what they actually need is a broader hazard mitigation strategy.

Brad Stilwell

If you don’t understand the nature of the failure, you won’t ask the right questions—and that can lead to installing systems that aren’t effective when it matters most. 

How do these risks differ from those found in traditional energy systems such as fossil fuel, gas or nuclear? 

Brad: In conventional energy setups—say, a room full of lead-acid batteries or a gas-powered generator—the hazards are well characterised. With lead-acid, for example, hydrogen is released during charge and discharge cycles. That’s known and the standard approach is to install hydrogen detectors and fans to prevent gas build-up. Similarly, with gas turbines, you’ve got fuels and lubricants like hydraulic oil and we know how those burn. The suppression strategies are straightforward. 

Lithium-ion batteries, though, are a completely different type of problem. When one fails, you’re dealing with a reactive chemical event—not just a fire. The failure often leads to what’s known as thermal runaway. That means the cell heats up, off-gasses large amounts of hydrogen and that heat and pressure can cause neighbouring cells to fail in sequence. It becomes a cascading event, not a single ignition point. And suppression agents—clean agents, water, foam—don’t stop the chemical chain reaction. So the fire, in many cases, is actually the least dangerous part. 

Mark: Exactly. With traditional fires, the fuel is external and suppression agents can isolate it, smother it or cool it. But lithium-ion introduces internal fuel—when the cell goes into thermal runaway, it’s feeding itself. That’s a very different type of event. Our existing playbook for fire suppression doesn’t apply in the same way and that’s what makes it so difficult to manage. 

What types of fire protection solutions does Fike offer for alternative energy applications? 

Brad: Interestingly, one of the options we’ve seen adopted in some locations is to do nothing—to isolate the system and allow it to fail in a controlled way. The thinking is that if the battery installation is remote and well-spaced, you can let a thermal event burn itself out without spreading. It’s not ideal—those fires release toxic gases that pose a health risk—but in certain applications, it’s a calculated decision. 

More commonly, we’re seeing a shift toward thermal management systems like Fike Blue™. Unlike traditional suppression agents, this approach targets the heat directly at the source—on the cells themselves—before the reaction escalates.

Brad Stilwell

It’s about preventing that thermal cascade. A lot of the older protection methods, like clean agents or aerosols, are being removed from the standards because they’re not effective against these kinds of events. So the list of viable suppression options is getting narrower. 

Mark: It’s about using a layered approach. No single system can cover all the failure modes. You start with proper spacing and risk assessment, then add detection—gas, thermal, smoke. Then explosion venting, then thermal control. Each layer plugs a gap. The idea is similar to a Swiss cheese model: stack enough protections and eventually you cover all the holes. You’ve got to design the system so that if one measure doesn’t stop the problem, the next one will. 

Can you talk about how these solutions work and why they are suited to these types of risks? 

Brad: Explosion control is typically the first line of defence. If a thermal event triggers gas release inside an enclosure and that gas ignites, you risk a serious overpressure event. We use deflagration vent panels to release that pressure safely and prevent the enclosure from being destroyed. From there, we rely on detection systems—gas sensors, heat and smoke detectors, sometimes even video—to provide early warning. 

Fike Blue™ is different. It’s applied directly to the battery cells to extract heat before the temperature reaches the point where thermal runaway occurs. It’s not trying to suppress flames—it’s trying to interrupt the event before ignition happens. We also sell water mist systems, though they’re less common in energy storage because of performance limitations. And every design starts with hazard analysis—understanding what failure scenarios are likely and planning around them. 

Mark: Detection systems vary depending on the setup. Gas detection is critical, especially for hydrogen. Smoke and thermal detection help identify early-stage failure. In some cases, we’ve integrated water leak detection as well, because moisture ingress can be a failure trigger in containerised batteries. We’ve also used thermal imaging and video analytics to monitor large-scale installations, like mass lithium-ion storage for EV batteries. These systems need to be performance-based—off-the-shelf designs won’t work. Every project requires a custom solution based on the real risk. 

Are there particular challenges when it comes to protecting energy storage and renewable energy facilities from fire events? 

Mark: There’s a knowledge gap and regulation hasn’t caught up. In Europe, the standards are light-touch and vague. They acknowledge the risks but don’t go far enough in setting clear safety requirements. We expect that to change, but at the moment, it leaves room for inconsistent approaches.

In contrast, the US has better-developed codes like NFPA 855 and UL 9540A. Still, even there, performance-based design is often the only route forward. 

Mark Kendall

Brad: And that creates a practical challenge. A customer might be building a data centre with an ESS and the fire marshal says: “What protection are you installing?” The developer just wants to get sign-off and move on, so they’ll look for the quickest answer. Sometimes that leads to systems being installed that aren’t actually effective—just enough to pass inspection. That’s dangerous and we’ve seen it happen. Proper protection requires time, engineering and understanding of the hazard. There’s no shortcut. 

What are some of the consequences of inadequate fire protection for alternative energy systems? 

Brad: The Surprise, Arizona incident is a perfect example. The ESS there had fire protection, but no explosion protection. When the thermal event occurred, it triggered an explosion that injured several responders. In Escondido, California, another failure led to the evacuation of hundreds of nearby businesses. These aren’t just fire events—they’re public safety events that disrupt entire communities. 

Mark: They also affect the pace of energy transition. We need battery energy storage to reach net zero, but we’re seeing planning applications refused on safety grounds. Incidents like Carnegie in Liverpool show why—millions of litres of water were used, which just isn’t sustainable. If we don’t get safety right, these technologies won’t scale and that delays the entire decarbonisation process. 

Looking ahead, how do you see fire protection adapting to meet the needs of the alternative energy industry? 

Mark: I think it will depend on engineering-led firms. A lot of the fire industry deals with routine risks—warehouses, offices, server rooms—where systems are standardised and prescriptive. But these new challenges require a completely different approach. At Fike, we’ve got test facilities where we can validate our designs in real-world conditions. That means we’re not guessing—we can show the customer how the system performs under stress and we build from there. 

Brad: The industry is going to adapt from both ends. Protection companies will develop better systems and energy companies will improve battery chemistries to reduce flammability and gas generation. We’re already seeing that. For now, Fike Blue is ahead of the curve in managing thermal risks, but others are coming. What matters is that everyone in the supply chain—from developers to regulators—keeps safety at the centre. That’s how we make the transition work.