Re: battery fire

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:58:41 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

On 1/17/25 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>

>
>
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
>
Sounds expensive.
>
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
>
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.

>
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.

>
It's funny how 'quantum leap' has come to be taken for a
huge change, although it originally really meant the tiniest
possible change.
>
High energy density batteries will always be dangerous.
It's the inevitable consequence of storing a lot of energy
in a small package. A tank full of fuel is really much
safer. What we really need is an efficient flow battery,
where reactive components are kept apart until needed.
>
Jeroen Belleman

 Natural gas is great stuff. Burns clean with half the CO2 of coal.
 It's easy to store locally, and the pipelines store more. And there's
gobs underground and people keep finding more.
 Small-scale NG power plants are practical and reliable and elimniate
gigantic transmission lines and battery banks.
 But 2:1 isn't acceptable to greenies. Let them freeze in the dark
unemployed for a while and maybe they will reconsider.