Re: battery fire

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:12:15 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:

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.

The problem is we're *all* being expected to freeze in the dark just
to humor their delusions about "greenhouse gases" (the world's most
expensive hoax so far, dwarfing even Pearl Habour).