Re: battery fire

On 18/01/2025 9:47 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

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).

Cursitor Doom does like his lies to fatuously absurd. His "evidence" that anthropogenic global warming isn't real depends on assuming that 1890's "evidence" on atmospheric CO2 levels is more reliable that Charles Keeling's 1958 data, which was the first attempt to do the job properly, and Keeling found that he had to move his observatory to the top of Manoa Lau to avoid the errors that had clearly bedevilled the 1890's work.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney