Crews battle Tesla battery fire at Moorabool, near Geelong

From ABC news

A toxic blaze at the site of Australia’s largest Tesla battery project is set to burn throughout the night.

Key points:

  • A 13-tonne Tesla lithium battery is on fire near Geelong
  • The battery was expected to be ready later this year
  • It was due to be the biggest battery in the southern hemisphere

The fire broke out during testing of a Tesla megapack at the Victorian Big Battery site near Geelong.

A 13-tonne lithium battery was engulfed in flames, which then spread to an adjacent battery bank.

More than 150 people from Fire Rescue Victoria and the Country Fire Authority responded to the blaze, which has been contained and will be closely monitored until it burns itself out.

“If we try and cool them down it just prolongs the process,” the CFA’s Assistant Chief Fire Officer Ian Beswicke said.

“But we could be here anywhere from 8 to 24 hours while we wait for it to burn down.”

The Tesla battery is expected to become the largest battery in the southern hemisphere as part of a Victorian Government push to transition to renewable energy.

Full story here.

HT/Roger

4.7 18 votes
Article Rating
271 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rick K
July 30, 2021 2:02 pm

Green Hellfire! You can’t put it out! 🙂

Robertvd
Reply to  Rick K
July 30, 2021 2:05 pm

Now imagine a parking under an apartment building .

William Astley
Reply to  Robertvd
July 30, 2021 2:39 pm

Now imagine that you own a condo/house that has an attached garage.

Where will you charge your Tesla? Not in your condo. Not in your attached garage. When there are more fires, insurance will not allow you to charge in your attacked garage or condo building underground garage.

A Tesla fire burns so hot, it melts the steel structure in a building. And it ignites the other vehicles in the garage.

Melting the steel structure in a concrete, reinforced building, will cause complete concrete build to collapse, just like the condo collapse in Miami.

And the problem will gets more dangerous and more likely as the batteries age and the risk of an internal short, when charging the battery or during normal battery operation/storage.

Tesla have been sold to rich people who use the Tesla as a second car/toy. When the Tesla starting to show wear the Tesla will be resold to people who will wear the car out. The Tesla batteries will fail.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  William Astley
July 30, 2021 2:46 pm

And yet there are Priuses (sp?) here in Southern California with over 100,000 miles of use and aren’t anywhere near a battery change.

richardw
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 30, 2021 3:13 pm

They are hybrids and very often the battery is hardly used. The Prius is very popular in the uk as a private hire vehicle as, regardless of whether the battery is any good, the tax is low and the battery is not tested as part of the annual inspection.

niceguy
Reply to  richardw
July 30, 2021 5:19 pm

In Paris I pretty much only see hybrid taxis now (almost all Toyotas). Notably the “G7” taxi company: I only see Toyota hybrids for G7 taxis now. French taxis used to use only diesel cars.

There is a huge diff in taxes in France in favor for diesel, against unleaded. (It’s a hot political issue.)

In electric charging spots, I see in Paris:

  • the very tiny 100% electric Smart
  • the large Teslas
  • hybrids (mostly Toyotas)
  • extremely rarely, normal size, 100% electric cars

I think I have a statistically significant view of Paris (I look at many different charging spots when I walk, IOW I don’t walk only in a small bourgeois area – but all of Paris is becoming more bourgeois).

So I think the market for electric cars is highly non-normal (far from average): they don’t represent the average car usable for families. Niche markets are fine, but don’t get too impressed by number of cars sold recently. The taxi fleet changed only recently.

niceguy
Reply to  richardw
July 30, 2021 5:24 pm

If the electric part isn’t going to be used, what’s the point of a more complex, heavier, more expensive car?

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  niceguy
July 30, 2021 7:15 pm

Virtue signaling!

krov
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
July 31, 2021 7:22 am

Many fleet hybrids in the UK are returned at the end of the lease with the charging cables unused. This is particularly true of the upmarket BMWs.

niceguy
Reply to  krov
August 2, 2021 12:33 am

Just because they would not bother with recharging (or couldn’t do it?) doesn’t mean the electric system is of no use. It just means it’s used as a non plug in hybrid.

David A
Reply to  niceguy
July 31, 2021 6:33 pm

Yet the electric is used extensively in hybrids. Especially in plug in hybrids.

I am not a fan of subsidized EVs solar or wind. I am not a fan of wind or solar period

Owen
Reply to  niceguy
August 1, 2021 6:11 am

The genius of the hybrid (Prius) is that the battery is charged by the gas engine while the gas engine is being used; thus, you don’t need to charge it. The battery per my understanding is mostly used during idling and accelerating from an idle stop, up to maybe 10 mph. After that the gasoline engine takes over.

rbabcock
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 30, 2021 5:45 pm

The plug-in’s use Li, the non plug-ins early on used NiMH batteries so these may not be Lithium based and NiMH batteries don’t spontaneously ignite.

niceguy
Reply to  rbabcock
July 30, 2021 7:25 pm

What’s the rational for the difference?

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 30, 2021 8:14 pm

REJ- I just cut to the chase and call that line what they are – a ‘Prissius’!
Regards,
MCR

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Michael C. Roberts
August 2, 2021 5:37 pm

Priapus?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 30, 2021 9:56 pm

Prius standard doesn’t use lithium ion batteries. They LithiumMetalhydroxide batteries.
Prius Plug uses a lithium-ion battery.
Different technology, different risks.

Redge
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 31, 2021 12:58 am

I think you mean a Toyota Pious

Nick Graves
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 31, 2021 1:24 am

Toyota still use NiMH chemistry on many Priuses. Some versions do have Li-ion cells.

Toyota prefers dependability and not conflagration.

William Astley
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 31, 2021 8:35 am

What is your point? The Prius not an EV. The Prius is practical and safe.

The issue is the safety issues of large batteries vs a gasoline tank.

The Prius has a massive energy source in its gasoline tank. The Prius does not have a massive battery.

The problem is massive batteries burn extremely hot when they are damaged.

The Prius has a small battery that is charged by the gasoline engine. The gasoline engine runs a generator that produces electricity to power powerful small electric motors.

Owen
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 1, 2021 6:04 am

My mom has a Prius and she loves it but as others point out, the Prius is a hybrid a middle class economy car, while the the Tesla is a rich man’s toy. There are too many of these fires to ignore or write them off as one-offs or bad maintenance.

TonyG
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 1, 2021 12:02 pm

That’s comparing apples to sausages

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  TonyG
August 2, 2021 6:07 pm

Yes, it’s applesauce,

Another Joe
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 1, 2021 7:26 pm

It seems the early models of Prius had NiCd packs.

One might expect an increase of issues after Li replacements:

https://projectlithium.com/products/prius-lithium-replacement-pack

Willem Post
Reply to  William Astley
July 30, 2021 4:21 pm

No problem.
Just wear one of those useless 5 cent, blue masks to feel less miserable

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  William Astley
July 30, 2021 7:14 pm

second car/toy? Maybe, I thought it would more typically be a 3rd car.

robin townsend
Reply to  William Astley
July 31, 2021 1:47 am

teslas fake it. they use subsidised batteries on an 80/20 charge schedule. They oerate on an 8 year lease so that tesla swap out the 8 yr battery when noone is looking to avoid tarnishing the image. when normal operators sell cheap batteries on a 100/0 charge schedule and dont change them when noone is lookng, all hell will break loose.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  William Astley
July 31, 2021 3:53 am

tela powerpacks placed on house walls here in Aus
criminally stupid idea. should be well clear of residences

krov
Reply to  William Astley
July 31, 2021 7:24 am

Rejecting pure electric vehicles from underground parking and possibly the Euro Tunnel may well happen. LPG vehicles are forbidden from many European parking garages

niceguy
Reply to  krov
July 31, 2021 11:18 am

LPG w/o safety valve are forbidden everywhere in France, those with the safety are allowed.

Reply to  William Astley
July 31, 2021 7:43 am

However, it is quite likely that the resale value of any EV is going to be pathetic. Who wants a EV that is slated to burn up?

Streetcred
Reply to  William Astley
July 31, 2021 7:49 pm

The condo collapse in Miami was a different cause, lack of rebar and no maintenance in a marine environment, but your point is taken 😉

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Streetcred
August 2, 2021 5:57 pm

There was rebar. The “before” photos show a bunch of it.*

/s

Scissor
Reply to  Rick K
July 30, 2021 2:13 pm

Short by a few cooling fans.

Mark D
Reply to  Scissor
July 31, 2021 8:16 am

I see what you did there. Was it intentional? 😉

Greg
Reply to  Rick K
July 31, 2021 3:13 am

FFS everyone, read the figgin article. It’s not a 13 ton Tesla car battery.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
July 31, 2021 10:35 am

Tell us something we don’t know. The point is that it is the same technology.

Drake
Reply to  Greg
July 31, 2021 2:10 pm

Is this the same Greg who asked what LCOE and opex was in the comments to The levelised cost of floating offshore wind?
Wow, just WOW!

Phalanges
Reply to  Greg
August 1, 2021 6:40 am

From the article: ‘…A 13-tonne lithium battery was engulfed in flames, which then spread to an adjacent battery bank.’

bill Johnston
July 30, 2021 2:08 pm

boy! I sure would like one of those in my backyard. NOT!

rah
Reply to  bill Johnston
July 30, 2021 8:31 pm

I think the perfect place for them would be Washington DC. Under the Capital, the WH, and on K street.

Patrick B
Reply to  rah
July 31, 2021 12:33 pm

And they should be charged using only solar cells mounted on the roof of the capital. Force the legislature to actually live with that wonderful green energy.

July 30, 2021 2:11 pm

Schadenfreude makes me feel vaguely guiltily.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 30, 2021 3:11 pm

Me too, but only for a second or two.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 30, 2021 7:31 pm

Femtosecond or two here.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 31, 2021 2:56 am

With comedy ended by the snowflake woke cancel culture, schadenfreude is about the only honest entertainment remaining. Revel in schadenfreude!

Last edited 2 months ago by Doug Huffman
Anon
Reply to  Doug Huffman
July 31, 2021 7:27 pm

Or satirize it. The problem can be solved by locating battery arrays under a large turbine hall, so that each time a battery goes up, it can power a generator. (lol)

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 2, 2021 6:11 pm

Sigmundfreud does away with guilt.

John
July 30, 2021 2:15 pm

It’s now the smallest battery. I wonder who flips the bill for this catastrophe.

Lrp
Reply to  John
July 30, 2021 2:29 pm

Victorian’s taxpayers

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Lrp
July 30, 2021 11:47 pm

Experience through the aging process has taught me that it’s the good old Taxpayers who always end up paying somewhere down the line!!!

H.R.
Reply to  John
July 30, 2021 3:34 pm

Interesting question. From what I gathered from the article, it was still be installed/set up.

Would this be a warranty claim?

JCalvertN(UK)
Reply to  H.R.
July 31, 2021 12:07 pm

It might have been if they had procured from a reputable supplier with a proper contract in place. But they’ll get nothing out of Tesla.

H.R.
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
July 31, 2021 1:09 pm

Dang! I was hoping a warranty claim might get Tesla on the hook for a major portion of the bill.

*sigh* I suppose Tesla will put it all on on the installer. “They did it wrong.”

*hope* Maybe Tesla contracted for the whole job.

Streetcred
Reply to  H.R.
July 31, 2021 7:56 pm

If it is under construction, then the installer/contractors insurance should pay for it unless the Victorian Government had some stupid contract clause about ‘self-insuring’. Somewhere in the washup everybody pays for this through higher insurance premiums or taxation.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  John
July 30, 2021 4:01 pm

More like a pile of lithium slag. Can you imagine what entered the atmosphere? I bet it wasn’t green.

Writing Observer
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
July 30, 2021 7:39 pm

Write off one megabattery plant there. At least twice the cost to replace it, too – massive toxic waste site to clean up first.

Might not be a bad time to sell off any TSLA stock in the portfolio today, before people wake up – unless an underwriter was foolish enough to not include a loss cap in the insurance policy.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Writing Observer
July 31, 2021 1:51 am

Wow, and the plan is to make lots of these to store power from wind/solar? This one wasn’t even on-line yet, imagine what can happen with scores of these things scattered across the country?

If they all catch fire at the same time, would that be enough to heat the planet up past the 1.5C tipping point?

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
August 2, 2021 6:14 pm

If there’s one thing the planet is good at, it’s shedding heat to space via that good ol’ T⁴.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  John
July 30, 2021 7:28 pm

Insurance buyers rates go up. Good time to give up on these nonsense batteries. Incredibly expensive if the storage is for more than a few minutes to get a gas turbine up to speed.

If the gas turbine is going to be carrying the load for the 2/3rd of the time that the solar or wind isn’t available why bother with the solar, wind, battery? The avoided fuel cost for the 1/3rd of the time the RE (Ruinous Energy) is producing will never equal the capital expenditure for the RE plus batteries. We here in Cali are only spending a few $million every year paying for wind generators to curtail, that’s bad, and yes, it’s getting worse every year; but not nearly as bad as spending lots of $millions for batteries. A business model only a liberal can love.

Reply to  John
August 2, 2021 6:29 pm

From what I have seen online, the fire trashed only two of at least 8 buildings holding the batteries. Still, my thought is that putting both elements of an energetic chemical reaction close together gets all too close to the definition of an explosive. This was a deflagration rather than a detonation.

Pop Piasa
July 30, 2021 2:15 pm

Dear God!
Please save us from those who worship the planet instead of you!

goracle
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 30, 2021 10:56 pm

what the hell is wrong with down under aussies? looking to ban fossil fuels with batteries…. thus screwing up their energy supply? and now sending the army out to help ensure masking and lockdowns in place for nearly 1.5 months? Gestapo tactics? what the hell is wrong with white liberal progressives?

ozspeaksup
Reply to  goracle
July 31, 2021 3:57 am

victorias got a moron as premier
scomo went to eu G7 and came back brainwashed
deity help aus, cos its gone to sh*t the last 30 yrs

Jeff Labute
Reply to  goracle
July 31, 2021 6:36 am

I’m not sure things are any better Up Over.

mrsell
Reply to  goracle
July 31, 2021 7:40 am

“what the hell is wrong with white liberal progressives”

Nothing. They’re doing exactly what we’d all expect progressives to do when people don’t see things their way.

Patrick B
Reply to  mrsell
July 31, 2021 12:37 pm

No, they’re doing exactly what you expect when the costs of their programs are hidden and shifted on to our children and grandchildren.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  goracle
August 2, 2021 6:19 pm

“Progressives” don’t know when to stop “progressing,” thus there is no end to their madness. Used to be, when their lunacy reached a certain point, the media would make fun of them. Now the media just applaud.

Coeur de Lion
July 30, 2021 2:19 pm

How is house insurance affected by an EV in an integral garage?

MarkW
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 30, 2021 2:47 pm

If the car burns, the house burns. That risk drives up insurance rates.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 30, 2021 2:51 pm

How is house insurance affected by an EV in an integral garage?

It isn’t. They don’t ask you.

If a statistically significant number of house fires are started by EVs, then they’ll start asking, or just raise all insurance rates.

Kpar
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
July 30, 2021 3:29 pm

Just like the premiums in Portland, Minneapolis, L.A., New York City, Baltimore, Altanta, et. al.

BobM
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
July 30, 2021 7:08 pm

Yep, just as Warren Buffett said. When asked about the climate change risk to his insurance companies, he basically said there was none, as any increased claims get accounted for in the next year’s premium.

Note, he also said there was only one reason to invest in a wind farm, and that was for the tax credits.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  BobM
July 30, 2021 11:52 pm

That’s why they are so profitable, see comment above, the taxpayer foots the bill eventually!!!

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
July 30, 2021 7:34 pm

They’ll never ask, right to privacy, not PC, bad for the corporate image, anti environmental justice.

skiman
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
July 30, 2021 8:42 pm

Not true at least in Canada, they ask about everything in, around or near the house.

andy in epsom
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 1, 2021 4:37 am

They don’t ask as they know a change like that would invalidate any insurance claim and they can refuse to pay if not informed.

Pauleta
July 30, 2021 2:19 pm

Burn baby, burn

billtoo
July 30, 2021 2:25 pm

unexpectedly

MarkW
Reply to  billtoo
July 30, 2021 2:47 pm

unprecedented

Scissor
Reply to  MarkW
July 30, 2021 4:18 pm

Used to be a 1 in 100 year event. Now we hear about them frequently. Obviously CO2 is to blame.

Bob boder
Reply to  Scissor
July 30, 2021 4:36 pm

Lmao

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Scissor
July 30, 2021 5:00 pm

A one in 100 year event becomes once a year for a group of a hundred vehicles.

Reply to  billtoo
July 30, 2021 3:27 pm

It’s going to be worse than we thought if the adjacent batteries start smoking…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
July 30, 2021 7:33 pm

Smoking is bad, mkay?

H.R.
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 31, 2021 6:09 am

Generally speaking, yes, if we’re talking tobacco or batteries.

But smoking is a good thing if you’re talking brisket or ribs or pork butt.

2hotel9
July 30, 2021 2:32 pm

Eloon Gantry assured the world this could never happen, not ever.

ghalfrunt
July 30, 2021 2:41 pm

Tilbury: Fire At Power Station – Heart Essex – Heart Radiohttps://www.heart.co.uk › essex › news › tilbury-fire-po…

6. Tilbury Power Station Fire 6 … Incident commander, Chief Fire Officer David Johnson, said the blaze was one of the most challenging he had dealt with in his …

Power Station Fire – Heart Sussex – Heart Radiohttps://www.heart.co.uk › sussex › news › local › powe…

Police helicopter image shows scene of major fire at Shoreham Power Station last night.

xplosion and fire at Dartmouth power station – live updates …https://www.devonlive.com › news › devon-news › explo…

30 Aug 2020 — Explosion and fire at Dartmouth power station – live updates … Four fire engines are currently fighting a fire after a power station exploded in

Fire at power station – Greenwich | London Fire Brigadehttps://www.london-fire.gov.uk › incidents › january

23 Jan 2021 — Fire at power station – Greenwich … Four fire engines and around 25 firefighters were called to a fire at a power station on Old Woolwich Road ..

Major fire at gas-fired Didcot B power station – BBC Newshttps://www.bbc.co.uk › news › uk-england-29684205

20 Oct 2014 — Fire crews have been battling a major blaze at Didcot B Power Station, Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue has said. · At the height of the fire, which 

Over a dozen firefighting teams deployed to blaze at Poland’s …https://www.euronews.com › European affairs › Europe

22 May 2021 — State energy group PGE that runs the mine and the neighbouring power plant said on Twitter the fire was caused by the ignition of brown coal …

Mitchell Power Plant fire contained; all employees thought to …https://www.wtrf.com › news › west-virginia-headlines

9 Apr 2021 — Mitchell Power Plant fire contained; all employees thought to be safe … UPDATE: (10:30 AM) — According to AEP spokesperson, Joelle Moray, there ..

And I’v barely gone through the first page!

Dramatic footage shows a blaze ripping through a car after it burst into flames.
Firefighters were called to Cam High Street at 2:34pm today (July 29).

Crews extinguished the blaze by 3:16pm, but say the vehicle was completely destroyed.

Massive fire engulfs truck in Texas: VIDEO
This video is unbelievable

etc

Meab
Reply to  ghalfrunt
July 30, 2021 4:11 pm

God that was a stupid comment, ghoulfrump. The world is full of these kinds of things whereas there is only one battery destined to become the world’s largest and a part of it just burned up. Having a coal mine in your garage that catches on fire in the middle of the night is just a tad less likely than having an EV catch on fire in the middle of the night when it’s charging.

MarkW
Reply to  Meab
July 30, 2021 4:37 pm

There are 10’s of thousands of coal mines and hundreds of thousands of coal piles.
There 100’s of millions of cars.
There’s only one of these batteries.

Like most leftists, ghoulfont has no understanding of statistics.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MarkW
July 31, 2021 6:43 am

Around 1.4 billion cars and growing!

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
July 31, 2021 10:37 am

I should also add that ghoulfont had to go back almost a decade to find his examples.

Derg
Reply to  ghalfrunt
July 30, 2021 4:20 pm

Ghalfrunt stick to telling people to drink bleach…you are a terrible human

Loydo
Reply to  Derg
July 30, 2021 11:59 pm

Thats about the tenth time, that I’ve read, you’ve repeated this silly lie.
It’s a bit rich coming from someone who claims the moon landings were faked.

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
July 31, 2021 3:35 am

Not a lie at all. Ghalfrunt really wrote to drink bleach. Very dishonest person.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Derg
August 2, 2021 12:51 am

no, I wrote that your lord and master, Trump, suggested that drinking a disinfectant (bleach) might be a way of curing C19. I know you find comprehension difficult but this is easy to understand.

John Endicott
Reply to  ghalfrunt
August 2, 2021 3:49 am

And what you wrote is a not true. He never said any such thing. Even left-wing politifact rates that one as false. When even the so-called “fact-checkers” won’t spin it your way, you know what you are saying is total garbage. (But then it is garbagefrunt that I’m replying to, so it pretty much goes without saying that we’re discussing garbage)

Scissor
Reply to  ghalfrunt
July 30, 2021 4:21 pm

The last video is impressive, why would you say it’s unbelievable?

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
July 30, 2021 4:36 pm

Only magic batteries are known to burst into flames on their own.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  ghalfrunt
July 30, 2021 6:35 pm

This video is unbelievable

You forgot “number 6 will shock you!”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Craig from Oz
July 30, 2021 7:36 pm

Lol, the clickbait master.

Ted
Reply to  ghalfrunt
July 31, 2021 7:27 am

From the very first link – “There have been no injuries and no loss of power to anyone in the area.” – “…not affected the power station’s main turbine generator hall.”
The fire was was able to extinguished, and had no effect on operations. As opposed to the battery fire in the post completely destroyed the battery, and it is so much more challenging that firefighters aren’t even bothering deal with the main fire.

Your link proves that the Tesla fire is orders of magnitude worse.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
July 31, 2021 8:32 am

ghalfrunt
You had to work hard to find those far-flung examples.
If we asked the question – what effect the fires had on power station electricity output and performance say one month post fire, the Australian battery fire would be on its own.
It probably won’t even have stopped burning in a month’s time.

The green dream is an unattainable fantasy, a fact that is becoming more obvious with each day that passes.

Drake
Reply to  ghalfrunt
July 31, 2021 2:31 pm

Your first example was a fire in a wood chip power plant that WAS a coal plant that never had such a problem when it was a coal plant and they cannot fight the fire because getting the wood wet would increase the weight so much the structure would collapse.

If it was still coal, it would not have caught fire in the first place. If somehow it had, it could have been extinguished with water because the coal would not absorb he water.

So, you provide an example for NOT using greentard “biomass’ to replace coal.

Great job. I hope your paymasters doc your salary for such stupidity.

Robert of Texas
July 30, 2021 2:42 pm

Um…Does this count towards Global Warming or not? I get lost in all the nonsensical rules.

PaulH
Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 30, 2021 4:01 pm

I think it’s in the same category as a BLM protest during a covid lockdown.

n.n
Reply to  PaulH
July 30, 2021 5:59 pm

Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter is a principle and prime directive of planned population cults.

n.n
Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 30, 2021 5:58 pm

It’s the Green blight analog of the Urbane Island effect.

MarkW
July 30, 2021 2:45 pm

That’s gonna set the project back.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
July 30, 2021 4:41 pm

Ya think, DiNozzo?

alastair gray
July 30, 2021 2:48 pm

According to
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Australia-To-Build-The-Worlds-Largest-Battery.html#:~:text=With%20a%20cost%20of%20%242,the%20biggest%20in%20the%20world.
Australia to build world’s largest battery ,
quote

“With a cost of $2,4 billion, this 1.2 GW mega-battery will challenge the dominance of the Moss Landing storage facility, located in California, which is currently the biggest in the world. Not only will it have a 4 times higher storage capacity than the Moss Landing one,

Well now a deep cycle lead acid 12 volt battery will supply 130 Amp Hrs at 12 volts, and costs about £80 This is equivalent to about 1.5 kWhr so to supply 1.2 GW hr we need 800,000 of these for a cost of 64 million . Admittedly 800,000of these batteries takes up quite a lot of space.t25 of these into a cubic metre. so my 1.2 GW facility would occupy 32,000 cu m. – about 1,000 20 ft shipping containers so could fit into a fairly large parking lot.
So are not these big storage batteries a tad expensive – about 3,000 times the price of a lead acid facility of equivalent capacity .

You will not fail to notice that these batteries are static so weight doesnt really matter. Lead acid batteries do not readily catch fire and if they do it can be extinguished easily.
Also of course 1. 2 GW hr of storage would run the UK electricity grid of today (Power about 30 od d GW) for about half an hour . So hardly a huge amount of storage . Cloud cuckoo land doesn’t go half way to explaining all of this
Maybe someone can explain why we use lithium batteries for this type of storage.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  alastair gray
July 30, 2021 2:55 pm

Because technology!

But seriously, I am given to understand that lead-acid batteries are not very suitable for this type of storage and use. I’d like someone more knowledgeable to confirm or refute that, though.

Last edited 2 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Patrick MJD
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
July 30, 2021 4:11 pm

As stated above, deep cycle lead acid is where I’d start. Lithium battery fires cannot be extinguished easily. Unfortunately, the two most green, woke, scared states in Australia are South Australia, the first to install a Tesla battery and Victoria with this monstrosity. It’s any wonder why Australia has some of the most expensive electricity.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 30, 2021 6:48 pm

Weatherill – the SA Premier at the time – wasn’t hard green. He was a useless twat who’s party had caused the problems in the first place and, having completely blacked out the entire state, latched onto the snake oil of the super battery deal.

Musk came in and offered a 30 days or it’s free deal to Mr “I am doing something look at me” Weatherill and Weatherill, with the support of the gibbering media pack happily bent the knee.

Apparently this big battery was also going to be a major tourist attraction, because that – apparently – is what cool kids want on their holidays.

“Jane? Have you heard? John is taking me to see the Big Battery this weekend. I think he is going to finally propose!!!”

and

“Kids! We are going to the Gold Coast and hitting those theme parks!”
“But Dad!!! We want to go to Big Battery!!! You promised us!!!”

There is being Woke, being Green and also being a lot of an idiot.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Craig from Oz
July 31, 2021 12:04 am

There is being Woke, being Green and also being a lot of an idiot.

You keep repeating yourself

mrsell
Reply to  Craig from Oz
July 31, 2021 7:48 am

But Dad!!! We want to go to Big Battery <on fire> !!! You promised us!!!

I’d take a road trip to watch a Tesla Pyrotechnics Show ™ !

John_C
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
July 30, 2021 5:51 pm

Lead-acid batteries are heavy and large (low power density, low power per unit mass). Properly constructed, they have decent recharge cycle life. However, you need to pick your style, the “car battery” gives high discharge rates, “golf-cart” allows long/deep discharge at modest demand, “telco” gives full charge / discharge cycles but at low rates. Did you want a peaking battery that only gets hit once a day for an hour, or an overnight supply battery, or a battery that can fill in when a catastrophic event kills your supply line? Obviously, with a lead-acid utility battery bank, you can mix & match, and even reconfigure as experience suggests with far greater freedom than with the Tesla giant battery. You’ll be replacing the batteries in the banks more often, but it will be with less expensive labor and material charges with a far cheaper safety regime.

To bed B
Reply to  alastair gray
July 30, 2021 5:46 pm

Lead-acid batteries have only recently been replaced with Li-ion batteries in submarines. Just the Japs so far.
“Ouryu submarine had an acquisition cost of $608 million, while its predecessor—which was equipped with lead-acid batteries—had a cost of $488 million, according to Defense News.”

You have to wonder why Australia with one person and two sheep per square kilometers would need to go down the Li-ion path.

robin townsend
Reply to  To bed B
July 31, 2021 2:09 am

this is actually fake. the japanese claims dont bear serious scrutiny. has noone wondered why submarines didnt / dont lead the way on battery technology?

dk_
Reply to  alastair gray
July 30, 2021 5:53 pm

Any battery technology is more appropriate at point-of-use. The grid is not for storage, charging and transmission waste make it uneconomical. The only purpose behind having a lightweight power storage device is for transporation devices. It is a dangerous, expensive, polluting, and wasteful idea to centralize a power storage facility. Musk is a charlatan, made wealthy at taxpayer expense.
Lead acid makes sense in a small, appropriately designed facility, but only when there is cheap power production. Grid storage is a con for morons who don’t care about spending other people’s money.

Last edited 2 months ago by dk_
n.n
Reply to  alastair gray
July 30, 2021 6:02 pm

Progressive prices and availability because they care or something.

alastair gray
Reply to  n.n
July 31, 2021 2:33 pm

What the hell does that mean?

Ebor
Reply to  alastair gray
July 30, 2021 6:46 pm

Vanadium redox batteries (and future variants thereof) look like the most viable technology for this sort of task: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

Admin
Reply to  Ebor
July 30, 2021 7:27 pm

Problem is supply, I delved into why they aren’t happening, turns out one city size Vanadium Redox battery would consume most of the global annual supply of Vanadium.

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 31, 2021 1:18 am

There’s a reason for asteroid mining, if one can be found with lots of vanadium.

Ebor
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 31, 2021 6:52 am

Interesting. I had a different impression on its viability from an analyst’s report that I sadly can’t share b/c of licensing restrictions. As a physical chemist I find the technology interesting from a purely academic perspective and not b/c I’m a fan of the whole renewable energy scam…for the hopelessly curious like myself (who should really get a life) here’s some info on Vanadium from the mining industry…https://www.mining.com/web/vanadium-metal-cant-without-dont-produce/

Drake
Reply to  Ebor
July 31, 2021 2:51 pm

Ebor,

Thanks for the link, really interesting.

Drake

MarkW
Reply to  alastair gray
July 30, 2021 7:28 pm

Weight doesn’t matter much.
The heavier the battery, the stronger and hence more expensive, the racks built to hold them will have to be.

alastair gray
Reply to  MarkW
July 31, 2021 2:36 pm

We got a couple of billion to play with before we get up to the Muskrats prices

Ron Long
July 30, 2021 2:48 pm

What irony, a scheme to get to net zero instead pumps out a tremendous amount of carbon dioxide plus some nasty stuff. We are in the throes of cultural regression.

n.n
Reply to  Ron Long
July 30, 2021 6:03 pm

50 shades of intermittent/renewable energy with carbon/green, per chance nuclear/reliable, backups.

Last edited 2 months ago by n.n
TonyG
Reply to  Ron Long
August 1, 2021 12:10 pm

But it’s GOOD CO2 because it was “green”, right?

Admin
July 30, 2021 2:48 pm

The smoke is deadly, potentially causes dementia like brain injuries, permanent muscle weakness, long list of horrible symptoms.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 30, 2021 4:03 pm

Is that what happened to Biden?

Willem Post
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
July 30, 2021 4:17 pm

No
He was sniffing hair!!
I do not know why, but it did impair his brain
Some type of infantile fetish?

Vuk
Reply to  Willem Post
July 31, 2021 2:25 am

Addicted to hair spray most likely, the offspring went to a higher level.

Scissor
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
July 30, 2021 4:30 pm

Must have had a battery on his chin.

Admin
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
July 30, 2021 7:37 pm

My guess is Biden is suffering age related dementia, possibly Alzheimers. If they are giving methylphenidate (Ritalin) to Biden, it improves cognitive function in dementia patients, the the downside is increased agitation, disrupted sleep and decreased appetite. In some cases it can cause psychosis.

Drake
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 31, 2021 2:53 pm

He is a progressive Democrat so we don’t have to worry about him GETTING psychosis.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 30, 2021 6:56 pm

Fortunately Stairman Dan, with the help of his trusty Belt and Road colouring book, already had a plan to lock the entire state of Victoria indoors, ensure they all wear masks and brutally arrest people.

If Dan is really lucky he might even be allowed to employ soldiers against their own countrymen and finally get back ahead of his NSW Mother-in-Law Rival in their border spanning pissing contest.

(also, and unrelated, here in my home state I managed during a ‘Complete Lockdown’ to catch Bronchitis, because remaining indoors and avoiding human interaction does that to you. Good thing I didn’t catch any footballs or I might have really been in trouble)

David Kelly
Reply to  Eric Worrall
August 1, 2021 6:18 pm

My understanding is the primary risk associated with a lithium battery fire is exposer to high levels of HF. Producing possible damage to skin and lungs, including severe burns, and systemic effects, such as cardiac arrhythmias and acute renal failure.

I don’t see any references suggesting brain injury or permanent muscle weakness.

If I’m missing something, please feel free to educate me.

Doonman
July 30, 2021 2:52 pm

Crews Battle Tesla Battery Fire

Is standing around issuing press releases while waiting for a lithium-cobalt battery fire to exhaust its fuel supply now considered “battling” ?

Reply to  Doonman
July 30, 2021 3:31 pm

Why not try and dump bucket loads of sand or soil on it from a helicopter…just like they did with boron at Chernobyl. Surely if it’s buried it would go out and eventually cool down.

Good chance to try different techniques I would have thought…this won’t be the last battery fire! The site is quite remote if anything goes seriously wrong.

n.n
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
July 30, 2021 6:10 pm

Mitigating the progress of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change forced by laundered, disposable, Green technology, with means and material transported by hydrocarbon-fueled helicopters. Oh, the comic relief.

Reply to  n.n
July 30, 2021 6:20 pm

Yes, just like de-icing windmills with a helicopter!

Ebor
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
July 31, 2021 7:48 am

That won’t stop the reaction b/c it doesn’t need oxygen but it would control the emissions, as with Chernobyl

David Kelly
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
August 1, 2021 5:07 pm

The lithium is lighter than sand. So it would simply float above the sand and keep burning.

Last edited 2 months ago by David Kelly
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Doonman
July 30, 2021 4:43 pm

Yes, because there is no practical way to extinguish them.

TonyG
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 1, 2021 1:30 pm

Thank you Monte.
You still have to isolate it, possibly protect other property, and monitor. It’s not like you just sit and watch, even if that’s what it looks like.

Larry in Texas
July 30, 2021 3:11 pm

Just another reason not to buy a Tesla. Somebody needs to send a 13-ton Tesla battery to the White House, Joe Biden loves electric cars so much. Just kidding.

It would serve Elon Musk and company right if their whole battery factory in Australia burned down because of this.

Kpar
July 30, 2021 3:26 pm

GET OUT THE MARSHMALLOWS!

ResourceGuy
July 30, 2021 3:27 pm

You mean the largest battery fire in the southern hemisphere.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 30, 2021 3:32 pm

So far…

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 31, 2021 12:09 am

Hold my beer….

Pat
July 30, 2021 3:28 pm

8-24 hours????
A recent 200,000 lithium battery (cell phone etc) storage facility fire located in Morris Illinois broke out on a Tuesday and the residence were allowed to return on Friday after crews created a sarcophagus out of Portland cement.
My money is on more than 24 hours for this one.

Paul Johnson
July 30, 2021 3:37 pm

From the pictures in the full story, this of one of 120 units that make up the installation. It will probably delay progress a short time, but they want to re-consider their spacing requirements.

Drake
Reply to  Paul Johnson
July 31, 2021 3:06 pm

And their use of fire separations?? All will make the installation more expensive, yet another under-estimation of cost. Don’t worry, the taxpayers are happy to make up the difference, and the contractor will be happy to make the same % off MORE MONEY = MoMoney.

David Kelly
Reply to  Paul Johnson
August 1, 2021 5:10 pm

Two units… but I see your point.

Rod Evans
July 30, 2021 3:46 pm

I think we can now say, high density batteries are an “existential threat” to humanity. We must ban the use and the deployment of high density batteries for the sake of mankind oh and womankind, and itkind….have I missed anyone out?
The new slogan will be “go woke get smoke”
I bet the BBC do not cover this event.

Geoff
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 30, 2021 4:30 pm

Interestingly, this news had completely missed the morning papers here in Victoria, even though it is probably still burning.

saveenergy
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 30, 2021 4:30 pm

“mankind oh and womankind, and itkind….have I missed anyone out?

Kind of, yes;
‘your kind’, ‘my kind’ & ‘you’re just too kind’.

Writing Observer
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 30, 2021 7:46 pm

By the last count I have seen – at least 150.

niceguy
July 30, 2021 3:52 pm

Another proof that variants are bad and We Need More Lockdowns?

dk_
July 30, 2021 3:54 pm

The green goons are too much in denial that net zero is nonsense to do this risky thing right. A responsible construction engineering firm and/or competent government licensing body would have required that sufficient and proper fire fighting and fire prevention gear on site throughout construction and operations. Woke is brain dead.

Drake
Reply to  dk_
July 31, 2021 3:15 pm

Good thought but with this type of material, fire separations to segment the materials into limited quantities is the only thing you can do other than NOT building it in the first place.

Can’t remember exactly who posted it and what the list was but for GREEN electricity.

Update:

1) Build Bird Chopper
2) Build Solar Farm
3) Build grid scale battery
4) Build dispatchable electricity generation facilities equivalent to the required load.
5) Tear down 1) and 2)
6) Don’t worry about 3), it will eventually burn down of its own accord.

dk_
Reply to  Drake
July 31, 2021 7:25 pm

Sorry Drake, but I respectfully disagree. An honest and skilled designer can engineer around the fire hazard, but it becomes less useful and more expensive quite quickly. Imagine, in this instance, having to keep on the side multiple tons of a flux and silica (boric acid and sand) mixture and a working means of instantly delivering the mix in high volumes anywhere on site. Imagine also providing wide area lightning mitigation and mine-grade heavy equipment. This is done all the time in high-explosive and extreme hazard manufacturing and storage facilities, but is prohibitively expensive in most situations.

In this case, the dumb@$$ has been multiplied by its base in a misapplied technology (net zero), wishful thinking (human modified climate change), and technical fraud (hazardous materials handling without disaster mitigation). A predicted failure based on a realistic appraisal of technology and industrial history.

July 30, 2021 3:57 pm

I’m an Aussie and an ex-Victorian, I can’t help it, I find myself pleased with and smiling with the fact of this fire.

The extreme left-wing government of Victoria is dangerous.

I will be fascinated to see how the lefty ABC news handles this one.

niceguy
Reply to  Glenn Thompson
July 30, 2021 5:43 pm

Yes! Like hacking of important systems is good!

Because it will happen some day. Better now and let people realize that it may happen.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Glenn Thompson
July 31, 2021 12:11 am

I will be fascinated to see how the lefty ABC news handles this one.

Hey are ignoring it, just like all information negative to the CAGW narrative.

michael hart
July 30, 2021 4:26 pm

Best to have it where it causes fewest human injuries, and so that more people can be become educated about batteries.

It is quite likely that they have already almost reached their maximum safe energy density.
Continue to increase the energy density of a battery and it changes from being a fire risk to become an explosion risk.

A tank full of gasoline is relatively safe because the oxygen required for complete combustion is elsewhere (in the atmosphere). A petrol tank with all that oxygen already mixed in with it (if that was possible) would be considered an extreme fire/explosion risk by every fire brigade on the planet. It would be banned, left, right, and center.

niceguy
Reply to  michael hart
July 30, 2021 7:26 pm

Yes, and we need more publicized cases of hacking of important, thought to be correctly protected computer systems, so that people stop putting reprogrammable computer chips everywhere.

It’s a systemic issue.

Writing Observer
Reply to  michael hart
July 30, 2021 7:48 pm

The principle of the fuel-air bomb. Also called the “Mother Of All Bombs.”

July 30, 2021 4:31 pm

Fun fact: the larger these batteries get, the higher the chance one of the cells will catch fire and blow up the whole thing.

July 30, 2021 4:37 pm

Test worked well, it produces a lot of energy 😉

Dennis
Reply to  E. Schaffer
July 31, 2021 2:50 am

Yes for a short period, followed by a long recharging period, when the wind blows.

But the energy charge out rate is very attractive for the owners.

Who is their insurer?

Tom
July 30, 2021 4:38 pm

I’m not sure why we have to report on every battery fire here. There are many other fires where the fuel is something else which go unremarked. I understand that this is interesting to the clapping monkeys, but I’m hoping that is not your target audience.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Tom
July 30, 2021 4:49 pm

Gently suggest that you find another website…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom
July 30, 2021 5:22 pm

“There are many other fires where the fuel is something else which go unremarked.”

Those fires are controllable, for the most part.

The problem with lithium batteries that burn uncontrollably, is the alarmists want to put millions of them on our roads and in our garages. That’s not a good idea if they are prone to spontaneous combustion.

Tom
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 30, 2021 6:05 pm

We live in a world with many risks and assorted complexities. We will learn how to cope with lithium fires or we won’t. I suspect it’s not the game breaker many here are hoping for.

John_C
Reply to  Tom
July 30, 2021 6:20 pm

You’re right, either we will or we won’t. I suspect that, as with steam powered automobiles, old electric cars, and town gas we will decide to live without giant lithium batteries. I just hope we are wise enough to choose to live with the nuclear power complexities. We can even use it to make hydrocarbon fuels out of air and water!

Duker
Reply to  John_C
July 31, 2021 1:00 am

Many would say it was ‘predicted’…..but not using any models as a simple physical process

MarkW
Reply to  Tom
July 30, 2021 7:41 pm

Whether it’s a game breaker or not, it’s yet another nail in the coffin of renewable energy.
That’s the real reason why you are whining about us talking about this, isn’t it. You want people to remain ignorant of the problems with your preferred solutions.

paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
July 31, 2021 1:51 pm

Mr. W: Notice the projection of a rooting interest by this one.

paul courtney
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 1:07 pm

Mr. Tom: What do you hope for?

alastair gray
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 2:46 pm

The Hindenberg disaster killed airships stone dead

n.n
Reply to  Tom
July 30, 2021 6:13 pm

The sociopolitical myths and handmade tales of clean, albeit Green, and certainly a green proposal for mass distribution, technology. Pin the tale…

Last edited 2 months ago by n.n
MarkW
Reply to  n.n
July 30, 2021 7:42 pm

These tales were made by hand? Interesting. Perhaps you mean handmaid.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Tom
July 30, 2021 7:11 pm

There are regulations on bulk fuel storage that go down to details about mowing the surrounding lawns. Risks are recognised. Risks are addressed.

Life, you remember, is Risk and if you believe there is ever a SAFE then you probably need adult supervision.

The point being made is that ‘batteries’ are being sung by our Educated Elite as the future and happily quote from Arts Graduates studies that show that a Green Future will be more supportive and inclusive to the generationally oppressed minorities still emotionally distressed by claims that since humans came from Africa all race is meaningless.

What we really want to hear is pragmatic discussion about the limitations, the large scale implications and the actual real world applications of this Battery Based Society and what risk reduction processes need to become standard.

Remember, there are good and well established reasons why you are not allowed to store bulk petrol in your swimming pool. I understand you might not be interested in discussion about a garage fire started by your wokemobile burning your entire house down, but clapping monkeys like you are actually our target audience.

Tom
Reply to  Craig from Oz
July 30, 2021 8:58 pm

It’s hard to know who to respond to here, but I did notice scrolling down through the comments of others that there are people applauding and cheering the fact of this battery fire. Does that seem right to you?

alastair gray
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 2:51 pm

A wake-up call generally does get applause from the wise

Drake
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 3:36 pm

Yes it does. Something totally unnecessary being built at the direction of a nutter leftist government is really funny!

niceguy
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 10:43 pm

Better now than later…

niceguy
Reply to  Tom
July 30, 2021 7:29 pm

If battery fires were taken more seriously, the 787 would have been grounded earlier.

Last edited 2 months ago by niceguy
MarkW
Reply to  Tom
July 30, 2021 7:39 pm

Do you normally get offended whenever renewable energy and it’s attendant technologies get ridiculed?

Adults know that they are not being forced to read anything that doesn’t interest them.
So, where does that put you?

Tom
Reply to  MarkW
July 31, 2021 10:56 am

No, I’m not offended, and I’m not a global warming/climate change alarmist, and I don’t believe in the Green New Deal, or any of that. However, I do find it annoying when people, and especially here, lack any scientific, engineering, or economic basis for piling on the ridicule and making completely specious arguments without knowing the first thing about the subject matter. Among the things I have noted are 1) that there are people who completely refute the existing of the greenhouse effect altogether, 2) that there are people who argue that we can’t have hydrogen pipelines because of hydrogen embrittlement, and 3) that renewable energy technologies are inherently more dangerous and worse for the environment than, say, fossil fuel sourced energy. Some of the people who post here have had to start policing their comments in order to weed out the nonsense that get posted. This kind of mindless politically motivated resistance to climate change alarmism is not helpful. People who want to argue against the policies of the climate change alarmist need to make well informed and sound arguments. Posting nonsense taints the rational arguments against the alarmist climate change policies. As for me, if the technology is sound and the economics work, then I’m for it.

Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 12:45 pm

1) It is an open forum, people who refute the GHE are in the minority and usually challenged on their idiocy, or simply ignored. 2) Hydrogen storage and transportation has MANY challenges, and 3) renewables in fact do consume vast amounts of energy and rare earths to produce, and their net impact to the environment may well be far worse than people think, particularly if they were to get to anywhere near the same scale as fossil fuels.

This site has reported on forest fires, building fires, I even recall an article about a tire fire. When batteries were first being proposed as energy storage for the electrical grid, many of us pointed to the possibility of a fire that couldn’t be put out. Our detractors ridiculed us.

Well now one of the darn things is on fire and you think we should just ignore it? Can you imagine the mess if they were slightly closer together and ALL of them caught on fire? Do you think the people living downwind of the toxic fumes being emitted are uninterested? How about the people downwind of proposed new sites? If batteries are a solution to making renewables practical, we would need 10’s, possibly 100’s of thousands of these battery parks world wide. So we should just skip this one event and move on?

Last edited 2 months ago by davidmhoffer
niceguy
Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 31, 2021 10:45 pm

Please don’t use renewable unironically.

Clyde
Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 1, 2021 4:01 pm

That makes 4 out of the tracked 200 grid-scale battery facilities thus far which have experienced fires… and the ecofreaks have plans to put just over 10,000 of these monstrosities across the US. You can imagine the mass evacuations to escape the toxic smoke, the environmental devastation necessitated by all the mining to build hundreds of thousands of tons of Li-Ion batteries (each of those shipping container-sized packs has 13 tons of batteries), etc.

As to “people who refute the GHE“… it’s refuted. No climastrologist or warmist physicist to date has been able to refute the data below… CAGW is dead.

“Trust the science!”, they say… “The science is settled!”, they say… yeah, well, even physicists are wrong sometimes, and the climate activists in white lab coats masquerading as climatologists (which we know as climastrologists) are seemingly intentionally so, seemingly paid to be so in order to push a leftist narrative.

Here’s a modern example of a physicist being wrong. He lost a $10,000 bet.

We’re losing our rights and freedoms. Object lesson: Don’t be wrong.

Carnot erred in assuming that heat is never consumed as work; Clausius erred in attributing ‘heat’ to the energy density of an object (‘heat’ is definitionally an energy flux, ‘temperature’ is a measure of energy density); Kirchhoff in formulating his original version of Kirchhoff’s Law used the term ’emissivity’ when he actually meant ’emissive power’; and Planck erred in clinging to a long-debunked radiative model, and his follow-on assumptions stemming from that led to his treating real-world (graybody) objects as though they radiatively emit willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient.

Planck correctly stated:

Conduction of heat depends on the temperature of the medium in which it takes place, or more strictly speaking, on the non-uniform distribution of the temperature in space, as measured by the temperature gradient.

Do remember that temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant… it is a measure of energy density.

In other words, Planck correctly stated that energy can only flow (the definition of heat) via conduction if there is a temperature (and therefore an energy density) gradient.

Where Planck erred is in his clinging to the Prevost Theory Of Exchanges (and its core tenet, the Prevost Principle) in regard to radiative energy, which led him to eschew scientific reality (that energy only flows if there is an energy density gradient), to wit:

But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).

The long-debunked Prevost Theory of Exchanges (first replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Heat, then by Quantum Thermodynamics) assumed that energy flowed without regard to energy density gradient, because only an object’s internal state determined radiant exitance. This led Planck to make the further incorrect assumption in keeping with the Prevost Theory of Exchanges:

We shall now introduce the further simplifying assumption that the physical and chemical condition of the emitting substance depends on but a single variable, namely, on its absolute temperature T.

He correctly stated that energy transfer via conduction was predicated upon there being an energy density gradient, but for radiative energetic exchange, he clung to the Prevost Principle (core tenet of the Prevost Theory of Exchanges, a long-debunked hypothesis from 1791 which was predicated upon Caloric Theory; which postulated that radiant exitance of an object was solely determined by that object’s internal state, thus energy could flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient).

Except the Prevost Principle would only work for an idealized blackbody object, and they don’t actually exist… they’re idealizations. And the object would have to be in an isolated system, and they don’t actually exist… they’re idealizations.

A graybody object’s radiant exitance isn’t solely determined by that object’s internal state, as the S-B equation plainly shows:comment image
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h

Temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
T = 4^√(e / (4σ / c))

∴ q = ε σ (ΔT^4) A_h
∴ q = ε σ (Δ(e / (4σ / c))) A_h

Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1))) * m^2 

It is the energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance. The climate loons misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for graybody objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower energy density gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) lowers radiant exitance of the warmer object (as compared to its radiant exitance if it were emitting to 0 K). The energy density differential between objects manifests an energy density gradient, each surface’s energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.

Thus, the climastrologists cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle (whether they know it or not… and if they don’t know it, then they really have no business being anywhere near anything related to science) when they claim that energy can radiatively flow without regard to energy density gradient… and that leads to all manner of unscientific drivelry… ‘backradiation’, ‘Global Warming Potential’, the incorrect usage of the S-B equation in the K-T diagram and even in instruments such as pyrgeometers and FTIR spectrometers, and ultimately in their core narrative: CAGW.

It is all based upon mathematical fraudery, none of it is correct, none of it is physical, none of it is scientific. CAGW is nothing but a complex mathematics-based scam. It is little more than a rigged mathematical game of thimblerig, and few are quick-witted enough to catch the climastrologists palming the pea as they shuffle the thimbles.

1) The climate loons are, as usual, provably diametrically opposite to reality.
———-
The climate loons misuse the S-B equation, using the form meant for idealized blackbody objects upon graybody objects:
q = σ T^4
… and slapping ε onto that (sometimes) …
q = ε σ T^4

Their misuse of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all graybody objects, necessitating that they carry that error forward through their calculations and cancel it on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate loons to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).
comment image
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmerenergy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to coolerenergy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object energy density (temperature is a measure of energy density, the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant) from warmer object energy density. Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the energy density gradient.

Their problem, however, is that their take on radiative energetic exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (this is brought about because they claim that objects emit only according to their temperature (rather than according to the energy density gradient), thus for objects at the same temperature in an environment at the same temperature, all would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their insane take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?

They cite Clausius out of context… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. They’re idealizations. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.

So the climate loons are forced to either ignore entropy completely, or to claim that radiative energetic exchange is an idealized reversible process… it’s not, and that completely disproves their blather.

Their mathematical fraudery is what led to their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient‘ narrative (in their keeping with the long-debunked Prevost Principle), which led to their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which led to their ‘CAGW‘ narrative, all of it definitively, mathematically, scientifically proven to be fallacious.
———-

2) CO2 isn’t a ‘global warming’ gas… it acts as a net atmospheric coolant at all altitudes except a negligible warming at the tropopause.
———-comment image
That’s from an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.comment image
That’s from the Clough and Iacono study.

Gee… adding more of the predominant upper-atmospheric radiative coolant causes more emitters per unit volume, which causes more emission per unit volume, which causes more emission to space, which causes a larger loss of energy from the system known as ‘Earth’, which causes cooling… who knew? LOL

It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse’ gases… remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection.

Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.

In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.

The environmental lapse rate would necessitate that the surface also warms, given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation).

The surface would also have to warm because that ~76.2% of energy…comment image
… which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation would have to be removed nearly solely via radiation (there would be some collisional perturbation of N2 and O2, and thus some emission in the atmosphere)…. and a higher radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.

The chance of any N2 or O2 molecule colliding with water vapor is ~3% on average in the troposphere, and for CO2 it’s only ~0.0415%. Logic dictates that as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, the likelihood of N2 or O2 colliding with it also increases, and thus increases the chance that N2 or O2 can transfer its translational and / or vibrational mode energy to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which can then shed that energy to space via radiative emission. (And yes, t-v and v-v collisional processes do occur from N2 to CO2… if you doubt me, I can post the maths and studies which prove it.)

Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the ~96 – 99.8% (depending upon humidity) of the atmosphere which cannot radiatively emit must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor below the tropopause and the largest contributor above the tropopause, water vapor being the main contributor below the tropopause) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space.

So can anyone explain how increasing the concentration of the major radiative coolants (H2O, CO2) in the atmosphere (and thus increasing the likelihood that Ar, N2 and O2 will transfer their energy to those radiative coolant gases and then out to space via radiative emission) will result in more ‘heat trapping’, causing global warming? I thought not.
———-

3) Water vapor isn’t a ‘global warming’ gas… it acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause.
———-
You know, the refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:

A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.

That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K / km).

The effective emission height is ~5.105 km.

7 – 13 µm: >280 K (near-surface).
>17 µm: ~260 – ~240 K (~5km in the troposphere).
13 – 17 µm: ~220 K (near the tropopause).

The emission profile is equivalent to a BB with a temperature of 255 K, and thus an effective emission height of 5.105 km.

The lapse rate is said to average ~6.5 K / km. 6.5 K / km * 5.105 km = 33.1825 K. That is not the ‘greenhouse effect’, it’s the tropospheric lapse rate. The climate loons have conflated the two.

Polyatomic molecules (CO2, H2O) reduce the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR), not increase it (dry ALR: ~9.81 K / km; humid ALR: ~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) by dint of their higher specific heat capacity and/or latent heat capacity convectively transiting more energy (as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics), thus attempting to reduce temperature differential with altitude, while at the same time radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than they can convectively warm it… they increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source and sink… they are coolants.

9.81 K / km * 5.105 km = 50.08005 K (dry adiabatic lapse rate, due to homonuclear diatomics and monoatomics), which would give a surface temperature of 255 + 50.08005 = 305.08005 K. Sans CO2, that number would be even higher.

Water vapor (primarily) reduces that to 272.8675 K – 288.1825 K, depending upon humidity. Other polyatomics (CO2) contribute to cooling, to a lesser extent. The higher the concentration of polyatomics, the more vertical the lapse rate, the cooler the surface.

Also remember: the atmosphere is stable as long as actual lapse rate is less than ALR… and a greater concentration of polyatomic molecules reduces ALR… thus convection increases.

That’s kind of why, after all, CO2 isn’t used as a filler gas in double-pane windows… if it was such a terrific ‘heat trapping’ gas, it’d be used as such. It’s not. Low DOF, low specific heat capacity monoatomics generally are.
———-

4) Empirical examples:
———-
In fact, the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram…comment image
… does exactly as I stated… it treats a real-world (graybody) surface as if it were an idealized blackbody object, with emission to 0 K ambient and ε = 1. That’s the only way that diagram can get to 390 W m-2 surface radiant exitance.comment image
That’s proof-positive that they’ve misused the S-B equation to fit their narrative. Had they used the actual emissivity, they couldn’t have arrived at 390 W m-2 (see below), and had they used the proper form of the S-B equation for graybody objects, they’d not have even gotten close to 390 W m-2 (see below).

Their use of the wrong formula increases radiant exitance of graybody objects far above what it actually is:comment image
… which necessitates that they carry those incorrect values through their calculation and subtract a fictional ‘cooler to warmer‘ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler‘ energy flow.

Thus, some of the loons come to believe that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (the basis of their ‘backradiation’ blather). This violates 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense… energy cannot flow from lower energy density to higher energy density without external energy doing work upon the system to push that energy against the energy gradient. Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.

The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant.
e = aT^4

∴ T = 4^√(e/a)

In other words, temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant. It is a measure of energy density.

Keep in mind that Stefan’s constant above equals 4σ/c (which is sometimes known as the radiation constant), and ε is the emissivity modifier for graybody objects.

Which is why: U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.

This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4εσ/c, when including the graybody emissivity modifier ε.

The S-B equation integrates Planck’s Radiation Formula (which calculates the energy density for a given wavelength) over all wavelengths.

F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy
U = internal energy
T = absolute temp
S = final entropy
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment

If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.

U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.

If ΔU = 0, then (ΔU * c/4εσ) = 0, thus no energy can flow.

U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That is radiation pressure, which sets up the energy density gradient.

Free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If U = TS, p_photon = u/3 = p_object, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero. Photon chemical potential is zero.

So in the real world, the energy density gradient determines radiant exitance, energy does not flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient and 2Lot applies always and everywhere.comment image
———-

Upside down, backwards, inside out and diametrically opposite to reality… the natural state of every single liberal. Almost as if there’s something wrong with their brains. LOL

Lrp
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 2:21 pm

The technology is yet to find its limits, and the economics are such that even with subsidies only well off people can afford it. Add to the equation the fact that there are no discernible benefits vis a vis GHE from Victoria, or Australia, employing this technology, and you might get closer to the real value.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 2:43 pm

So your definition of scientific knowledge is, agrees with Tom.
While there are those who claim to prove that GHE does not exist. None of their arguments stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Hydrogen embrittlement exists and is a major problem. Regardless of whether you don’t want it to exist.
Since fossil fuel technologies do not present the slightest bit of danger to the environment, it doesn’t matter whether renewable technologies are less dangerous or not. On the other hand fossil fuels don’t kill endangered raptors by the thousand

BTW, this last claim of yours puts the lie to your claim that you are not a global warming alarmist, and your sole goal is to defend renewable power regardless of the cost and damage caused by it.

alastair gray
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 2:55 pm

Sorry Tom Most of the comments here I do find originate from an educated viewpoint and many of them actually manage an ounce or two of dry humour. Would that the wonderful woke world were so wonderful in their wittering woeful warnings!

Drake
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 3:47 pm

“As for me, if the technology is sound and the economics work, then I’m for it.”

So, from your posting it appears you are “for it”.

But the technology is not “sound” and the economics do not work, not by a long shot.

So, don’t try to come off as the only sane person in the chat. You still, after having been asked before on this and other chats, where you posted possibly the exact comment as posted above, explained why I should pay extra for electricity to fulfill your desire to use unreliable electrical generating methods?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 5:01 pm

You are of course free to go start your own blog according to your liking.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom
August 2, 2021 4:03 am

No, I’m not offended, and I’m not a global warming/climate change alarmist, and I don’t believe in the Green New Deal, or any of that.”

“The lady doth protest too much” – William Shakespeare.

Doonman
Reply to  Tom
July 30, 2021 7:47 pm

Those AA and D cell battery fires are so much worse when they spontaneously combust. And then when you find out that African children are forced to mine the potassium hydroxide for the alkaline base materials to make them, its just not right.

Drake
Reply to  Tom
July 31, 2021 3:35 pm

Tom,

The real issue is: Is there ANY NEED for these dangerous batteries without the DEMAND instituted by governmental fiat, for the use of unreliable, unnecessary, intermittent “renewable” electrical generation?

The answer is, of course, no. So this fairy tale BS battery installation burning down is FUNNY to the “clapping monkeys”. You know, the ones who use their brains, and understand that, like EVERY “progressive” initiative regarding CAGW and “renewable” power replacing dispatchable generation are jokes. This being unlike you and your progressive ilk who have not a clue.

As ever asking a$$hat progressive “renewable energy” supporters why should i pay more for your fantasies? A question yet to be answered. Will you try? I doubt it.

Drake

John the Econ
July 30, 2021 5:07 pm

I take it that its thermal management system is not currently functioning properly.

Ozonebust
July 30, 2021 5:12 pm

Given the nature of batteries, and the number assembled on one site, surely they would consider concrete dividing walls. Just as they currently have with power transformers.

This is gross negligence and stupidity.

Drake
Reply to  Ozonebust
July 31, 2021 3:51 pm

Yep. Why does the divider between the two adjacent units not project above the roofline? The wind has carried the the heat and products of combustion from one side to the other. Really poor design.

Peter D
July 30, 2021 5:20 pm

I can’t understand why they don’t put fire walls between the units, and separate them more. It’s basic insurance. The fires are rare, but the whole fascility could go up with the right winds and temperatures.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Peter D
July 31, 2021 5:17 am

I don’t see how you can say the fires are rare. For the number of installations, the percentage of fires is quite high compared to other energy technologies.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 31, 2021 7:47 am

Looks like 1 out 76.

BSC
July 30, 2021 5:30 pm

The Tesla battery is expected to become the largest battery in the southern hemisphere as part of a Victorian Government push to transition to renewable energy.
And where is the cost/benefit analysis on it? Oh, that’s right, I forgot to make an allowance for the ‘social cost’ of ‘carbon’.

alastair gray
Reply to  BSC
July 31, 2021 3:01 pm

Ackshually this is all a scheme to rectify a dreadful societal imbalance . Only a huge societal bipolar disorder could possibly lead a state government to consider that renewables were the answer to our problems . A healthy blast of Lithium will stabilize their monomania. Look upon it for the rest of us as ” The social cost of Lithium”

niceguy
July 30, 2021 5:33 pm

It’s quite possible that MH 370 was destroyed by a battery fire. No conspiracy, no military action, and not even a black hole.

The MSM, who was quite severe for Trump’s FAA sleeping at the wheel for the 737 Max – forgetting the many issues of older recent computerized 737s, some simply unthinkable (all screens turning down at the same time when entering some destination!!!!), doesn’t want to address the 777.

I think Boeing is mostly a marketing scam, like Apple “we respect customers” (no you don’t) and Mozilla Firefox “above all we defend privacy” (not always, not that much!). The scam is “we, unlike Airbus, we make old-style, reliable planes” and “Airbus is completely computerized, we at Boeing understand that pilots have to be in control and we respect pilots above all!” (you sh*t on pilots).

Another intellectual scam is the pseudo criticism: “Designing 737 Max is a political, strategic, engineering fault of Boeing board; they should have started a complete new design not adapting the old 737 airframe“. Pure pseudo intellectualism and engineering gibberish!

niceguy
Reply to  niceguy
July 30, 2021 7:33 pm

Sorry, I meant the 787 Dreamliner battery issues.

Last edited 2 months ago by niceguy
MarkW
Reply to  niceguy
July 30, 2021 7:50 pm

A battery fire would cause a plane to reverse course and fly out to sea, straight and level until the gas ran out?

The 737 Max was certified in 2016, Trump had nothing to do with it.

The rest of your paranoia is duly noted.

niceguy
Reply to  MarkW
July 30, 2021 10:29 pm

There is still no consensus on the plane whereabouts.

You have nothing, as usual. You just do useless spamming of the comments section.

MarkW
Reply to  niceguy
July 31, 2021 2:46 pm

Your ignorance knows no bounds.
The track of the plane has been traced by transmissions from the engine monitoring units.
The exact place where it crashed is unknown, but the basic track that it followed is well known.

niceguy
Reply to  MarkW
August 4, 2021 11:43 pm

Are you postulating a conspiracy theory?
You must be, if the coordinates of the plane was transmitted, authorities would have known where to search it immediately.
It isn’t clear what you believe (that is, if you think at all, which you don’t).

Drake
Reply to  niceguy
July 31, 2021 3:55 pm

Final whereabouts yes, direction when it left radar coverage, that they know, no?

And who gives a crap if there is or is not a “consensus” on its final whereabouts. That would mean nothing, without actual proof.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  niceguy
July 31, 2021 11:46 am

Don Lemon of CNN is not going to like hearing you disparage black holes as a possible cause of an airliner disappearance.

Don considers that a possiblity.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 31, 2021 5:05 pm

The only talking head able to interview Dementia Joe at the same level.

Michael in Dublin
July 30, 2021 5:34 pm

Perhaps we should start declaring electric battery free housing zones because of fear of fire and pollution?

To bed B
July 30, 2021 5:34 pm

The Murdoch News organisation routinely gets labelled as lackeys doing the bidding of it’s far right owner. It’s telling a lie often and for long enough until it does my head in.

The Adelaide Murdoch rag has nothing on it this morning. Zilch. The online Herald Sun in Victoria doesn’t deem it a major story. If you do a search you will find it reported but just going through today’s headlines and there is nothing. Other news sites think that “Major delays after truck carrying soil rolls on Melbourne freeway” is more news worthy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  To bed B
July 31, 2021 12:50 pm

I see where Fox News declined to run an advertisement from the My Pillow Guy, Mike Lindell, because the ad referenced the 2020 election. That’s not right-wing friendly.

As a result of this censorship, Mike Lindell has pulled all his My Pillow advertisements from Fox News Channel. He paid them $50 million for advertising last year, and about $10 million so far this year.

Now I’m going to have to go to Newsmax to get my discount code, the next time I buy one of Mike’s products. Newsmax agreed to carry Lindell’s 2020 election advertisement.

I haven’t seen the advertisement yet, but my impression is all it does is invite the viewer to visit Mike Lindell’s website where he discusses the 2020 election. But, to Fox News, discussing or even referring to the 2020 election is radioactive, and they won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole. Cowards, is what they are. They fear going against the Leftwing narrative.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
Drake
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 31, 2021 4:00 pm

Newsmax, Breitbart and OANN. I no longer watch Fox.

Hell having read about Brent’s interview of the CDC director, and his failure to ask about them never mentioning that those who have had the China virus are the only ones who will not get it again, it is obvious Fox is afraid the Dems will win if 2022, and will then go full H!tler on them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Drake
August 1, 2021 5:44 am

I thnk Fox News management is worried about lawsuits filed against them by the voting machine companies, and don’t want to add fuel to this fire, and I also think they feel if they push the election cheating narrative, they will open themselves to the Leftwing Media claims that Fox News is just a right-wing propaganda organ. So they bend over backwards the other way by not covering the narrative and ridiculing it when a guest brings it up.

They are fearful, and thus they censor the conversation.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 1, 2021 5:39 am

A few hours after I wrote the above, I saw a My Pillow commercial airing on Fox News.

I’m not sure what’s going on. Maybe Fox News and Mike Lindell kissed and made up (probably not), or maybe Lindell had paid in advance for the commercials, and that’s why they are still airing on Fox.

John_C
July 30, 2021 6:11 pm

I didn’t see an explanation of how using sand (which can be ‘burned’ by lithium {4Li + SiO2 > 2 Li2O + Si}) extinguishes a lithium fire. So, here goes. The basic effect is extracting heat, same as with dumping a burning battery in a lake. The battery still burns (though the reaction with sand is not as efficient as with water) but there’s a huge cold thermal mass that is sucking the heat ( water’s better at that ) out of the fire. The sand gets hotter, the battery gets colder, and if there’s way more sand than battery, the fire goes out.

The water version is spectacular and quick. With sand, you end up watching dump trucks and bulldozers build a sand dune on the fire, and cart the dune away a month later. The sand closest to the battery will be converted to lithium and silicon doped glass, with more lithium oxides and silicon thin films captured in the sand around the glass.

Ebor
Reply to  John_C
July 31, 2021 7:02 pm

Sounds like you have practical experience with this process – I guess it’s a good idea to stand back a bit 🙂

TonyG
Reply to  John_C
August 1, 2021 1:37 pm

I recall reading a while back (here, I think) that a problem with sand is that when you uncover it, it could start burning again.

PeterD
July 30, 2021 6:51 pm

Cannot find any updates, except for this. It’s still burning.
Victorian Emergency Services (reference provided).

https://emergency.vic.gov.au/respond/#!/incident/ESTA:210716521

 Non Structure Fire
Anakie Rd, Moorabool

Not yet under control
Today 11.21 M (31/jULY/2021)
11 Vehicles responding
Small fire

Issued Yesterday at 6:29 PM. Advice – Air Quality
This Advice is being issued for poor air quality in the Lovely Banks and Moorabool area.

   Smoke from a structure fire is currently affecting air quality in the Lovely Banks and Moorabool area.

Anyone located in Lovely Banks and Moorabool should move indoors. Close all exterior doors, windows and vents and turn off heating and cooling systems.
What you should do:

   Close all windows and doors and turn off your heating and cooling systems.
   Close vents and fireplace flues.
   Bring your pets indoors.
   If you are currently driving you should close the windows of your vehicle and turn off air conditioning.
   You should avoid prolonged or heavy physical activity.
   Anyone experiencing wheezing, chest tightness and difficulty breathing should call Triple Zero (000).
   If you have concerns about your health you should seek medical advice or call Nurse on Call on 1300 606 024.
   For more information on smoke and your health visit https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/your-environment/air/smoke.

Iain Russell
Reply to  PeterD
July 30, 2021 7:22 pm

Green Gold!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  PeterD
July 31, 2021 12:56 pm

Turn off your heating and cooling!

This is what you get when fools are put in charge.

Nashville
July 30, 2021 6:55 pm

I tried 3 times to post this to Facebook…

Oops; Something went wrong.
We’re working on getting it fixed as soon as we can…

Walter Sobchak
July 30, 2021 8:04 pm

The Li-Ion battery was invented for laptops and cell phones. It works fine in those uses. It is just not safe for use in larger quantities. Not even in cars. Certainly not grid scale uses.

The problem for BEV enthusiasts is that no other battery chemistry is capable of the same level of power weight or power volume. The entire push to convert transportation to battery power is doomed.

Here is an under reported Li-Ion battery fiasco:

“Chevrolet Bolt Recalled Again Due to Fire Concerns: Efforts to correct urgent problem move from software update to battery module replacement” By Keith Barry | Published July 23, 2021 | Updated July 28, 2021 | ConsumerReports.org

General Motors issued a second recall on 2017 to 2019 Chevrolet Bolt electric cars, following cases where EVs with the previous software update fix caught fire. …

Until then, GM advises:

1. Customers should … return their vehicle to the 90 percent state of charge limitation …

2. Additionally, the automaker asks that customers charge their vehicle after each use and avoid depleting their battery below approximately 70 miles of remaining range, where possible.

3. Out of an abundance of caution, customers should continue to park their vehicles outside immediately after charging and not leave their vehicles charging overnight.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
July 31, 2021 12:59 pm

“3. Out of an abundance of caution, customers should continue to park their vehicles outside immediately after charging and not leave their vehicles charging overnight.”

I bet their customers love hearing that.

Peta of Newark
July 30, 2021 8:39 pm

Climate ain’t gonna get us – paranoia and hasty over-reaction to an imaginary threat is looking like it will.
We are on the verge of doing something soooooo dumb as to exterminate ourselves. # #

Headline:”Home car charger owners urged to install updatesBBC

## In a perfectly bizarre way, there is a (very slim) glimmer of hope:
If some of the Lithium from the fire gets into our food or water it almost certainly will improve the mental health of those who ingest it.
So far so good, now if they could just:

  • Get the stuff that actively trashes mental health out of their diet (booze, cooked starch and other sugars)
  • More of the other stuff that helps mental health into our diets, (Magnesium, Sodium, Vitamins B and D)
  • More of the stuff that helps physical health (Vitamin C, Zinc, Iodine, Iron)

we might save ourselves…

WXcycles
July 30, 2021 9:09 pm

So much for the Lebanon outcome.

Robert Keon
July 30, 2021 9:13 pm

Apart from filing the pockets of Elon Musk, I can’t see the purpose of using lithium batteries for any sort of fixed installation.
Once they wear out they become 100% toxic waste, that is if they don’t catch fire in the
mean time.
If instead, you use good old reliable lead acid batteries, they will wear out in half the
time but they’re 100% renewable, Their disadvantage is weight but that’s not an
issue for fixed installations. Comparative volume may also be an issue but not
if you consider the separation required for lithium batteries due to their
likely propensity for self ignition/combustion.

Reply to  Robert Keon
July 31, 2021 2:42 pm

The problem is that lead acid is not sexy or woke enough.

Drake
Reply to  Robert Keon
July 31, 2021 4:13 pm

Edison batteries, which I first learned about on this site, the basic casing and internal parts will last FOREVER and are cheaper than Lithium.

When you have unlimited space and unlimited money, why not use something with an unlimited lifespan that? If losing capacity after 30 or 40 years they can be renewed cheaply for another 30 or 40 years of use?

But you cannot fix stupid, right TOM?, and there is no continuous stream of money to collect from your government cronies if you find a permanent solution.

But, of course, there is no need for these battery systems without unreliable, non-dispatchable, electrical generators like solar and bird choppers.

YallaYPoora Kid
July 31, 2021 12:36 am

Still burning – report says 30 trucks responded rather than 9 currently stated on the energy services website

https://www.bay939.com.au/news/local-news/128264-big-battery-on-fire-toxic-smoke-impacting-northern-suburbs

Richard Hughes
July 31, 2021 1:44 am

Notice the UK MSM haven’t published anything about this.

Priceless and best of all – very pricey – I can see the insurance premia for projects such as this starting to go through the roof as insurers get their brains around the risks.

Dennis
July 31, 2021 2:47 am

Another not in the news tonight item for Australia television

Greg
July 31, 2021 3:11 am

TheTesla megaphuck

ozspeaksup
July 31, 2021 3:52 am

Loving it!! nice wakeup call for the greentards as to how risky and toxic they are
lucky its winter not midsummer.
hope the insurers or Tesla take a serious hit and refuse to replace the crap

Dusty
July 31, 2021 6:19 am

Better for it to happen at the factory than in my car.

krov
July 31, 2021 7:29 am

In order to avoid battery ‘accidents’ Tesla will automatically restrict rapid charging limits. This affects anyone planning a long trip.

MarkW
Reply to  krov
July 31, 2021 10:42 am

The rapid charging feature has been a major selling point, at least that’s the impression I get from the various Tesla enthusiasts that post here.

July 31, 2021 8:33 am

“But we could be here anywhere from 8 to 24 hours while we wait for it to burn down.”

Try 8-24 days.

Jim Whelan
July 31, 2021 8:42 am

The Tesla battery is expected to become

Shouldn’t that be “was expected?”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jim Whelan
July 31, 2021 1:02 pm

I think the part that is burning is only part of the battery. The rest of it hasn’t caught fire yet.

RichDo
July 31, 2021 10:34 am

Interesting read if your curious about the combustion products. Probably best to stay upwind.
Toxic fluoride gas emissions from lithium-ion battery fires
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09784-z/

Ebor
Reply to  RichDo
July 31, 2021 7:08 pm

Oh no, Mr. Bill!!!

July 31, 2021 1:02 pm

I like watching some of those You Tube car crash videos. They give an interesting look at human behavior. Imagine what those videos will look like when there are tens of millions of EVs on the roads.

rickk
July 31, 2021 1:54 pm

So when I get one for my home, I need to install it 2 acres back from my house as prep for the inevitable fire?

Peter D
July 31, 2021 3:09 pm

Still burning 7.38 am on 1st August, two days later. Still toxic smoke warning. Nothing on the news services.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Peter D
July 31, 2021 6:51 pm

Yeah, the media, especially here in NSW, are more concerned with being advised by two lawyers, Chant and Hazzard, about health issues regarding the COVID-19 “pandemic”.

Drake
Reply to  Peter D
July 31, 2021 7:16 pm

Searches in the US show the MSM including CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, NY Times, WaPo, etc. not covering this. LA Weekly Times, Reuters, cnbc, Wall street Journal, Breitbart, etc. yes.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Drake
August 1, 2021 6:00 am

Marx thought control of mass communications was one of the keys for Marxism gaining control of the people.

We have a perfect test of that theory in the Western Democracies today.

Can the people figure out the truth when 90 percent of the news media is lying to them 24-hours a day? That is the question.

observa
Reply to  Peter D
August 2, 2021 2:23 am

Almost under control after 3 days and apparently it’s a world first for lithium big batteries for the grid-
Tesla big battery fire in Victoria almost under control after more than three days (msn.com)
Not that there’s many of them up and running so investors will no doubt want to know the reason/s for it.

John Sandhofner
July 31, 2021 9:49 pm

Fools. What arrogance.

spock
August 1, 2021 8:44 pm

Oops…

Hans
Reply to  spock
August 3, 2021 2:43 am

My proctologist wants to know if Tesla have tailpipes?