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.
HT/Roger
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.
Yes! Like hacking of important systems is good!
Because it will happen some day. Better now and let people realize that it may happen.
Hey are ignoring it, just like all information negative to the CAGW narrative.
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.
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.
The principle of the fuel-air bomb. Also called the “Mother Of All Bombs.”
Fun fact: the larger these batteries get, the higher the chance one of the cells will catch fire and blow up the whole thing.
Test worked well, it produces a lot of energy 😉
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?
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.
Gently suggest that you find another website…
“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.
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.
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!
Many would say it was ‘predicted’…..but not using any models as a simple physical process
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.
Mr. W: Notice the projection of a rooting interest by this one.
Mr. Tom: What do you hope for?
The Hindenberg disaster killed airships stone dead
The sociopolitical myths and handmade tales of clean, albeit Green, and certainly a green proposal for mass distribution, technology. Pin the tale…
These tales were made by hand? Interesting. Perhaps you mean handmaid.
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.
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?
A wake-up call generally does get applause from the wise
Yes it does. Something totally unnecessary being built at the direction of a nutter leftist government is really funny!
Better now than later…
If battery fires were taken more seriously, the 787 would have been grounded earlier.
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?
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.
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?
Please don’t use renewable unironically.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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).
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to cooler’ energy 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.
———-
That’s from an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.
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…
… 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…
… 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.
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:
… 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.
———-
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
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.
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.
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!
“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?
You are of course free to go start your own blog according to your liking.
“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.
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.
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
I take it that its thermal management system is not currently functioning properly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Looks like 1 out 76.
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’.
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”
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!
Sorry, I meant the 787 Dreamliner battery issues.
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.
There is still no consensus on the plane whereabouts.
You have nothing, as usual. You just do useless spamming of the comments section.
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.
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).
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.
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.
The only talking head able to interview Dementia Joe at the same level.
Perhaps we should start declaring electric battery free housing zones because of fear of fire and pollution?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like you have practical experience with this process – I guess it’s a good idea to stand back a bit 🙂
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.
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.
Green Gold!
Turn off your heating and cooling!
This is what you get when fools are put in charge.
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…
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
“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.
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 updates“BBC
## 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:
we might save ourselves…
So much for the Lebanon outcome.
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.
The problem is that lead acid is not sexy or woke enough.
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.
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
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.
Another not in the news tonight item for Australia television
TheTesla megaphuck
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
Better for it to happen at the factory than in my car.