https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.
On 1/17/25 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.
It's funny how 'quantum leap' has come to be taken for a
huge change, although it originally really meant the tiniest
possible change.
High energy density batteries will always be dangerous.
It's the inevitable consequence of storing a lot of energy
in a small package. A tank full of fuel is really much
safer. What we really need is an efficient flow battery,
where reactive components are kept apart until needed.
Jeroen Belleman
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
On 1/17/25 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.
It's funny how 'quantum leap' has come to be taken for a
huge change, although it originally really meant the tiniest
possible change.
High energy density batteries will always be dangerous.
It's the inevitable consequence of storing a lot of energy
in a small package. A tank full of fuel is really much
safer. What we really need is an efficient flow battery,
where reactive components are kept apart until needed.
Jeroen Belleman
On 17/01/2025 15:03, john larkin wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
It will be. I'm presently fighting a bunch of cowboys with no track
record at all trying to obtain planning consent to install a 1GW / 4GWhr
BESS on my doorstep (that is bigger than the entire of Moss Landing).
They have all the best consultants in the business working for them.
This big fire should really get the planners attention. Most helpful.
Despite it being a globally significant infrastructure project 20x
bigger than the largest that is operational here in the UK it is a
county council planning decision! Our government are clueless (as was
the previous Tory administration).
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Pumped storage is OK. Batteries will have to play their part but they
need to be properly engineered and installed in the right places. Energy dense materials can be very dangerous if mishandled.
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
The ones near me will be hung onto two of the most overloaded N-S
supergrid lines in the UK and so effectively useless at times of peak
need. Buffering should always be either at source or close to point of
use so that network infrastructure can be used to full capacity.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
I hope the wind direction doesn't change.
Many thanks for the heads up about this one!
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:58:41 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/17/25 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.
It's funny how 'quantum leap' has come to be taken for a
huge change, although it originally really meant the tiniest
possible change.
High energy density batteries will always be dangerous.
It's the inevitable consequence of storing a lot of energy
in a small package. A tank full of fuel is really much
safer. What we really need is an efficient flow battery,
where reactive components are kept apart until needed.
Jeroen Belleman
Natural gas is great stuff. Burns clean with half the CO2 of coal.
It's easy to store locally, and the pipelines store more. And there's
gobs underground and people keep finding more.
Small-scale NG power plants are practical and reliable and elimniate
gigantic transmission lines and battery banks.
But 2:1 isn't acceptable to greenies. Let them freeze in the dark
unemployed for a while and maybe they will reconsider.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:58:41 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/17/25 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.
It's funny how 'quantum leap' has come to be taken for a
huge change, although it originally really meant the tiniest
possible change.
High energy density batteries will always be dangerous.
It's the inevitable consequence of storing a lot of energy
in a small package. A tank full of fuel is really much
safer. What we really need is an efficient flow battery,
where reactive components are kept apart until needed.
Jeroen Belleman
Natural gas is great stuff. Burns clean with half the CO2 of coal.
It's easy to store locally, and the pipelines store more. And there's
gobs underground and people keep finding more.
Small-scale NG power plants are practical and reliable and elimniate
gigantic transmission lines and battery banks.
But 2:1 isn't acceptable to greenies. Let them freeze in the dark
unemployed for a while and maybe they will reconsider.
On 1/17/25 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.
It's funny how 'quantum leap' has come to be taken for a
huge change, although it originally really meant the tiniest
possible change.
High energy density batteries will always be dangerous.
It's the inevitable consequence of storing a lot of energy
in a small package. A tank full of fuel is really much
safer. What we really need is an efficient flow battery,
where reactive components are kept apart until needed.
Jeroen Belleman
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:58:41 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/17/25 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.
It's funny how 'quantum leap' has come to be taken for a
huge change, although it originally really meant the tiniest
possible change.
High energy density batteries will always be dangerous.
It's the inevitable consequence of storing a lot of energy
in a small package. A tank full of fuel is really much
safer. What we really need is an efficient flow battery,
where reactive components are kept apart until needed.
Jeroen Belleman
Natural gas is great stuff. Burns clean with half the CO2 of coal.
It's easy to store locally, and the pipelines store more. And there's
gobs underground and people keep finding more.
Small-scale NG power plants are practical and reliable and elimniate
gigantic transmission lines and battery banks.
But 2:1 isn't acceptable to greenies.
Let them freeze in the dark
unemployed for a while and maybe they will reconsider.
On 1/17/25 22:42, Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/01/2025 15:03, john larkin wrote:
;https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
;
;
;
Sounds expensive.
It will be. I'm presently fighting a bunch of cowboys with no track
record at all trying to obtain planning consent to install a 1GW /
4GWhr BESS on my doorstep (that is bigger than the entire of Moss
Landing). They have all the best consultants in the business working
for them.
This big fire should really get the planners attention. Most helpful.
Despite it being a globally significant infrastructure project 20x
bigger than the largest that is operational here in the UK it is a
county council planning decision! Our government are clueless (as was
the previous Tory administration).
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Pumped storage is OK. Batteries will have to play their part but they
need to be properly engineered and installed in the right places.
Energy dense materials can be very dangerous if mishandled.
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you
have to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
The ones near me will be hung onto two of the most overloaded N-S
supergrid lines in the UK and so effectively useless at times of peak
need. Buffering should always be either at source or close to point of
use so that network infrastructure can be used to full capacity.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
I hope the wind direction doesn't change.
Many thanks for the heads up about this one!
I fail to understand why battery storage facilities must be huge.
They really should be distributed, and there doesn't seem to be
a good reason as to why they aren't.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:12:15 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:58:41 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/17/25 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown
Sounds expensive.
Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.
Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.
Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.
It's funny how 'quantum leap' has come to be taken for a
huge change, although it originally really meant the tiniest
possible change.
High energy density batteries will always be dangerous.
It's the inevitable consequence of storing a lot of energy
in a small package. A tank full of fuel is really much
safer. What we really need is an efficient flow battery,
where reactive components are kept apart until needed.
Jeroen Belleman
Natural gas is great stuff. Burns clean with half the CO2 of coal.
It's easy to store locally, and the pipelines store more. And there's
gobs underground and people keep finding more.
Small-scale NG power plants are practical and reliable and elimniate
gigantic transmission lines and battery banks.
But 2:1 isn't acceptable to greenies. Let them freeze in the dark
unemployed for a while and maybe they will reconsider.
The problem is we're *all* being expected to freeze in the dark just
to humor their delusions about "greenhouse gases" (the world's most
expensive hoax so far, dwarfing even Pearl Habour).
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
letting sea water flood the building.
The solvent is salt water so not much of a fire hazard :-).
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have >>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be
higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
letting sea water flood the building.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:04:24 +0000, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have >>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to >>put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>letting sea water flood the building.
If a conainer on a barge catches fire, toss it into the ocean.
But a barge would make battery storage even less economical.
Hey, use Google Earth to look at Orinda CA. It looks like the next
Paradise, a maze of death traps.
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have >>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be
higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have >>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be
higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have >>>>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to >>>> put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furthermore, it is lighter than ANY liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it. But wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time when exposed to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and potassium lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
The standard technique for dealing with a lithium battery that has
caught fire is to flood it with lots of water. Sea water contains about
0.17 ppm lithium, so lithium pollution isn't going to be a problem.
Ever seen burning lithium? Good luck to extinguish it with ANYTHING.
Especially with lots of water... It looks like you skipped your chemistry classes at school and have never seen lithium metal yourself.
Not just it
reacts violently with water, it FLOATS in ANY liquid, water included.
You
can't FLOOD it with water for an obvious reason -- it is impossible.
The standard procedure with lithium fires is to somehow isolate it (protect as much surrounding objects as possible, maybe push the burning mass to an open space if possible) and let it burn until nothing left.
Just a month or so ago we had a truck loaded with lithium batteries overturned and caught fire on a freeway. It took a whole day or two (don't remember exactly) for our firefighters to push that burning wreck off the freeway into the desert with a bulldozer. Then it took it almost a week to burn out.
Pollution is not all that much a problem and pretty harmless. There is white lithium grease everywhere and nobody died from that :)
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have >>>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be
higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to >>> put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most
likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
The standard technique for dealing with a lithium battery that has
caught fire is to flood it with lots of water. Sea water contains about
0.17 ppm lithium, so lithium pollution isn't going to be a problem.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have >>>>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to >>>> put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water.
liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it.
wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE.
lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
The standard technique for dealing with a lithium battery that has
caught fire is to flood it with lots of water. Sea water contains about
0.17 ppm lithium, so lithium pollution isn't going to be a problem.
Ever seen burning lithium? Good luck to extinguish it with ANYTHING. Especially with lots of water... It looks like you skipped your chemistry classes at school and have never seen lithium metal yourself. Not just it reacts violently with water, it FLOATS in ANY liquid, water included. You can't FLOOD it with water for an obvious reason -- it is impossible.
The standard procedure with lithium fires is to somehow isolate it (protect as much surrounding objects as possible, maybe push the burning mass to an open space if possible) and let it burn until nothing left.
Just a month or so ago we had a truck loaded with lithium batteries overturned and caught fire on a freeway. It took a whole day or two (don't remember exactly) for our firefighters to push that burning wreck off the freeway into the desert with a bulldozer. Then it took it almost a week to burn out.
Pollution is not all that much a problem and pretty harmless. There is white lithium grease everywhere and nobody died from that :)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have >>>>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to >>>> put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it. But wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and potassium lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
On 19/01/2025 6:25 pm, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to >>>> put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>>> letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
The Liz Tuddenham wouldn't have seen lithium reacting with water at school.
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have >>>>>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to >>>>> put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY
liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it. But
wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time >> when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and potassium >> lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns
spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you >>>>>> have to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the
neighbouring modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this >>>>>> one managed to get away from the fire fighters (which isn't
supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to >>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities, >>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of >>>> the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY
liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it.
But wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with
in no time when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike
sodium and potassium lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and
nitrogen and it burns spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any
oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you haveWe have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to >>>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to >>>>>> put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities, >>>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring >>>>>>> modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen). >>>>>>
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of >>>>> the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>>>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY
liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it. But >>> wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time
when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and potassium >>> lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns
spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
On 1/19/25 14:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you haveWe have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>>>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>>>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to >>>>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring >>>>>>>> modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen). >>>>>>>
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>>>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities, >>>>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>>>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of >>>>>> the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>>>>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does >>>>> react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium >>>>> metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY >>>> liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it. But >>>> wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time
when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and potassium
lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns
spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
Have you actually seen it?
I have. (It was thick foil, not a lump, and it was not confined.)
Violent is the word that's fitting.
I fail to understand why battery storage facilities must be huge.
They really should be distributed, and there doesn't seem to be
a good reason as to why they aren't.
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most
likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
The standard technique for dealing with a lithium battery that has
caught fire is to flood it with lots of water. Sea water contains about
0.17 ppm lithium, so lithium pollution isn't going to be a problem.
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you >> >>>>>> have to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the
neighbouring modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this >> >>>>>> one managed to get away from the fire fighters (which isn't
supposed to happen).
We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >> >>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be
higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >> >>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >> >>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of >> >>>> the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most
likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY >> >> liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it.
But wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with
in no time when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike
sodium and potassium lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and
nitrogen and it burns spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any
oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
...and hydrogen?
On 1/19/25 14:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you haveWe have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>>>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>>>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to >>>>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring >>>>>>>> modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen). >>>>>>>
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>>>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities, >>>>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>>>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of >>>>>> the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>>>>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does >>>>> react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium >>>>> metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY >>>> liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it. But >>>> wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time
when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and potassium
lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns
spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
Have you actually seen it?
I have. (It was thick foil, not a lump, and it was not confined.)
Violent is the word that's fitting.
Jeroen Belleman
On 19/01/2025 15:24, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 1/19/25 14:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - >>>>>>>>> you haveWe have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring >>>>>>>>> modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one
managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen). >>>>>>>>
build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost >>>>>>>> would be
higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to >>>>>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water >>>>>>>> around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even
greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities, >>>>>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve >>>>>>>> and
letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts >>>>>>> violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large
areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure >>>>>>> is most
likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does >>>>>> react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium >>>>>> metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than
ANY
liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on
it. But
wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with
in no time
when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and
potassium
lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns
spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
Have you actually seen it?
I have. (It was thick foil, not a lump, and it was not confined.)
Violent is the word that's fitting.
But no worse than dropping a mint (Mento) into a coke bottle. Did the
lithium foil reaction result in any fire?
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:24:54 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 14:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you haveWe have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>>>>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring >>>>>>>>> modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>>>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen). >>>>>>>>
higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to >>>>>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>>>>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities, >>>>>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>>>>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts >>>>>>> violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of >>>>>>> the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most
likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does >>>>>> react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium >>>>>> metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY >>>>> liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it. But >>>>> wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time
when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and potassium
lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns
spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
Have you actually seen it?
Yes.
I have. (It was thick foil, not a lump, and it was not confined.)
Violent is the word that's fitting.
Are we talking about sodium or lithium here?
Jeroen Belleman
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/01/2025 6:25 pm, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you haveWe have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to >>>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to >>>>>> put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities, >>>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring >>>>>>> modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen). >>>>>>
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of >>>>> the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>>>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
The Liz Tuddenham wouldn't have seen lithium reacting with water at school.
I didn't say I had seen it but I had been taught enough about the
periodic table to realise that it would react with water. There were
lots of other chemical reactions I learned about at school but didn't actually witness.
On 1/19/25 18:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 19/01/2025 15:24, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 1/19/25 14:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - >>>>>>>>>> you haveWe have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring >>>>>>>>>> modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one >>>>>>>>>> managed to
get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen). >>>>>>>>>
build the
lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost >>>>>>>>> would be
higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to >>>>>>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water >>>>>>>>> around to
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even >>>>>>>>> greater
safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities, >>>>>>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve >>>>>>>>> and
letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts >>>>>>>> violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large
areas of
the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure >>>>>>>> is most
likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does >>>>>>> react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium >>>>>>> metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than >>>>>> ANY
liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on
it. But
wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with
in no time
when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and
potassium
lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns
spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
Have you actually seen it?
I have. (It was thick foil, not a lump, and it was not confined.)
Violent is the word that's fitting.
But no worse than dropping a mint (Mento) into a coke bottle. Did the
lithium foil reaction result in any fire?
Yes.
On 1/19/25 14:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
Have you actually seen it?
I have. (It was thick foil, not a lump, and it was not confined.)
Violent is the word that's fitting.
I think that any pollution problem would also be due to the organic
solvent and other materials rather than the lithium. The main issue at >present seems to be toxic gas emission from the burning batteries.
Perhaps dousing the fire with sea water would give the lesser of two >pollution evils, but until tested we won't know.
--
Jeff
On 1/19/25 14:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you haveWe have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the >>>>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be >>>>>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to >>>>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring >>>>>>>> modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to >>>>>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen). >>>>>>>
put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater >>>>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities, >>>>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and >>>>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
violently with water. Containing lithium pollution of large areas of >>>>>> the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most >>>>>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does >>>>> react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium >>>>> metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
What that word salad was supposed to mean?
Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY >>>> liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it. But >>>> wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time
when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and potassium
lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns
spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.
From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.
Jeroen Belleman
Depends. Yes, violently if confined, but merely vigorously if allowed
to skate around on the surface expelling energy.
Have you actually seen it?
I have. (It was thick foil, not a lump, and it was not confined.)
Violent is the word that's fitting.
Jeroen Belleman
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 92:38:33 |
Calls: | 8,690 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 13,250 |
Messages: | 5,947,019 |