• battery fire

    From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 17 07:03:06 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 17 17:49:13 2025
    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*.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 17 11:25:22 2025
    On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:49:13 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
    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*.

    Storing electricity is tough. And inefficient.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Fri Jan 17 20:58:41 2025
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Jan 17 20:54:53 2025
    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


    It’s not the size of the change that’s in view, but rather its discontinuous character.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 17 21:42:31 2025
    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!

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Fri Jan 17 14:12:15 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Fri Jan 17 23:47:33 2025
    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.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 17 23:49:27 2025
    On 1/17/25 23:12, john larkin 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.

    Sigh. Indeed.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 17 22:47:10 2025
    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).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?B?Q2FybCBJamFtZXM=?=@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 18 03:57:15 2025
    On Fri Jan 17 20:58:41 2025 Jeroen Belleman 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


    I know there are others but ESS Inc. has some pilot installations of their iron flow battery technology already installed and is working hard to scale up. The solvent is salt water so not much of a fire hazard :-). They are aimed at energy storage for up
    to 12 hours, compared to 4 hours for li-ion for best economics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Jan 18 16:09:54 2025
    On 18/01/2025 9:12 am, john larkin 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.

    It's unacceptable for the planet. We really do have to get our CO2
    emissions down further than we can get by just switching from coal to
    natural gas. John Larkin's preferred informant - climate change denial propaganda - doesn't mention this, so he's unaware of it.

    Let them freeze in the dark
    unemployed for a while and maybe they will reconsider.

    There's no necessity for that. Solar and wind power backed up by battery storage are perfectly capable of powering an advanced industrial
    economy. Getting there means investing a lot of capital, but not as much
    as you'd need to invest in keeping to keep the coal- and oil-fired
    economy running. It's a no-brainer, but if you've out-sourced your
    thinking to fossil carbon extraction industry you won't be aware of it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sat Jan 18 16:27:06 2025
    On 18/01/2025 9:47 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.

    Australia has about 30% penetration on roof-top solar.

    https://www.energy.gov.au/news-media/news/australia-hits-rooftop-solar-milestone#:~:text=With%20Australians%20installing%20about%20300%2C000,a%20year%20on%20energy%20bills.

    New installations tend to add in a Telsa power-wall or the like. The
    utilities are starting to think about about paying the owners to let
    them control these domestic batteries as a distributed power source.

    You need internet access to let them do that, but almost everybody has that.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sat Jan 18 16:16:16 2025
    On 18/01/2025 9:47 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:12:15 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
    wrote:

    On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:58:41 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 1/17/25 18:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:06 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:



    https://sfstandard.com/2025/01/16/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-evacuations-highway-1/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDWi6sLMNOWwwMwpvnXAw&utm_content=rundown

    Sounds expensive.

    Windmills, solar cells, batteries. May not be worth it long term.

    Luckily, the wind is not blowing the crud our way right now.

    Lithium technology really isn't up to the job. Someone needs to come
    up with a quantum leap forward in batteries. A fortune awaits the
    person or team which can deliver on this. And I mean a *fortune*.

    It's funny how 'quantum leap' has come to be taken for a
    huge change, although it originally really meant the tiniest
    possible change.

    High energy density batteries will always be dangerous.
    It's the inevitable consequence of storing a lot of energy
    in a small package. A tank full of fuel is really much
    safer. What we really need is an efficient flow battery,
    where reactive components are kept apart until needed.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Natural gas is great stuff. Burns clean with half the CO2 of coal.

    It's easy to store locally, and the pipelines store more. And there's
    gobs underground and people keep finding more.

    Small-scale NG power plants are practical and reliable and elimniate
    gigantic transmission lines and battery banks.

    But 2:1 isn't acceptable to greenies. Let them freeze in the dark
    unemployed for a while and maybe they will reconsider.

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Layman@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Sat Jan 18 09:04:24 2025
    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.

    --
    Jeff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Jeff Layman on Sat Jan 18 10:37:05 2025
    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.

    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to carl.ijamesXX@verizon.netYY on Sat Jan 18 10:37:05 2025
    =?UTF-8?B?Q2FybCBJamFtZXM=?= <carl.ijamesXX@verizon.netYY> wrote:

    [...]
    The solvent is salt water so not much of a fire hazard :-).

    It can become a chlorine hazard if it gets mixed up with other
    chemicals. Ask any sub-mariner.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Layman@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Jan 18 11:57:20 2025
    On 18/01/2025 10:37, 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.

    Lithium metal reacts vigorously with water, although much less so than
    metallic sodium or potassium. But there is basically /no/ lithium metal
    in the batteries - note the name is lithium *ion* battery.

    There are quite a few different Li-ion battery chemistries (see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Electrochemistry>),
    but the problem they all have in relation to fire is not the lithium
    metal, but that lithium reacts with water, so the liquid substrate in
    which the reactions take place is an organic solvent - usually an
    organic carbonate. That is the fire problem!

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 18 08:16:21 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Jan 18 17:38:17 2025
    On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 08:16:21 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    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.

    I keep getting reminded of that old Eagles song The Last Resort and
    the part at the end: "you call some place Paradise - kiss it goodbye."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Jan 19 15:42:49 2025
    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.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Jan 19 15:54:30 2025
    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, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Sergey Kubushyn on Sun Jan 19 19:14:26 2025
    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.

    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.

    But sodium and potassium react more violently with water.

    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.

    Enough water dissipates the heat generated. It doesn't extinguish the
    fire - just keeps the fire-\ground cool until all the lithium has been
    used up

    Especially with lots of water... It looks like you skipped your chemistry classes at school and have never seen lithium metal yourself.

    Despite having completed a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, I have never
    seen lithium metal. Sodium is more familiar - I had to get rid of chunk
    of it once, and tossed it into an open drain, where it briefly created a spectacular effect (as I'd expected).

    Not just it
    reacts violently with water, it FLOATS in ANY liquid, water included.

    Probably not liquid nitrogen - which I have played with - or liquid
    helium which was too expensive for graduate students to play with when I
    was a graduate student.

    You
    can't FLOOD it with water for an obvious reason -- it is impossible.

    Sure you can. It may not touch the surface for long, but it has to make
    contact to react.
    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.

    But you have to get rid of the heat and the lithium compounds produced.
    Lot of water works fine for that.

    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 :)

    As I pointed out, seawater contains 0.17pm lithium (as ions). It's
    probably more now than when our primordial ancestors lived in the sea,
    but it's not a pollutent to get worried about.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sergey Kubushyn@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jan 19 07:25:50 2025
    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.

    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 :)

    ---
    ******************************************************************
    * KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
    * Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. * ******************************************************************

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Layman@21:1/5 to Sergey Kubushyn on Sun Jan 19 09:02:51 2025
    On 19/01/2025 07:25, 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.

    Really? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxqe_ZOwsHs>
    It decomposes water but there is no flame - unlike sodium and
    particularly potassium.

    Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY
    liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it.

    Let's be picky - it would sink in liquid hydrogen or liquid helium... ;-)

    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.

    See the above video. It's a mixture of oxide and 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.

    Really? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Vu9VJZFJE>
    Note that even with prior heating it fails to burn. I've no doubt that
    if the temperature was high enough it would burn, but you can even get
    iron to burn (in air) if the temperature's high enough.

    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.

    How many times have you see burning *lithium*? Not the organic solvents
    in lithium batteries, but lithium metal itself?

    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.

    If they had bulldozers why didn't they just push sand over it? That
    would have extinguished the flames. I guess they might have been worried
    about the organic solvents leaking out and spreading the flames; perhaps
    just leaving it to burn out was the easiest and safest thing to do as it
    was in the desert.

    Pollution is not all that much a problem and pretty harmless. There is white lithium grease everywhere and nobody died from that :)

    ? What white lithium "grease"? If you're talking about the fire in the
    desert it was probably a mess of plastic, nonflammable solvents, and sand.

    --
    Jeff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Sergey Kubushyn on Sun Jan 19 10:38:17 2025
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jan 19 09:49:30 2025
    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 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.

    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.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sun Jan 19 13:09:40 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jan 19 15:29:32 2025
    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?


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jan 19 16:24:54 2025
    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 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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Layman@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sun Jan 19 17:03:05 2025
    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 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.

    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?

    --
    Jeff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sun Jan 19 17:24:06 2025
    On 17/01/2025 22:47, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

    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.

    That is really very simple.

    The main costs of a planning application for this sort of thing in the countryside are roughly constant with only a tiny increase for surveying
    a larger piece of land. The value increase after obtaining planning
    permission is a proportion of the total contract value. Speculators
    drive the obtaining planning consent side in the UK.

    Once they have obtained planning permission then they throw it over the
    wall to the builders from Hell to try and implement it. They even say as
    much on their website - to their investors see "Our Strategy" in:

    https://natpower.com/investor-relations/

    Rural land here of low grade for agriculture (aka 3b) is ~£4k/acre
    With planning permission for housing it is worth £40k/acre
    With planning permission for a BESS it is worth >£500k/acre
    (hard to give an exact number since none this big have been done)

    No surprise that they try to go for the biggest chunk that they can.
    Ours is apparently a £1.2bn budget as is the one just down the road.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jan 19 17:48:46 2025
    On 19/01/2025 04:54, Bill Sloman wrote:
    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.

    Not that violent - it scuds around on the water surface fizzing but it
    takes quite a big piece to actually catch fire with a nice lilac flame.

    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.

    Oh yes they did!
    It was standard practice back then to demonstrate the progressively more violent reaction of lithium, sodium, potassium and if the school was
    very rich or teacher had friends in the chemical industry rubidium.

    Likewise for chlorine, bromine and iodine.

    Although I have seen fluorine made in a public lecture at UMIST back in
    the 1970's it would never be allowed today. A cauldron of molten
    anhydrous eutectic mix in one corner with long copper pipe up high. The
    first 5 minutes were spent on the evacuation procedure in case anything
    went wrong. You could smell fluoride of oxygen in the air afterwards!

    https://fluorine.ch.man.ac.uk/history.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_fluoride

    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.

    You need so much water to quench one that it isn't realistic for BESS
    container scale fires - you have to try and limit the spread to other
    modules.

    If one starts to go in an iToy you have only about 15 seconds to get it
    out of the house from the moment that the dense white toxic smoke first appears. You really don't want to breathe the fumes or worse still heavy
    metal nano-particles in black smoke that get emitted usually just before
    it goes up in flames. Far too hot to handle well before then.

    This academic from Newcastle is a world expert on Li battery fires :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jby0uyL78YU

    12 minutes in if you want to just see the flash bang nail demo.
    Intended to brief first responders and firefighters to the real hidden
    dangers of Lithium battery fires. The whole thing is worth watching.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Jan 19 17:53:30 2025
    On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 15:29:32 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    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?

    IIRC (I've studied organic chemistry more than this ionic stuff) all
    the metals in that periodic table group "iiberate" (to use the correct
    term) hydrogen in this circumstance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sun Jan 19 17:54:58 2025
    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 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.

    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


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Jeff Layman on Sun Jan 19 23:09:42 2025
    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 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.

    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.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jan 19 23:19:44 2025
    On 1/19/25 18:54, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    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 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.

    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


    Lithium. The foil was used in particle detectors installed on the
    LEP machine at CERN at the time.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Mon Jan 20 16:53:09 2025
    On 19/01/2025 8:49 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    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 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.

    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.

    If you had seen sodium and potassium reacting with water you might
    learned enough to expect that lithium would react less vigorously.

    Jeroen Belleman has seen lithium foil reacting with water, but it has
    less thermal mass per unit surface area than bulk metal which introduces
    it's own complications.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Layman@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Mon Jan 20 08:24:46 2025
    On 19/01/2025 22:09, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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 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.

    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.

    I stand corrected. There are circumstances when lithium metal and water
    can result in a (hydrogen) fire, with quite a few examples from an
    internet search.

    --
    Jeff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Mon Jan 20 09:10:00 2025
    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:

     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?

    Yes. Lithium is quite tame compared to any of the other alkali metals
    which invariably self ignite with really rather small fragments.

    There is a lithium metal battery with potentially an order of magnitude
    higher energy density than current Lithium ion batteries but it is
    proving hard to tame. Has a nasty habit of forming dendrites and
    shorting itself out internally with all the usual problems...

    They may yet perfect it as a technology.

    I have. (It was thick foil, not a lump, and it was not confined.)

    Violent is the word that's fitting.

    I'd go for vigorous. It melts fairly easily, floats and doesn't self
    ignite unless there is quite a decent chunk of it - more than pea sized.

    Sodium is violent, melts and is self igniting at about pea size.

    Potassium is close to explosive so best done with a very small piece.

    Rubidium is explosively fast and memorable even for a tiny shard.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl@21:1/5 to Jeff@invalid.invalid on Mon Jan 27 12:50:49 2025
    In article <vmg4v0$mder$2@dont-email.me>,
    Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    <SNIP>
    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.

    Lithium is present in seawater with a fairly high concentration.
    Doubling this for thousands of cubic metres requires a lot of lithium.
    The biological impact of this is probably minimal.
    Heavy metals is more of a concern.


    --
    Jeff

    Groetjes Albert
    --
    Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
    Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
    Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
    And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Mon Jan 27 13:17:38 2025
    In article <vmj57u$2aa3n$1@dont-email.me>,
    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 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.

    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.

    (Using foil is not fair, even iron that is sufficiently fine combusts spontaneously.)

    There are youtube video's around comparing the whole first column of
    the periodic table. lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, caesium.
    (Not francium ;-) ).
    If you have seen the caesium reaction, you don't call the lithium
    reaction violent, not for lumps.
    You have to be behind a bulletproof shield. The water container shatters.

    Search for
    "Group 1 metals with water"

    You can witness a whole slew of dangerous experiments online,
    but nothing beats the smell of bromium on saturday mornings.


    Jeroen Belleman


    Groetjes Albert

    --
    Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
    Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
    Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
    And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)