Voltron
1 MW
I wonder if it will still be dangerous in a 1000 years, or cause the permanent evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people like the fire at this power plant did?
Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
I wonder if the fact that reactor was a failure of the cold war and not takimg notice of communication same as fukashima, concerns had been raised well before any incident but money knows best.
If you think a battery bank is your answer along with solar you clearly dont have an idea on the demands of the world and proberly think sharing is not beneficial.
Way i see it is Australia and uk can do what it likes with the trade deal it's bollocks i wont be eating none that hormone filled shitty meat ill canablise the rich they been fed well nice nd soft and tender not over worked, dont make the meat worse than yourself then bring in a health pass banning the poor from feeding themself, the poor trash may lick they lips at whats available.
Vacation process is bollocks its divided the world at a time division was not needed the establishments are using it to push a level of control never seen before all for a number of deaths that lower than the missing persons number each year.
A true pandemic would halt humans population expansion or slow it aleast thats not been the case we still se exponential growth were is the logic and science when everyday they change what's acceptable to suit themselfs, ill never shove that rushed piss in me that forcing it on the youth is appalling, i wont be voting this fake democracy is a dictatorship and the monarchy is like a tape worm, Charles talks a good climate game as he flys about in a helicopter bunch of hypocrites and society is at braking point becuase its all more visable than ever as we feel the pain of Austerity they wealth has grown ever stronger top down my arse they hoovers of wealth and for them to feel such joyful lives we must suffer, great reset be careful what u wish for charles my boy ill happily deliever just that.
If you think a battery bank is your answer along with solar you clearly dont have an idea on the demands of the world and proberly think sharing is not beneficial.
Way i see it is Australia and uk can do what it likes with the trade deal it's bollocks i wont be eating none that hormone filled shitty meat ill canablise the rich they been fed well nice nd soft and tender not over worked, dont make the meat worse than yourself then bring in a health pass banning the poor from feeding themself, the poor trash may lick they lips at whats available.
Vacation process is bollocks its divided the world at a time division was not needed the establishments are using it to push a level of control never seen before all for a number of deaths that lower than the missing persons number each year.
A true pandemic would halt humans population expansion or slow it aleast thats not been the case we still se exponential growth were is the logic and science when everyday they change what's acceptable to suit themselfs, ill never shove that rushed piss in me that forcing it on the youth is appalling, i wont be voting this fake democracy is a dictatorship and the monarchy is like a tape worm, Charles talks a good climate game as he flys about in a helicopter bunch of hypocrites and society is at braking point becuase its all more visable than ever as we feel the pain of Austerity they wealth has grown ever stronger top down my arse they hoovers of wealth and for them to feel such joyful lives we must suffer, great reset be careful what u wish for charles my boy ill happily deliever just that.
Honestly with the Tesla batteries thing..
The truth is, current lithium battery technology is not really as safe as it should be.
It just takes one tiny construction deviation or dendrites growing in an unfortunate way for a cell to go unexpectedly pop. It's the last safety problem that a bms, fused interconnections, or a cooling system can't solve.
And as always, because a lithium battery fire can reach 2000 C, pretty much anything in it's path is going to get set on fire or vaporized from the heat, and i know of no material that is suitable for thermal isolating temperatures like that. That's why a pack always goes up in flames.
I honestly think the future for large batteries and storage batteries are safer types which are currently entering the end stage of their development and looking at production. Sodium and sulfur type batteries may be the ticket.
Also, a >100kw-hr fire is not good PR for the idea that going the EV/Alternative energy route is a good idea to those who already doubt the viability of the plan. I hope Tesla rethinks the types of cells they'll be using for storage applications at the least.
The truth is, current lithium battery technology is not really as safe as it should be.
It just takes one tiny construction deviation or dendrites growing in an unfortunate way for a cell to go unexpectedly pop. It's the last safety problem that a bms, fused interconnections, or a cooling system can't solve.
And as always, because a lithium battery fire can reach 2000 C, pretty much anything in it's path is going to get set on fire or vaporized from the heat, and i know of no material that is suitable for thermal isolating temperatures like that. That's why a pack always goes up in flames.
I honestly think the future for large batteries and storage batteries are safer types which are currently entering the end stage of their development and looking at production. Sodium and sulfur type batteries may be the ticket.
Also, a >100kw-hr fire is not good PR for the idea that going the EV/Alternative energy route is a good idea to those who already doubt the viability of the plan. I hope Tesla rethinks the types of cells they'll be using for storage applications at the least.
Hillhater
100 TW
you can pretty much “control” a Lithium battery fire by immersion in water...
At least subdue the flames, and prevent it spreading if there is spacing between the cells.
+ Those MegaPack containers look ripe for pumping full of water ?
The latest hot topic for Utility scale storage is Formenergy’s Iron/ Air cell which is claimed to be safe since it is mostly a Water based electrolyte with some iron immersed in it,
Unfortunately though i am pretty sure the FeO2 cell discharge process generates Hydrogen, which may be a advantage for other purposes, but would certainly raise a risk of fire or even explosion in a grid scale facility.
At least subdue the flames, and prevent it spreading if there is spacing between the cells.
+ Those MegaPack containers look ripe for pumping full of water ?
The latest hot topic for Utility scale storage is Formenergy’s Iron/ Air cell which is claimed to be safe since it is mostly a Water based electrolyte with some iron immersed in it,
Unfortunately though i am pretty sure the FeO2 cell discharge process generates Hydrogen, which may be a advantage for other purposes, but would certainly raise a risk of fire or even explosion in a grid scale facility.
Hillhater
100 TW
Its not an idea, ..its a simple fact that it is one of the only proven ways to subdue a LiOn fire.neptronix said:
Why does a lot of water kill the idea.?
Full immersion is required, and obviously more is better.
For a typical Ebike pack, that is easily achievable, for a full size EV,..not so easy....
Pump the “pack” full of water...?
.....dunk the vehicle in the nearest swimming pool ? :lol:
ZeroEm
1 MW
Will EV's with LiOn fires make it into the movies. It may not have the action that of gasoline exploding. All cars burn not explode.
Hillhater
100 TW
This was a VW ID3 fire..effectively subdued with water from hoses.neptronix said:
Im not aware what actually started the fire but if the battery did not burn at some stage i would be surprised
[youtube]x4NAKQst7Lk[/youtube]
Hillhater
100 TW
Reducing Fossil Fuel use could cause Global Temperatures to increase more. !
Global Dimming.?
[youtube]emn1hBSHUfQ[/youtube]
Data from IPCC report.
Fossil fuel emissions contain Sulphates which are known to have a strong cooling effect by promoting cloud like Solar reflection effects
By reducing FF emissions the cooling effects of the sulphates are eliminated very quickly, whilst the CO2 levels remain for much longer. Net effect would be a fast increase in Global temps ?
Global Dimming.?
[youtube]emn1hBSHUfQ[/youtube]
Data from IPCC report.
Fossil fuel emissions contain Sulphates which are known to have a strong cooling effect by promoting cloud like Solar reflection effects
By reducing FF emissions the cooling effects of the sulphates are eliminated very quickly, whilst the CO2 levels remain for much longer. Net effect would be a fast increase in Global temps ?
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
So basically not only are we screwed if we do but we are double screwing ourselfs if we dont.
If theres an invisible weight of co2 that comes with the cooling effect wouldn't that mean the point of no return is well gone as the cooling has little effect anymore and if this planet was the back to future train its choo chooing its way into that ravine with no doc brown or flux capacitor in site theres a few hundred year drought heading the humans way.
If theres an invisible weight of co2 that comes with the cooling effect wouldn't that mean the point of no return is well gone as the cooling has little effect anymore and if this planet was the back to future train its choo chooing its way into that ravine with no doc brown or flux capacitor in site theres a few hundred year drought heading the humans way.
Hillhater
100 TW
If you believe the IPCC ‘s take on CO2 and its long life in the atmosphere, then you have to accept their position on the levels of Sulphates and their offsetting cooling effects also, but they dissipate much quicker hence the issue.
But, if you think the IPCC report is the result of a bunch of stoned monkeys behind a typewriter, and increasing CO2 levels are the result of a warming trend rather than the cause of it.....then the answer is easy...
Reducing fossil fuel burning will probably increase the rate of warming !
But, if you think the IPCC report is the result of a bunch of stoned monkeys behind a typewriter, and increasing CO2 levels are the result of a warming trend rather than the cause of it.....then the answer is easy...
Reducing fossil fuel burning will probably increase the rate of warming !
Global dimming is proof that we are geoengineering the world, and have been for a long time.
It counters global warming - another aspect of geoengineering which works in the reverse way.
It is the reason that, in the 1970's, some scientists predicted the world would get colder.
In the 1970's, our governments decided that burning sulphate heavy fuel was something we had to stop. And so we have progressively burned more basic fuels like coal and such.
We stopped burning those fuels and went to more advanced ones and instead put out a gas that would blanket the world. We switched the negative of acid rain for increasing dryness and heat.
Dire predictions were made, such as the arctic summers being ice free by 2013.
And then China started emittiong a shit ton of coal. And swung the equation towards the trend being less severe. But we still have some issues due to geoengineering our planet at such a large scale. And those issues are serious.
This is what i understand from reading graphs and projections made from the past.
I once believed in global warming, then become a doubter. The reason was that the data was not adding up. But now we have some interesting nuance to show that there's more to it.
It also says that if china stops burning a shit-ton of coal, the world might be in the danger that early IPCC projections expected.
That's a bad situation to be locked into.
I still assert it would be nice if we did not burn petrochemicals at all. We should be running purified fossil fuels into fuel cells by this point, which would be twice as efficient. The consequences of burning them on a global scale are pretty huge.
It counters global warming - another aspect of geoengineering which works in the reverse way.
It is the reason that, in the 1970's, some scientists predicted the world would get colder.
In the 1970's, our governments decided that burning sulphate heavy fuel was something we had to stop. And so we have progressively burned more basic fuels like coal and such.
We stopped burning those fuels and went to more advanced ones and instead put out a gas that would blanket the world. We switched the negative of acid rain for increasing dryness and heat.
Dire predictions were made, such as the arctic summers being ice free by 2013.
And then China started emittiong a shit ton of coal. And swung the equation towards the trend being less severe. But we still have some issues due to geoengineering our planet at such a large scale. And those issues are serious.
This is what i understand from reading graphs and projections made from the past.
I once believed in global warming, then become a doubter. The reason was that the data was not adding up. But now we have some interesting nuance to show that there's more to it.
It also says that if china stops burning a shit-ton of coal, the world might be in the danger that early IPCC projections expected.
That's a bad situation to be locked into.
I still assert it would be nice if we did not burn petrochemicals at all. We should be running purified fossil fuels into fuel cells by this point, which would be twice as efficient. The consequences of burning them on a global scale are pretty huge.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
This means we would need to capture carbon and release some sort of inert cooling gas in the interests of man not the economy and thats were we grind to a turtles pace theres plenty of funding for the big dicks and their hardon collider or nuclear disaster funds but climate change has been hijacked by company's as a way of been current and trending its only in a time of the screen addiction could this happen everyone is microdosing on their endorphins becoming more self inflated and opinionated.
I see the answer to this but its way off topic and ive participated in enough banned threads as is im haooy to read the wisdom of others and stick to topics where applicable.
I see the answer to this but its way off topic and ive participated in enough banned threads as is im haooy to read the wisdom of others and stick to topics where applicable.
Hillhater
100 TW
.?? Exactly what “sulphate heavy fuels” did we replace with coal etc. ?neptronix said:
The move i recall from the ‘70s was to stop domestic burning of coal for cooking and heating, ( especially in European cities) and replace it with electrical appliances powered by clean Nuclear energy.
..but the Greenies put the mockers on that plan in most countries (vive La France !
) 
Hillhater
100 TW
Only if you have thoroughly fact checked the IPCC /Gore/ etc , data ...and still conclude that CO2 is the root of all evil !Ianhill said:
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Hillhater said:
I dont even know who the ipcc are i understand gore was a greedy politician from the otherside of the world well before my time, its hard to understand why everyone us so salty about building a clear picture.
I only said about co2 as you brought it up i was just giving my conclusion on the video you linked
Purely on evidence placed to date no matter how the data is skewed by what ever side theres no way is it cooler today than it was 25 year ago using my own spider senses and the same can be said for the generation before me so this cooling effect aint having such an effect as its early days even though we burn more than ever.
Im lost now more than ever on what your saying is the likely reality of it all.
TheBeastie
1 MW
China is getting ready to test their first Thorium Molten Salt Reactor.
Could China’s molten salt nuclear reactor be a clean, safe source of power?
The thorium-powered reactors do not need water as a coolant, meaning they can be built in remote deserts alongside wind and solar power plants
The technology should be safer than uranium-powered reactors and may also dispel some of China’s worries about energy security
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3141581/could-chinas-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-be-clean-safe-source
Interesting how they jumped the gun on original test of the Uranium MSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment , and have gone straight to thorium.
Or maybe it is a bit of both as the Wiki page above mentions both.
Interesting few months a head to see how they go.
The ABC article on it isn't half bad either.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-28/china-thorium-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-energy/100351932
Could China’s molten salt nuclear reactor be a clean, safe source of power?
The thorium-powered reactors do not need water as a coolant, meaning they can be built in remote deserts alongside wind and solar power plants
The technology should be safer than uranium-powered reactors and may also dispel some of China’s worries about energy security
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3141581/could-chinas-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-be-clean-safe-source
Interesting how they jumped the gun on original test of the Uranium MSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment , and have gone straight to thorium.
Or maybe it is a bit of both as the Wiki page above mentions both.
Interesting few months a head to see how they go.
The ABC article on it isn't half bad either.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-28/china-thorium-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-energy/100351932
Hillhater
100 TW
Indonesia and Thorcon plan to have a 500 MW Thorium salt reactor operational by 2026 !
https://thorconpower.com/news/
https://thorconpower.com/news/
Hillhater
100 TW
There could be a whole new player in the energy game if the early indications are anything to go by.
Conventional teaching and experience has maintained that Hydrogen was so chemically reactive that it could not exist in nature in its pure gas form.
BUT.. one company has recently located and is developing a NATURAL HYDROGEN source In Africa....
https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/petroma-fuels-green-revolution-125000560.html?guccounter=1
And now other exploration companies are working on similar projects in Australia.
If substantial natural hydrogen resources are confirmed it could put the energy market into a spin !
It could eliminate the the most expensive , complex, and inefficient, processes in the existing hydrogen production chain.
Conventional teaching and experience has maintained that Hydrogen was so chemically reactive that it could not exist in nature in its pure gas form.
BUT.. one company has recently located and is developing a NATURAL HYDROGEN source In Africa....
https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/petroma-fuels-green-revolution-125000560.html?guccounter=1
And now other exploration companies are working on similar projects in Australia.
If substantial natural hydrogen resources are confirmed it could put the energy market into a spin !
It could eliminate the the most expensive , complex, and inefficient, processes in the existing hydrogen production chain.
Hillhater said:
Because water takes a lot of space and could easily make for an overly cumbersome safety mechanism.
So the question is how much water do you need to both slow and cool this reaction.
The amount of required water more be more volume than the battery pack itself.
When you have a bunch of added weight and volume, the rational thing to do is simply to use lifepo4 instead.
The battery bong idea lives or dies ( in terms of practicality ) based on that factor.
Hillhater
100 TW
Most EV owners dont have much choice in the battery chemistry used.
Most dont carry an effective fire extinguisher on their Ebike or EV ?
So, why even worry about how much water is needed ?..
If your EV / Ebike flames up what is likely to be the most readily available suppressant ?
.... A specialist unknown fire extinguisher, or a hose pipe ?
Let us know when you find a more effective , available, suppressant.
Most dont carry an effective fire extinguisher on their Ebike or EV ?
So, why even worry about how much water is needed ?..
If your EV / Ebike flames up what is likely to be the most readily available suppressant ?
.... A specialist unknown fire extinguisher, or a hose pipe ?
Let us know when you find a more effective , available, suppressant.
markz
100 TW
Yes, the 2 or 3 EV fires are a big negative, must not buy EV, must buy ICE :wink:
Compared to the 250k fires from ice in the last year.
https://youtu.be/paU6RWZiT-U?t=178
Compared to the 250k fires from ice in the last year.
https://youtu.be/paU6RWZiT-U?t=178
Hillhater said:
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
neptronix said:
I can tell you that once a fire crew has put the car out they tend to burst back into flame minutes later as more cells thermally run away.
The idea they got is submerge the car for 12 hours ive not seen it in wisespread use but its been bounced about out there, its the only way to be sure your wicking the heat away and not leaving a thermal hot spot somewhere.
It won't be wise to walk up and fill your drink container from it so that has to be kept from drains rivers and alike to stop contamination but its not like fire crews dont deal with industry spillage on the roads now or car fires they both equally dangerous if not worse for petrol as the potential for a faster reaction with enough air is present if the tank splits batterys wont do that theres always enough time to get out no initial BOOOOMM.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
[youtube]BXDhIz2ge5M[/youtube]
Seen this video wound me up don't click on it and give add revenue its a waste of time, he talked a lot of truths then went on about £500 worth on plant a tree will soak up 30t of his annual 50000mile co2.
Bollocks !
I done some math myself, theres 43billion tons of co2 global annual total, 30 tons takes 1 hectare of tropical forrest a year to soak up so we only need to find the land area of 1.5 billion hectates to get net zero, plant an area the size of india 100× annually to keep up, clearly theres not enough land ot will take hundreds of years to soak if you done the math properly other than decive.
It shows your £500 is wasted its best used to lobby the problem from the start stop the pollution in the first place and that's why he pulled this stunt money from ads to drive other peoples cars about and be over indulging on the world how can we fix a problem when we display greed everywhere.
From my understanding of it he knows full well what he is doing its all calculated take a hot topic and give 90 truth 10% lie and let the rewards begin, he talks about bitcoin investing apps and know plant a tree he is trying to advertise himself like a media slut with no morals shame on people like this.
Use that £500 and make a go fund me campain where peoppe csn fund the highest power legal team in the world and take it to these big firms changes the tech stop the emissions at source instead of second hand mopping them up.
Seen this video wound me up don't click on it and give add revenue its a waste of time, he talked a lot of truths then went on about £500 worth on plant a tree will soak up 30t of his annual 50000mile co2.
Bollocks !
I done some math myself, theres 43billion tons of co2 global annual total, 30 tons takes 1 hectare of tropical forrest a year to soak up so we only need to find the land area of 1.5 billion hectates to get net zero, plant an area the size of india 100× annually to keep up, clearly theres not enough land ot will take hundreds of years to soak if you done the math properly other than decive.
It shows your £500 is wasted its best used to lobby the problem from the start stop the pollution in the first place and that's why he pulled this stunt money from ads to drive other peoples cars about and be over indulging on the world how can we fix a problem when we display greed everywhere.
From my understanding of it he knows full well what he is doing its all calculated take a hot topic and give 90 truth 10% lie and let the rewards begin, he talks about bitcoin investing apps and know plant a tree he is trying to advertise himself like a media slut with no morals shame on people like this.
Use that £500 and make a go fund me campain where peoppe csn fund the highest power legal team in the world and take it to these big firms changes the tech stop the emissions at source instead of second hand mopping them up.
