Lithium batteries and fires

[rruff]

How can we even seriously discuss the issue when you bring up oxen pulling a wooden cart? Jeebus.

Seems pretty relevant to me. If you are going to travel around in a semi-modern vehicle, you'll be burning fossil fuels to do it. And building that vehicle required burning a lot of fossil fuels, and the use and production of toxic chemicals. If you are a vagabond and get all your electricity from solar panels, there is a good deal of energy and toxic chemcials involved in the production of those also. And you are going to need batteries, and LiFePO4 batteries are less of a toxic mess than lead-acid, but...

Pick your poison... but picking on LiFePO4 is wrong-headed.

We could use a lot less energy and material in transportation and life, and I think live better at the same time. I'm with you on that. The people selling energy and egregious amounts of stuff, push us to always want more, more!

On that note, your mobile living quarters are on the high end of of the size spectrum, and will require more energy to haul around and heat and cool than most. I wonder why, if you are so concerned about your envronmental impact, you didn't choose something smaller? I'm not suggesting you should, but it is a much bigger deal than the battery question.

 

[Frood]

What concerns me is the absence of discussion about using power frugally. Eg. What is the least amount of power needed to get the job done.

Isn't that the first step in designing your power system? Figure out what you need power to do, then design the system to accomplish that?
It's just that power requirements get higher and higher, and are likely to only grow as digital reality becomes more and more pervasive.

The core of the problem, at least as it seems to me, is trying to keep the power grid centralized instead of completely getting rid of the power companies and focusing on localized power generation.

Back when power generation was significantly more inefficient it made sense to take advantage of the benefit in large scale power generation, but now it makes more sense to decentralize power generation and focus on local (at the individual or perhaps neighborhood level) generation. It also creates a more robust system that is less prone to large scale disruption.

 

[rruff]

The core of the problem, at least as it seems to me, is trying to keep the power grid centralized instead of completely getting rid of the power companies and focusing on localized power generation.

What scale are you talking about, and how would the power be generated?

Transmission and distribution losses average ~6%, so there isn't a lot to save, there. http://insideenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/State_Losses.png

 

[RonDean]

How can we even seriously discuss the issue when you bring up oxen pulling a wooden cart? Jeebus.

Sorry if you found my example vexing. I was only trying to point to the extreme course of action required to have as little negative impact as possible. I DO agree with you that we need to pay attention to our personal impact. Even the indirect impact of what we buy. I also agree with most of rruff's points. Being 100% opinion free is not one I agree with. Maybe 50% opinion free?

On this battery question, I stand with 97% recyclable Lead - as against Lithium's 95%, makes this particular question one of splitting hairs.

 

[rruff]

Being 100% opinion free is not one I agree with. Maybe 50% opinion free?

Don't knock it until you've tried it!

 

[Frood]

What scale are you talking about, and how would the power be generated?

Transmission and distribution losses average ~6%, so there isn't a lot to save, there. http://insideenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/State_Losses.png

Was actually referring to efficiency in conversion of fuel to electricity. 70 years ago small generators, solar, wind, etc. had a noteworthy loss of efficiency when compared to large scale power generation. At least when you consider solar, wind, etc.

Fuel-based power generators still benefit from economy of scale but with the advent of other means of power generation are mostly* unnecessary except as a secondary or tertiary backup power source.

*Some regions still can not feasibly use solar, etc, due to the conditions of the local environment... For example in extreme northern/southern latitudes there would be extended periods where solar is completely infeasible.

 

[rruff]

Solar requires batteries, or some form of energy storage. Fuel power plants store very little and just generate as needed.

That's the big challenge of doing too much with solar. You need to have the same amount of fuel generating equipment anyway (or batteries), for when the sun doesn't shine. Solar's unreliability makes it quite a bit more expensive than you might think. For instance, an off grid system with batteries and inverters and everything, will still cost more per KWhr than hooking up to the grid.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^So if we were really serious we would be doing smaller local nuclear power plants and solar/battery powered pumps and hydro generators and the necessary large cooling reservoirs so that hydro generators could recoup power at night or when it was cloudy while having a closed cooling system as well as huge power storage capacity to optimize/customize generation when needed and no fossil fuel required?

 

[rruff]

Pumped hydro has been around around a long time. The US has a few of these, but high capital costs are a major downside. If we run out of other options, it may become more common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Nuclear isn't the best compliment to solar because of high capitol costs and an inability to ramp up and down quickly. Hydro should be pretty quick though.

 

[RvNaut]

Nuclear isn't

Until the industry figures out where and how to store spent fuel, Nuke is a piss poor idea. Maine Yankee Atomic Power. Ran for about 25 years, cost ratepayers a lot, sold as "energy to cheap to meter".... every bit of fuel run through the plant is still sitting there, in Wiscasset Maine... the owners of Maine Yankee? Well they are fat and happy having made millions selling power... what a great gig.. make a mess and millions and just walk away not having paid the true costs...

...and where is the USN dumping it's nuke waste? Russia? Everyone else??

The reality is that humanity is filthy, so be it Lithium, coal, oil, nukes, solar... they all pollute... the challenge is humanity itself... were we collectively to give a rodents derriere about all life on the planet, we could turn it around easily.... but... that won't happen in my life... maybe not for hundreds of years, that is if we and/or mother nature doesn't take us out first.... Is Lithium really any worse than the other forms of pollution we create? really? Or is it more propaganda from the oil industry?

 

[jacqueg]

What scale are you talking about, and how would the power be generated?

Transmission and distribution losses average ~6%, so there isn't a lot to save, there. http://insideenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/State_Losses.png

IMNSHO - every single flat-topped commercial big box building in this country ought to be required to have a solar array on top of it. I don't know whether it's true that all public utilities are required, when they want to build a new generating facility, to first consider how they might tap into other sources, to get their operating permit. But that requirement, and a big box requirement, could go quite a ways in alleviating power supply problems. Yes, this has its own issues, but building more fossil fuel plants is insanity.

 

[RonDean]

Solar requires batteries, or some form of energy storage. Fuel power plants store very little and just generate as needed.

That's the big challenge of doing too much with solar. You need to have the same amount of fuel generating equipment anyway (or batteries), for when the sun doesn't shine. Solar's unreliability makes it quite a bit more expensive than you might think. For instance, an off grid system with batteries and inverters and everything, will still cost more per KWhr than hooking up to the grid.

There are solutions to all those issues that do not require us to destroy the planet or our health in the process.

BTW, the sun always shines and is quite dependable. It been doing so for millions of years. We just need to be better at planning our lives and location and technology. I remember seeing a mountain lake that drained to a lower lake to produce electricity and then pumped the water back up when there was a surplus of power. And there are many other sustainable and nonpolluting grid solutions.

I am one of those that believe the majority of scientists warning us about global warming and the dangers of pollution. I am willing to change my personal impact as much as I can. I also go along with Carla when she says use and need less power is right at the top of possible solutions. I just don't think there is a HUGE difference between Lead or Lithium batteries.

 

[rruff]

IMNSHO - every single flat-topped commercial big box building in this country ought to be required to have a solar array on top of it. I don't know whether it's true that all public utilities are required, when they want to build a new generating facility, to first consider how they might tap into other sources, to get their operating permit. But that requirement, and a big box requirement, could go quite a ways in alleviating power supply problems. Yes, this has its own issues, but building more fossil fuel plants is insanity.

It's an engineering and finance decision for the company. They will try to produce energy as cheaply as possible given their freedom to choose. Arbitrarily saying that all roofs should have solar arrays is something a govenment might be able to dictate, but it will be more expensive. And it could be a lot more expensive. Generally most people lose their taste for such things even if it only costs them a little, let alone a lot.

The sunniset part of the US has a gazillion acres of uninhabited desert, where solar panels would be very easy (cheap) to install, and wouldn't bother anyone.... and they'd be easy to maintain.

BTW, the sun always shines and is quite dependable.

It dependably shines somewhere in the world. It is very undependable at any particular location.

Solar panels are cheap enough that the production of electricy with them is viable, but unlike fossil fuel sources you need storage if you rely on solar too much... and storage is quite expensive, no matter how you do it.

 

[RvNaut]

RvNaut said:
IMNSHO - every single flat-topped comm
This is not my text... so yeah... just saying..

 

[rvwandering]

Please stay on topic. I removed a few post that were totally off topic.

 

[rruff]

RvNaut said:
IMNSHO - every single flat-topped comm
This is not my text... so yeah... just saying..

Sorry about that! Not sure how it happened, but I can't fix it now...

 

[RvNaut]

When I see discussion like this, I have to reflect on how I live compared to how I used to live.
.
I sold the house in Maine and was lucky to walk with enough to buy a 20yo class A, and get my butt to the SW with said RV... I had enough extra cash to build my battery and over the following year built out the rest of the system. This is my home until I don't need one any more.
.
I use way way way less everything than I used to in a S&B situation. I use a tenth of the water I used to. Even with moving this beast around 3k miles a year is less gasoline than I used to burn. I eat less, create less garbage, use much less fuel to heat etc etc etc... Buying a 20yo rig means reusing the resource wherein the damage was already done.
.
Fires... because this thread is about Lithium and the potential for fires. OK, there is potential. How many here are in the general Quartzsite area in the winter... how many vehicle fires do we see a year? yeah.. too many... were any of the battery fires?? I don't know of any. I sure do know of the fridge fires.... many of them.
.
Do LION batteries do nasty things when mistreated and or damaged? .. .you bet you sweet bippy (as Dick Martin used to say) Do other systems in our vehicles cause fires? Uh huh.. they sure do.. I have 15kw of potential "boy howdy" directly underneath me, that I built, very carefully. I also have a propane/elec fridge, a propane water heater, a propane furnace, a tank of 20 gallons of propane, a gas tank with 70+ gallons of gas, my entire rig and most of yours are rolling time-bombs just waiting for something to go bang.... such is life, eh?
.
So then.... are Lithium batteries a cause for concern... absolutely. Do they warrant more intelligent care than other fuels and devices? Not really... and as such the whole "the sky is falling" thing is just that... all systems can be safe when operated properly, and the corollary applies that all systems will kill you if they are not implemented and operated properly... heck just driving a vehicle of any kind down the road is taking your life in your hands... so... do it right worry less and enjoy life.
.
Despite my use of 250#s of lithium batteries, my impact on the planet due to my existence, is far less than it was. I think this is a very good thing.

 

[RonDean]

It's an engineering and finance decision for the company. They will try to produce energy as cheaply as possible given their freedom to choose. Arbitrarily saying that all roofs should have solar arrays is something a govenment might be able to dictate, but it will be more expensive. ...
It dependably shines somewhere in the world. It is very undependable at any particular location.
Solar panels are cheap enough that the production of electricy with them is viable, but unlike fossil fuel sources you need storage if you rely on solar too much... and storage is quite expensive, no matter how you do it.

True. That just means we have to hold everyone responsible for their actions.

I once worked in an industry responsible for our manufacturing materials "cradle to grave." In our case that included a significant amount of hazardous chemicals. We were responsible until such time as we could return them back to the environment in at least as safe a manner as before they were mined or collected. We couldn't just go dump them in the closest body of water like the earlier regulations (or lack thereof) would have allowed. And the fact that this was mandated by the government did not seem crazy to anyone I knew. In fact, without that government requirement, disposing of many of our chemicals in an unsafe manner would have killed a lot of people. Nor do I think the general public would object to paying slightly more for our products when the alternative would have been so terrible.

Now we are starting to understand that dumping hazardous "stuff" in our atmosphere is at least equally as bad. Would I resent it if the government decides maybe they should place more requirements and limitations on this as well? NO! Certainly not when the alternative is going to negatively impact our health and our environment.

 

[rruff]

And the fact that this was mandated by the government did not seem crazy to anyone I knew.

Exactly, I can think of a lot of regulations we should have... the way we raise livestock comes to mind. Companies will tend to do the cheapest thing they can get away with. Not necessaily because they are evil or even greedy, but because they can't afford to do otherwise in a competitve environment. And the corporate mandate is to maximize shareholder profit. If the government passes a fair law and enforces it, then everyone is on an even playing field. And will be costly to comply and costly to enforce. If it's an industry that can be moved, then it will end up in another country where they don't care.

I don't think the specific example of mandating solar panels on roofs is a great one though. There are better ways to achieve that... like mandating a certain growing % of "clean" energy. This allows the energy producer to find the best way.

 

[RonDean]

If it's an industry that can be moved, then it will end up in another country where they don't care.

This is true. I worked in the semiconductor industry and most of it eventually moved offshore. They offered me a job "over there" but I declined. NOW the US is starting to realize not having a domestic source is really bad for our economy and our long-term security. It also shows why we need global agreements on the environment. Pollution pumped into the air in Aisa will just take a bit longer to reach the US.