this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
67 points (68.5% liked)

Technology

61300 readers
2325 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Yeah, I think massive chemical batteries for storing excess electricity to facilitate a contrived green energy market is a bad idea.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

This is a shitty Texas-based company cutting corners, who also had fires in 2021 and 2022. There are plenty of battery storage facilities operating safely.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago

As someone living in Texas presently: you could have saved yourself a full sentence:

This is a shitty Texas-based company cutting corners...

to

Texas company

or honestly:

Texas

Would be sufficient. Any Texan that doesn't own x texas-based-company is tired of that company's bullshit. It's one of the few things natives and transplants agree on.

This PSA brought to you by the makers of: y'all, you all, and all y'all.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

You're right, but I think less dense but safer and more sustainable options are the better choice for this

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (16 children)

So uh. I guess those coal and natural gas power plants would fare better in a fire. Something seems wrong there but OP clearly wouldn't possibly post something on the Internet that was utterly detached from reality.

Energy storage is just that. Fire is frequently quite good at releasing said energy.

Lithium? poof.

Oil? yup.

Nat gas? mmhmm.

wood? yup.

Coal? dang.

Guess all we got left is water - I'm sure that doesn't have any specific regional requirements...

So tell us champ: what energy storage you got all figured out from that armchair?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Nuclear though, never had a problem with excess heat at one of those. /s

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Was gonna list it but I figured our energy-tzar OP would just complain about radioactive minerals being like batteries with more steps.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Nobody's ever died from a dam collapse.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Hey! It puts out fires so it's like... better!

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] sbv 24 points 2 weeks ago (30 children)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

A really strong elastic band.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

Mechanical energy storage, like pumped hydro or flywheel. Thermal energy storage, like molten salt.

Electrochemical isn't entirely off the table either: less-volatile chemistries are available, and better containment methods can reduce risks.

Non-electrical chemical storage methods are available: electrical energy can be used for hydrogen electrolysis, or Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbon fuels. Fuel cells, and traditional ICE generators can recover the energy put into those (relatively) stable fuels, or we can export it from the electrical generation industry to the transportation industry.

There's also avoiding (or minimizing) the need for storage at all, with "demand shaping". Basically, we radically overbuild solar, wind, wave, tidal, etc. Normally, that would tank energy prices and be unprofitable, but we also build out some massive, flexible demand to buy this excess power. Because they are extremely overbuilt, the minimal output from these sources during suboptimal conditions is more than enough to meet normal demands; we just shut off the flexible additional demand we added. We "shape" our "demand" to match what we are able to supply.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] lurch 3 points 2 weeks ago

Lifting your mom with a pulley.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

This is why you don't use battery chemistries that can ~~thermally run away~~ autoignite in grid storage. The plant was using LG JH4 batteries, which use an NMC chemistry. I don't think that LiFePO4 cells were as ubiquitous when this plant was first constructed, so the designers opted for something spicy instead.

This shit is why you use LiFePO4. It can't ~~thermally run away~~ autoignite, it lasts longer, and the reduced energy density doesn't really matter for grid storage. Plus, it doesn't use nickel or cobalt so the only conflict resource is lithium.

EDIT: LiFePO4 batteries can enter thermal runaway, but they can't autoignite.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Ever seen what happens when a coal mine catches fire? Link

I guess we should just go back to water mills right?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

back to water mills

Hydroelectric has grown up since then. See: hoover dam

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Dams are actually really bad for the environment. They were sold as good because they don't burn coal but it turns out that blocking rivers interferes with everything along it.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

... 3000-megawatt Moss Landing energy storage ...

"megawatt" is not a quantity of energy.
Also, are those battery fires more frequent // important than petrol ones ?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

No. And the petrol fires are many and ongoing in everyone's cars. Also large petrol fires are not always reported in the US. I can think of one specific instance that tho' a major fire, producing a wall of smoke, yet I could only find one news report of it's existence.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Also, are those battery fires more frequent // important than petrol ones ?

Petrol fires use oxygen from the air. They can be extinguished by removing the oxygen: covering it in firefighting foam, or displacing it with CO2, for example.

Batteries contain both their fuel and their oxidizer together in one case. You can't remove the oxygen. So long as they are hot enough, they keep burning, even if they are underwater. The only way to extinguish them is to remove the heat. Which is practically impossible.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Enlighten us with better approach. Also there are battery types that are less flammable.

Edit: is -> us

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago
load more comments
view more: next ›