Investment Strategies / Mechanical Investing
No. of Recommendations: 2
Looks like the fed, state and county are all behind the construction by Texas' Vistra Corp. of the worlds largest Lithium BESS next to the beach in the middle of our isolated tiny (10K people) town.
And it would appear the fed, state and county will overrule any local objections to the development by foreign corporations of 300 square miles of turbines 20 to 50 miles offshore..... with shoreside support facilities for offshore support vessels in the last relatively natural estuary on the California coast.
Despite local opposition it's gonna happen. If there's a fire at the BESS, thankfully I live slightly upwind of it. The rest of the little tourist trap, the waterfront and town will be S.O.L. if a hydroflouric acid cloud wafts around.
The opposition wails about the whales, sea birds that will be exposed to the turbine choppers, underwater cabling, maintenance ship traffic.... but it's kinda ironic that they don't express similar concerns when it somebody elses backyard. The rain forests, for example, the arctic wilderness, the GoM (deepwater blowout) or Prince Willam Sound, krill harvesting, robotic vacuuming of olives decimating the songbirds of Europe.
8 billion people want their stuff and that takes energy.
Carbon or renewable, it causes pollution and destroys habitat.
AI and robotics appear to be taking energy demand to a whole new level.
No. of Recommendations: 0
AI and robotics appear to be taking energy demand to a whole new level. - sano
------------------
Yep. I just heard yesterday on the local news here, that Texas power generation will have to double in the next six years to keep pace with growing demand. Some of the new demand is driven by population growth, but the majority of the new consumption will be in data centers, bitcoin mining, and AI operations. The story mentioned that many of these businesses try to maintain a competitive advantage by keeping their growth plans a secret.
No. of Recommendations: 0
HF? Lithium BESS mostly releases hydrogen, which -obviously- is extremely flammable. But it's not HF.
Yes, we do need energy. Pretty much no method of generation is without collateral effects. Wind may be the most benign, but still not free from issues.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I read a while back that if bitcoin mining continues, it won't be that long before it would consume something like half the world's energy output. Evidently, the more mining you do, the more energy is required in some exponential relationship.
Another reason to stop the madness (and stupidity) of bitcoin. The variety of global currencies available are just fine for legitimate transactions. Bitcoin is predominantly a way to cover illicit transactions.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did a quick check. We're not quite at 1% global production yet.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61....
But 120 TWh is
a lot. And I do believe my statement about exponential growth was correct, so it will get a lot larger very quickly. High estimates are it is already at 240 TWh, but they're settling on 120 TWh to be "safe".
No. of Recommendations: 0
Another reason to stop the madness (and stupidity) of bitcoin. The variety of global currencies available are just fine for legitimate transactions. Bitcoin is predominantly a way to cover illicit transactions. - 1pg
---------------
I have a hard time grasping the concept of mining which seems like a ponzi style scheme where the early in miners profit from selling to the naive newbies.
I am all for keeps the feds from snooping around citizens financial data or any other data for that matter without a search warrant. But can you trust the feds will allow the restrictions to interfere with a "righteous" investigation? Experience has shown us that skepticism is in order. So I get why people use bitcoin for perfectly legal purchases. You have to admit that it is effective at shielding payments, legal or not, from prying eyes.
If Senator Menendez took his bribes in bitcoin instead of gold bars and a Mercedes, he would not be under indictment.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I read a while back that if bitcoin mining continues, it won't be that long before it would consume something like half the world's energy output. Evidently, the more mining you do, the more energy is required in some exponential relationship.
Another reason to stop the madness (and stupidity) of bitcoin.
This is an insane waste of valuable resources. But the bitcoin lobby is showering Congress with money so the odds of doing anything about it are slim to none.
No. of Recommendations: 0
But 120 TWh is a lot. And I do believe my statement about exponential growth was correct, so it will get a lot larger very quickly. High estimates are it is already at 240 TWh, but they're settling on 120 TWh to be "safe". - 1pg
-----------------
Even with exponential growth it is a long road evolving from a Type 0 into a Type I civilization but we are on the way. I wonder what the climate activists will have to say along the way?
No. of Recommendations: 1
I have a hard time grasping the concept of mining which seems like a ponzi style scheme where the early in miners profit from selling to the naive newbies.
The early adopters are rolling in money because the value has been bid up. Not quite a ponzi scheme, perhaps closer to a multi-level marketing scheme. I'm not quite sure about the algorithm, but from what I understand, the newer bitcoin has a more complicated block chain because it has to account for all the other coin out there in some way. So each newly generated "coin" takes more computing power to generate. That is part of the security (and anonymity) of it, but otherwise it seems like those silly "collectible" things on the internet (they are basically just drawings...forget what they're called).
I agree about Menendez. A lot harder to track his bribes if they were given in bitcoin instead of gold bars. Gold bars are easy to track, especially if you keep them in your home. They're an actual "thing", as opposed to the digital will-o-wisp of bitcoin.
No. of Recommendations: 2
"HF?"
In nasty quantities in the Moss Landing, AZ BESS fire, and recently the Otay Mesa fire that reignited and burned for nearly 3 weeks. Building it between the highschool, the tourism center and the only escape route is such a Texas thing for Vistra to do.
"Our quantitative study of the emission gases from Li-ion battery fires covers a wide range of battery types. We found that commercial lithium-ion batteries can emit considerable amounts of HF during a fire and that the emission rates vary for different types of batteries and SOC levels. POF3, on the other hand, was found only in one of the cell types and only at 0% SOC. The use of water mist as an extinguishing agent may promote the formation of unwanted gases as in eqs (2)–(3) and our limited measurements show an increase of HF production rate during the application of water mist, however, no significant difference in the total amount of HF formed with or without the use of water mist."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC55772...
No. of Recommendations: 2
Poorguy... I mistyped. The term I intended to type is hydrogen fluoride gas (not hydrofluoric acid). The current 'watch and wait for it to burn out' strategy causes a shut down / shelter in place for everything within a substantial radius.
"The gases produced vary between batteries, but of particular concern to Environmental Protection Agency officials dispatching responders to the fire, according to an incident report, was the possible presence of hydrogen fluoride, or HF, which can be deadly within minutes at even low concentrations."https://www.wired.com/story/big-grid-batteries-are...
No. of Recommendations: 2
Ahh. During a fire. The chemistry changes if fire is present. With no fire, there can be hydrogen (H) present. Which is, of course, combustible. But no HF.
I was not aware that HF could be produced by a lithium fire. I may have to query the chem professor I know. (Where does the fluorine come from?)
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ahh. (again)
Still wondering where the fluorine comes from.
The tricky bit about lithium burning is that you pretty much just have to wait it out. Normally, a class D extinguisher (i.e. military grade...we had those in the Navy) can put out a fire of burning metal. But with a lithium battery, it's not just the metal that is burning. The energy stored in the battery is being released in an exothermic manner. It ignites the metal, of course, but I don't think using a class D on it will do any good because the cell has been compromised, and that energy is going to be released very quickly.
On a recent cruise we did, we had "dinner with the officers". One of the two officers at our table was one of the engineers. He said that some ports are going to a "no petroleum propelled ships" policy. Which means electric. Which means batteries. A bank of batteries big enough to propel big ships. He said that was potentially extremely dangerous. We discussed it a bit, but I didn't want to bore everyone else at the table. That risk could be minimized by installing multiple small banks separated in space, rather that a few larger banks. But he was correct that if there's a fire, that energy is going to be released. You can't stop it once it starts. That battery has to discharge.
No. of Recommendations: 3
That risk could be minimized by installing multiple small banks separated in space, rather that a few larger banks. ... You can't stop [a battery fire] once it starts. That battery has to discharge.
With a bit of planning ahead, those multiple small banks might be able to be jettisoned overboard if they are on fire. Or keep them in small, below waterline compartments that can be easily flooded in case of fire.
Thinking like a practical environmentalist, I don't think electric propulsion in port is really feasible. Not without a big engine generating the electricity, which sort of defeats the purpose. Probably much more practical to require cleaner engines while in/near ports. Perhaps better quality fuel (bunker fuel is pretty nasty stuff). Maybe in combination with some rudimentary exhaust treatment - which can be bypassed when out of port. Or just bite the bullet and go to a better quality fuel all of the time. The contribution to environmental damage is the same whether the ship is in port or at sea. We just notice it more when they're in port.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 1
"A bank of batteries big enough to propel big ships. ...... That risk could be minimized by installing multiple small banks separated in space, rather that a few larger banks.
The first Vistra "world's largest BESS" plan would have had the battery banks inside of 3 buildings, each building the size of a large Costco building. I suppose the risk of a huge thermal runaway event is the impetus for plan B.
The alternative design would contain the batteries in 174 separate enclosures The enclosures would open to the outside, be spaced at least 10 feet apart and be separated by fire-resistant walls.
Both plans are at risk of flooding as sea levels rise and storms intensify; 100 yards from the beach protected by a frikking sand berm.
Since the power stored primarily goes to the Central Valley, there's no reason it can't be built in an isolated location, safely away from homes and schools. All it needs is a substation along the transmission lines.
No. of Recommendations: 1
For lithium-ion battery fires,some fire departments are adopting special firefighting agents like FOG cannons containing lithium ion specific extinguishing agents. These agents suppress the fire by smothering it and interrupting the chemical reaction inside the battery. I believe one of the agents is Aqueous Vermiculite Dispersion(AVD). This is a popular option that uses water and vermiculite, a heat-resistant mineral. AVD works by creating a coating around the battery, encapsulating it and absorbing the heat preventing the fire from spreading (hopefully).
No. of Recommendations: 0
Asked my chem professor friend.
The fluorine comes from the lithium hexafluoro phosphate electrolyte in a dimethyl carbonate solvent. (Specifically, the "hexofluoro".)
