Electric vehicle fires: It is not a matter of if, but when
Joe Biden’s plan to convert 50 percent of the U.S. vehicle fleet from internal combustion engines to electricity by 2050 to fight climate change ignores a serious danger in doing so.
Recent events around the world reveal that fire catastrophes from electric vehicles (EVs) are not only possible, but increasingly likely. The fire risk of the lithium-ion batteries that these EVs rely on for power is well documented, as they have been known to spontaneously combust in the most inopportune times and places.
Just this week, General Motors announced a second recall of Chevrolet Bolt EVs and EUVs manufactured from 2019 to 2022 model years in order to fix a defect in two of the lithium-ion battery modules that have led to fires. This follows on the heels of a previous recall of 69,000 older vehicles that will replace all five of the battery modules.
The GM announcement is just the latest in a string of recalls by EV manufacturers to attempt to fix defects that can lead to catastrophic fires related to lithium-ion batteries. Last year, Ford was forced to recall 20,000 hybrids and soon thereafter, BMW recalled 26,700 vehicles due to battery defects that could lead to fires.
Internal combustion engine vehicles can also catch fire, but those tend to be during accidents or while driving, not sitting passively in a home or parking garage, as can occur with EVs. In addition, fire crews can extinguish a gasoline or diesel-powered vehicle fire, but not so for EVs. EV fires are nearly impossible to extinguish with water and need to normally be allowed to just burn out, which may take many hours.
Last year, a California couple awoke to a blaring car alarm and a burning house. The blaze had started in one of the two Tesla S vehicles in their garage and spread to the other. “If we had lived upstairs in this house, we’d be dead,” said Yogi Vindum, a retired mechanical engineer. According to Mr. Vindum, “Gasoline driven cars don’t catch fire in the garage when they’re sitting there. And that’s the difference,” he said.
The culprit in nearly all EV fire cases is the lithium-ion batteries that power them, and which burn with extraordinary ferocity. Adding to the fire and heat danger posed by these events is the extreme toxicity of the fumes generated. According to one study, these fumes may in some circumstances be a larger threat, especially in confined environments where people are present
Battery fires are not limited to passenger cars. A fire at a bus depot housing electric vehicles in Hanover, Germany, caused millions of euros in damage. Five e-buses and four other vehicles were destroyed, along with the building and charging station. In the Chinese city of Baise, four electric buses went up in flames after one had ignited.
Large lithium batteries used as backup power supplies to wind turbines and solar panels have combusted as well. Fire crews took more than three days to extinguish a blaze at the 13-ton Tesla Big Battery in Victoria, Australia. Because ordinary fire suppression methods could not be used on the 300-megawatt power source, crews had to let the blaze burn itself out as authorities monitored air quality in the vicinity.
A truly nightmare scenario is one in which an EV fire occurs in an underground parking garage beneath an apartment complex or a crowded office building. With the toxic fumes generated, how would the local fire department be able to respond to a fire that could not be extinguished even if they could get to it?
We should be forward-thinking in the prevention of a looming tragedy and consider doing what two towns in Bavaria did after the horrific German bus station inferno: completely ban all-electric vehicles from parking in underground garages. Electric vehicles may one day be safe enough to assume no fire risk in vulnerable garages, but that day has yet to arrive.
See more here: bizpacreview.com
Header image: ARS Technica
About the Author: Gregory Wrightstone is executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and author of “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.”
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
CodexCoder
| #
No toxic fumes or CO2 were produced in this latest EV dumpster fire. (sarcasm off)
Reply
Sol
| #
For all you gasoline and diesel lovers out there.
Do you know that with a few coins you can run your already existing cars on enough hydrogen to cut your gas consumption/emissions to less of one third of the current one?
About electric cars.
The problem is not the vehicles but their battery.
Or actually to be more exact, the real problem is the suppression of technology which would allow you to produce your own power.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
Artificial scarcity is the name of the game.
There’s only one sun, one earth. Maybe a hearth and a dearth if you’ve been really “clever”.
But anyway, methanol would be a good start. It’s phasic, methanol for the plants, ethanol for the animals (the offspring of plants), methanol for the offspring of animals…would be shit.
Regarding the batteries, yeah, using lithium is fucking stupid. But hey. People are not very clever. So you can exploit that.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
Artificial scarcity is the name of the game.
There’s only one sun, one earth. Maybe a hearth and a dearth if you’ve been really “clever”.
But anyway, methanol would be a good start. It’s phasic, methanol for the plants, ethanol for the animals (the offspring of plants), methanol for the offspring of animals…would be shit.
Regarding the batteries, yeah, using lithium is fucking stupid. But hey. People are not very clever. So you can exploit that.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Hey Moron Sol:
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-8-12-the-idiots-answer-to-global-warming-hydrogen
Reply
Hydrogenguy
| #
Hey moron.
What do you think is the basis of any energy you use? You can be fossil fuel too, without enough heat.
Anyway. You might want to not refer to idiot ignorance, regarding what sort of hydrogen is referred to.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
https://www.methanol.org/fuel-cells/
Don’t worry, the batteries are even simpler.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
The real trick is in utilizing even more oxygen.
Reply
Sol
| #
Haha, the trolls go mad when you talk about suppressed technology, energy storing devices or of a fuel you can freely produce by your self.
hydrogen can be used in a far safer and environmentally friendlier way , than any fossil or nuclear fuel.
It can be safely made on Demand , for each application.
All you need to start is a small hydrogen maker like the one you can buy for your car, and than sun, wind, hydro, or mechanical power and water.
Hydrogen is like gasoline, flammable and explosive.
A big Difference is that hydrogen burns in seconds, while gasoline can burn for hours or days
Which is safer can only be an opinion.
So Just like we make safe tanks for gasoline and gasses, making hydrogen can be also safe.
Ho and yes, hydrogen, would give s us electricity too.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
You use hydrogen where it’s suitable.
And of course stop suppressing the obvious.
Trying to homogenize is ALWAYS the goal of monopolizing, controlling industry. Say… coal, oil, lithium. Notice those pushes are all from stagnating statists.
But realistically, in a desert, you may want to use oil, solar.
Piezoelectricity is another massively underrated thing. But I guess, it’ll take humans 50 years they don’t have, to figure that out.
I was thinking of throwing everyone’s smartphone into the ocean, tbh. Considering the amount of tritium and the desire for deuterium.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
You know, coz you’re too stupid to figure that out. So that’s maximize your chance for successful fusion.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“We should be forward-thinking in the prevention of a looming tragedy”
Mankind is in devolution, and as clever as they think they are, the “brains of the outfit” also.
Corruption has made It’s cut. Those who cannot see have made their choices. The reaper cannot be bought, though yet, I believe It is not too late.
Electric junk is just another avenue towards that end. As Is Hydrogen.
Reply
Sol
| #
Hi Howdy
So what is your suggesstion?
Reply
slandermen
| #
The sun does what?
It provides what to what in what forms?
Howdy is using what from what powered by what in what forms?
Reply
slandermen
| #
Sorry, watt.
Reply
Watt a loon
| #
Grow up osiris
Reply
Manjushri
| #
The only good thing about reducing CO2 emissions would be the resulting reduction in O2 consumption.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Manjushri,
Nothing man does changes the CO2 levels.It’s controlled by the oceans.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
My suggestion to what Sol? How to get out of this era we are in? No idea. I see a time of separation is in progress. The prophetic “wheat from the chaff” maybe? What comes after, I don’t know. Certainly not “rapture”.
What I do know is that this craving over electric propulsion as a “green” saviour, is nothing more than a lie. Anybody who looks at the whole process of Lithium based cells from beginning, until after the end where the spent product has to be broken down knows It. The damage is vast, both planetary and life. All theses so called “renewable” energy products are the same.
Everything I have seen about Hydrogen says It is a none-starter. The energy density is low compared to fossil fuel, and while I don’t bother with particulars, I know that means It gives less. Here’s one video:
Why Hydrogen Engines Are A Bad Idea
Your claim of fuel economy is something I have never subscribed to. Dumping unspecified amounts of Hydrogen into the air intake won’t achieve a gain in an engine with an on-board computer changing the combustion parameters many times a second based on sensor readings. If anything, a carbureted design on a rolling road should be used, but even there, Hydrogen’s lower output would lead me to believe It should cause a drop in output power because the more potent petrol, is replaced with lower energy Hydrogen. This is assuming the same stoichiometric ratio is being used.
“Project Farm” tested a HHO kit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOiXpCpVofQ
Reply
Sol
| #
Howdy, your statement on hydrogen makes no sense.
Hydrogen is far more powerful than gasoline , diesel or the type of gas which you can run your car on.
Adapting by simple kit your already existing engine , for to use hydrogen along with the fuel you are already using, will not only assure you a reduction in fuel consumption, but also an increase in performance, estimated from 10 percent with a single standard kit for the engine’s size, or greater if you put in a larger one or more than one kit.
Second The Only output of hydrogen for your engine is water.
Third, hydrogen can be produced by anyone with half brain, and it is far more versatile, nature friendly and convenient than any of the other fuels used today.
And in final, I do not watch youtube:) as far as I am concerned it is but a propaganda platform and a manufacturing consent device..
Hydrogen is but one of the many ways to the get the power needed to run everything which uses a motor.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Sorry Sol, but you are mistaken regarding Hydrogen’s energy output. Were It as you say, current fuels would be obsolete. Not only are there severe drawbacks regarding storage etc, check out the Hindenburg, to see what can go wrong.
Yes, I know about suppression of technology and all that. Over-unity, ICE engines converted to run on water etc. Not impressed.
You know an engine requires a particular ratio of fuel/air to operate properly, right? That there’s only so much room in an engine cylinder? Injecting foreign gases will upset that balance. An ECU will compensate, a carburettor won’t know the difference.
Explain how the correct fuel/air ratio will be maintained with unregulated Hydrogen gas flowing in the system.
Hydrogen is “nature friendly”? Most of It comes from fossil fuels, using fossil fuel powered process. It is a backwards step.
Yes I have half a brain, I was electrolysing water as a child. If you want to have a bit of fun, put a flame near the bubbles…
Granted, youtube is a minefield, but that’s why we are discerning isn’t It? Not so easily lead?
Regarding the youtube video, It is “Project Farm”. You would be wise to have a peruse at his videos.
The guy modified his own car. The result from an actual kit, was that It was a pointless exercise. No gain. Even then, the comments were in denial. There were even suggestions the Hydrogen would be better injected from the fuel rail, among other equally futile comments.
May I suggest you need to research more, In places unknown to you presently..
Reply
slandermen
| #
Methanol reformers.
Reply
Sol
| #
Dear Howdy
I almost stoped reading when you made the comment on the airship, which by the way, was blown up with explosives to put an end to the use of airships in favor of the far more dangerous combustion fuel burning airplanes.
(You can find lots more on the interweb)
Here a link to a device you can mount by your self on your car.
I don’t particularly know this one, it just as an example from a quick search.
You can find lots more of patented and certified kits on the interweb)
https://www.hho-1.com/convert-vehicle-hydrogen-fuel/
Any how, i can assure you that you do not need fossil fuel to get hydrogen.
I use solar but you can also use wind, hydro power, over unity and much more.
If you think of wind, than you can begin to understand that if you are flying, you are never without it.
In fact, With todays technology, we can make airships which would be far more safe environmental friendly and cheep to run than any other type of aircraft on the market.
Also, Ever heard of horizontal propellers for aircraft?
I doubt,
Have a look.
But going back to airship and hydrogen.
The campaign to demonize hydrogen has been raging for a century.
Replacing what can be easily manufactured by anyone, with what is an expensive byproduct of toxic oil.
Terrifying stories of “hydrogen bombs” making people believing it to be even more dangerous than the nuclear material of the bomb, lying in saying that while hydrogen is flammable, helium is not, and tons of propaganda making people believe that it is to dangerous to handle as well as now , not powerful enough and unfriendly to nature, is actually nothing new in the book of history of technology suppression and corporate deception
The reality though, speaks by it self..
Make some research looking for already patented and certified products instead of ways to make your point when you “in this case” do not have one.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
The “interwebs” don’t agree with your claim of explosives. Why did the airship burn so fiercely?
I can build my own, and I’ve allready seen a Kit. They don’t work.
“Also, Ever heard of horizontal propellers for aircraft?”
Flippant all of a sudden? It tells a tale. I guess that means you have no real answers. Indeed, you didn’t answer my question: Explain how the correct fuel/air ratio will be maintained with unregulated Hydrogen gas flowing in the system.?.
Sorry Sol, It is you that have no point.
BTW, that would be a helicopter or a VSTOL aircraft, or even a drone If you want to be modern.
long time ago in my school days, I could buy a “hat” with a pull cord and a horizontal propeller on It. You pulled the cord and the propeller lifted off. Fancy that. You’re not clever you know.
“The reality though, speaks by it self”
Indeed It does. The fact you believe this nonsense, plus over-unity, you can’t explain my question at all, and your flippancy, means you are stumped, and this conversation was a waste of space. Still, I enjoyed the joust.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Know what’s ironic?
A nearby generator exploded because they messed up the hydrogen cooling. That’d be related to coal.
slandermen
| #
You say old coal plant, I say you’re efficient.
“According to John Speranza, vice president, hydrogen product sales, Proton Energy Systems, almost 70 percent of all electric power generators over 60 MW worldwide use hydrogen cooling. And there are two ways to fill the generator’s hydrogen demand: have it delivered in cylinders or make it on site.
“Hydrogen gas inventory becomes the chief safety concern because of the potential energy in hydrogen,” said Speranza.
For example, Speranza said a standard portable cylinder filled with hydrogen at 2,400 psig is equivalent to 35 pounds of TNT in terms of explosion potential. A 12-pack of cylinders represents 420 pounds of TNT and a typical tube trailer, 5,585 pounds of TNT.
“Hydrogen is a critical plant resource and its supply and use should be treated with care,” said Speranza. “Hydrogen gas safety continues to be a concern at power plants since the gas was first used more than 70 years ago, despite a generally good safety record.”
Derpity McMotherfuckingderpington…tons of it.
slandermen
| #
Oh right, the article…
https://www.power-eng.com/emissions/hydrogen-cools-well-but-safety-is-crucial/
Now if only you could figure out a way to use that hydrogen being heated.
Sol
| #
Howdy, I’m not going to waste any more time with you on the topic of hydrogen cause you seem not to be interested into admit your ignorance regarding it nor to look at the evidence of its commercial use today.
Regarding horizontal propellers, as I assumed you have no clue of what I was referring too.
The avionic horizontal full wing propeller system, uses the wind to allow the aircraft to glide on the sky.
This technology, was proven by an Australian pilot which builded its own plane and proof that with its system could not, just glide, but also reach speeds comparable to the ones of jet airplanes.
This technology was completely suppressed after 9 11.
I mean, all news stories, articles and videos erased and its patents kept strictly under military secret domain.
Matter of fact, now days you will not be able to find any informations about it.
Last who tried to talk about it, was a bunch of airplane engineers avionic experts and pilots, which had build an electric model that could vertically take off, land and flying, while charging its batteries.
They actually tested for the public and even had videos about the event on your dear youtube.
The way it works is that the entire wing becomes the propeller.
The propeller which resembles the shape of the usual air conditioning fan, once it reaches the right altitude pushed by an electric motor, rotates thanks to the power of the wind allowing it to glide and to use the wind currents to gain altitude and speed.
Once it reaches the right altitude it can continue its journey without using its battery power, which in turns because of its constant production of electricity, will always be full charge for the vertical landing.
Also about your link to youtube thanks but once again I rather not give click to sites which suppress informations, does not allow freedom of speech and exercise a dictatorship on an internet platform.
Youtube has been number one in suppressing technology and shutting down channels of real inventors from its start.
And that is an other fact.
Ho and over-unity or electro magnetic generators,
That is also real physics which they wont allow in books.
In final, to close the argument on the batteries.
Just search “graphene supercapacitors”
Howdy
| #
Ho hum Sol.
Over and out.
slandermen
| #
I’ve been harping on about pseudographene/silicene related stuff for ages…technically, I’d imagine you can produce pseudographene relatively easily with basically only sunlight, water and suitable carbon (fibre) source (plants), things like hemp, sunflowers, etc.
Especially pseudo, combination and silicene related stuff I find peculiarly “missing”.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sol,
In order to get hydrogen from water you must supply enough energy to break the bonds. Because of inefficiencies and loses in the process the amount of energy you get by combining hydrogen and oxygen to make water is far less than the energy you used to produce the hydrogen. It is a losing proposition.
The demise of the Zeppelins had nothing to do with the hydrogen. (Neither did the flames which were a result of the paint burning.) The reason the Hindenburg used hydrogen was because the U.s. would not sell helium to the Germans, which would have provided a safe gas. The Zeppelins were big, cumbersome, vulnerable to weather, and slow, which is why we don’t use them with helium today.
The wind an aircraft encounters is a result of the power of its engines and provides the lift. You cannot use that wind to power the engine. The autogyro (precursor to the helicopter) used a propeller on top, powered by the wind, to provide lif instead of wings. The laws of thermodynamics are not amendable because of wishful thinking..
Your hydrogen fuel will never work since it is extremely hazardous to store and transport, expensive to produce and inefficient to use. You could not produce enough of it to me demand unless you covered all the land with solar and wind farms and even then you would not have a reliable source.
Herb
Reply
Lunatictoctarian
| #
Methanol is a hydrogen carrier.Numerous ways to produce it, there also several improvements and advanced to other hydrogen production processes, and safety issues can be certainly be minimized. Like don’t try to use it on an airship, suitable scale. Hydrogen is already used in the majority of large power plants in the world, ironically for cooling. Some of them generate the hydrogen on site.
slandermen
| #
Here’s a random example of a hydrogen production process:
Harnessing sunlight to pull hydrogen from wastewater
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190501114611.htm
Howdy
| #
Nobody knows what really caused the fire, or It’s fury.
What about this Herb:
The Hindenburg Fire: Hydrogen or Incendiary Paint?
http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Edziadeck/zf/LZ129fire2005jan12.pdf
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
Hydrogen like methane burns with a pale blue, almost invisible flame. The hydrogen was contained in air sacks within the body. hydrogen rises so there was an exhaust system to vent it out of the aircraft (hydrogen very difficult to contain). This is where they believe the fire started. When the bags broke the hydrogen would create a rising invisible fireball as the ship descended. The paint had resin and iron particles in it making a lot like solid rocket fuel. It produced the flames you see.
Herb
Howdy
| #
Cheers Herb.
Sol
| #
You write
“ Because of inefficiencies and loses in the process the amount of energy you get by combining hydrogen and oxygen to make water is far less than the energy you used to produce the hydrogen. It is a losing proposition.
I answer
Bollocks
You can make hydrogen by using many different types of natural power sources such as wind , solar FERMENTATION, and many more.
You say
“ The reason the Hindenburg used hydrogen was because the U.s. would not sell helium to the Germans, which would have provided a safe gas.”
I reply
Bollocks number two
Hydrogen can be manufactured anywhere on the planet taking away the monopoly of energy producing , from the oil industry.
Also, Helium could not give the lift power needed to lift up the Zeppelins.
You write
“The Zeppelins were big, cumbersome, vulnerable to weather, and slow, which is why we don’t use them with helium today.”
Bollocks number 3
Airships are not produced today because it is not wanted by the oil, aviation and nautical industry.
An airship using hydrogen for its lift could today, with the use of extra light fire proof materials and technology, reach speeds equal to the ones of jet engines.
Hydrogen is far easier to manufacture and handle than you think.
Also if it is made on demand, for the application to which it’s destined, can be completely safe.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sol,
You do not know science or history. I suggest you look up both of them.
Object want to reduce to the lowest (most stable) condition. So while methane, methanol, or other hydrocarbons contain hydrogen those objects want to reduce their energy to the lowest state, H20. this is why they give off energy when they burn. In order to create a less stable molecule, H2, you must provide energy and do work. It doesn’t matter what process you use, electrolysis, fermentation, or what ever, that is the reality of thermodynamics.
Back before the WWI the only helium was coming from mines in the US from radioactive decay. The military declared it a restricted material to retain it for their observation ballots. It could certainly lift a Zeppelin and the Germans would much preferred to use it rather than hydrogen.
The Zeppelins were huge craft with a steel frame but they carried very few passengers. Today you could build blimps much cheaper and use helium but nobody does because of the reasons I listed.
You cannot produce hydrogen as needed because you must carry the apparatus, energy, and source with you which means you will always have too much mass to be practical. It is like a rocket where it needs to consume most of its fuel lifting the fuel.
They have made a solar powered plane that flew across the Atlantic ocean but no airline uses them to fly passengers even though the fuel is free.
If you believe in it so much there ate plenty of companies that you can invest in who will gladly steal your money.
Herb
slandermen
| #
“In order to create a less stable molecule, H2, you must provide energy and do work.”
Yes, more instability with the ignorance associated of “easy” homogenized, hegemonic burning of say, coal and oil. And imagine the unaccounted for energy and work, involved with that. You know, rather a long time of the sun and the earth, animals, plants, producing that.
Inefficient and ignorant.
Methanol is easily produced with less total work, sorry to say. In general, hydrogen and related oxygen FAR more “available” than carbon.
slandermen
| #
Basically, you have to leave as much carbon as possible for actual lifeforms…otherwise you’re going to hell, and I got CRISPIER sort of genetic alterations for you.
slandermen
| #
“You cannot produce hydrogen as needed because you must carry the apparatus, energy, and source with you which means you will always have too much mass to be practical. It is like a rocket where it needs to consume most of its fuel lifting the fuel.”
Hey herb, why do you think hydrogen peroxide is used in rockets and torpedoes?
Sol
| #
Herb you are out to lunch on this one.
Helium can not replace hydrogen.
Among other, Hydrogen is much lighter than helium.
The modern helium airship can only carry few passengers, while the old zeppelins have carried hundreds, along with restaurant, library, piano room and private cabins.
During their employment, They safely carried tens of thousands of passengers without a single crash, maintaining till this very day the record for flying safety among all commercial aircraft.
That could have never be possible with Helium.
Also airships are not made out of steel.
They used aluminum to build their frames.
All big airships running on helium have ended destroyed because they did not have the capability of their counter parts.
And rest a sure that those who wants you to believe otherwise, are actually the very same ones which forbid and demonized hydrogen then and are forbidding the cures and imposing their fuel/vaccines now.
I mean, same family names, same bank accounts.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sol,
Look up the Hinderburg on line.. It will tell you that it was designed to use helium. It will also tell you that when the disaster occurred 36 of the 97 passengers were killed.
If you want to see Bollocks look in mirror.
Herb
Sol
| #
Herb when I look in the mirror I find an healthy body in a healthy and beautiful face and mind.
You can also research the fact that the Germans preferred hydrogen to the helium which the american wanted to sell them and to perhaps use after purchasing their ships.
So you write out of 98 36 dead, umm lets see, how many people died in the last boing max crash?
How many survived?
Do not believe all you read on line, specially some american or english site when you want to learn anything true about Germany and what happened there during their wars for control.
The fact remains the same.. helium is heavier and less useful than Hydrogen.
And that was history and physics.
Science is mare speculative philosophy and not something which is always exact.
Research and draw your on conclusions.
And thats it.
Sol
Herb Rose
| #
sol,
The Hindenburg made 10 round trips across the Atlantic carrying 1002 passengers. Number of dead 36 (not counting crew and people on the ground). If any airplane had that record it would never fly.
You still cannot comprehend that the dangers posed by hydrogen far outweigh any benefit it has. The builders of the Hindenburg knew this which is why they didn’t want hydrogen but helium and that is what they designed it for.
What you see in the mirror is an overblown ego.
Herb
Sol
| #
No What I see in the mirror is good and healthy, what I read from you instead is blatant lies , nonsense and attack to basic logic.
and just like what trolls do, finding your self out of logic, or of any good arguments, attempt to offend a person, just to pretend you should be bigger and right.
So typical, so small, so trollish.
slandermen
| #
Electric gains in battery performance
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-08-electric-gains-battery.html
“A high-performance version of the zinc-ion battery will enable stationary energy storage that promises to be cheaper, safer and more environmentally friendly than lithium-ion batteries. ”
I still think there’s quite a bit regarding magnesium, potassium, sodium, calcium, iron and other common elements (even if not strictly metals, some due to enhancement properties) that’s conveniently ignored
Reply
slandermen
| #
Like in certain areas, you can basically use molten salt (usually calcium and sodium related) as the “batteries”.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16012018/csp-concentrated-solar-molten-salt-storage-24-hour-renewable-energy-crescent-dunes-nevada/
There’s even some of that sort of stuff here in south africa.
Reply
slandermen
| #
MgCl2/KCl/NaCl is being looked at for more advanced versions of those CSPs.
Repurposing fluorine and chlorine shit for energy related usage, and not inside bodies is a good idea.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Solar heating plant, yes I’ve seen It. You know It is connected to the gas main, right? You know, to get It started?
Have a look at these places today. They are a wreck. Broken mirrors everywhere. Just another money spinner for the rich at the time.
Reply
slandermen
| #
“Solar heating plant, yes I’ve seen It. You know It is connected to the gas main, right?”
Much like nuclear power plants have diesel generators.
The thing is, how much energy is used for operation, relative to generation.
The main thing people have to get away from is singular things, coz it will always by used against you, homogenized, monopolistic, stagnant hegemony and reliance. As it always has been used against you.
And remember, anything you’re even capable of using was enabled by the sun’s related hydrogen.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Like, I think the idea of carbon neutral is complete retardation.
But I also think the usage of only coal, oil, lithium is retardation.
You’re gonna still use fuels, in whatever forms, whether it’s ethanol, methanol, gasoline/petrol or whatever. But diversify. And with batteries, complete move away from rare elements is necessary.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Oh and related to that, as I mentioned, just imagine, 70% of 60mw + facilities (and most of those would be??) are currently reliant on hydrogen.
Reply
Howdy
| #
The high performance zinc-ion is another renewables pipe-dream. The whole battery storage of grid power idea, is ludicrous. Still, It gets funding….
Reply
slandermen
| #
The problem with battery tech is that it’s essentially monopolistic because lithium is so established by now, that’s the only problem.
If people were smart they’d kinda look at how natural systems deal with electricity (numerous elements).
For instance, major common factors for humans in their diets would be potassium, calcium, magnesium, sodium, though chlorine isn’t ideal, it’s prevalent.
The problem with the “science” and PARTICULARLY the hegemonic industry is that of course they’re going to try and suppress, homogenize reach for single factor monopolies and artificial scarcity.
Trust me, there are massive amounts of varying, suitable batteries that could be made, depending on the purposes. BUT, when you have say the american DoE trying to front the monopolization of say, lithium, and the tech industry pushing the crap out of it due to fucktarded gadgets and useless teslas…
I mean, there’s a reason Elon Musk has lied so often, in advertising sense. There’s also a reason he tried to go to South/Central America as a conquistador to try and monopolize lithium there, and not only there.
If you are too stupid to recognize abundance in variety, you’ll always be lost, stagnant and obsoleted.
Reply
slandermen
| #
I’m pretty sure the reason teslas are so prone to being explody is because of density configurations used beyond specifications, btw. That happens to be related to their “superior” batteries.
Reply
slandermen
| #
My cousin who has the same first name as me works at Tesla in the Netherlands. Made some solar cars and things.
Howdy
| #
Maybe they just charge them too high to obtain a greater run time. Or too fast.
A Lithium cell Is most stressed when fully charged. It is bad practice to charge a lithium powered device fully, then shut It down that way and leave It.
Add thermal cycling, vibration, maybe over-discharge rates?
slandermen
| #
“Maybe they just charge them too high to obtain a greater run time. Or too fast.”
Maybe that as well…generally, like an overlocked PC beyond robust capacity.
slandermen
| #
Oh, hydrogen peroxide. Is another potential fuel, energy source.
In general, ideally, I’d imagine you’d want to use as much oxygen as you can relative to other elements, considering abundance.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Here’s for instance some random paper about injecting hydrogen peroxide, in a diesel engine to improve efficiency.
https://www.academia.edu/1999665/EFFECT_OF_INJECTING_HYDROGEN_PEROXIDE_INTO_DIESEL_ENGINE
Reply
Howdy
| #
Great. But they mixed It with the actual fuel. That destroys the fuel ratio If adjustments aren’t made. What about the precision injection assemblies, corrosion, wear and such, plus, what will be emitted from the tailpipe?
“The engine speed is maintained constant at 1500 rpm” Just above idle? They used up to 50% load. At 1500 RPM ?Wouldn’t that be considered labouring the engine? Is that supposed to be representative of real driving conditions?
The efficiency of engine has increased by advancing the injection timing from 10 degrees BTDC to 15 degrees BTDC for both diesel and its blends with hydrogen peroxide.
So at 1500 RPM, which is next to useless as a test, the diesel fuel alone, was as efficient. What about 4000 RPM? What about full load? I have a feeling things might not work out on the injection advance they used.
“The engine didn’t start when 2% and 5% of hydrogen peroxide with diesel is injected at injection timing of 15 degrees BTDC”
I have to ask, what was achieved?
Reply
slandermen
| #
Basically, the addition of hydrogen peroxide IS part of the fuel. How do you miss that? So at low ranges, it increases efficiency (low ranges being where efficiency is typically worse), but then you also get say, city traffic. And torque. Only at “saturation” was the diesel alone the same, basically.
So go wonder why russian rockets…
Reply
slandermen
| #
And then actually, imagine combining the design of the engine, to facilitate that, regarding other things.
Coz you know, that engine was made for diesel. Not hydrogen peroxide.
slandermen
| #
“For this, Russian Soyuz rockets rely on a product of Evonik: hydrogen peroxide. It is even being viewed as a potential fuel for the next stage in the evolution of rocket technology.”
https://active-oxygens.evonik.com/en/lift-off-thanks-to-hydrogen-peroxide-26629.html
slandermen
| #
1,8-cineole is a superb oil, btw. You can get a fair amount of it from very common, robust plants. Especially South African variants, where it comprises around 80% of the essential oils in say, naturalized bottlebrush trees.
slandermen
| #
Extraction is basically as simple as water and low heat for decent baseline efficiency.
Btw, you can make ghetto ph tests with bottlebrush flowers, thanks to the anthocyanins.
The other thing is, bottlebrush can be used to speed up nanogold synthesis by an order of magnitude vs typical means.
slandermen
| #
Of course, you can make a tea with it, which will help against “covid”, has antithelmitic, antibacterial, antiviral, antinociceptive, etc properties.
slandermen
| #
“The other thing is, bottlebrush can be used to speed up nanogold synthesis by an order of magnitude vs typical means.”
Sorry, closer to 2 orders of magnitude.
slandermen
| #
lol.
“From there we dispatch the highly concentrated solutions to all parts of the world in specially manufactured thermal containers,” says Christ. “These have a pressure release system as well as temperature and GPS monitoring.”
Howdy
| #
“Basically, the addition of hydrogen peroxide IS part of the fuel. How do you miss that?”
I didn’t: “Great. But they mixed It with the actual fuel.”
“Only at “saturation” was the diesel alone the same,”
No: “The efficiency of engine has increased by advancing the injection timing from 10 degrees BTDC to 15 degrees BTDC for both diesel and its blends with hydrogen peroxide.”
“low ranges being where efficiency is typically worse”
Why? Low load or high load? What about a ship engine running a few hundred RPM. A loco diesel that tops out less than 1000 RPM?
slandermen
| #
““The efficiency of engine has increased by advancing the injection timing from 10 degrees BTDC to 15 degrees BTDC for both diesel and its blends with hydrogen peroxide.””
Yes, the efficiency was increased for both, due to whatever design, engineering, manufacturing reasons. The h2o2 added (in an engine designed not with h2o2 in mind) was still more efficient except at “saturation”, basically, operational limits.
As you would know, engines are often designed, engineered to function in specific ranges. Then you get all kinds of limiting factors, particularly at the ends of the operational range (minumums and maximums).
Low ranges typically being worse due to mechanical inertia, I’d guess.
Howdy
| #
Right…
slandermen
| #
Was that your spark plug moment?
slandermen
| #
Think about this…
“Producing chemicals in highly industrialized countries requires more energy than producing iron, steel, metals and food, according to a 2016 report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration”
Think about the whack prioritization biases there. Chemicals in highly industrialized countries…you know, like toothpaste, plastics, “medications”, cosmetics, sanitation products, etc.
Reply
slandermen
| #
https://dlmag.com/2021-gumpert-nathalie-is-the-worlds-first-methanol-fuel-cell-ev/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2021/05/17/800-km-range-with-methanol-fuel-cell/
https://futuresciencenews.com/2021-04-19-methanol-fuel-cells-higher-efficiency-hydrogen.html
Methanol, generally useful hydrogen carrier. Can be used for combustion or fuel cells.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Don’t know about fuel cells, but Methanol has been used as a high octane drag strip fuel for quite some time osiris.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Yeah, I know. Not only that. Point is, it’s flexible, accessible, simple and a hydrogen carrier, which is particularly why it’s useful for fuel cells, due to the higher hydrogen density, safety, production, efficiency reasons.
That gumpert beats the crap out of a tesla in terms of range, for instance, and it is refueled in minutes.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Had a look around, and It seems the fuel cell may not be that great. emissions in particular:
From 2010:
“it needs to be pointed out that methanol fuel cells still rely on fossil fuels and still produce greenhouse gases.”
Produces low voltage, and poisoning of the cell components.
http://www.fuelcell.co.uk/direct-methanol-fuel-cells/
A non-starter.
And: https://www.methanol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Nordic-Green-Gleerup-Bio-methanol-Fuel-Cells-Nov15.pdf
Biomass and “Waste” wood… I’ll reserve my thoughts on that one.
Hydrogen cars rely on fossil fuels, as do electric. Or loss of the planet Itself in the form of alternatives. All “renewables” appear to shave this trait.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Yes, reference a 2010 article and ignore the much more recent stuff I posted.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Here’s some “industry” related positioning I guess:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/03/20200317-mi.html
https://www.transportenergystrategies.com/2020/04/01/methanol-as-a-future-proof-fuel/
Reply
Howdy
| #
OK, let’s reference your links since you appear to think they are definitive.
First one: “Black methanol is petroleum-based and is still considered as fossil fuel. On the other hand, the Gumpert Nathalie is powered by green methanol. When methanol is produced by using renewable sources like biomass”
Forests are not renewable.
“With four electric motors churning out 300 – 600 kW, the Gumpert Nathalie is pumping out 536 horsepower.”
So where’s the green credentials in massive waste, just to please the “boy racers”?
“But if you live in an area where methanol refueling stations are not readily available, Gumpert is offering an overnight methanol delivery service, which is free for all Nathalie owners within the first year of ownership”
How quaint. No pro, or cons listed. The first link is claptrap nonsense of the usual kind.
Second one tells nothing, except about a few engineers and some youtube videos. No thanks.
3rd one: “Fuel cells use hydrogen – the most abundant element in the universe – to produce clean and efficient electricity to power cars, trucks, buses and ships, as well as even homes and businesses. Hydrogen is considered the cleanest fuel of all, as burning it only produces water.”
You would almost think hydrogen comes for free. It doesn’t, and needs, you guessed, fossil fuel to be of any commercial value. AKA, same old story.
“The analysis also points out that methanol can simply be “reformed” at an on-site fueling station to generate more hydrogen. In addition, fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) such as cars and buses can also use onboard reformer technology.”
I want some of this cheap tech. Oh, wait a minute, It isn’t cheap, nor clean.
“FCEVs carrying methanol can travel longer ranges than those carrying pure liquified hydrogen alone – up to 800 kilometers (497 miles) on methanol”
“up to” is just something plucked from the air.
Your links show nothing osiris. At least mine had something useful.
Reply
slandermen
| #
“When methanol is produced by using renewable sources like biomass”
You don’t have to use forests.
““With four electric motors churning out 300 – 600 kW, the Gumpert Nathalie is pumping out 536 horsepower.””
It’s made by an Audi Sports car engineer, the guy who did the Audi Quattro stuff, iirc. It’s basically prototype, high end “luxurious” stuff, and something he’s obviously focused on for marketing reasons. Very different results depending on design focus. Principles.
“You would almost think hydrogen comes for free. It doesn’t, and needs, you guessed, fossil fuel to be of any commercial value. AKA, same old story.”
Wrong. The methanol is the hydrogen carrier, which is why you use a reformer for that hydrogen. Coal and oil requires far more work and is far more polluting. The reformer isn’t a constant input. The methanol is.
““The analysis also points out that methanol can simply be “reformed” at an on-site fueling station to generate more hydrogen. In addition, fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) such as cars and buses can also use onboard reformer technology.”
Lest I repeat myself…
“Coal and oil requires far more work and is far more polluting. The reformer isn’t a constant input. The methanol is.”
““FCEVs carrying methanol can travel longer ranges than those carrying pure liquified hydrogen alone – up to 800 kilometers (497 miles) on methanol”
“up to” is just something plucked from the air.”
Practical testing shows a shitty Fiat ME doing 500km range with a 20l tank and methanol reformer.
Reply
slandermen
| #
“With four electric motors churning out 300 – 600 kW, the Gumpert Nathalie is pumping out 536 horsepower.”
You do know other people have made millions of far shittier, more inefficent gasoline cars, right?
Good luck replacing that gasoline within your next 47872378 lifetimes in hell.
slandermen
| #
““FCEVs carrying methanol can travel longer ranges than those carrying pure liquified hydrogen alone – up to 800 kilometers (497 miles) on methanol”
“up to” is just something plucked from the air.”
And btw, the reason that is, is because of the 4 hydrogen to 1 carbon ratio. That density, is why the methanol fuel reformers have significantly increased range.
Howdy
| #
The link claims 800kms yet bases It on nothing. Plucked from the air, as I said.
Practical testing shows a shitty Fiat ME doing 500km range with a 20l tank and methanol reformer.
Where?
slandermen
| #
Sorry, I go through a lot of links and I closed that hours ago…so had to check again, I did misread (500km on 50l tank), but it is from 2015, less than ideal.
https://www.methanol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Nordic-Green-Gleerup-Bio-methanol-Fuel-Cells-Nov15.pdf
Herb Rose
| #
You will get more energy out of liquid methane than methanol since methanol is already partially oxidized.
As for using them in fuel cells. The carbon doesn’t provide energy and fouls the system and the the chemical reaction rate (like all chemical reactions) changes by a factor of 2 for every 10 C change in temperature.
Howdy
| #
I already posted the nordic green pdf for you to look at and you discounted It in favour of your own links osiris.
slandermen
| #
What I find peculiar is a distinct lack of fermentation processes relating to methanol production.
slandermen
| #
Yes, because I just posted more recent articles…and I happened to have seen one of those links you posted already, (though didn’t check it out).
The 2010 article I haven’t checked out all, for good reason.
Interesting that you didn’t notice that even in 2015, you can get 300km range on a 25l tank with reformers.
slandermen
| #
Btw, that Gumpert or whatever does up to 1200km in “eco mode”, supposedly.
Howdy
| #
In these parts, waste food is collected and sent through an anaerobic digester.
Make your own: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfEIL4ybD_g
slandermen
| #
So yeah, when people speak hydrogen, I think methanol. Coz it’s the simplest, most flexible carrier/liquid and it’s versatile in an electric or combustion (as well as for other typical use) sense.
Shit, if you go foliar spray your plants with some methanol, they’ll probably appreciate it.
The other stuff is mostly related to how the methanol is produced, using more oxygen relatively, and for batteries, relatively more common elements (as I’ve mentioned, potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, silica, iron…)
slandermen
| #
Oh and repurposing chlorine and fluorine for that sort of stuff, too. Considering the prevalence and purposes (literally all of it to degenerate), currently.
Howdy
| #
The 2010 article I haven’t checked out all, for good reason.
Yet you posted the same 2015 one. Newer doesn’t always mean better.
Interesting that you didn’t notice that even in 2015, you can get 300km range on a 25l tank with reformers.
The nordic states 500km, but It’s just a graph. pointless.
The fisker can beat that, with a battery, but alas, It’s under development.
So what about the present?
“2021 Karma GS-6 Fixes the Fisker Karma”
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a36164817/2021-karma-gs-6-drive/
It’s now just another Lithium battery hybrid. What an anti-climax….
slandermen
| #
That article (though I didn’t recognize at the time) was the one where the Fiat reference was from. The graph is representative of testing. Wtf else were you expecting?
To make it simpler to understand, go look at all the hydrogen cars, and basically multiply their range by around 3x or so.
That Fisker looks kinda like a pos.
Like even the Gumpert (considering it’s supposed to be high end sports car shit), using lithium is shitty.
BUT, I could see different usages, and improvements regarding other batteries being practically useful. You don’t need to match or exceed specific properties of using lithium, you just have to make something practical. More robust, better operational range, much cheaper, less environmental damage, more common, etc.
And if you combine that sort of stuff with the design of more “reasonable” or utility vehicles, you could probably get to more useful stuff.
Howdy
| #
The graph is representative of testing.
It’s just a graph. It represents nothing without data. They neglected to provide any. useless. I can make any claim I like with a supporting graph. Doesn’t mean all is legit.
The car Is now a shadow of what It was supposed to be. That’s how good the fuel cell was. They discarded It.
“You do know other people have made millions of far shittier, more inefficent gasoline cars, right?”
I’ll take the inefficient but known, over the current alternative “noddy cars”, where It’s all a Lie
Anyway, this is getting boring. It’s run It’s course.
slandermen
| #
Clearly you simply choose to be willfully ignorant, but that’s expected.
slandermen
| #
Not that you’ll get to figure it out, but there are very specific reasons to minimize secondary usage of nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, btw.
slandermen
| #
Here’s a .pdf if you want to understand how having a liquid with 4 hydrogen happens to be super useful for fuel cells, compared to normal hydrogen…which of course relates to the safety, efficiency, density and that magical range.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f69/fcto-fcs-h2-scale-2019-workshop-20-prakash.pdf
slandermen
| #
“Hydrogen cars rely on fossil fuels, as do electric. Or loss of the planet Itself in the form of alternatives. All “renewables” appear to shave this trait.”
There’s no getting around the fact that if you use something, you use something. All of it powered by the sun and the earth. But what are you using, and how was it made available, what is the efficiency, what are the purposes, what damage is associated with that use?
Like, tell me, how much work, time, effort does it require to generate something like coal or oil? Then you have to destroy and pollute to mine, refine, process and utilize…all of that for inefficient monopolies. And, all of that happens to include being hydrogen powered (thanks to the sun).
As usual, diversification. And particularly because you cannot easily renew things like coal and oil, nor repair the damage resulting from using it, you really should be thinking of multiple things.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Methanol does really well in that sense, since it is can be produced from simpler, short-term processes, is very flexible, quite efficient, cheap while also not so easy to monopolize to the same extent as say, OPEC.
It basically gives you a (sorely lacking) midway between typically very intensive (just because you’re being ignorant of the processes and requirements of how it results doesn’t mean it’s “cheap”), fossil fuel derived carbohydrates, while being more hydrogen focused, and things like the (similar to OPEC-styled hegemony lithium) batteries.
That people only tend to the singular ends of a spectrum is their greatest failure.
Reply
Howdy
| #
None of that matters. The claim is that the tech is clean. It is far from It.
Reply