You're not qualified to have lithium batteries

mckenzie.keith

Aspiring Anarchist
698
206
Santa Cruz
cant be loctite as it melts at temp

But the idea of temp monitoring especially as its a boat is a great idea. The industry getting used to temp monitoring on batteries and alternators so why not on your bus?

Perhaps have temp stick markings so you can see it run if they get hot.
https://www.1stopweldingshop.com/Catalogue/Welding-Supplies/Arc-Welding-Accessories/Temple-Sticks
I am not sure if melting at high temp is an insurmountable problem. I believe that a properly designed and built system will never get hot enough to release the loctite, unless there is a loose connection first. So the loctite won't let go unless there is already a poor connection to begin with. Those temperature crayons are cool! I didn't know about those.

 
And part of Cali is about to become a toxic dump.....again. It's hard to believe we want to mine/pump, refine and leave the waste just to make batteries for ele cars while systematically removing most of our power production. Cali is a mind boggling place. 

Here are a couple of recent articles.
https://www.mining.com/new-project-to-investigate-if-californias-lithium-valley-is-the-worlds-largest-brine-source-of-lithium

An excerpt
“That would be the largest brine source of lithium in the world, bigger than any individual South American salar deposit,” UC Riverside geochemist Michael McKibben said. “So, it’s a big number, and it means the potential is there for – again, back-of-the-envelope calculations – something like 50 to 100 years’ worth of lithium production.”

https://www.voanews.com/a/california-s-lithium-valley-gears-up-for-clean-energy-future-/6518229.html
Wad, I don't know where your doom and gloom outlook comes from, but it certainly distorts your vision of the future. Personally, I don't care about politics or most of the brainwashing media, as what they say is meaningless distractions meant to separate the listener from their money.

California is certainly not systematically removing most of our power production. California has dramatic and sustained and increasing investment in renewables and alternative ways to get energy, without continuing to poison the planet via fossil fuels and nuclear waste.

The Nuclear plant shutdowns are very, very good news for electrical power: the costs of those plants is literally an order of magnitude higher than renewables; the plants have frequent shutdowns for maintenance; the plants cannot be throttled -- all on, or all off -- meaning that all other sources of energy, and the grid, must stabilize the grid, increasing the cost of all other sources of energy and the entire distribution grid. Nuclear is a fail, and has always been a fail, and has no opportunity to not fail.

My latest start-up, Terraform Industries, is creating pure CH4 -- the fundamental hydrocarbon from which all other hydrocarbons can be inexpensively created -- from the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Unlike fossil sources, where costs will continuously increase (all the cheap oil and gas was burned long ago), CH4 (renewable natural gas) is almost the same cost as fossil natural gas today, and will get cheaper and cheaper over time, like most technical products.

So my V8 Maserati and V10 Ford Truck will continue to be fueled forever, with decreasing costs over time, using carbon negative gasoline. This is good news for literally everyone and everything on the planet.

And of all the places in the world where we could do this, we are doing it first in California for purely business reasons. We will do it globally soon, but California is the best place on Earth to start this enterprise. That was objectively determined by an extensive and sophisticated trade study modeling the physics and economic constraints on achieving our goal of replacing all fossil fuel extraction by 2035.

The future is nearer than you think, and it's better than you think.

 

eliboat

Super Anarchist
2,236
621
Maybe induction is safer than having propane onboard. IDK. What I do know is how great cooking with gas is. Just ask your favorite chef what he/she prefers.  There is a move afoot to displace gas cooktops.  I'll fight to the last saute pan to keep my gas range at home. 
A good induction stove is fantastic.  I had gas for years and switched to a Miele induction stove at home, as I’ve gone all electric.  More control overall with induction. Low temp cooking is amazing, no hot spots at all, so perfect sauces.  At high temp I can boil a large pot of water in about a minute.  Response from one heat setting up or down is instant and precise.  Most people seem to conflate induction stoves with resistance based electric stoves.  The only similarity is that they plug into the wall and some resistance stoves have glass tops.  

 

bgytr

Super Anarchist
5,004
630
Wad, I don't know where your doom and gloom outlook comes from, but it certainly distorts your vision of the future. Personally, I don't care about politics or most of the brainwashing media, as what they say is meaningless distractions meant to separate the listener from their money.

California is certainly not systematically removing most of our power production. California has dramatic and sustained and increasing investment in renewables and alternative ways to get energy, without continuing to poison the planet via fossil fuels and nuclear waste.

The Nuclear plant shutdowns are very, very good news for electrical power: the costs of those plants is literally an order of magnitude higher than renewables; the plants have frequent shutdowns for maintenance; the plants cannot be throttled -- all on, or all off -- meaning that all other sources of energy, and the grid, must stabilize the grid, increasing the cost of all other sources of energy and the entire distribution grid. Nuclear is a fail, and has always been a fail, and has no opportunity to not fail.

My latest start-up, Terraform Industries, is creating pure CH4 -- the fundamental hydrocarbon from which all other hydrocarbons can be inexpensively created -- from the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Unlike fossil sources, where costs will continuously increase (all the cheap oil and gas was burned long ago), CH4 (renewable natural gas) is almost the same cost as fossil natural gas today, and will get cheaper and cheaper over time, like most technical products.

So my V8 Maserati and V10 Ford Truck will continue to be fueled forever, with decreasing costs over time, using carbon negative gasoline. This is good news for literally everyone and everything on the planet.

And of all the places in the world where we could do this, we are doing it first in California for purely business reasons. We will do it globally soon, but California is the best place on Earth to start this enterprise. That was objectively determined by an extensive and sophisticated trade study modeling the physics and economic constraints on achieving our goal of replacing all fossil fuel extraction by 2035.

The future is nearer than you think, and it's better than you think.
So you are making CH4 from CO2?  You gotta get an H somewhere, so where does it come from in your process?

 

floater

Super Duper Anarchist
4,937
797
quivira regnum
yeah. that. I'm still trying to read the following. lol.

O-H O O-H O H
/ / \ H / / \ Ca-O /
Ca=O + Ca + Ca C=O + O=C=O + \ <---> Ca + Ca C=O + \ \ + O
\ \ / O-H \ \ / O-C=O \
O-H O O-H O H

H H-O H
\ + \ <---> O=O + H-H + \
O-H H H

O H H
H H H \\ H H-O \ /
H-H + \ + / + | + C <---> \ + \ + C
H H H \\ O-H H / \
O H H

H H
H H-O O H H O H H-O \ /
\ + \ + / \ + \ / + O=C=O <---> O=O + \\ + \ + \ + C
O-H H H H O O O-H H / \
H H

H
| O O H H
H-C-H + O=O + \\ ---> O=C=O + / \ + \ /
| O H H O
H


but I spy with my little eye.. water.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

JohnMB

Super Anarchist
2,837
609
Evanston
So you are making CH4 from CO2?  You gotta get an H somewhere, so where does it come from in your process?
Electrolysis of water apparently.

They acknowledge that its very energy intensive, and not efficient. The primary benefit here is the high energy density of the fuel.

 

JohnMB

Super Anarchist
2,837
609
Evanston
I guess it is efficient, because it's economic. or at least that's the projection. 
No, they even say in their blurb that it is inefficient.

It takes 150Mj to create a kilo of synthetic gas which will produce 55.5Mj. The argument is that solar energy is cheap and getting cheaper.

the proposed synthesis route appears to start with splitting water to make the hydrogen, and then reacting that with CO2 to get to CH4.

 

mckenzie.keith

Aspiring Anarchist
698
206
Santa Cruz
Wad, I don't know where your doom and gloom outlook comes from, but it certainly distorts your vision of the future. Personally, I don't care about politics or most of the brainwashing media, as what they say is meaningless distractions meant to separate the listener from their money.

California is certainly not systematically removing most of our power production. California has dramatic and sustained and increasing investment in renewables and alternative ways to get energy, without continuing to poison the planet via fossil fuels and nuclear waste.

The Nuclear plant shutdowns are very, very good news for electrical power: the costs of those plants is literally an order of magnitude higher than renewables; the plants have frequent shutdowns for maintenance; the plants cannot be throttled -- all on, or all off -- meaning that all other sources of energy, and the grid, must stabilize the grid, increasing the cost of all other sources of energy and the entire distribution grid. Nuclear is a fail, and has always been a fail, and has no opportunity to not fail.

My latest start-up, Terraform Industries, is creating pure CH4 -- the fundamental hydrocarbon from which all other hydrocarbons can be inexpensively created -- from the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Unlike fossil sources, where costs will continuously increase (all the cheap oil and gas was burned long ago), CH4 (renewable natural gas) is almost the same cost as fossil natural gas today, and will get cheaper and cheaper over time, like most technical products.

So my V8 Maserati and V10 Ford Truck will continue to be fueled forever, with decreasing costs over time, using carbon negative gasoline. This is good news for literally everyone and everything on the planet.

And of all the places in the world where we could do this, we are doing it first in California for purely business reasons. We will do it globally soon, but California is the best place on Earth to start this enterprise. That was objectively determined by an extensive and sophisticated trade study modeling the physics and economic constraints on achieving our goal of replacing all fossil fuel extraction by 2035.

The future is nearer than you think, and it's better than you think.
I like the idea of direct methane synthesis. But methane is a potent greenhouse gas, so you have to make sure your storage is not leaky, and it is not really carbon negative because it releases CO2 when you burn it. I have had these arguments with people, where I say burning wood is carbon neutral (since the tree already scrubbed CO2 from the atmosphere). They don't see it that way.

Politically, I think there will be people out there who will say "thank you for removing CO2 from the atmosphere and synthesizing CH4 (or other longer chain hydrocarbons) but you still can't burn it." And they will make this into a law. They are going to eventually ban all fuel burning generators and heating appliances. The writing is on the wall.

Also, I suspect you are being a bit too optimistic about the economics. Either that or you are just the first to see it and others will soon follow.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,307
5,505
De Nile
guess I come from the school where digging gold out of the ground is inefficient. unless its economic. then its efficient.
pretty much. 

Efficiency matters only so far as the profit margin. If it costs them $1 to make a BTU of NatGas sold for $2, it doesn't really matter if 2/3 the sunlight ended up as heat. (although, maybe you can grab that heat too in a different way...) If it's profitable, higher efficiency just means more profitable.

Want to see inefficient? Look at cyber-mining. 

 
pretty much. 

Efficiency matters only so far as the profit margin. If it costs them $1 to make a BTU of NatGas sold for $2, it doesn't really matter if 2/3 the sunlight ended up as heat. (although, maybe you can grab that heat too in a different way...) If it's profitable, higher efficiency just means more profitable.

Want to see inefficient? Look at cyber-mining. 
We just need to see efficiency / cost calculations that take into account ALL of the costs. Much of the current muddle we are in is due to allowing externalities- costs imposed on those who do not profit from the transactions- to be unregulated or even unacknowledged. Comparisons often fail to account for the extent to which our global energy economy allows for socializing significant costs while profits remain privatized. Regulating externalities is a primary function of good government. It's also a PITA and near impossible to really get right in complex systems. We still need to try if we want to have this civilization thing continue. 

Inefficiently "wasting" sunlight to become heat (which it would have done anyway) in a carbon-neutral process would seem to have limited to no externalities. Not so with mined hydrocarbons. 

Yeah, cyber-mining is a pure example of profiting while imposing your costs on others without their consent. 

 

fastyacht

Super Anarchist
12,928
2,596
O O P S>

https://www.superyachttimes.com/yacht-news/sanlorenzo-yacht-pesa-valencia-fire

large-c55624c5bbbd57c9bb263a81b0167d99.jpeg


 

JohnMB

Super Anarchist
2,837
609
Evanston
guess I come from the school where digging gold out of the ground is inefficient. unless its economic. then its efficient.
Efficient is a pretty well defined term, you can redefine it if you want, but part of the richness of the English language is that we can describe something as economic or efficient and make a distinction in their meaning.

In engineering efficiency is more closely defined. My use of the term was in the engineering sense, I apologize for not making this clearer at the start.

 

JohnMB

Super Anarchist
2,837
609
Evanston
pretty much. 

Efficiency matters only so far as the profit margin. If it costs them $1 to make a BTU of NatGas sold for $2, it doesn't really matter if 2/3 the sunlight ended up as heat. (although, maybe you can grab that heat too in a different way...) If it's profitable, higher efficiency just means more profitable.
This is true, to me the efficiency will come into which applications you try to use it for. If you can use the electricity directly without practical barriers, then there are limited benefits to converting the electricity to methane/ However for those applications where a high energy density is valuable (transport is a good example) this could be good way to deal with it.

 

mckenzie.keith

Aspiring Anarchist
698
206
Santa Cruz
This is true, to me the efficiency will come into which applications you try to use it for. If you can use the electricity directly without practical barriers, then there are limited benefits to converting the electricity to methane/ However for those applications where a high energy density is valuable (transport is a good example) this could be good way to deal with it.
Once you have methane it is also possible to synthesize longer chain hydrocarbons. Basically, if we can make methane from CO2 and H20 by some practical process, we can also make synthetic diesel and jet fuel and gasoline. The synthetic products would be more consistent than refined gas and diesel we use now. Probably the diesel and jet fuel would produce less particulate, for example. Basically, practical production of methane at a price we can bare could possibly revive hydrocarbon fueling. But, as I have said in another post, I don't think "they"  will allow this. Burning hydrocarbons releases CO2 into the air and for that reason it will not be allowed, regardless of the origin of the hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons will grudgingly be allowed only where there is absolutely no substitute and the onus will be on the user to demonstrate that there is no substitute. At least here in California, that is what is going to happen.

 

mckenzie.keith

Aspiring Anarchist
698
206
Santa Cruz
So a suspected lithium battery fire. There was a massive firefighter response and they were unable to extinguish it. And, apparently, the fuel tanks didn't catch on fire. With this and all other lithium battery fires I am dying to know what kind of batteries they were. Nobody ever seems to know if they are LFP (3.2 V per cell) or some other lithium technology (3.6 or 3.7 V per cell). The assumption I am making (and a lot of others as well) is that good LFP batteries will not be very likely to catch on fire because the thermal runaway temp is much higher than the other batteries. If that assumption is wrong, it would be nice to know that it is wrong.

 

2airishuman

The Loyal Opposition
Of the many fallacies in the rant linked/pasted in the OP, one that has not been addressed is the idea that lead-acid batteries are perfectly safe and infallible.  Even high-quality AGMs fail, usually due to cells shorting.  On nearly all marine installations you'll lose the string to overcharging (since the safe charge voltage goes down by 2 volts) as a result before you realize what's going on.  No drama, just a power outage.

There are explosions of lead-acid batteries, though they are rare.  I've seen the aftermath.  They are not a benign technology.

Maybe induction is safer than having propane onboard. IDK. What I do know is how great cooking with gas is. Just ask your favorite chef what he/she prefers.  There is a move afoot to displace gas cooktops.  I'll fight to the last saute pan to keep my gas range at home. 
I used to think like that and then got an induction hotplate and a bunch of pans that work well with it.  I still have a gas range but the single burner induction hotplate gets more use.

 

fastyacht

Super Anarchist
12,928
2,596
The gas stove that I like is real gas--gasoline. As in MSR Whisperlite Internationale. The smell of white gas in the morning. Right now it is on kersosene though. Stinky dirty sooty by comparison.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts




Top