Environmentally friendly Tesla.

I wrote a few days ago about a Tesla mega pack on fire near Geelong Victoria.

This god damn fire has been burning since Friday and as still continuously re igniting.

It’s worries me that people are putting these batteries in their homes.

www.afr.com...

I like Andrew Braggs comment saying that with this new technology it’s acceptable to have teething problems developing new science. Ffs it’s not acceptable to put so much public money into a technology that is unreliable. A fire that burns for over : days that cannot be put out.

The whole facility has been shut down, so what’s the point investing in this technology, where say if a terrorise organisation wants to shut down a state, all you need to do is take out the two Tesla power stations being built in Victoria.

I would love to know what toxic elements are contained in the smoke coming off those battery packs.

Where is the energy security.



Elon the great snake oil salesmen strikes again.

a reply to: robsmith
Lithium has always been borderline sketchy in terms of safety-If it does combust,water will not put the fire out.I think te fire service is advised to just let it burn out if it happens.
Its not just Tesla though-remember the Samsung phones that had to be recalled because they were exploding on planes.
That was a lithium issue as well.

But hey-it could have been worse if Ford had run with the "Nucleon" car-with its own nuclear reactor!
You may recognise them as the inspiration for the cars in the "fallout" games(you could shoot them and get a nice mini nuclear explosion-or a chain reaction if you went to scrapyard!)

en.wikipedia.org...

Imagine it-any accidents would have to be responded to by guys in the kind of protective gear we saw at the chernobyl disaster.
I am glad that they thought better of that idea-although I bet the mileage was insane.
(Wouldn't surprise me if it was the oil companies who had a hand in keeping that idea on the shelf.)

Lithium batteries are far from a green tech anyway-short usable life(approx 5 years?)then no way to recycle them.
I expect they will be left in the dust soon though,there are lots of different ideas for new battery tech including this one which shows promise-the massless battery:
www.dailycarblog.com...

The truth is there are hardly any environmental friendly tech.

Solar panels? Bunk worse for the environment then alternative very toxic to produce and take up massive space. Can’t be recycled yet maybe ever.

Electric cars? Worse for the environment again due to production of the “environment tech” like battery’s. And the electric power comes from carbon anyway so it’s like a gas car but with extra steps. The battery’s when spent are not recycled but stored indefinitely.

Wind turbines? The construction materials don’t break down, require massive maintenance, creat ocean dead spots ect.

The entirety of the green energy movement is a complete scam for people who lack perspective.

a reply to: robsmith

I did this thread for a possible Lithium battery replacement 2 years ago. Link

The company behind it still seems to be live though it still seems to be looking for it's killer application. Link.
Mostly it looks like a chicken and the egg problem.

But yeah I always thought for the long term Lithium Ion has too many problems to be the long term replacement for the gas/diesel engines.

The green movement is just another money and power scam like climate change. In the end we don’t really care about the environment. There’s money to be made and political power to be had.

a reply to: robsmith

This is an aspect of the "electric power revolution" (i.e. battery bonanza) that IMO is often overlooked, and something I try to raise awareness on.

One of my daughters recently mentioned that for my imminent search for a new vehicle begins (I'm driving an SUV made in 2004, that has ~160k miles on it), I really ought to buy an EV, specifically a Tesla, so as to conform with the public standard of the "environmentally conscientious". I responded by asking 2 questions: how long (how many recharge cycles) do EV batteries hold a useful charge without fading, and how are they disposed of when they no longer hold a charge? I also added that the chemicals used in batteries are very toxic metals that would be extremely harmful to just dump into the ground somewhere, which is how much of our old and worn out items are handled.

This thought gave her pause.

If you look into processes and procedures for how EV manufacturers dispose of their batteries, you'll get a glowing endorsement for how environmentally sound the EV car makers are, and the efforts they go to recycle and re-use components from EV batteries. The problems are, to recycle Lithium batteries, the best current approach involves burning down/smelting (!!!) the battery to recover the raw materials, and only about %60 of the material in the EV is suitable for re-use.

It's true that EV manufacturers are constantly pouring more R&D into this area, BUT, even if we assume that they improve the process over time, it is STILL a net expense to recycle, and unless owners and secondary/tertiary owners are incentivized to recycle, nothing is stopping these batteries from ending up in our waste streams, which means ending up buried in the ground.

It is inevitable, given the pure volume and scale of EV batteries in the wild and coming on-line, that soil and ground water poisoning with toxic battery compounds will happen. The question is, how effectively can it be mitigated.

I wonder if thorium reactors could be shrunk enough to fit in a car?
That may turn out to be better than lithium in terms of environmental impact.

I will say this about Elon-at least his other company(space x)seems to be using a better less toxic variety of rocket fuel than many of the competitors,methane/liquid oxygen I think it is-which is good as it can be made without ripping resources out of the ground.

That could maybe be used in some future cars somehow?

a reply to: wdkirk

It's sort of funny how suddenly everybody started caring about the environment right around the time when the Rockefellers began investing in green energy and divesting their oil holdings.

Just a coincidence I'm sure.

From what I recall, after the oil crisis in the 70’s, the US continued on the same path but Brazil noted and moved into biofuels.

No fuel is perfect, and there are some biofuel disadvantages - especially if plants are grown specifically. Biofuel production is currently equivalent to just a tiny fraction of global energy demand, which means a huge amount of land, water and fertiliser is needed. The land used for biofuel production could also be used for crops and food production, while the oils needed may come from rainforests and other endangered habitats.

www.carbuyer.co.uk...

www.iea.org...


I personally would rather follow a car that smelled like French fries than gasoline! I’m waiting on autos that convert urine into fuel!

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: wdkirk

It's sort of funny how suddenly everybody started caring about the environment right around the time when the Rockefellers began investing in green energy and divesting their oil holdings.

Just a coincidence I'm sure.

1971