|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Go to - FDNC NEWS FORUMS > Environmental Issues > Australiai and Electric Cars|
|Posted by: Pool Jul 4 2018, 08:02 AM|
| Australia and Electric Cars
I saw a article in The Australian about electric cars and how in 50 years they will take over.
So I got to thinking well that would be a lot of reorganizing.
Reading up on electric cars, it seams the biggest advantage is that the owners unless going on a big trip , never have to goto a gas station again, just drive for the day then plug in at home and recharge the vehicle at night. Tesla have about 600km's of range
So most recharging will be at night and at off peak hours , solar panels wont work well there.
So I googled and worked this out
The estimated number of motor vehicles registered in Australia was 18.2 million.
These vehicles travelled an estimated total of 249,512 million kilometres in Australia, with an average 13,716 kilometres per vehicle.
Total fuel consumption by all road registered vehicles was 32,732 megalitres.
ok that's 685,000,000 Km's a day done in Australia
The average EV uses .18 mwh for a Kilometre
Thats 123 GWH a day
It cost 100 million for the 135mwh Tesla Battery in SA
so 10 of them would be 1.35 Gwh and 1 billion dollars
1000 of them would be 135 gwh and cost 100 billion dollars.
It looks Like solar panels r about 1 million per GWh in Aus atm
so lets be kind and say 5 hours a day average, so they need 25gwh of solar panels to power all of aussies vehicle's
That's 25 Billion
Add 10 Billion for incedentals
So at todays prices it would cost 135 Billion dollars to Power every Vehicle in Australia.
the panels will last 20 years the battery 10 years .
Ok Now lets look at Fuel not used
32,732 megalitres (thats a million) a year
so 32,732,000,000 litres a year
to make it easy say fuel is $1,50 a Litre
$49,098,000,000 a year is spend on fuel
49 Billion Dollars
So fuel over 10 years will be 490 Billion Dollars
Battery and solar will be 135 Billion Dollars.
and the solar panels will still be good for 10 years, and the batteries will still be usable just less capacity, all the buildings and site prep is done so only the cost of replacing the battery for the next 10 years
So over 10 years if australia goes fully Electric there will be a saving of 355 Billion dollars in fuel costs alone
Also once installed solar and battery wont go up in price for 10 years, do u think petrol will still be $1.5 in 10 years
The Biggist winner here will be Australia as Australia imports 95% of its fuel from overseas
So even if the materials to build if r from overseas, the labour will come from here and the 355 billions dollars will still be in Australian hands as savings to our population
|Posted by: Flin Jul 4 2018, 08:17 AM|
| A interesting, well laid out post. Well done Pool.
A rep for you.
A rep. for you.
|Posted by: Charles Jul 4 2018, 09:52 AM|
| Good post Pool.
How will any government cope with the loss of fuel excise on 32,732,000,000 litres of fuel each year?
|Posted by: charka Jul 4 2018, 10:08 AM|
|Where do dead batteries and solar panels go to die Where will the power come to run this feel good thing|
|Posted by: Pool Jul 4 2018, 10:26 AM|
I'm not sure what u mean by where will the power come from...
The Sun also Wind , geo thermal , tides really any renewable source, I just used solar because I could find the price easy in Australia :).......
Lithium batteries r almost 100% recyclable,
Same as the panels, and a lot easier to replace than a huge power station building, the frames r mostly metal, so very easy to recycle :)
Ohh I'm sure they will find a way :)
|Posted by: lee Jul 4 2018, 12:44 PM|
| If we use home solar -
If one puts in a Powerwall at home - 14KWh.
Wired magazine estimates household usage - 2KWh.
That's without recharging EV's.
14KWh gives 7 hours of electricity - night lasts longer.
If we use renewables as the greenies want -
Both solar and Wind need large amounts of CO2 emitting concrete.
Electricity was supposed to go down in price .
The Guardian says 70%, mid 2017, of households can be powered by renewables. 90% by the end of 2017. So it is not fossil fuelled power triggering a price rise.
|Posted by: charka Jul 4 2018, 04:14 PM|
|Did not know lithium batteries were recyclable|
|Posted by: lee Jul 4 2018, 06:03 PM|
|They are just as dirty and harmful to recycle as original manufacture.|
|Posted by: Pool Jul 5 2018, 06:33 AM|
I think the average household in Aus only uses 17 kwh a day I know ive got panels and my useage is 12kwh a day still from my provider, 48kwh for a household is a lot maybe a pool or something :)
The only reason power is going up is greed... not renewables just look at other countries where renewable mix is higher and 2 or 3 times cheeper than here
|Posted by: Pool Jul 5 2018, 07:13 AM|
I cant find how dirty the manufacture of Lithium batteries is
Be interest to find out with Tesla's gigafactory as it the biggest manufacturer.
I cant imagine it being very bad being in Nevada
with Tesla every part of their business is under a microscope and if the haters could find a issue they would exploit it.
eg. no article about the shocking waste left over from the manufacture of lithium batteries anywhere.
It could be just my google skills... If u can find the waste produced from the manufacture of lithium batteries id be interested though.
The link below does describe how they r recycling them though.
|Posted by: Phillip J. Jul 5 2018, 08:26 AM|
| I was of the understanding that our oil is sold overseas at the best Saudi price, and then it returns to us at THEIR current price! That must be why our #%^*#% government shut down our refineries. To help the local economy!? I must look into this betrayal and try and make sense of it all.
But, when you scrape all the bull#%^*, it simply comes down to pure greed, and nothing else.
On a connected note, who remembers the documentary, "The death of the Electric Car."? Unbelievable, even if it's only half true! Amazing......
|Posted by: Bear Jul 5 2018, 07:15 PM|
| "Lithium batteries r almost 100% recyclable"
Current levels of lithium collection in the EU are very low. In the case of batteries, this amounts
to an estimated 5% of the lithium-ion batteries put on the European market. Most of the current
lithium is either dumped in landfill or incinerated, contributing to Europe’s dependency on
Certain analysts believe that demand for lithium is likely to rise dramatically, due to the manufacturing and marketing of new electronic devices such as mobile phones and laptops.
Demand has already risen sharply: lithium use in rechargeable batteries increased from 0% of the market share in 1991 to 80% in 2007. The European Commission has stated that the tonnage of lithium used in portable batteries could increase ten-fold between 2010 and 2020.
Another key factor will be the use of lithium in large electric vehicle batteries. Large, lightweight lithium-ion batteries for new electric vehicles are set to be launched by over a dozen automobile manufacturers, including Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi and Volkswagen by the end of 2013. Toyota, Mitsubishi and others have expressed concerns that consumer demand may overtake supply by 2020.
There is still a lot of work needed before we will convert to electric vehicles, as for renewables I see a much better future in nuclear power when the wind stops blowing and the sun goes down the clean burning nuclear power station keeps on pumping out power, 75% of France's power comes from nuclear power stations - new generation Thorium power stations are being built in India, China, Sth Korea, and Indonesia - China plans to double its nuclear capacity by 2020.
"Both solar and Wind need large amounts of CO2 emitting concrete"
That is what I found to Lee.
Next Generation Nuclear Power
Dr Graham Phillips
In a conventional reactor, the fuel comes in the form of little cylinders, about that big. Now, they have no protective coating. But this reactor, however, has two layers of protection. One, the fuel pellets are housed inside spheres like this - spheres of graphite. There's thousands of them in there. In fact, we've got a simulation of them here. They're so tiny, you can barely see them. And for a second layer of protection, each one of those has a protective coating as well. So if there were an accident, it's very unlikely the fuel could escape into the environment.
Those spheres are simulated here by coloured balls. They're testing how they'll flow slowly but continuously through the reactor's reaction vessel. And made out of tough graphite, they're supposedly meltdown-proof.
Prof Per Peterson
Once we go to reactor fuels that essentially are impossible to melt, then we've got reactors which have an even higher level of intrinsic safety.
Already, a pebble reactor is operating in China. But the Berkeley design will step up the safety yet another notch, by using a new coolant. In a nuclear reactor, the coolant is the fluid that flows over and absorbs the heat from the hot radioactive fuel. The electricity's then generated from this heat. In this Chinese reactor, the coolant fluid is helium gas. In standard reactors, it's just water. But Berkeley's is very different.
Dr Graham Phillips
This reactor doesn't use water to flow through the fuel elements and extract the heat - it uses melted salt. Now not table salt, sodium chloride, but the related substances lithium and beryllium fluoride. Heat these guys to about 450 degrees Celsius and they turn into a clear liquid.
One of the big advantages of the salt is that it's very effective in moving heat around, but it's at low pressure.
Low pressure means a less accident-prone reactor. Today's generation IIIs run at a staggering 70 times atmospheric pressure.
Prof Per Peterson
If we switch to liquid coolants, like these fluoride salts that we're using, then we can build much more compact, high power density systems that operate at atmospheric pressure, and that gives us a system which is intrinsically safe, because there's no source of pressure to disperse radioactive material.
Prof Barry Brook
It provides what I call a 'plug and play' alternative to coal. You can take out a coal-fired power station, you can put in a nuclear power station and you have something that has replaced coal.
|Posted by: charka Jul 5 2018, 08:45 PM|
|Who can afford the cars Pollies?|
|Posted by: scepo Jul 5 2018, 09:55 PM|
| I am all for sustainable, renewable energy provided it is viable, but:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I have no idea, and at present no time to research.
|Posted by: Pool Jul 6 2018, 07:10 AM|
The only reason it sounds to good to be true is that Petrol (and diesel) combustion motors r not very efficient (about 20-25 %)
Where r electric motor is close enough to 100% its not funny. The loss of power charging a Litium battery is about 15%, making a BEV (battery electric vehical) about 85% efficient.
So it takes about 3-4 times the amount of petrol to go the same distance as a vehicle on Batteries.
That's why its cheeper to have solar and big batteries than petrol, because a internal combustion motor just isn't very good
If u really want to go forward and backward at the same time u could also build a lot more coal plants (at about 3 billion a gwh) to power the cars, u would have the ongoing price of coal as well.
But it would stop Australia needing to import all the fuel and keep the money in Aus.
The amount saved not buying fuel could be used as incentives to buy the EV's.
|Posted by: Pool Jul 6 2018, 07:26 AM|
ok a little lithium battery from a phone probably gets thrown in the dump, but if u read the link on Teslas old batteries , it shows how they recycle them.
Also The batteries used in the SA tesla plant r huge, so easier to recycle.
Teslas (I use them because they make the most batteries) factory in Nevada has a lithium mine less that a hour from it and looks like it will be supplying the factory in the next few years.
Lithium isn't the problem, cobalt is the rare metal used and will be the bottle neck, but they r changing the chemistry more and more to use less.
Yes Generation 4 Nuclear power plants seam the way to go, but r still at least 20-30 years away before they even start getting built.
I like the ones that can use existing nuclear waste ,so cleans up our existing problems :)
Even if we approved a gen4 nuke now it probably wouldn't be built for 30-40 years
With all new tech I'm not sure if id trust when the engineers say we got it right this time , id think id want to wait awhile and see how one went somewhere else for awhile
|Posted by: Flin Jul 6 2018, 07:34 AM|
|Pretty hard to trust anyone to "get it right' when there is money to be had.|
|Posted by: lee Jul 6 2018, 03:21 PM|
|Of course the trouble with lithium batteries is the cobalt in them.|
|Posted by: Bear Jul 6 2018, 07:52 PM|
| I did follow your link in regards to Tesla's recycling, they have come a way, but they still need to do a lot more when it comes to recycling old Lithium batteries.
Lee is correct in regards to Lithium batteries.
Lithium mining requires large amounts of water as the metal is extracted in evaporation pools, the amount of water used is affecting the environment in South American countries, the area is known as the 'Lithium Triangle'.
In regards to Nuclear power, here is a link to a FDNC thread you may like to visit Pool.
Two countries, two paths, one lesson learnt.
|Posted by: charka Jul 6 2018, 08:17 PM|
|where do they get the power for the cars and who can afford them|
|Posted by: Bear Jul 6 2018, 10:54 PM|
| Charging stations are being installed around Australia, not much good to us in the bush, but you can charge them at home.
Electric cars are expensive at the moment, like most things the prices will come down in time.
As the prices drop they will become more attractive due to the low running costs.
My cuz just bought this one, not much room for the family - Ok for a quick run to the pub.
|Posted by: lee Jul 7 2018, 12:59 PM|
|Where is Bundy living now? Has he moved?|
|Posted by: Pool Jul 7 2018, 03:19 PM|
Umm Read the beginning of this thread charka, its what I worked out would be the costs to go to electric vehicle's :)
And the savings could be used to subsidize the EV's until they go down in price
|Posted by: Pool Jul 7 2018, 03:23 PM|
I Looked into it and the excise is about 13 billion a year
so over 10 years would need to take off 130 billion of the saving's I worked out :)
|Posted by: charka Jul 7 2018, 03:28 PM|
|So really the cost of replacing the batteries would be built inn Sounds like the old never plan Trust us we are the guberment What would be the cost of a car? Beyond the reach of many i think|
|Posted by: lee Jul 7 2018, 06:35 PM|
Wouldn't that start down low and end up at $13 billion a year? The EV's are not going to be the main vehicle of choice to start.
|Posted by: Pool Jul 8 2018, 07:48 AM|
The batteries like Tesla's big one in SA is guaranteed for 10 years, should last about 15.
That's why I used a 10 year plan.
The solar panels last around 20 years.
SO after 10 years there is even more saving as u only need to replace batteries and not the structure they r built in .
Electric vehicle's r getting cheep and cheaper as more r made and they r working out better ways to build them, Its only been about 8 years since EV's have been having real money and research put into them, if we start getting the ones made in china, they will get very affordable,
The battery price has been the main expense's and 8 years ago they cost $400 USD for 1mwh, by the end of the year Tesla will be making them for $100 USD
Its estimated that in 5 years they will be the same price as ICE vehicles.
You also have to remember they almost do away with Services, 80% less moving parts, they don't even use brakes as the engine breaks the car.
The cost of refilling a EV is also about a quarter of the price of a ICE as well,
Lifetime of ownership say over 200,000km is getting close now to being the same.
Well Yes but if we get rid of all Fossil Fuel Vehicles then there will be 13 billion less revenue for fuel excise , so that has to be taken into consideration.
|Posted by: Flin Jul 8 2018, 08:18 AM|
| I would like to see some positive action by the government to reduce the price of electric cars.
Unfortunately our government seems to be in transition from chronic ineptitude toward progressive imbecility.
|Posted by: Pool Jul 8 2018, 12:39 PM|
|yes even a small gesture like lowering import duty or waive the luxury tax.|
|Posted by: charka Jul 8 2018, 12:59 PM|
|I would bet the cost of cars would beyond anybody except pollies Where does thew power come fom to charge them ? Got blackouts looming now|
|Posted by: Charles Jul 8 2018, 01:19 PM|
Fair comment. It's not as though we have an automotive industry to support anymore!
|Posted by: lee Jul 8 2018, 09:54 PM|
If the FFV were got rid of over 10 years, then the final year would be when there would be $13 billion saving.
If we assumed a straight line rollover of vehicles it would be about $65 billion savings by the final year.
|Posted by: charka Jul 8 2018, 10:02 PM|
|The big SA battery What was it 45 mins for a few homes Runs a smelter for 10 min oops FAIL|
|Posted by: Pool Jul 9 2018, 07:36 AM|
97% of blackouts r from weather falling tree's etc..... Ummm u keep asking where does the power come from to charge them...... Umm please read the beginning of this post.
most pollies r in denial about how poisonous Fossil fuels r so i doubt if any of them would buy a electric vehical.
|Posted by: Pool Jul 9 2018, 08:11 AM|
The SA battery is designed to keep the grid at a even rate of electricity, called a peaker plant.
SO when a major power supply breaks down, one of these emergency power plants come in.
Most r gas powered or diesel take about 5-10 minute to start producing power, they also cost about $15000 a mwh to run.
The tesla battery can peak the power instantly and in the first 6 months it has has done that quite a few times.
Its already saved 30million dollars for SA residents doing its job. It actually works to fast and the grid sensors don't even know its working for the first 5 minutes, so they don't get paid for it.
the SA government paid for half the battery to be used like this that's 50 million.
in 6 months it's saves\d 30 million, really its one of the best investment the SA government has made, considering it will keep doing this for at least 10 years :).
Ohh and SA grid hasn't gone down since the battery has been in place....
The other half of the battery is used to store wind energy that would other wise be wasted in off peak times like in the middle of the night.
Then its used at peak times to also help the grid from being over extended.
Even if was used just for powering houses, the average is 17 kwh a day for houeholds. At 30c at kwh thats $1800 a year.
The SA battery will power 8000 houses 24 hours a day.
8000 X $1800 is 14.4 million a year, or 144million over 10 years, the battery cost 100 million. Now i know im going off retail and forgetting the price of the windfarm ,
It anoys me when the battery is just discounted as being useless, without working out what it can actually do.
I know even if it cost twice as much as coal id rather a battery in my back yard than a coal station.
Remember these magic clean coal stations r not in Australia, so we all get the full poisonings from them.
It's like saying a AA battery will only power your house for 5 seconds, when your using it to power a flash light for 10 hours.
|Posted by: lee Jul 9 2018, 01:56 PM|
That's why they run them in standby mode.
|Posted by: charka Jul 9 2018, 03:38 PM|
| If they are that good why are WE paying subsidies for them Sig hiel no choice Battery will not power many homes and only for 39 mins
|Posted by: Bill Jul 9 2018, 04:53 PM|
If coal fired power stations were so good, why is it that no one wants to build one ?
The coal industry representatives in Canberra are proposing that the taxpayer build them. 35% of power produced in QlD is exported south of the border, and we are building solar and wind to replace our aging coal fired power plants.
The LNP in QLD don't support renewables, but LNP controlled local councils are approving them every day.
There's a message there somewhere, and it's this. The evidence on the ground contradicts the rhetoric of the politicians. Follow the money charka - follow the money.
|Posted by: Bear Jul 9 2018, 05:14 PM|
| Funding more coal fired power stations is a foolish idea, we should be looking to the latest Nuclear technology like many other countries are.
Ever Heard of Thorium? It's the Nuclear Fuel Even Indonesia Is Considering.
15 Jun. 2018
In 2013, Bob Effendi was at a turning point. He wanted to leave the oil company he was working for. He had growing concerns about climate change and regretted the role his industry was playing in it. “I had internal conflicts with my boss and my conscience,” he recounts.
Effendi, an engineer by training, quit and gave himself one year to study renewable energy. He attended seminars around the world, hoping to learn how to power a cleaner future with wind, solar, hydro and geothermal resources.
Instead, he became a proponent of nuclear energy. But not just any nuclear energy. The ideas of a group of researchers spearheaded by a former NASA engineer named Kirk Sorensen had caught his attention.
n the early 2000s, Sorensen had begun trying to revive interest in an alternative type of reactor, one that uses the element thorium instead of uranium to start the nuclear reaction, and liquid fuel instead of solid rods to sustain it. The technology was decades old, but never brought to commercial maturity. Sorensen came to believe it could make the next generation of nuclear power plants much safer and easier to manage, and provide the world with an abundance of clean, cheap and safe energy.
To Effendi, it sounded too good to be true. But the more he studied the technology, he says, the more he became convinced it could solve the energy problems of his home country, Indonesia.
|Posted by: charka Jul 9 2018, 05:49 PM|
|Bill because of vote catching So why do we sell our coal overseas to burn How could business trust a politician? Most of them anyway NIMBY how would you like a wind thingee next door not me|
|Posted by: charka Jul 9 2018, 05:52 PM|
|Fossil fuel bad how come there is anybody left alive ?People are dying because they can not afford heating thank you politicians|
|Posted by: lee Jul 9 2018, 08:42 PM|
I can remember on the farm Kero lamps, kero fridge - what could possibly have gone wrong?
I also remember studying with fossil fuel powered light. So much better light.
BTW - Energy density
Oil - 45,000,000,000 Joules/cubic metre
Coal- 50-75% of oil - say 22.500,000,000 Joules/cubic metre
Solar 1.5microJoules/cubic metre.
|Posted by: Pool Jul 10 2018, 07:31 AM|
quoter fro WIKI
frPeaking power plants, also known as peaker plants, and occasionally just "peakers", are power plants that generally run only when there is a high demand, known as peak demand, for electricity. Because they supply power only occasionally, the power supplied commands a much higher price per kilowatt hour than base load power
they will also run major power plants on standby for offpeak times of the day.
and usually its furnace type power plants that need to be on standby becouse it take a day for them to warm up,
They wont run a peaker plant all year if its only needed for a hour or 2 every couple of months....
The SA battery will power 8000 houses 24 hours a day.
8000 X $1800 is 14.4 million a year, or 144million over 10 years, the battery cost 100 million. Now i know im going off retail and forgetting the price of the windfarm
do u not read... the battery is used as a peaker plants, for emergencies and has made 30 million dollars in 6 months and only cost the sa government 50 million.
It works and works well.
|Posted by: Pool Jul 10 2018, 07:38 AM|
who is dying in Australia because they cant afford heating ?
Umm for a exercise, park you car in a garage and sit in the car while its running for a hour and tell us how good the air is
same can be said for asbestos, DDT, lead paint, if they where still around we wouldn't all be dead.
Have u seen pictures of big cities and the smog in them..... thats from the exhaust of Fossil Fuels.
|Posted by: Pool Jul 10 2018, 08:01 AM|
it doesn't matter how energy rich a fuel source is, its how much can be used.
The thermal energy content of coal is 6,150 kWh/ton. Although coal fired power generators are very efficient, they are still limited by the laws of thermodynamics. Only about 40 percent of the thermal energy in coal is converted to electricity. So the electricity generated per ton of coal is 0.4 x 6,150 kWh or 2,460 kWh/ton.
an more importantly since there a no filters on any of our coal plants in australia
A typical 500 megawatt coal power plant produces 3.5 billion kWh per year. That is enough energy for 4 million of our light bulbs to operate year round. To produce this amount of electrical energy, the plant burns 1.43 million tons of coal. It also produces:
Total for Power Plant One Light Bulb-Year's Worth
Sulfur Dioxide - Main cause of acid rain
10,000 Tons 5 pounds
Nitrogen Oxides - Causes smog and acid rain
10,200 Tons 5.1 pounds
Carbon Dioxide - Greenhouse gas suspected of causing global warming
3,700,000 Tons 1852 pounds
a solar panel will last 20 years, how long can u burn coal,? ohh and what pollutants does a solar panel produce ?
Solar panels r now the cheapest form of electricity supply, cheaper than coal to build new stations, yes it is intermittent, but considering after it is build its virtually free energy for 20 years, how much coal would be needed over 20 years to make the same energy.
SO when going just off density its hard to account for life time costs and the impact of our health.
|Posted by: charka Jul 10 2018, 08:21 AM|
| Look at the poisoned earth where they build them And who can afford them I do road crash rescue ,Leaking lithium batteries bare lethal Where do the dead cars go another hazard we face so do not say they are environmentally friendly Toxic fluoride gas emissions from lithium-ion battery fires | Scientific ...
by F Larsson - 2017 - Cited by 6 - Related articles
Aug 30, 2017 - Lithium-ion battery fires generate intense heat and considerable amounts .... The toxicity of HF and the derivate hydrofluoric acid is well known ...
|Posted by: Pool Jul 10 2018, 08:48 AM|
umm there is no poisoned earth where they build Solar panels in USA, so if there is in China its not because of the panels, but the country have to checks in place to dispose and reuse the waste properly.
Leaking Lithium batteries..... u do realize the Mobil phones u carry everywhere with u is lithium..........
Yes electric vehicles in bad accidents have caught of fire, and each new EV is getting better designs to fix this issue, remember EV's have only been really utilized for the last 8 years.
It also takes at least 5 years to design and produce a vehicle . So by the time they become main stream in AUS id say those issues will be over :)
Also VW and most of the German companies r investing in solid state batteries that wont blow up :)
Again with price, when the first Mobil phones where out in the early nineties, they cost $1500 , 20 years later I can get one from woollies for $20.
However just in the USA alone there r 800 Car fires a day and 480 car fire deaths from Fossil Fuel Cars.
When those 800 cars each day in USA catch fire I'm pretty sure there would be some pretty nasty poisons going into the air.
Disposing of a old electric vehicle or a old petrol one is the same.
If anything cars now r just crushed, where EV's will get the battery taken out to be recycled then the shell will be crushed.
Also EV's have 80% less moving parts so that's a lot less manufacturing .
|Posted by: charka Jul 10 2018, 10:50 AM|
|We were warned contamination the size of your thumbnail you have had it Will keep away If they can be recycled great NIMBY|
|Posted by: Pool Jul 10 2018, 11:57 AM|
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a health hazard evaluation (HHE) request from an Ohio township fire and rescue department concerning potential inhalation exposures during vehicle fire suppression training [see sidebar "The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program"]. Although vehicle fires can be suppressed quickly, they can release hundreds of toxic chemicals into the air, which could cause short-and even long-term health effects over a firefighter's career. Even after a fire is extinguished, the off-gassing of potentially harmful chemicals and particles may continue because of thermal decomposition. Some of the chemicals released from vehicle fires are likely to be different from those released during structural fires because vehicles contain materials such as rubber (belts, tires), petrochemicals (oil, gasoline), and acids (batteries).
Despite the known health hazards, it is still common for some firefighters not to wear self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) while fighting vehicle fires. One analysis found that firefighters in Montreal wore SCBA approximately 50 percent of the time at structural fires but only six percent of the time at all fires (which included vehicle fires).1 Some firefighters may think their inhalation exposures to hazardous chemicals and particles are minimal at vehicle fires because these fires tend to be suppressed within minutes and because they are not enclosed in a building. Furthermore, wearing an SCBA takes time and is cumbersome; some firefighters may think they should save breathing air for more intense fires. However, firefighters who do not wear SCBA while fighting vehicle fires could be overexposed to acutely toxic chemicals.
So any vehicle fire is very toxic, with petrol, plastic and rubber in the mix, no car fire should be put out without full scuba gear.
Also lithium batteries cases r being built better to retard ignition and solid state batteries r being researched for cars.
I'm not sure what u mean by a thumbnail, the actual lithium batteries r not considered toxic, only the fumes and ignition of them.
|Posted by: lee Jul 10 2018, 12:04 PM|
There's the first mistake. Generalisations don't work in the real world.
There are 767,000 households in South Australia. Assuming ALL are connected to the grid; who would you turn off power to first? Hospitals?
A solar panel may last 2 years. It also degrades each and every day of the year, so that he output reduces.
The pollutants are not in the solar panel, they are in the manufacturing process. Guess what, they use fossil fuel to make them. They need constant supply not intermittent.
"Acid rain was dealt with in the 1980s and 1990s. By switching from coal to gas and installing "scrubbers" to clean up power station and factory emissions, huge reductions were made in acid rain pollution in Europe. Catalytic convertors on car exhausts reduced nitrogen oxide emissions. The US Clean Air Act Amendments, designed in part to control sulphur dioxide emissions, were passed in 1990."
They were so sure that it was the cause.. Of course it has been warmer in the past with a lower CO2 level, cooler in the past with a higher CO2 level. Doesn't sound much like a "Control Knob". And it helps plants grow and is also the trigger for us to breathe.
|Posted by: lee Jul 10 2018, 12:14 PM|
About lithium fires can't be put out by water. Fire can regenerate hours later.
"The temperature can quickly reach 500C (932F), at which point the cell catches fire or it explodes. This thermal runaway that occurs is known as “venting with flame.” “Rapid disassembly” is the preferred term by the battery industry."
Also while lithium isn't itself toxic, cobalt used in terminals is,
|Posted by: Pool Jul 10 2018, 12:27 PM|
Its a good thing the Tesla gave almost gotten rid of the cobalt in their batteries :)
Don't we have cobalt in our bodies.
They use cobalt in hip joints and knees don't they ?
If a lithium battery broke open and u touched the terminal would that poison u from being made from cobalt ?
|Posted by: lee Jul 10 2018, 02:35 PM|
So Not all then?
"Human body contains cobalt in the amount of less than one mg, of which 0.36 mg contained in the adipose, 0.3 mg - in the hair, 0.28 mg - in the bones, and 0.2 mg - in the muscles, 0.11 mg - in the liver."
"Cobalt toxicity — an emerging clinical problem in patients with metal-on-metal hip prostheses?"
MJA - Medical Journal f Australia.
BTW - from earlier -
DDT is problematic. It seems the dangers of DDT were grossly overstated.
"DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud"
"In September 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared its support for the indoor use of DDT in African countries where malaria remains a major health problem, citing that benefits of the pesticide outweigh the health and environmental risks. The WHO position is consistent with the Stockholm Convention on POPs, which bans DDT for all uses except for malaria control."
|Posted by: charka Jul 10 2018, 04:48 PM|
|We were warned about hydrofluic acid spelling ^&**^]alloy wheels etc for road crash all out there to git you sometimes water is not the best option|