4 ms·

Which does not invalidate what I wrote, because nobody is going to insure a building partially made from unstable trash with unknown history, which can easily c

Which does not invalidate what I wrote, because nobody is going to insure a building partially made from unstable trash with unknown history, which can easily catch fire on its own + it will be considered dangerous working condition for anyone who will be working there because they will be working with essentially explosives which can go off on its own.

ProllyInfamous 3y ago
God, if you only knew... even LiFePO4 is still dangerous.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
My point was what you wrote was very simple and does not account for nuance. Assuming robust validation of pack modules before reprovisioning as stationary storage, adequate segregation and fire walling within physical enclosures, and fire suppression systems, EOL lithium chemistry pack modules repurposed for stationary storage might be cost effective vs shipping those modules for processing at someplace like Redwood Materials. > because nobody is going to insure a building partially made from unstable trash with unknown history, which can easily catch fire on its own + it will be considered dangerous working condition for anyone who will be working there because they will be working with essentially explosives which can go off on its own. My links directly contradict your point that these systems are being built with repurposed modules. There is no building. These facilities are standing alone on their own land on top of concrete pads. The only risk is to the facility itself unless sited in a dense urban area, and air quality depending on how close you are to places where humans dwell downwind. If there is a fire, because there occasionally is anyway with utility scale storage [1], fire suppression will kick in, the system will isolate itself, and the fire dept is going to roll up (like they do for other energy system events, like natural gas leaks that are potentially explosive [2]). There is always risk, it is how you measure and manage the risk, your appetite for it, etc. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=battery+storage+fire https://www.google.com/search?q=battery+storage+fire [2] https://www.fema.gov/fr/case-study/emerging-hazards-battery-energy-storage-system-fires https://www.fema.gov/fr/case-study/emerging-hazards-battery-...
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  No it does not contradict anything. Old accumulators from old battery pack are unreliable trash. You have no way how to check their state, except few indirect measurements, because they are sealed and only thing which might have any information about their history state is BMS, which might or might not be the one which accumulators were originally used with. Like mass recycling perishable food with random best before date.

ProllyInfamous 3y ago

God, if you only knew... even LiFePO4 is still dangerous.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

My point was what you wrote was very simple and does not account for nuance. Assuming robust validation of pack modules before reprovisioning as stationary storage, adequate segregation and fire walling within physical enclosures, and fire suppression systems, EOL lithium chemistry pack modules repurposed for stationary storage might be cost effective vs shipping those modules for processing at someplace like Redwood Materials. > because nobody is going to insure a building partially made from unstable trash with unknown history, which can easily catch fire on its own + it will be considered dangerous working condition for anyone who will be working there because they will be working with essentially explosives which can go off on its own. My links directly contradict your point that these systems are being built with repurposed modules. There is no building. These facilities are standing alone on their own land on top of concrete pads. The only risk is to the facility itself unless sited in a dense urban area, and air quality depending on how close you are to places where humans dwell downwind. If there is a fire, because there occasionally is anyway with utility scale storage [1], fire suppression will kick in, the system will isolate itself, and the fire dept is going to roll up (like they do for other energy system events, like natural gas leaks that are potentially explosive [2]). There is always risk, it is how you measure and manage the risk, your appetite for it, etc. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=battery+storage+fire https://www.google.com/search?q=battery+storage+fire [2] https://www.fema.gov/fr/case-study/emerging-hazards-battery-energy-storage-system-fires https://www.fema.gov/fr/case-study/emerging-hazards-battery-...

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
No it does not contradict anything. Old accumulators from old battery pack are unreliable trash. You have no way how to check their state, except few indirect measurements, because they are sealed and only thing which might have any information about their history state is BMS, which might or might not be the one which accumulators were originally used with. Like mass recycling perishable food with random best before date.