Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: battery fire
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:38:17 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <vmigu0$23uqt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <jqrkojlsnkbnilv90tbap8qio7obqo7cde@4ax.com>
 <vmeisf$7ugc$1@dont-email.me> <vmfqqo$mdeq$1@dont-email.me>
 <1r6cqml.vq4fh9uef02N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
 <vmi0i8$1gaqc$4@dont-email.me> <vmi9du$1ionp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:33:53 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e2ffa983a4e02579cd9354311b592df1";
	logging-data="2227037"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+r1HK6SI3kv9MuVwB1BVnZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:az6WrnKic12aMAA4/7cquGvuJfo=
In-Reply-To: <vmi9du$1ionp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3552

On 1/19/25 08:25, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On 18/01/2025 9:37 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/01/2025 21:42, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lithium ion battery fires are virtually impossible to put out - you have
>>>>> to let them burn out and use boundary cooling on the neighbouring
>>>>> modules with copious amounts of water. Looks like this one managed to
>>>>> get away from the fire fighters (which isn't supposed to happen).
>>>>
>>>> We have no problem building large windmills at sea. Why not build the
>>>> lithium storage facilities off the coast too? The capital cost would be
>>>> higher, but once built they could be maintained in a similar way to
>>>> those on land. And if one caught fire, there's plenty of water around to
>>>> put the fire out, or at least keep it under control. For even greater
>>>> safety - and expense - they could be built as submerged facilities,
>>>> where any fire could be dealt with in seconds by opening a valve and
>>>> letting sea water flood the building.
>>>
>>> I seem to remember from my chemistry lessons that lithium reacts
>>> violently with water.  Containing lithium pollution of large areas of
>>> the sea in stormy conditions (which is when catastrophic failure is most
>>> likely to occur) might be quite difficult.
>>
>> It wasn't lithium but sodium. Potassium was even worse. Lithium does
>> react in a similar way, but it schools didn't keep stocks of lithium
>> metal around fifty years ago, and probably still don't.
> 
> What that word salad was supposed to mean?
> 
> Lithium reacts violently with water. Furtermore, it is lighter than ANY
> liquid known to a man so it floats in EVERYTHING you could put on it. But
> wait, there is more -- that black crust that it gets covered with in no time
> when subjected to air is not oxide but NITRIDE. Unlike sodium and potassium
> lithium readily reacts with both oxygen and nitrogen and it burns
> spectacularly even in pure nitrogen, without any oxygen present.


 From direct experience, I know it is quite stable in dry air.
It tarnishes in seconds in air with normal humidity levels,
and yes, it reacts violently with water.

Jeroen Belleman