Honda Car Forum

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:00:25 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <s4n6g1d6b67mmortf8tjtieg922ud4can5@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:16:39 -0400, "Steve Bigelow"
>> <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>> >news:ep95g15na5mcvfm78qgnng4vlv44sm8cls@4ax.com.. .
>> >>>Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a crash.
>> >>
>> >> As has been well documented with Rc aircraft and especialy boats...
>> >>
>> >> When puntured, they have a tendency to catch fire, or explode. reason
>> >> is simple - LITHIUM.
>> >> Lithium + water --> lithium hydroxide + hydrogen + ENERGY
>> >
>> >How does that compare to a thin steel can full of 20 gallons of gasoline?
>>
>> 1) generally not mounted by amateurs.
>> 2) you have a fixed quantity of fuel, which is a liquid with flamable
>> vapours. drain the liquid, move it away, no problem. a series of
>> batteries is both producing its own combustion fuel as it goes along,
>> PLUS lithium burns itself.
>>
>> Puncturing a petrol tank does not automatically lead to fire.
>> puncturing a lithium based battery can. I don't have bond energy's to
>> hand, so i'm not sure if it'd be preferable to have it hydrogenate, or
>> combust. maybe both happens - i've yet to see it happen under
>> controlled conditions.
>>
>> >
>
>Hello,
>You may be too young to remember the news stories related to the gas tanks
>of Pintos exploding. I believe they were made by Ford. When other vehicles
>crashed into the back of Pintos--the gas tanks would explode. Many people
>were killed. You should do a google search for Pinto and you may be able
>to find a some reports about this subject. They quit making Pintos due to
>the explosions.
>Jason

Some people say the same things about Crown vic Interceptors.

Its not that i'm 'too young' its that 'i'm not american'.

howeve, the relevence is valid. rear-based lithium batteries end up
with a crash situation similar to that of the pinto. The problem,
however, is that the battries are an electrical medium, a spark i
likely - a lot moreso that a mechanically generated spark around a gas
tank.

On 17 Aug 2005 16:21:36 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

>flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in
>news:s4n6g1d6b67mmortf8tjtieg922ud4can5@4ax.com :
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:16:39 -0400, "Steve Bigelow"
>><stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>>>news:ep95g15na5mcvfm78qgnng4vlv44sm8cls@4ax.com ...
>>>>>Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a
>>>>>crash.
>>>>
>>>> As has been well documented with Rc aircraft and especialy boats...
>>>>
>>>> When puntured, they have a tendency to catch fire, or explode.
>>>> reason is simple - LITHIUM.
>>>> Lithium + water --> lithium hydroxide + hydrogen + ENERGY
>>>
>>>How does that compare to a thin steel can full of 20 gallons of
>>>gasoline?
>>
>> 1) generally not mounted by amateurs.
>> 2) you have a fixed quantity of fuel, which is a liquid with flamable
>> vapours. drain the liquid, move it away, no problem. a series of
>> batteries is both producing its own combustion fuel as it goes along,
>> PLUS lithium burns itself.
>>
>> Puncturing a petrol tank does not automatically lead to fire.
>> puncturing a lithium based battery can. I don't have bond energy's to
>> hand, so i'm not sure if it'd be preferable to have it hydrogenate, or
>> combust. maybe both happens - i've yet to see it happen under
>> controlled conditions.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>Nonsense;gas,hydrogen,and electric vehicles all have specific hazards,and
>one is not necessarily worse than the others.

They are quantifyable by risk, likelyhood, ability to contain, size,
quantity of fuel, combustion level, etc.

If one type scores significantly worse than the others in these
'ratings' then its clear they're worse. Thats common sense.

>And emergency workers are already practicing tactics to handle hybrids,and
>toxic chemical spills from other sources.

Yes, emergency workers are practiced at toxic chemical spills -
they're called 'hazmat workers'. I got some time in with a unit based
in the Bay area a few years back. Their training and equipment is a
long way from your common or garden variety firefighter.

I live in a medium-size town in rural Georgia. Theres a US highway or
two here, an interstate not far away, the Atlanta Motor Speedway is
just up the road, and yet i gave a friend of mine a call about 5
minutes ago over at the fire department - They can deal with nickle
and lead based hybrids, but not lithium. That would require equipment
from either Atlanta, Macon or Columbus. This is after its discovered
of course, and as you well know, water based extinguishants can not,
and should not be used.

By contrast, hydrogen fires tend to be very quick, and explosive IF
ignited, the quickest, and easiest way to deal with a hydrogen fire is
dispursement, dissipating it so that it doesn't ahve the ability to
make a sustained combustion (I'm sure you all remmeber about filling
test tubes with hydrogen at school, then lighting them for their
'squeaky pop' and also that if you didn't contain it right, it'd not
fire as it would have spread)

Besides, going back to the point of the article, someone retrofitted.
Since the vehicle is not instantly identifyable, or recognisable as
cominaing lithium based batteries(of whatever condition) whats
stopping the local responding tender using a water, or water-based
extinguishant to dampen down, and attempt to reduce the probability of
a conflagration. Hell, if the accident happens in the rain, or with
snow around.
water + lithium (or any group 1 metal for that matter) = BAD

Let me also regale a little story, of an old chemistry teacher i once
had, and how she was fired. It explains this very point.

She was working, preparing an experiment for what would in the US be a
first or second year college class. She was making some magnesium
oxide for analysis by the class. A piece of the ribbon she was burning
fell off her tongs, and near the other pieces she'd prepped (the big
jar was locked back up in the storeroom) and in her 'panic' she swiped
them, with her gloved hand, into the sink, and started the water. The
resulting back destroyed half the bench (benches in those classrooms
had sinks every 4 ft). Thaknfully, it was pre-lesson prep, but the
classroom was out of action for 3 months. Magnesium is a lot less
reactive than lithium is, and that was maybe 2oz of mag strips. She
got fired for not only leaving the mag out, but for tossing it in the
sink, with the water instead of using a piece of aluminium foil to
smother it (Magnesium burns in strips, only because it doesn't have
the heat taken away, something like a dinnerplate isn't flamable, as
it would never stay hot enough to continue combustion)
Think about it.

>
>And how often do you thiink these cells are going to be -punctured-?

about as often as a gas tank does. They can rupture sometimes due to
their own heat, or from impact/shock damage. A lot of the model
aircraft that have caught fire or exploded had few metal parts, and
impacted the flat, penetrative-object free rgound. A car is not shaped
like a brick wall, with uniform density.

Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:8oJMe.197$L03.96@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

>
>> I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would
>> trade a nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?
>

Chemical or other types of plants are MORE dangerous to people than nuclear
power plants. More people die from petro or coal production than from
nuclear power generation.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8oJMe.197$L03.96@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net.. .
>
>> I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would trade a
>> nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?

Of course. The point is people are so fearful of nuclear plants and waste
that we know exactly how to detect and secure while they wallow in toxics of
all natures and hardly complain at all. You try to clean up the mess of
chemicals in Lousiana, Houston and dozens of other areas that are highly
industrialized and let us know how far you get. Also, see if you can build
a cheap detector to identify the presence of any of the hundreds of
hazardous compounds the plants emit. You don't even know what to look for.
With nuclear we know exactly what to look for and how to secure it. I'd
rather deal with a known than an unknown.

By comparison to fossil fuel plants, nuclear is exceptionally clean and
safe.

Leonard

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns96B57C804A510jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.85.. .
> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in
> news:tUDMe.22620$Ji.10857@lakeread02:
>
>>
>> "Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:49AMe.2135$Z%6.1249@newssvr17.news.prodigy.co m...
>>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>
>>>> Yes,one more part that has been stifled and progress halted by the
>>>> anti-nuke idiots.
>>>
>>> Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>>
>>> Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump
>>> to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
>>>
>>> If you answer yes to these then more power to you but
>>> you'll be the first person I've met that does.
>>
>> The irony is that there are many nuclear waste dumps across the nation
>> right now because of this attitude. Rather than sensibly storing the
>> waste where it will be less likely to be a problem, we have it
>> distributed all over the country. The fear of nuclear waste baffles
>> me. You can easily detect it and deal with it. The effects are known
>> and understood. Many of the same people who are so afraid of nuclear
>> energy and waste don't realize that they have much more hazardous
>> products nearby that they will never even know about. I grew up in
>> the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would trade a nuclear
>> plant or storage facility for that in a second. You can detect
>> radiation easily. Do you know what you are breathing as a result of
>> the nearby plants and even the chemicals in use in your home? The
>> relative environmental impact of nuclear energy compared to even the
>> cleanest of fossil fuel generation or petro-chemical production is so
>> small that I have to wonder about the intelligence of those who are so
>> petrified by it. Geez, even many of the products that are produced
>> and used everyday in the chemical industry are more dangerous and
>> impact more people than nuclear waste.
>>
>> Leonard
>>
>>
>>
>
> If you noticed,the poster asked simplistic questions to frame the matter
> so
> that it SEEMS common-sense to be anti-nuclear.
> While avoiding common sense completely.
> How ironic.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

Those at either extreme of most issues lack common sense and intelectual
honesty.

Leonard

jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:jason-1708051010390001@pm4-broad-27.snlo.dialup.fix.net:

> In article <5MBMe.7320$rR4.41@trnddc08>, "Doug McCrary"
><DougMcCrary@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Brian Stell <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:49AMe.2135$Z%6.1249@newssvr17.news.prodigy.co m...
>> > >>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them.
>> > >>
>> > >>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>> > >
>> > > Yes,one more part that has been stifled and progress halted
>> > > by the anti-nuke idiots.
>> >
>> > Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>> >
>> > Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump
>> > to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
>> >
>> > If you answer yes to these then more power to you but
>> > you'll be the first person I've met that does.
>>
>> If the stuff is properly immobilized and shielded, why not?
>
> In the county where I live, there is a nuclear power plant that stores
> nuclear waste above ground in pools of water. I visited the plant
> several years ago. I saw what looked like 4 huge swimming pools. Our
> guide told us the nuclear waste was stored in the bottom of each of
> those pools of water. They would prefer to store it in other areas but
> environmentalists won't let them move it due to security and safety
> concerns.

Those are less than the same concerns for on-site storage.
More sites that have better chances of being attacked or burgled.

The "environmentalists" and NIMBY's actually are decreasing the country's
security by opposing Yucca Mtn.They also harm the environment more by
opposing nuclear power generation,thus using more carbon-based fuels that
have far worse effects on the environment.

> I should note that no people have ever died as a result of
> the nuclear waste stored in our county.
> Jason
>


Yes,environmentalists would rather more people die from mining coal or
producing petroleum,along with the negative health effects on citizens in
using those products all across the country.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

flobert wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:23:48 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Brian Stell wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes,one more part that has been stifled and progress halted by the
>>>>anti-nuke idiots.
>>>
>>>
>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>
>>it really depends. here, we don't "handle" it, we just store it. if we
>>dealt with it properly, like everyone else, we'd reprocess it. so if it
>>were reprocessed, no problem. if it were properly stored, sure.
>>improper storage is your real concern, but again, a lot of fear is based
>>on misinformation.
>>
>>
>>>Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump
>>>to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
>>
>>technically, you get more radiation from coal power station fly ash.
>>which is used for cinder block. which builds homes. and from granite.
>> which is used in homes. there are many sources of background
>>ratiation, and many parts of the country, where humans happily live
>>where background is much higher than any emissions from your friendly
>>local storage facility.
>>
>>
>>>If you answer yes to these then more power to you but
>>>you'll be the first person I've met that does.
>>
>>it's nuts to freak without the full facts. sure, there's a lot of
>>misinformation around, on both sides, but the facts are plain: radiation
>>is part of our existance on this planet. we cannot avoid it. it makes
>>no sense to freak about the local power or storage facility if we're
>>getting higher doses from our basement that is full of radon & from the
>>cosmic rays that soak us every day of our lives. check out a bubble
>>chamber some time. it's just a foaming cauldron of vapor trails left by
>>the background radiation that is with us constantly.
>
>
> Neutreno's actually.

no, not neutrinos. they are notoriously hard to detect - you'd have to
sit there and stare through billions of all the other alpha, beta &
gamma traces that you /can/ see before you had any chance of seeing a
neutrino reaction.

> extremely weakly interacting particles of unknown
> mass or size, that barely react or interact with anything.

which is true, and directly contradictory with your previous statement!

> . one of
> the big projects going on in europe right now is the Neutreno factory
> -which aims to fire a stream from the uk to china, direct.
> http://hepunx.rl.ac.uk/uknf/
>
> Good link to plug the only large-scale distributed computing project
> out there... (and which is a part of the above project)
>
> Muon1 - www.stephenbrooks.org/muon1

In article <oTPMe.35516$Ji.3946@lakeread02>, "Leonard Caillouet"
<no@no.com> wrote:

> "Brian Stell" <bstell@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8oJMe.197$L03.96@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net.. .
> >
> >> I grew up in the midst of chemical plants in Louisiana and would trade a
> >> nuclear plant or storage facility for that in a second.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?
>
> Of course. The point is people are so fearful of nuclear plants and waste
> that we know exactly how to detect and secure while they wallow in toxics of
> all natures and hardly complain at all. You try to clean up the mess of
> chemicals in Lousiana, Houston and dozens of other areas that are highly
> industrialized and let us know how far you get. Also, see if you can build
> a cheap detector to identify the presence of any of the hundreds of
> hazardous compounds the plants emit. You don't even know what to look for.
> With nuclear we know exactly what to look for and how to secure it. I'd
> rather deal with a known than an unknown.
>
> By comparison to fossil fuel plants, nuclear is exceptionally clean and
> safe.
>
> Leonard

Leonard,
I agree with you. The environionmentalists (sp??) in California are
preventing loggers from thinning out the forests by cutting down the
largest trees and brush and leaving behind the smaller trees. The end
result are forest fires that destroy the entire forest. They won't even
allow the forest service workers to build fire roads into the forests. I
care about the environment but I agree with the loggers and forest
service. It's better to manage the forests instead of waiting for the
forests to be destroyed by forest fires. I also agree that nuclear power
plants are safer for the environment than power plants that burn fossil
fuels. I feel sorry for anyone that lives near one of those power plants.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:29:35 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:

>flobert wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:23:48 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Brian Stell wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes,one more part that has been stifled and progress halted by the
>>>>>anti-nuke idiots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>>
>>>it really depends. here, we don't "handle" it, we just store it. if we
>>>dealt with it properly, like everyone else, we'd reprocess it. so if it
>>>were reprocessed, no problem. if it were properly stored, sure.
>>>improper storage is your real concern, but again, a lot of fear is based
>>>on misinformation.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump
>>>>to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
>>>
>>>technically, you get more radiation from coal power station fly ash.
>>>which is used for cinder block. which builds homes. and from granite.
>>> which is used in homes. there are many sources of background
>>>ratiation, and many parts of the country, where humans happily live
>>>where background is much higher than any emissions from your friendly
>>>local storage facility.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you answer yes to these then more power to you but
>>>>you'll be the first person I've met that does.
>>>
>>>it's nuts to freak without the full facts. sure, there's a lot of
>>>misinformation around, on both sides, but the facts are plain: radiation
>>>is part of our existance on this planet. we cannot avoid it. it makes
>>>no sense to freak about the local power or storage facility if we're
>>>getting higher doses from our basement that is full of radon & from the
>>>cosmic rays that soak us every day of our lives. check out a bubble
>>>chamber some time. it's just a foaming cauldron of vapor trails left by
>>>the background radiation that is with us constantly.
>>
>>
>> Neutreno's actually.
>
>no, not neutrinos. they are notoriously hard to detect - you'd have to
>sit there and stare through billions of all the other alpha, beta &
>gamma traces that you /can/ see before you had any chance of seeing a
>neutrino reaction.
>
>> extremely weakly interacting particles of unknown
>> mass or size, that barely react or interact with anything.
>
>which is true, and directly contradictory with your previous statement!

Not true, they BARELY interact. but there's a huge number of them
passing through us every second. Bubble chambers are heavily shielded,
sealed high pressure water chambers. The aim is neutrenos sometimes
'interact' and on a body of water, but which has no flash point, to
produce the bubbles. when a neutreno enters the chamber, and
'interacts' it produces a point for bubbles to form. (like the rough
surfaces on the bottom of a pan produce the spots for bubbles to forum
when the water approaches boiling.

>
>> . one of
>> the big projects going on in europe right now is the Neutreno factory
>> -which aims to fire a stream from the uk to china, direct.
>> http://hepunx.rl.ac.uk/uknf/
>>
>> Good link to plug the only large-scale distributed computing project
>> out there... (and which is a part of the above project)
>>
>> Muon1 - www.stephenbrooks.org/muon1

flobert wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:29:35 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>flobert wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:23:48 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian Stell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Safe,clean nuclear power plants. Time to build more of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ever heard of the nuclear waste problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes,one more part that has been stifled and progress halted by the
>>>>>>anti-nuke idiots.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Would you like a nuclear waste dump in your town?
>>>>
>>>>it really depends. here, we don't "handle" it, we just store it. if we
>>>>dealt with it properly, like everyone else, we'd reprocess it. so if it
>>>>were reprocessed, no problem. if it were properly stored, sure.
>>>>improper storage is your real concern, but again, a lot of fear is based
>>>>on misinformation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Would you recommend living near a nuclear waste dump
>>>>>to your child, nephew, pregant relative?
>>>>
>>>>technically, you get more radiation from coal power station fly ash.
>>>>which is used for cinder block. which builds homes. and from granite.
>>>>which is used in homes. there are many sources of background
>>>>ratiation, and many parts of the country, where humans happily live
>>>>where background is much higher than any emissions from your friendly
>>>>local storage facility.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you answer yes to these then more power to you but
>>>>>you'll be the first person I've met that does.
>>>>
>>>>it's nuts to freak without the full facts. sure, there's a lot of
>>>>misinformation around, on both sides, but the facts are plain: radiation
>>>>is part of our existance on this planet. we cannot avoid it. it makes
>>>>no sense to freak about the local power or storage facility if we're
>>>>getting higher doses from our basement that is full of radon & from the
>>>>cosmic rays that soak us every day of our lives. check out a bubble
>>>>chamber some time. it's just a foaming cauldron of vapor trails left by
>>>>the background radiation that is with us constantly.
>>>
>>>
>>>Neutreno's actually.
>>
>>no, not neutrinos. they are notoriously hard to detect - you'd have to
>>sit there and stare through billions of all the other alpha, beta &
>>gamma traces that you /can/ see before you had any chance of seeing a
>>neutrino reaction.
>>
>>
>>>extremely weakly interacting particles of unknown
>>>mass or size, that barely react or interact with anything.
>>
>>which is true, and directly contradictory with your previous statement!
>
>
> Not true, they BARELY interact. but there's a huge number of them
> passing through us every second.

and the proportion of neutrino reactions to alpha, beta & gamma is???

> Bubble chambers are heavily shielded,
> sealed high pressure water chambers.

some research facilities may be, but not many of us get to press our
noses against that kind of glass. normal mortals get to see the science
museum bubble chamber of low pressure alcohol, which is not shielded
specially so you /can/ see just how many of the other reactions there are.

> The aim is neutrenos sometimes
> 'interact' and on a body of water, but which has no flash point, to
> produce the bubbles. when a neutreno enters the chamber, and
> 'interacts' it produces a point for bubbles to form. (like the rough
> surfaces on the bottom of a pan produce the spots for bubbles to forum
> when the water approaches boiling.

flash point????????????

the pressure of the fluid is critically low in comparison to boiling
point so any [reacting] passing particle leaves a "vapor trail" of local
phase transition. but again, this talk in relation to the number of
neutrino reactions you'll ever see is just nuts, because you'll probably
never see one!

>
>
>>>. one of
>>>the big projects going on in europe right now is the Neutreno factory
>>>-which aims to fire a stream from the uk to china, direct.
>>>http://hepunx.rl.ac.uk/uknf/
>>>
>>>Good link to plug the only large-scale distributed computing project
>>>out there... (and which is a part of the above project)
>>>
>>>Muon1 - www.stephenbrooks.org/muon1
>
>