"Another year, another reason to take the promises of residential home batteries with a grain of salt.

This month, a group of researchers from the University of California San Diego (UCSD) published a paper in Environmental Science and Technology reporting that there are very few cases in which operating a residential home battery reduces overall emissions—assuming that households are economically rational and trying to minimize costs.

Of course, if the battery is only discharged during periods of peak emissions and only charged when fossil fuel use is low, then a household might reduce emissions. But across 16 representative regions, operating a battery this way ended up being costly.

The results are similar to those published in Nature Energy in the beginning of 2017, although that study looked at a narrower region (99 homes in Texas) and modeled different battery software configurations.

The UCSD study looks at representative homes under 16 different utilities across the country. Each utility has its own emissions profile and unique demand requirements (depending on the weather in the region). The study also looked at three different configuration possibilities:

    A demand-shifting configuration, where the battery is used to minimize costs when electricity rates vary by time of day;
    A solar self-consumption configuration, where the user has solar panels and wants to maximize the amount of energy they get from those panels; and
    An energy arbitrage configuration, where the residential battery owner can buy and sell electricity at retail rates depending on what's cheaper at the moment.

Further Reading
Want to minimize your home’s carbon footprint? Go for solar, forget the battery
All of these configurations are a little futuristic but still representative of shifts that are happening in the electricity industry today. While most people don't have time-of-use pricing, it's becoming more common (this author's household is charged time-of-use pricing) and it will become the mandatory rate structure for many households in California in 2019. While most solar panel owners prefer not to maximize self-consumption because it's more cost-efficient to sell electricity back to utilities under net metering, utilities have been pushing back on requirements to buy back solar power from residential customers. The energy arbitrage configuration is the most futuristic, and "reflects the vision of advocates of decentralized energy management," according to the researchers.

The researchers found that the only way to reliably decrease emissions using batteries is if utilities incorporate a "Social Cost of Carbon" into their pricing schemes—that is, charging people extra for using electricity during carbon-heavy periods of generation. This helps bring batteries into the emissions-reducing fold. Unfortunately, including a cost for carbon dioxide emissions has proven politically difficult.

If customers were to operate their residential batteries to reduce carbon emissions regardless of cost, the average household would cut their carbon footprint by 2.2 to 6.4 percent. "But the monetary incentive that customers would have to receive from utilities to start using their home systems with the goal of reducing emissions is equivalent to anywhere from $180 to $5,160 per metric ton of CO2," a press release from UCSD noted."


https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/residential-batteries-may-save-household...

The paper -  Environmental Science and Technology, 2018. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03834

If Ars Technica, a generally Greenie site, is finding problems they must be there.

I’m not sure what u r saying is bad with the 2 posts u made there Jules..... first one says if your on the grid , battery packs r not as good as using grid in the USA, second is saying be careful what u buy as dodgy equipment might explode... seeing Tesla use lifepo4 and have extra protection against fire they seam the best choice , both good articles.         .....thanks Jules 
Also Australia made a great flow battery called red flow I think  and if any Aussie can afford one they should buy one over any overseas made battery pack 

What about Lithium Titanate ? You have overlooked those haven't you.

Powerwall fire preparations against human fallibility.
Submitted by trx430ex on March 20, 2017

It is inevitable human fallibility will set a Powerwall Lithium Fire Bomb on fire, so how do we deal with it?

May I suggest a 2 stage rip cord that comes off a spool to 8 feet. At that 8 feet it requires 60 pounds of force to blow the explosive bolt that disconnects the spool & power from the wall. (The reason I say explosive bolt is as Space X could make one down to the size of a firecracker).

The second pull on the Powerwall itself setting off 4 explosive bolts that separates the Powerwall from the wall. Then the Powerwall could be dragged on the ground out of the building and harms way by the spool cord. Or off the RV in my case.

It may not do much for marketing, but it does a hell of a lot for insurance actuaries.The fat rat in everybody's lives.
Also protecting the Powerwall from itself in series at scale.

On the theft angle the wall becomes a brick until reactivated like IBM did with the Think pad,encrypted censors through the wall, but could snap back into cradle and phone home by location.

Legacy Powerwalls past 5 years or cycles censors are open sourced or turned off the encryption. Helping the second hand owner learn the next level.

Hmm, some deeper thought of reassembly in speed.

It is one thing to build, solar storage, it is another to watch humanity blow it up for greed, but then watch it be rebuilt again  in mobile.

Will the dangerous unsafe Tesla PowerWall Lithium Fire Bombs be banished to an outhouse like an old style dunny ?




Standards Australia might send Tesla's PowerWalls outside. Is the dining room the right place for 10 kWH of battery chemistry anyhow?
By Richard Chirgwin 14 Feb 2017 at 20:45


Tesla powerwall

Standards Australia is considering a change to building standards that might require storage batteries such as the Tesla PowerWall to be installed out-of-doors.

Responding to an report in Renew Economy, the organisation confirmed to The Register that building standards relating to battery installations are under discussion.

However, rather than considering a ban on internal installations, the Standards Australia statement (PDF) says the body is considering:

Installation requirements for all battery systems connected to inverter energy systems, covering all battery types;
Mitigating hazards associated with battery energy storage system installations; and
Classifying batteries based on hazards, and not chemistry type.
The organisation says a formal draft will be released "soon", with public comment welcome until April 2017.

As things now stand, there isn't any building regulation specific to lithium-ion storage batteries.

Unsurprisingly, home photovoltaic users with lead acid batteries have to put them in a suitable enclosure that conforms to Australian Standard 4509 (which stipulates suitable enclosures, warning signs, ventilation, and separation from potential spark sources).

There are also understandable electrical standards which would apply to any battery installation, regardless of technology.

While Li-Ion batteries don't present the fume and spark-explosion risks, building standards are catching up. The Clean Energy Council has, in the meantime, issued its own recommendations for their handling and installation, and notes that overcharging is the main fire risk.

That shouldn't happen in the case of units like the PowerWall, which includes battery management systems, and has been promoted as suitable for installation inside dwellings.

Standards Australia first issued its consultation (PDF) paper during 2016.

At that time, Li-ion and flow batteries (such as made by Australian company Redflow) were both identified as being in need of standards.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/14/standards_oz_might_send_powerwalls_outd...

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 11:06am:



You mean like -

"The combustion behavior of large scale lithium titanate battery"

"The results indicate that the battery fire hazard increases with the SOC*. It is analyzed that the internal short and the Li+ distribution are the main causes that lead to the difference."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293605/

*SOC - State Of Charge

Imagine being at work and the phone rings and it is the fire dept to tell you that your Tesla PowerWall overheated during the hot day and exploded and burnt your house down and killed your pet dog with poisonous fumes!!!!




Home energy storage is a fire hazard; FDNY is on the case
Saqib Rahim, E&E News reporter Energywire: Thursday, December 10, 2015

The scenario hasn't yet come to pass, thankfully. But Lt. Paul Rogers knows the day may come that a large lithium-ion battery, set up in a New York City building, catches on fire.

If that happened today, would the average New York City Fire Department crew know what to do? Rogers, a 23-year veteran of the FDNY, guessed not. "They'd probably hand this off right now to the hazmat unit" -- his unit, he said.

Why? Because lithium-ion batteries don't often catch fire, but when they do, it's no garden-variety blaze.

"There's not a lot of information on what happens when these things go on fire," he said, referring to stationary lithium-ion systems. "I don't want to scare the public. We'll be able to manage that type of thing. But it's a concern until we can get data to prove otherwise.

"We don't want to stop any kind of technology from coming into the city," he said. "We just want to know what we're up against."


Lithium-ion batteries rarely catch fire, as seen here during Federal Aviation Administration testing, but firefighters are still concerned whether their teams are prepared for large-scale batteries in buildings. Photo courtesy of AP Photo.

Rogers' caution mirrors that of some of his colleagues in the firefighting world.

They accept that large, lithium-ion batteries are being attached to the grid to make it cleaner and more efficient. But they've also noticed the occasional fires that have occurred on planes, in cars and on the grid (ClimateWire, Feb. 27).

As these batteries enter homes and buildings, Rogers and others say they still have questions about them.

Should they douse the battery with water or another agent? Is the battery giving off toxic or flammable gas? How quickly is it radiating heat? Will firefighters' suits hold up against that?

Their questions point to the lack of universally accepted safety standards for lithium-ion batteries of this size, type and function. They also show how the conservatism of the fire service is bumping up against the urgency of companies that want to capitalize on the energy storage market.

"Some of the questions on safety, there's really no data to back it up," said Matthew Paiss, a fire captain for the San Jose Fire Department who helps design codes at the National Fire Protection Association, or NFPA. "We have to be very conservative in making sure we're not allowing something into the building environment that could pose a risk for the occupants or first responders."

A rare occurrence
Fire safety standards already exist for the lithium-ion batteries in phones, laptops and electric cars. Fires are so rare that experts struggle to quantify them.

Some in the research community ballpark the failure rate at 1 in 5 million to 10 million, said Chris Orendorff, principal investigator for the Battery Abuse Testing Laboratory at Sandia National Laboratories. Even that includes cells that fail "gracefully": They stop working but pose no safety risk.

Nevertheless, the Department of Energy has flagged fire safety as a key issue lithium-ion batteries must overcome to become widely used on the grid.

"The prospects of employing Li-ion cells in applications depend on substantially reducing the flammability, which requires materials developments (including new lithium salts) to improve the thermal properties," DOE said in a report last year.

As it turns out, it's not as simple as borrowing the safety standards used for phones, laptops and cars. Lithium-ion battery cells act differently depending on how they're used.

So scaling them up for a home or building reintroduces the question of whether lithium-ion's fiery tendencies come back into play.

For now, localities are left to answer that question for themselves.

In New York, the utility Consolidated Edison Inc. has connected three stationary lithium-ion systems to its grid.

Con Ed worked with the FDNY and the city's Buildings Department to set up a testing and permit process, spokesman Allan Drury said. Lead-acid batteries also have to go through the process.

"We are technology agnostic. We value battery projects based on their performance in helping reduce peak load and on their durability. If a project is unsafe, it will not be approved by the city," he said in an email.

Systems roll out ahead of standards
But firefighters said more battery systems are coming and they need to know more before the wave hits.

Their aim is a system where fire codes, product standards and firefighting practices all work together.

For example, if someone wants to install a lithium-ion system in Manhattan, the FDNY could look at its fire code and ask whether the battery meets the product standard listed there. Later, if the battery catches fire, a crew can know its specs and draw up a game plan before they even get there.


Read the frightening rest here

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060029271

The dumber than dumb silly old Tweedledum is like a broken record just repeating her gross ignorance.

But then when you have trouble with words of more than one syllable it is a bit hard to understand anything much.

A MacDonald's menu is Tweedledum's limit.


Lord help anyone caught in a Tesla PowerWall fire cause if the fire doesn't get you then the extremely poisonous gases will!!!


FIREFIGHTING MEASURES
Responding to a Venting Tesla Energy Product. Smoke emanating from a Tesla Energy Product is an
indication of an abnormal and hazardous condition. The smoke is likely flammable and may ignite at any
time. If fire or smoke is observed emanating from a Tesla Energy Product at any time, evacuate the area, and
notify appropriately trained first responders and the local fire department.

A trained first responder team or the local fire department should shut off power to the Tesla Energy Product,
to prevent charging of the battery. However, shutting off power to the Tesla Energy Product does not deenergized
the battery, and thus a shock hazard may still be present. The Tesla Energy Product should then be
monitored for evidence of continued smoke evolution. Application of high volumes of water from a safe
distance to cool the battery pack may prevent further reaction and prevent a fire from developing.
If a fire develops, the Incident Commander should determine whether an attempt will be made to suppress the
fire (aggressive firefighting) or allow the battery to burn until it self-extinguishes, while protecting
surrounding materials (defensive firefighting).

Virtually all fires involving lithium-ion batteries can be controlled with water. To date, water has been found
to be the most effective agent for controlling lithium-ion battery fires. Water will suppress flames and can
cool cells, limiting propagation of thermal runaway reactions. If water is used, electrolysis of water (splitting
of water into hydrogen and oxygen) may contribute to the flammable gas mixture formed by venting cells,
burning plastic, and burning of other combustibles. Thus copious volumes of water should be used to fight a
lithium-ion battery fire.

Gaseous agents such as CO2 or Halon, or dry chemical suppressants may temporarily suppress flaming of
lithium-ion battery packs, but they will not cool lithium-ion batteries and will not limit the propagation of cell
thermal runaway reactions. Metal fire suppressants such as LITH-X, graphite powder, or copper powder are
not appropriate agents for suppressing fires involving lithium-ion battery packs as they are unlikely to be
effective.

A battery fire may continue for several hours and it may take 24 hours or longer for the battery pack to cool.
A lithium-ion battery fire that has been extinguished can re-ignite due to the exothermic reaction of constituent
materials from broken or damaged cells. To avoid this, remove sources of ignition and cool the burned mass
by flooding with water.

Aggressive Firefighting: If a decision is made to aggressively fight a fire involving a Tesla Energy Product,
then copious amounts of water should be applied from a safe distance. The water may not suppress all cell
thermal runaway reactions within the battery pack, but it may cool cells and control the spread of the fire. If
possible, direct the application of water towards openings in the battery pack enclosure, if any have formed,
with the intent of flooding the pack enclosure. The objective is to contact the surfaces of the affected and
surrounding individual battery cells with water.

Defensive Firefighting If a decision is made to fight a Tesla Energy Product fire defensively, then the fire
crew should pull back a safe distance and allow the battery to burn itself out. Fire crews may choose to utilize
a water stream or fog pattern to protect exposures or control the path of smoke. A battery fire may continue
for several hours and may result in multiple re-ignition events. It may take 24 hours or longer for the battery
pack to cool.

Firefighter PPE. Firefighters should wear self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and fire protective
turnout gear. Cells or batteries may flame or leak potentially hazardous organic vapors if exposed to
excessive heat, fire or over voltage conditions. These vapors may include volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, soot, and particulates containing oxides of nickel,
aluminum, lithium, copper, and cobalt. Additionally, phosphorus pentafluoride, POF3 and HF vapors may
form.

https://forum.solar-electric.com/discussion/352365/new-battery-technologies-new-...