Muskular Magic (Or Smoke & Mirrors) hummmmm

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/11/2015 11:23 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-11/muskular-magic-or-smoke-mirrors
Submitted by Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,
Elon Musk, Silicon Valley’s poster-boy genius replacement for the late Steve Jobs, rolled out his PowerWall battery last week with Star Wars style fanfare, doing his bit to promote and support the delusional thinking that grips a nation unable to escape the toils of techno-grandiosity. The main delusion: that we can “solve” the problems of techno-industrial society with more and better technology.
The South African born-and-raised Musk is surely better known for founding Tesla Motors, maker of the snazzy all-electric car. The denizens of Silicon Valley are crazy about the Tesla. There is no greater status trinket in Northern California, where the fog of delusion cloaks the road to the future. They believe, as Musk himself often avers, that Tesla cars “don’t burn hydrocarbons.” That statement is absurd, of course, and Musk, who holds a degree in physics from Penn, must blush when he says that. After all, you have to plug it in and charge somewhere from the US electric grid.
Only 6 percent of US electric power comes from “clean” hydro generation. Another 20 percent is nuclear. The rest is coal (48 percent) and natural gas (21 percent) with the remaining sliver coming from “renewables” and oil. (The quote marks on “renewables” are there to remind you that they probably can’t be manufactured without the support of a fossil fuel economy). Anyway, my point is that the bulk of US electricity comes from burning hydrocarbons, and then there is the nuclear part which is glossed over because the techno-geniuses and politicians of America have no idea how they are going to de-commission our aging plants, and no idea how to safely dispose of the spent fuel rod inventory simply lying around in collection pools. This stuff is capable of poisoning the entire planet and we know it.
The PowerWall roll out highlighted the “affordability” of the sleek lithium battery at $3,500 per unit. The average cluck watching Musk’s TED-like performance on the web was supposed to think he could power his home with it. Musk left out a few things. Such as: you need the rooftop solar array to feed the battery. Figure another $25,000 to $40,000 for that, depending on whether they are made in China (poor quality) or Germany, or in the USA (and installation is both laborious and expensive). Also consider that you need a charge controller and inverter to manage the electric flow and convert direct current (DC) from the sun into usable alternating current (AC) for your house — another $3,500. So, the cost of hanging a solar electric system on your house with all its parts is more like fifty grand.
What happens when the solar panels, battery, etc., reach the end of their useful lives, say 25 years or so, when there is no more fossil fuel (or an industry capable of providing it economically). How will you fabricate the replacement parts? By then the techno-wizards will have supposedly “come up with” a magic energy rescue remedy. Stand by on that, and consider the possibility that you will be disappointed with how it works out.
What gets me about Tesla’s various products and activities is that, when all is said and done, they are meant to extend the fatal rackets of contemporary life, especially car dependency and the suburban development pattern.
Car dependency can and probably will fail on the financial basis, not on the question of how you run the car. The main economic problem we face is the end of growth of the kind we’re used to, the kind that generates real capital and enables bank lending. It is already happening and has led to fewer loans for fewer qualified borrowers. It will also lead to the end of government’s ability to pay for fixing the elaborate hierarchy of paved highways, roads, and streets that the cars have to run on. Imagine the psychic pain of the Silicon Valley billionaire driving his $87,000 Tesla P85D down a freeway that the State of California hasn’t been able to repair in five years.

US testing of lithium batteries alarms aviation officials

http://www.pulse.me/ap/d70ea1fd65a347eea7a6ec1e7386c518?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
WASHINGTON (AP) — International aviation officials are trying to quickly come up with safer packaging for cargo shipments of lithium-ion batteries on passenger planes after U.S. testing confirmed that aircraft fire suppression systems can't prevent overheated batteries from causing powerful explosions and fires.
The hazardous cargo committee of the International Civil Aviation Organization, a U.N. agency, met this week in Montreal. Officials familiar with the discussions said the panel heard a detailed presentation by aircraft manufacturers and pilot unions on the potential for the batteries to cause an explosion and resulting fire capable of destroying a plane.
The committee agreed to create a special working group to try to come up with packaging for batteries that would contain any fire or explosive gases to the inside of the package, officials said. If the working group cannot come up with such packaging, officials said they consider it likely that a formal proposal to ban bulk battery shipments from passenger planes will be offered at an ICAO meeting on dangerous cargo in October.
The batteries are used in devices from cellphones to electric cars. It's not unusual for as many as 80,000 batteries to be carried on board a plane. The global battery industry has been lobbying heavily against significant restrictions on battery shipments other than minor changes to current regulations.
Testing by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration over the past year and a half has repeatedly shown that a single short-circuiting battery in a large shipment of batteries can cause overheating to spread to other batteries. Fire suppression systems have been able to put out the initial flames, but they haven't been able to stop the spread of continually increasing temperatures known as thermal runaway.
The overheated batteries emit a mixture of explosive gases, of which hydrogen is the most abundant. As the gases build up, they eventually explode and ignite an intense fire.
An FAA test in February resulted in a powerful explosion despite being conducted in a pressurized chamber with an atmosphere of 5 percent halon. Halon is the main gas used to suppress fires in the cargo compartments of passenger planes. Triggered by smoke, fire suppression systems unleash halon until the gas reaches 5 percent of the air in the cargo compartment. It has long been accepted by aviation authorities that this level of halon is enough to put out most fires, including a lithium-ion battery fire.
"We now no longer believe that would be the case," said pilot Mark Rogers, who represents the Air Line Pilots Association in the U.S. and Canada and other international pilot unions on cargo issues in the civil aviation organization's proceedings.
The February test resulted in an explosion in which pressure in the chamber rose from a normal 15 pounds per square inch to 70 psi, according to an agency slide presentation. Without the presence of halon, the explosion was even more powerful, with pressure rising to about 80 psi.
Two safety experts interviewed by The Associated Press described an explosion of that force as "significant." John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board member, said such an explosion could possibly blow a hole in a plane and cause depressurization for passengers without destroying the plane. He pointed to examples of planes that have landed safely after experiencing such a blowout.
Last month, the International Coordination Council of Aerospace Industry Associations, which represents aircraft companies such as Boeing and Airbus, and the pilot unions submitted a joint working paper to the civil aviation organization recommending a ban on bulk battery shipments on passenger planes until safer packaging can be developed. The paper, which is not considered a formal proposal under the U.N. agency's rules, called the threat of battery fires "an unacceptable risk."
The FAA tests show "the uncontrollability of lithium battery fires can ultimately negate the capability of current aircraft cargo fire suppression systems, and can lead to a catastrophic failure of the airframe," the position paper said.
"It has been our consistent position that theses batteries shouldn't be transported until (adequate packaging) standards are in place," Rogers said. "We'll continue to work with the manufacturers on influencing operators and getting the word out that aircraft cargo compartments aren't capable of handling a fire involving these materials."
A growing number of airlines have also said they will no longer accept bulk battery shipments, including Delta, United, Cathay Pacific, Qantas, British Airways and Cargolux.