BIG BATTERY BLAZE.

There's always a risk with the storage of energy that it can be released in an uncontrolled incident - we've had plenty of examples of that with hydrocarbons (Buncefield, Pembroke and so on) with much more dramatic results. New technology will always carry higher risks initially as all the new dangers get appreciated and fixes found, but then settle down over time. For the moment locating the batteries where there can do minimal damage should the worst happen seems a reasonable compromise.

   - Andy.

Agree, site these batteries were they can do minimal harm in the event of accident. They are probably no more dangerous than petrol, LNG, hydrogen, or LPG tanks with a similar energy content.

The energy storage per cubic metre for Li ion batteries is much more than any of these compressed / liquid gasses. This needs to be very firmly understood, and is why the "hydrogen economy" is very much a non-starter. A litre of liquid hydrogen ony contains about 1/12 th of the energy of a litre of diesel! It appears to me that the danger from large scale Li storage is not yet realised. A facility that stored say 10GWhr of power would have more energy than a large nuke, and I wouldn't want to be within miles if it really went up.

The energy in the batteries is more than that associated with the pressure in e.g. a propane tank, but less than that associated with the fuel content, for a given volume. Batteries tend to catch fire and burn, exploding only weakly from e.g. pressurisation of the casings. Still, if you want to look at it in terms of energy:

10 GWh = 3.6e+13 Joules
Lets say a "large nuke" is 250 kilotons, that's 1e+15 Joules
Let's call a "small nuke" 10 kilotons, 4e+13 Joules, more comparable.

And for reference:
A road tanker full of diesel: 35,000 litres * 38 MJ/L = 1e+12 Joules

The big pile of coal formerly outside Drax, 8e+15 Joules

Buncefield oil terminal, 2.7e+8 litres of various oil products, around 1e+16 Joules

Typical LNG carrier, 1.3e+19 Joules.

It's not about how much energy, it's about how quickly you release it. I'd worry about being downwind of a big battery fire from a pollution perspective, but no more than I'd worry about Fawley refinery which I am currently downwind of.

First of all, worth noting that this "news" is of a single event which occurred 2 years ago. No-one was hurt.

Obviously the Mail has put it's spin on it and reading the actual reports from the fire service (which are in the public domain) casts quite a different light: The reference to inadequacy in the Mail article, in context, is a mere factual description that the volume of water required was sufficient from the local hydrant so they got additional water from further afield. Not quite the drama it is made out to be. And the local crew attending did not know what the industrial process was when attending (in the middle of the night) so approached the containers with sensible caution, but within 21 minutes of attending had established the relevant facts and within 37 minutes there was liasion with the overseas operators and owners.

In fact the attending crew did pretty well: The fire was contained to a single unit and did not spread. The biggest impact arising from this fire, from my perspective, was the generation of rather nasty smoke in an built up area... but, hopefully not to downplay it too much, how many urban industrial fires could you already say that about?

It is certainly true that thermal runaway is a recognised hazard of Li-ion batteries, and mitigating the risk is an important consideration through all parts of the project lifecycle. It is a major topic of consideration in the industry which materially impacts procurement, design, installation and operation. There were, and are, lessons from this event which are being taken into account with the planning of new projects.

As for the "explosion", from my reading of the report it would appear that there was no pressure relief system on the containers and there might have been issues with the gaseous fire suppression system activating as intended. From CCTV images in the report it was not the Hollywood-syle conflagration one might imagine from the article. Granted it would not be sensible to be nearby (and this is a specific hazard for fire crews), but this is not an issue that could not be designed- (or maintained/commissioned) out.

Hopefully that puts it in a bit of context. As I say, the fire service's reports are in the public domain for those who want to learn more.

For the record I have no connection with the site in question, although I do have an interest in the industry.

PS - As a point of fact this has nothing to do with "the hydrogen economy". The site has batteries only. They are, I presume, providing support services to National Grid, e.g. frequency response or balancing via arbitrage. The main alternative providers for this service are diesel generators running in standby...which of course also have an energy store and are also far slower to respond.