The Infrastructure Thread (formerly BI: America's infrastructure is decaying)

[Jabbyrwock]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Batteries are just chemicals.

 

38 minutes ago, Larry said:

So are you. 

 

So are spacecraft. 

 

[China]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Some of this red madness is overdone.

 

Batteries are just chemicals. The best China could do is provide faulty batteries. I am pretty sure large scale batteries use external charge protection.

 

 

I understanding wanting to build/support a strategic manufacturing base in the US but tearing out existing installations is a bit wasteful, especially since most of the raw materials your gonna buy for American made batteries are going to come from China, Russia, and other states with varying levels of stability.

 

 

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

So are you. 

 

So are spacecraft. 

 

----

 

Yes, I agree that some times it's Red Scare.

 

I wish I knew whether this is an attempt at stimulating a needed domestic industry. Or protectionism of an industry that did some lobbying. Or just an excuse for some trade war. 

 

Or, is it a legitimate concern (as mentioned in the article) that since the military are using these batteries, we don't want the military dependent on a potential enemy for some of its equipment?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

19 minutes ago, China said:

 

 

Or, is it a legitimate concern (as mentioned in the article) that since the military are using these batteries, we don't want the military dependent on a potential enemy for some of its equipment?

But what is the specific risk in existing installations of batteries which are working to spec?

 

The article didn’t say they were removed because there was some issue with them. They were removed because they were from China.  

Edited March 19 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, China said:

 

 

Or, is it a legitimate concern (as mentioned in the article) that since the military are using these batteries, we don't want the military dependent on a potential enemy for some of its equipment?

 

Well, if your standard is that all military equipment must have no components whatsoever that are made outside the US ......

 

 

[China]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Well, if your standard is that all military equipment must have no components whatsoever that are made outside the US ......

 

 

 

And all components are equally important?

[Jabbyrwock]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

But what is the specific risk in existing installations of batteries which are working to spec?

 

The article didn’t say they were removed because there was some issue with them. They were removed because they were from China.  

 

Battery storage systems are far more than just the chemical soup that holds the energy.  There is a significant amount of communication and control equipment (SCADA) that is tied into the product.  I suspect the worry is the comms being vulnerable to hacking, possibly destabilizing the battery, or injecting false readings into the control network.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

20 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

Battery storage systems are far more than just the chemical soup that holds the energy.  There is a significant amount of communication and control equipment (SCADA) that is tied into the product.  I suspect the worry is the comms being vulnerable to hacking, possibly destabilizing the battery, or injecting false readings into the control network.

I’m aware of that, but they disconnected the batteries from those systems.
 

There should be at least a cost effective way to retrofit new communications and charge control electronics for the existing batteries.

Edited March 19 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Jabbyrwock]

30 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

There should be at least a cost effective way to retrofit new communications and charge control electronics for the existing batteries.

 

Maybe.  I mean you'd have to reverse engineer the charge control for their battery...my bet is the design isnt plug and play COTS type stuff.  Rip out and replace comms seems more viable in  that respect at least (though it might be a little challenging to find stuff not made in China).  Assuming none of that crossed a patent boundary or agreement, you'd then have to submit the retro fitted device for safety and resilience testing.

 

Honestly seems like a lot of trouble and a significant liability to take on.  Someone dies because of one of these retrofitted batteries thats a pretty big risk for whoever assumes the responsibility.  Seems better to just buy from a supplier who are likely already insured against that liability in their business model.

 

But Im just a guy on a website...what do I know.

[Corcaigh]

There’s the battery, then there’s the battery management system, then there’s the charging infrastructure, then there’s the subsystems for managing the electrical and thermal loads, and to manage shutdown etc.

 

In an implementation for demanding applications that you can actually trust they all need to be implemented in an integrated way.
 

If your Tesla breaks down or catches fire on the side of the road it’s good for a laugh and a social media post, but less so in military applications.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19 by Corcaigh

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Corcaigh said:

There’s the battery, then there’s the battery management system, then there’s the charging infrastructure, then there’s the subsystems for managing the electrical and thermal loads, and to manage shutdown etc.

 

In an implementation for demanding applications that you can actually trust they all need to be implemented in an integrated way.
 

If your Tesla breaks down or catches fire on the side of the road it’s good for a laugh and a social media post, but less so in military applications.

 

 

 

 

yea, that’s my point. They are separate things. It seems to me you could retrofit secure bms with the existing batteries.

the article isn’t clear though, I suppose it is possible that they are only taking out the bms/charging control.

 

Here is a picture of a Tesla megapack:

 

 

each of the grey thing is a battery of batteries. It’s modular. And think about it, it would have to be. You can’t have one bad cell destroy an entire megapack. I’m just tying to figure out why it wouldn’t be economical to retrofit the batteries which have a standard charge voltage/characteristics to a more secure bms. 
 

we don’t know the exact reason they are being removed. “National security concerns” is pretty vague especially when the people yelling about are politicians like Marco Rubio.

[Corcaigh]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

yea, that’s my point. They are separate things. It seems to me you could retrofit secure bms with the existing batteries.

 

 

Not knowing the technical design of the different pieces we have no information to make that assumption.  Anyone in the field would look at the risks and determine when COTS components can be used to build critical systems.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Corcaigh said:

 

Not knowing the technical design of the different pieces we have no information to make that assumption.  Anyone in the field would look at the risks and determine when COTS components can be used to build critical systems.

The physical batteries are definitely modular. Not saying that means it would be a simple retrofit but lithium ion batteries don’t vary in how they need to be charged. And the patent issue is probably a good point. 

Edited March 19 by CousinsCowgirl84