concerns about Tesla wall

Status
Not open for further replies.

jengrahm

Member
Location
Dixon, Ca US
So i am reviewing some photovoltaic plans where they wish to install a Tesla wall in a residence. My major concern is a lithium Battery not exactly the safest. what, if any are the concerns. and what are jurisdictions requiring.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Personally I would be no more concerned about a self-contained, listed lithium unit from a well-known manufacturer than I would be about a typical field assembled lead-acid setup with exposed parts. The battery technology is not the only or even the most important safety consideration, in my opinion. There's a lot to be said for product standards.
 

c_picard

Senior Member
Location
USA
Personally I would be no more concerned about a self-contained, listed lithium unit from a well-known manufacturer than I would be about a typical field assembled lead-acid setup with exposed parts. The battery technology is not the only or even the most important safety consideration, in my opinion. There's a lot to be said for product standards.

This is a great point. I'll just add that much of the press surrounding Li-Ion involves non-listed consumer electronics. Apples and Oranges.
 

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
This is a great point. I'll just add that much of the press surrounding Li-Ion involves non-listed consumer electronics. Apples and Oranges.

Add to that the fact that there is more than one Li ion chemistry; not all of them spontaneously combust when exposed to air.
 

Coppersmith

Senior Member
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
Personally I would be no more concerned about a self-contained, listed lithium unit from a well-known manufacturer than I would be about a typical field assembled lead-acid setup with exposed parts. The battery technology is not the only or even the most important safety consideration, in my opinion. There's a lot to be said for product standards.

I agree, well-known manufacturers like Samsung would never put out a battery product that would blow up. :p
 

mpaiss

Member
Location
California
Add to that the fact that there is more than one Li ion chemistry; not all of them spontaneously combust when exposed to air.

None of the li-ion chemistries used in stationary ESS will spontaneously combust in air, or are water reactive. Overheating is the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
While it's more likely that something goes wrong with a battery system than it is that the house with the battery system in it gets hit by lightning, neither of those things are remotely likely to actually happen.

If the battery(s) are defect-free and installed correctly, there won't be any problems.

---
Home energy storage is a fire hazard; FDNY is on the case
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.


Paiss of the SJFD wasn't at the Tesla demo, but he noted "it was a demonstration, not a scientific experiment” that a third-party lab ran under controlled laboratory conditions.
He said manufacturers like Tesla are conducting their own safety tests but are wary of sharing their "secret sauce" with independent testers. That's why fire professionals haven't been able to get full systems to do their own tests, he said.
"Manufacturers pay certification labs to test their equipment but are often reluctant to share the failure data produced out of fear of this data being used by competitors or to support more stringent regulatory actions," he said.
Willette said he's not aware of any full-scale independent test that's currently taking place. He said one option is to use government funding to buy a system, then turn it over to a research institution for testing.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060029271
---

Tesla set fire to a Powerpack to test its safety features – the results are impressive


Nothing exploded. How boring.
They learned from the test that not only did the Powerpack not explode or catch on fire, but the fire created by the heater cartridge also didn’t propagate to other pods.
In fact, NFPA found that the 15 other pods were still functional:
“Following the test, it was determined that only one of the energy pods (the initiator pod) was damaged. The other 15 pods remained operational and had a full SOC. The energy pods were discharged and the Powerpack was recycled.”
That’s very good news. It means that a Powerpack cannot start a fire: even in the unlikely event that one or a few cells explode, it will be contained within the pod and will not unleash the entire 100 kWh of energy capacity of the Powerpack.
But what if the Powerpack doesn’t start the fire, but there’s a fire around a Powerpack? Will it explode and aggravate the situation? That’s the question they tried to answer with their second and more spectacular test.
https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-safety/
 

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems

ramsy

Roger Ruhle dba NoFixNoPay
Location
LA basin, CA
Occupation
Service Electrician 2020 NEC
But what if the Powerpack doesn’t start the fire, but there’s a fire around a Powerpack? Will it explode and aggravate the situation? That’s the question they tried to answer with their second and more spectacular test.
https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-safety/

Excellent article, which describes how this industry and this test avoids NRTL testing labs, listings, or labeling.

The problem is NFPA-70 90.7 requires factory equipment "has been listed by a qualified electrical testing laboratory", (to avoid AHJ approved field-testing).

Since AHJ field-testing would be impossible, the property-owner's insurance may legally void claims.

When insurance adjusters work with fire marshal forensics, and discover installations, or equipment in violation of fire code, (ie) 90.7 NRTL listings, the burden of proof for cause of combustion/injuries can shift to property owners, who rarely endure expensive attorneys thru lengthy court battles, before forced to settle.

Call it bad-faith insurance or standard operating procedure, with its long history of case precedent voiding insurance claims, and full-time attorneys on staff, getting caught with unlisted equipment during any claims investigation, may end up settled for pennies on the dollar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top