I'm not sure that bomb is the right analogy. Maybe thermite would be a better analog? EVs will burn long and hot (though not as hot as some imagine), but do not tend to be explosive.
Actually a bomb is something that is programmed to detonate intentionally under certain conditions. There are plenty of other similarly energetic chemicals around the house, like gas in cylinders. The problem with some batteries is, unlike a bomb, the detonation conditions are hard to control. Luckily battery ignition, as enegetic as it is, is low velocity.
I think once they've degraded a bomb is apt. Not in the hollywood exploding car sense, but like a more realistic anti-personnel explosive complete with shrapnel. In most real bombs its the shrapnel that kills not the blast itself.
As you seem so concerned with the "facts", a more accurate description would be a "hose bomb" as it's made with a garden hose or similar tubing. The effect is more of a firecracker than an actual bomb.
I imagine a solid made only of electrons would in fact be a bomb, and an absurdly powerful one too. More powerful than a thermonuclear warhead pound for pound, by a big margin.
1) I wrote "take into consideration". That means that this is something to consider, not something that proves my thesis conclusively. So your criticism is misplaced.
2) You also miss the fact that bombs are designed to cause as much damage as possible, whereas reactors are designed to contain damage as much as possible. A candle contains much more energy than a stick of dynamite, yet the former is far more damaging.
reply