4 ms·

I used Nickel Iron batteries in an off grid system. They were already 30years old. Unfortunately, they were too difficult to work with, requiring non standard v

I used Nickel Iron batteries in an off grid system. They were already 30years old. Unfortunately, they were too difficult to work with, requiring non standard voltages and maintence. You’ll need charge controllers and inverters that understand the different chemistry. I know of two other people who used them and eventually switched to lead acid batteries. (P.S. I wonder why my comments above were downvoted?)

mrep 8y ago
>> (P.S. I wonder why my comments above were downvoted?) I didn't downvote you but a lot of your claims come off as over the top fearmongering and/or ignorant. I'll try and counter with your 2 main points that I see: > In order to fulfill the Paris agreement of limiting warming to 2°C (which would already be a global catastrophe) This one I just haven't really heard about how a 2°C temperature increase would be a global catastrophe. I've read that it will improve certain countries farming and hurt others. Overall, not much out of speculation how it will affect humans in the grand scheme of things. (I agree that it will be really bad for other species like the great barrier reef which I am really sad about but most people don't care about that, they just want to improve their own life and cheap energy is massively beneficial to people which currently outweighs the cost even if it is currently costing the plant). > If you want to convert all of the ICE cars on the road to electric cars, where will the energy come from to do that? Manufacturing the cars requires fossil fuels. No it doesn't. We can convert 100% of our energy usage to renewable energies. We just don't do it because it is too expensive to switch all at once. However, if renewables and batteries keep improving like they do, fossil fuels get too expensive once we run out of ones to cheapy extract, we will end up that way (the latter which is guaranteed no matter what happens as fossil fuels are limited). Pretty much every government even china and the Saudis recognize this which is why everyone is subsidising/investing in renewable energy and taxing fossil fuels to get renewables cheaper.
- realreality 8y ago
  Regarding 2° being a catastrophe — that’s how James Hanson described it. The Paris Agreement picked 2° as some kind of politically attainable goal. It’s not a safe limit for human civilization as we know it. There’s also this recent paper which got a lot of press http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115 > No it doesn't. We can convert 100% of our energy usage to renewable energies I said that it currently requires fossil fuels. In order to build “renewable energy” systems, you need to bootstrap it by expending fossil fuels today. Even if you could somehow mine iron ore with electric bulldozers, that’s not currently how iron is mined (and transported, refined, etc). So, you have to convert every link in the supply chain. Some people have already calculated that, in order to completely convert our electricity system to 100% renewable, we’d have to burn more fossil fuels today than would be allowable under the carbon budget outlined in the Paris agreement. Others have calculated that the transition will simply take too long (and the rate it has to happen increases all the time). Can you outline how it’s possible to convert our industrial system to 100% renewable energy, using real numbers and timelines? Does your model also include economic growth (and therefore growth in energy consumption)?

mrep 8y ago

>> (P.S. I wonder why my comments above were downvoted?) I didn't downvote you but a lot of your claims come off as over the top fearmongering and/or ignorant. I'll try and counter with your 2 main points that I see: > In order to fulfill the Paris agreement of limiting warming to 2°C (which would already be a global catastrophe) This one I just haven't really heard about how a 2°C temperature increase would be a global catastrophe. I've read that it will improve certain countries farming and hurt others. Overall, not much out of speculation how it will affect humans in the grand scheme of things. (I agree that it will be really bad for other species like the great barrier reef which I am really sad about but most people don't care about that, they just want to improve their own life and cheap energy is massively beneficial to people which currently outweighs the cost even if it is currently costing the plant). > If you want to convert all of the ICE cars on the road to electric cars, where will the energy come from to do that? Manufacturing the cars requires fossil fuels. No it doesn't. We can convert 100% of our energy usage to renewable energies. We just don't do it because it is too expensive to switch all at once. However, if renewables and batteries keep improving like they do, fossil fuels get too expensive once we run out of ones to cheapy extract, we will end up that way (the latter which is guaranteed no matter what happens as fossil fuels are limited). Pretty much every government even china and the Saudis recognize this which is why everyone is subsidising/investing in renewable energy and taxing fossil fuels to get renewables cheaper.

realreality 8y ago
Regarding 2° being a catastrophe — that’s how James Hanson described it. The Paris Agreement picked 2° as some kind of politically attainable goal. It’s not a safe limit for human civilization as we know it. There’s also this recent paper which got a lot of press http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115 > No it doesn't. We can convert 100% of our energy usage to renewable energies I said that it currently requires fossil fuels. In order to build “renewable energy” systems, you need to bootstrap it by expending fossil fuels today. Even if you could somehow mine iron ore with electric bulldozers, that’s not currently how iron is mined (and transported, refined, etc). So, you have to convert every link in the supply chain. Some people have already calculated that, in order to completely convert our electricity system to 100% renewable, we’d have to burn more fossil fuels today than would be allowable under the carbon budget outlined in the Paris agreement. Others have calculated that the transition will simply take too long (and the rate it has to happen increases all the time). Can you outline how it’s possible to convert our industrial system to 100% renewable energy, using real numbers and timelines? Does your model also include economic growth (and therefore growth in energy consumption)?