Lithium batteries, not worth it...

[Peeler]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:39:41 -0700, John Larkin, another obviously brain
dead, troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered:

Plants will adapt to using more CO2 to grow faster. Farmers and ag
colleges will breed them to do that.

More off topic sick shit from you for these three ngs, you idiotic senile
shithead?

 

[alan_m]

On 16/04/2023 16:38, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Leaving aside carbon-neutral synthetic fuels made from agricultural waste
and atomospheric carbon capture, which are perfectly viable alternatives:

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/17/electric-helicopter-makes-historic-flight/
https://www.engadget.com/californias-first-electric-short-hop-ferry-launches-in-2024-210137422.html

and we think a 200 mile range in an Electric car is good 24 miles at
approx 60mph with a pilot and a \"load\" of 23kg.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

 

[alan_m]

On 16/04/2023 15:45, Commander Kinsey wrote:

\"At a steady 56, it slips along quietly for over 750 miles on one tank
of petrol\".

The miles per gallon figures are shown on the screen. 44mpg and from
1980 when they removed all seats, except the drivers seat, removed the
spare wheel, removed carpets, taped up any cracks in the bodywork etc.
etc. to obtain the mileage figures.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:52:39 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> writes:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:00:43 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:58:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2023 01:40, Ed P wrote:

The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421
ppm as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to
the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

And you know this because? That period also coincides with the end of
the little ice age, and we know that mildly warming oceans outgass lots
of CO2 until the organic life catches up with it

The last part is key. Organic life uses what\'s there. Things auto-level. Climate change won\'t kill us. Wasting money on stopping it will.

Plants will adapt to using more CO2 to grow faster. Farmers and ag
colleges will breed them to do that.

Up to a very small point, consider:

1) There aren\'t enough plants to absorb excess CO2 at the rate
required to match the current (or future) excess emissions.

2) As mentioned, plants need CO2 to live, but give them too much
and the vital nutrients they produce, become depleted. These
include iron, zinc, and vitamin C.
3) Overall, FACE experiments show decreases in whole plant water
use of 5-20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences
for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture
levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2 (Leakey et al. 2009).
[ed. increasing the potential for flooding, landslides, et alia]
4) Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including
calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under
elevated CO2 (Loladze 2002; Taub & Wang 2008)
5) With elevated CO2, protein concentrations in grains of wheat,
rice and barley, and in potato tubers decreased by 10 to 15 percent
in one study.



https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

100% downside. Sounds improbable to me.

But more CO2 is going to happen. China and India and Africa will see
to that. They aren\'t going to stay poor for our convenience.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 18:24:11 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

On 16/04/2023 16:38, Scott Lurndal wrote:


Leaving aside carbon-neutral synthetic fuels made from agricultural waste
and atomospheric carbon capture, which are perfectly viable alternatives:

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/17/electric-helicopter-makes-historic-flight/
https://www.engadget.com/californias-first-electric-short-hop-ferry-launches-in-2024-210137422.html


and we think a 200 mile range in an Electric car is good 24 miles at
approx 60mph with a pilot and a \"load\" of 23kg.

24 miles is now \"epic\" and \"historic.\"

 

[rbowman]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:14:45 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Again, thanks for pointing this out. Just as the airplane and

Airplane, ROTFPMSL! Do you also say airdrome? Airfoil?

As a matter of fact... My brother said aeroplane but he was an
aeronautical engineer Do you say Aerobus?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 17:19:31 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 4/14/2023 12:04 PM, Ed P wrote:
On 4/14/2023 10:49 AM, Frank wrote:
On 4/13/2023 11:57 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Are you greenies nuts?
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/385430139122
Nearly 3 grand for a battery with the same capacity of two deep cycle lead acid batteries costing £150?

As it is EV\'s with lithium batteries weigh about about a half ton more than ICE vehicles. Would be interesting to see what they would weigh with a lead battery.

One problem with price is demand. Currently lead is a commodity and most of it is available as recycle from depleted batteries. Even if price were equivalent there is probably more cost in manufacture of lithium batteries needing additional materials and more complexity of manufacture.

lithium batteries are just a passing phase of technology.

The future will be either graphene, aluminum or silicone anode.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/04/1066141/whats-next-for-batteries/
This year could be a breakout year for one alternative: lithium iron phosphate (LFP), a low-cost cathode material sometimes used for lithium-ion batteries.

There have been a number of alternative types proposed
and tried in the lab, but they don\'t necessarily have the
cycle count. Maybe a battery with a silver electrode, would
give 1000 cycles. Whereas the Lithium ones are around 5000 cycles.

Each battery type has a spider diagram.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356607419/figure/fig4/AS:1095492909961218@1638197271676/Spider-chart-for-different-technologies-Lithium-ion-batteries.png

Some artists are better than others.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarvar-Nengroo/publication/330752778/figure/fig2/AS:721033036304385@1548919080625/Spider-chart-for-the-different-battery-chemistries.ppm

The spider diagram notes the characteristics in graphical form. It\'s because
of the spider diagram, and having to \"optimize six parameters at the same time\",
that we\'re not buried in battery alternatives. Yes, there is battery hype,
to encourage venture capital investment. But generally the things are
announced, before their spider diagram is production ready.

Salt water batteries and Quantum batteries are far superior once they get into production. Lithium is nearing the end of it\'s life cycle.

For now I stick with lead acid for anything large. Lithium is for torches.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 18:50:16 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:14:45 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Again, thanks for pointing this out. Just as the airplane and

Airplane, ROTFPMSL! Do you also say airdrome? Airfoil?

As a matter of fact... My brother said aeroplane

Then he had more brains than you.

> but he was an aeronautical engineer

Surely an airnautical engineer? Mustn\'t confuse the poor little Americans.

> Do you say Aerobus?

That\'s a name of a manufacturer. They made a name they thought would sell. Probably thinking of the Merkin market.

 

[Peeler]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 18:36:48 +0100, anal_m, the notorious troll-feeding
senile retard, blathered again:

The miles per gallon figures are shown on the screen. 44mpg and from
1980 when they removed all seats, except the drivers seat, removed the
spare wheel, removed carpets, taped up any cracks in the bodywork etc.
etc. to obtain the mileage figures.

Not to forget the brains that have been removed from the troll and all the
troll-feeding senile assholes in these three ngs!

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 18:36:48 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/04/2023 15:45, Commander Kinsey wrote:


\"At a steady 56, it slips along quietly for over 750 miles on one tank
of petrol\".

The miles per gallon figures are shown on the screen. 44mpg and from
1980 when they removed all seats, except the drivers seat, removed the
spare wheel, removed carpets, taped up any cracks in the bodywork etc.
etc. to obtain the mileage figures.

But it\'s still doable. And it shows it had a 77 litre tank. That\'s large. I\'ve never had more than a 50 litre tank, except perhaps in a Range Rover. That only got 11mpg though.

 

[Peeler]

On 16 Apr 2023 17:50:16 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

As a matter of fact... My brother said aeroplane but he was an
aeronautical engineer Do you say Aerobus?

I say you stink as much of your trollshit as the troll whose game you enjoy
playing, senile bigmouth!

--
More of the pathological senile gossip\'s sick shit squeezed out of his sick
head:
\"Skunk probably tastes like chicken. I\'ve never gotten that comparison,
most famously with Chicken of the Sea. Tuna is a fish and tastes like a
fish. I will admit I\'ve had chicken that tasted like fish. I don\'t think I
want to know what they were feeding it.\"
MID: <k44t5lFl1k3U4@mid.individual.net>

 

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 19:01:11 +1000, Cindy Hamilton <hamilton@invalid.com>
wrote:

On 2023-04-16, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:35:12 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 06:55:34 -0700
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On 15 Apr 2023 02:27:25 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:


Someday. Maybe. Gaseous hydrogen storage presents many problems.
Carbon fiber vessels have helped somewhat. BMW played around with
liquid hydrogen although it was for an ICE dual fuel engine. Besides
the problem of it boiling off, what could go wrong with Joe Sixpack
filling his pickup with a -423 F liquid?

My neighborhood Shell station has a hydrogen fill-up thing. I\'ve never
seen it used.


Some years ago, TFL experimented with a few hydrogen-powered buses.
Obviously nothing useful came of it. But they thought that the use of
hydrogen was so safe that they sited the filling station twenty miles
from the centre of London.

I guess a AAA rescue truck will have to carry gaseous hydrogen and
liquid hydrogen and what all.

Hereabouts, they don\'t even carry gasoline. They tow you to a gas
station.

That\'s mad.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 18:31:29 +1000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On 15/04/2023 09:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/04/2023 03:27, rbowman wrote:
with declining costs for renewable electricity,
in particular from solar PV and wind,
ROFLMAO!
More sunlit uplands full of fairy farts and unicorn shit

Yep, as long as you don\'t factor in the cost of maintenance and repair.
Each wind turbine is likely to have a fault at least 3x per year and
possibly 10x per year.

Where are you getting those numbers from and what fails ?

A whole army of repair technicians travelling to far flung sites on the
top of mountains has to be paid for in our utility bills.

 

[Ed P]

On 4/16/2023 1:24 PM, alan_m wrote:

On 16/04/2023 16:38, Scott Lurndal wrote:


Leaving aside carbon-neutral synthetic fuels made from agricultural waste
and atomospheric carbon capture, which are perfectly viable alternatives:

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/11/17/electric-helicopter-makes-historic-flight/
https://www.engadget.com/californias-first-electric-short-hop-ferry-launches-in-2024-210137422.html


and we think a 200 mile range in an Electric car is good   24 miles at
approx 60mph with a pilot and a \"load\" of 23kg.

Depends on your needs. When we had two cars, if one had half that range
it would be good. The other car could get by with it 11 months of the
year.

 

[Peeler]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 04:01:40 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
\"Shit you\'re thick/pathetic excuse for a troll.\"
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1@news.mixmin.net>

 

[Peeler]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 04:05:02 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
David Plowman about senile Rodent Speed\'s trolling:
\"Wodney is doing a lot of morphing these days. Must be even more desperate
than usual for attention.\"
MID: <59a60da1d9dave@davenoise.co.uk>

 

[rbowman]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:37:34 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 11:58:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 16/04/2023 01:40, Ed P wrote:

The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is
421 ppm as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of
the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years
prior to the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

And you know this because? That period also coincides with the end of
the little ice age, and we know that mildly warming oceans outgass lots
of CO2 until the organic life catches up with it

CO2 levels have flailed violently over past millions of years, with no
humans around.

Further, CO2 levels aren\'t well correlated with the projected mean global
temperature when you\'re talking million year periods.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:57:04 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I saw a website written in 2014 which said we were running out of uranium (by 2042). Mind you it also said we\'d already run out of Antimony (in 2020) and we\'ll run out of lead in 2025. Where do they get this shit from?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/forecast-when-well-run-out-of-each-metal/

From mining claims, which make a public record of sites and estimated quantity.
Since no one wants to bother to claim \'uneconomic\' discoveries, they aren\'t a
matter of public record until the price (and technology) to profit from \'em
arrives. So, it\'s often gonna be the case that there\'s no registered source
for twenty years from now, for almost any mineral.

It\'s a flawed statistic (when Pennsylvania was the US oil reserve, it was predictable
that we\'d be out of the stuff about a century ago) that is often trotted out to
impress investors.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:14:20 AM UTC-7, T wrote:

The alarmists do not make a lot of sense.
That is why they refuse to debate.

Not so. The refusal to debate is normal in science, only
lawyers use the debate game to hone their skills.
When looking for truth, debate is flawed: it encourages
various sophistries that we know to be invalid arguments.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:16:04 +1000, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home>
wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> writes:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:40:52 -0400, Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

On 4/15/2023 8:13 PM, T wrote:
On 4/15/23 06:51, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Every time one of those morons says greenhouse gases, say plant air
supply.

These \"alarmists\" act like the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere stays
there. Plants create sugars from it.
Our entire food supply is dependent on CO2. And
if for some strange reason CO2 drops too far in our
atmosphere, plants start dying and every living
thing on this planet is in a heap of trouble.

So ya, \"plant air supply\", \"plant food supply\",
\"Everything else\'s food supply\". CO2 is part of
cycle of life.

So? There is a limit to how much they can process. Balance. You need
balance. Do you have actual numbers of how much is produced and how
much is absorbed?

You body needs water. Too much though, will kill you.

It just occurred to me that most of there
\"Alarmists\" as \"vegetarians\" and do not realize
the above. This is what you get when you don\'t
think for yourself and rely on political offices
for your narratives.


It occurred to me some time back you try to apply a simple theory but
have no supporting evidence. The balance of CO2 has changed.

The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is
421
ppm as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to
the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

CO2 was about 1600 PPM 50 million years ago,

There were no humans 50 million years ago, so regardless of
whether your number is correct, it is completely irrelevent.

No its not. We do know that the world\'s climate was perfectly
adequate for the animals and plants around at the time,

The most you can claim is that that scenario did support some
much more massive animals than the current climate does.