mixing different battery sizes

[redder]

Hi Mr Burgerman (and all you other good people). i've not checked in for a little while, and i'm glad to read that the 60,000 post mark has been achieved in such a short time.

Here is my query.

My friend's an eco/green person who has built his own 12 v electric lighting system for his home, based around a pair of large gel 'deep cycle' leisure batteries (110 ah each I believe). It is 'fed' by a combination of a small wind powered generator and a sun powered trickle panel, which, in theory at least, keeps em in a good state of charge. However. Now that the nights draw in, his lights are taking their toll on the batteries. If he adds another pair of 75ah gels, (presumably in parallel), would that represent a significant improvement to his system, and are there any potential pitfalls that he needs to be aware of?

I realise this isn't a wheelchair/buggy type question, but I hope I'm not infringing any rules and regs by making the enquiry.

[woodygb]

Adding the extra batteries is fine BUT a bit of waste of time if his green charging system isn't able to charge them sufficiently during the shorter winter periods of daylight..

[Burgerman]

Well we don't have any rules!

And I too am using solar. And in the process of going to batteries as well as using grid tie. You can lump as many of the same TYPE of batteries together in parallel as you want. Say all AGM or all gel.

But as woodygb says you wont gain a thing if you are using more watt hours than you generate.

[redder]

If the wind's blowing constantly (it often seems to up here!) during daylight hours, isn't an advantage gained by 'filling up' four batteries rather than two? Four batts will presumably discharge more slowly than two?

Its a bit confusing actually.

Thanks for the responses though.

[Burgerman]

>>> If the wind's blowing constantly (it often seems to up here!) during daylight hours, isn't an advantage gained by 'filling up' four batteries rather than two? Four batts will presumably discharge more slowly than two?

They charge more slowly too. Your generator has a fixed watt output rating.

Its like this. If you regularly have 2 batteries 100% full, and the wind is still blowing then you can then store the extra power with more batteries.

But if you are using more energy that you are receiving from the wind then you probably wont gain much. Its all a balance. You need to monitor the system, see how soon the batteries are full, and if there is a lot of "wind" going to waste. Over a few days or a week.

If the system you have now is pretty well balanced and batteries are "just" getting full in the day, and you are simply using too much power you may need more windmills as well as more batteries.

Or if the battery goes sometimes a few days and never reaches 100% full (13.x volts - off charge) then you need only to add more wind generation.

[redder]

Yet again Burgerman, your encyclopaedic knowledge and practical experience provides a pretty comprehensive explanation for what happens (and why), and crucially, how my green environmentalist friend can adapt his system in order to improve it. Brilliant - thankyou.

[Burgerman]

I generate power not because I believe all the green bullshit but because it saves me £££ long term. My summer 1/4 electricity bills were just £16 for electricity used.

Show this to your friend
I just posted this on another thread.

http://www.brightgreenenergy.co.uk/vict ... argers.asp
Seamlesly integrates wind, batteries, grid power, solar etc. Its very intelligent, and if theres a power cut uses your battery power. It runs your house on batteries as much as possible. Uses the grid as little as possible.

But more importantly show him this. www.wheelchairdriver.com/warming.pdf

[redder]

My friend is coming to tea on Thursday BM, so i'ii make him aware of the Victron kit, and i'll also raise the other (contentious) matter regarding climate change.

He is unlikely to be persuaded though. As a dedicated environmentalist, with an excellent track record in the pursuit of social, economic, and political justice, his insights are very likely different from your own, leading to rather different conclusions.

Personally, i'm inclined to accept the view of the majority of scientists, that global warming and climate change are facts, and that humans have, often unwittingly, contributed towards it, maybe very significantly. OK, it is an issue of debate, and we know the difficulties associated with measuring and assessing 'big systems' like the earth's climate. But at some stage humans have a responsibility to take stock of our activities, and to try and address them rationally - we really don't want to hand down to our children a world that is beset by potential catastrophe and poisoned by pollution and impoverished by species exstinctions do we?

Leaving every economic development to unregulated market forces (which is usually the logic of the climate change deniers) has, and is, creating a real prospect that such an outcome will happen.

I don't believe that keeping heads in sand is an option.

[Burgerman]

Personally, i'm inclined to accept the view of the majority of scientists, that global warming and climate change are facts

But its NOT the majority. Only the intergovernmental panel on climate change (the IPCC) Scientists, that are paid to find links, claim its settled...
There are plenty that say the opposite that are not on the payroll... But they are not allowed to speak and get called deniers.
But the alarmists win, and government idiots and media are all convinced its real.

And plenty more that also say its not a bad thing even if true. Quite the opposite.

And rather a lot that say the climate has always changed and far more drastically in the past. Todays miniscule warming isn't remotely unusual. Just the opposite. And I love real science, but look at the real evidence rather than computer models. Read that page I linked to. Its short and simple. http://www.wheelchairdriver.com/warming.pdf

[redder]

OK BM. But even accepting your point that the scientist are divided in their views (and they certainly are), us lesser mortals have to make our own decision on the matter. So, in the face of the conflicting views that science presents, in the end most of us are probably swayed by our social and political ideas etc. We are still left with the fact that human beings have a unique duty as the current custodians of the earth. Our earth is in trouble. We can decide to try and influence our direction of travel so that the current situation might be improved. We might fail in our endeavours, but at least if we give it our best shot we will have gone down trying.

Currently we are leaving all the major decisions to the free market, and those who profit from it. I reckon humanity has an obligation to do better, and to leave our world as an improved place, better than the one we were born into - but we cannot do that without changing our behaviours.

[Burgerman]

>>>in the end most of us are probably swayed by our social and political ideas etc.

Not me. I run on logic and evidence. I love science. I LIVE science.
But "climate science" consists of a mass of scientists and hangers on, many with an agenda, that are all paid to see and find links. And massage climate models to show their pre conceived ideas are right. Or lose funding. The real evidence doesn't show any such proven links. It shows that we may have some affect, but its by no means certain. And by no means unusual either. And the warmer it is the better all plant and animal life flourishes, and the further north and south of the equator it does so.

>>>We are still left with the fact that human beings have a unique duty as the current custodians of the earth. Our earth is in trouble

Is it? I don't see that. Why is it in trouble? Some pollution in the odd river?
Yes need to clean that up. But that's very minor. Look at what the result of this is. Longer lives, (you are not dead of disease and a head full of rotten teeth and malnutrition or cold by 25 any longer. To start with.

[redder]

Well BM, doesn't species decline (ie, the numbers of species becoming extinct in recent decades) suggest all is not well? The World Wildlife Fund's recent report shows that over 3000 varieties of wild creature are in very serious decline and facing extinction due to habitat destruction and various types of pollution (created by human activity). Again we need to take care with our judgements on this, because its well known that species extinctions have occurreed throughout the earths history, but todays scientific methods are enabling humanity to monitor this catastrophe up close and in real time, so we know it is occurring. We also know that humans are in a position to influence the rate of species extinction because we can decide, if we exercise the political will, to stop polluting and stop making incursions into natural habitats.

I see little room for complacency. We can't simply stand by and react after the damage is done, when an extinction happens its not reversible. There is a danger if we are guided only by an attitude of denial that we cannot avert the ongoing damage. I thought everybody valued the honey bee for example, ( which is one of the creatures stressed and in trouble, thought to be due to the predominance of agribusiness methods and attitudes). We surely need to avoid creating a world with such a hostile environment that the humble bee cannot any longer prosper?

All that's needed is a shift of focus, a change of attitudes and practice, and the promotion of human concern about all our futures?

[Burgerman]

On TV Richard Dawkins said that over 99.99 percent of all species that ever existed had gone extinct before we even evolved. And that this is the natural order of things. And if that didn't happen due to environment changes there was no room for others to evolve.

EG the dinosaurs were wiped out along with a great deal of the earths other life, to make room for the mammals and for you to get to the top of the tree. So no I also do not see this as a problem. Althhough we may be the next catastrophe that causes a big change. Because:

That said humans are an infestation and are behaving as such. Going from 3 to 7 billion in my lifetime and I am still alive... And from 1 to 7 billion in just a couple of hundred years.

So short of getting rid of say 6 of the 7 billion of us, there's not a lot of alternative as we need to use much of the land and fuel just to feed these billions. And unless you can show an economic alternative then there isn't a choice. And so far there is none. Now I agree we should be investing in fusion reactors, atomic power, space travel etc as a real alternative.

[redder]

Mr Burgerman, your spirit is irrepressible!

Dawkin's can say or do little that i would disagree with, but i'm unaware of his view regarding climate change being a human creation, so no comment on that aspect i'm afraid.

Your Malthusian concern about population increase doesn't sit that easy with the facts so far though. Don't forget that every new born mouth to feed is also a pair of hands and a brain to carry out all the enriching tasks that humans need in order to feed and cloth and keep themselve's warm. The evidence so far, given the astronomic increases in population that you cite, is that Malthus was wrong, and people have far more ingenuity and much greater ability and resilliance to cope with rising population trends than he allowed for.

That said, i think there is a case for humans to plan our development and population trends - but the free market - with its anarchy of production and laissez faire consequences denies us that possibility. I suppose what I'm saying is that there is a powerful case for far more democracy than is currently allowed, and certainly far far more economic democracy. After all, most of the really important economic decisions that are taken, the ones that impact (often negatively) on every one of us, are by a vanishingly tiny proportion of self interested people, largely hidden from the public gaze, in very exclusive board rooms, right across the world.

If people fail to change the way we arrange our affairs, then i fear your predicted "infestation" melt down may become real.

BTW, i don't believe i voiced any support for "atomic power", nice try though.

[Burgerman]

Atomic power is the only viable short / medium term economic answer.
There's no real workable alternative.
I see no reason that we have not already built thousands of nuclear power stations. Other than the panic by those that don't understand physics.

[redder]

Atomic power is the only viable short / medium term economic answer.
There's no real workable alternative.
I see no reason that we have not already built thousands of nuclear power stations. Other than the panic by those that don't understand physics.

And maybe the panic of the survivors and cancer victims of the Chernobil crisis, not to mention Fukushima, or three mile island etc etc?

Nuclear is too dangerous for too long to ever become a viable and safe option.

Let the free market decide on this one is my answer . The energy companies can build and maintain nuclear plants if they like, but without a penny subsidy from the tax payer. Both you and i know that the free market cannot and will not exclusively develop and build nuke plants without bleating for subsidy by the public exchequer.

i'm afraid you'll need a plan B Mr Burgerman

[Burgerman]

All were old and dangerous plants of old fashioned design. From the days before we understood the dangers well.

And

http://www.channel4.com/news/fukushima- ... depression

Fukusima was a more modern but still old plant:

NOT a death happened or is expected to happen in the future.

>>> The UN's expert panel on radiation risk has published its full verdict on the aftermath of the devastating Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011.
"No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident," the report reads. "No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants."

So not only has no-one died or become severely ill as a result of radiation leaking from the devastated plant, which went into meltdown after an earthquake and tsunami rocked Japan, but the UN says no-one is expected to be in future, either. For many radiation experts, this has come as no surprise.

AND...
SAFE Reactors already exist:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1434 ... -round-two

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... orium.html

The hysterical attitude to Nuclear power only comes from the ones that don't understand the physics. As usual its a lot of fuss over nothing by those least positioned to understand it. But those are the ones that cry the loudest. Physisists and real scientists are of the opposite opinion.

And of course there isn't an option apart from sending the western world broke and short of power with the death and destruction and starvation and lack of protective heat and fuel for mechanised industrialised farming etc etc etc. All very well being "green" and trying to save a planet (that hasn't got anything wrong with it) IF you have a better alternative. But there isn't one.

[redder]

Excellent evidenced defence of the nuclear 'option' Burgerman. As usual your grasp and understanding of the technology is impeccable. it leaves me agog with admiration.

But despite this , there remains a couple of huge problems in the argument. The public perception of nuclear power internationally remains very suspicious. People do not overwhelmingly embrace the prospects of having plants built nearby to them. In some places (Germany for eg) Fukushima resulted in them turning away from any further experiments with nuclear power generation. So, politically, nuclear remains dynamite for the elites. The WW2 experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ensured that would be the case for many generations. However, we know that public opinion can be fickle, and the perception problem may change over time, especially if the Thorium plants materialise (although I doubt it - the next catastrophe, when it inevitably comes) will keep the spirit of anti nuclearism burning for a very long time.

The other, much more concrete problem (which I note you ignored ) is that of the costs associated with commissioning (and decommissioning) nuclear plants. As someone who rightly regards science and evidence as a critical aspects of determining whether this or that problem is viable or sensible, you will obviously need to demonstrate the long term (what's the half life of nuclear waste again?) economic viability of any nuclear options. Maybe you can remind me of the libertarian free marketeers justification for using public taxes to subsidise wealthy shareholders and their profit accumulation?

[Burgerman]

The British are currently having a bunch of Nuclear power stations built. Stuff the expense. The alternative, or relying on other countries is worse. An green alternatives are way more expensive. And maintenance of the huge windmills in the north sea is hugely expensive on top of commissioning costs. Green solutions generate very little and will not fill the gaps.

>>> But despite this , there remains a couple of huge problems in the argument. The public perception of nuclear power internationally remains very suspicious

Well you cant allow for the uneducated, ignorant hysterical masses etc. You just have to do it. Or go without power!

[robnnorthaustin]

And maybe the panic of the survivors and cancer victims of the Chernobil crisis, not to mention Fukushima, or three mile island etc etc?

Nuclear is too dangerous for too long to ever become a viable and safe option.

I'm sure more people die every month then all the casualties of all nuclear consequences added together, compared to the pollution that burning coal creates I would much rather live next to a clean N powerplant rather then a belching dirty coal monster. There is no such hing as Clean Coal as some in the US want us to believe.

[Burgerman]

The alternative to not using power is a return to the days before light, heat, engineering and technology that made us warm, fed, and healthy. And death by 30 years old was common, and still is in some undeveloped places.

No industrial food or farming or medical production, no antibiotics, housing materials, transport etc. And that means one hell of a lot more death and suffering that the modern safe comfortable world provides.

This is the result of the greenies save the planet solution, that they don't see. And the planet is healthy.

[Burgerman]

This thread started about batteries

[redder]

Clean coal technology is being developed i believe. That would certainly be useful in the UK where there are 300 years of reserves available.

i don't agree on the safety issue. The problem with nuclear relates to its potential to create huge and enduring disaster when things go wrong. The experience so far is that human created systems are subject to failures of various types, which can lead to catastrophe. Plenty examples exist to make the case. The UK newspaper the Observer ran an article in 2009 which dubbed Sellafield as "the most hazardous industrial building in western Europe" - due to very significant accumulations of nuclear pollution at the site. Sellafield has been an ongoing public relations disaster for the industry, primarily due to evasions and lies associated with those in government and those in operational control. The site managers have been responsible for 'losing' 29.6 kg of plutonium, and then trying to cover up their inadequacies. There are still question marks around the clusters of lukaemia that have arises in that area of Cumbria. Even the plant name has been changed in various attempts to shake off the badly tarnished image of the place and the industry. There have been serious fires in the plant that have released poisonous waste into both the sea and the wider environment. Its an endless list of near and just avoided catastrophies basically. Little wonder that the public perception has been one of deep mistrust - the industry and various governments brought it upon themselves.

The technology may improve, and advances may be possible, but the perception remains amongst sections of the public that the nuclear option is highly dangerous, and best avoided. Its a view im sympathetic towards, and i'm certainly not considering buying a property next to Sellafied!

[redder]

This thread started about batteries

Ha - You started it!

[redder]

And the planet is healthy.

A highly contentious statement Burgerman. The earth as a system, and especially its wildlife, is in trouble. Attachment to a super optimistic ideology cannot alter the current status of creatures being pushed out of existence by human activity. Only a different, more concerned and considerate type of human activity might prevent the crisis facing our wild creatures.

[Burgerman]

Its always happened. Right now we are the cause, or one cause. Ice ages and massively hotter periods in the past were also causes of massive extinctions. As were diseases, things bombarding the planet, massive floods and quakes etc. Its all happened much worse many times over in geological time. The planet doesn't care. It will be fine long after we are gone.

Now its true we are clever enough to understand it happening. The real question is this, Is there any REALISTIC way we can reduce the impact on other life, of heating and feeding and housing 7 billion people now infesting (so far) this planet? Answers on a postcard.

If you can think of one that doesn't negatively impact people lives then great! But nobody can.

Do you realise that in my lifetime the population has more than DOUBLED? And increased 7 times in a few hundred years?

China has built enough roads to completely cover the UK over the last ten years. TWO HUNDRED TIMES OVER! Really. Ever seen a big traffic jam? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKhsPO6yYko

Rush hour underground train china http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-meaGqg-M

Of course the real answer is to spend more than the minute pittance that we do on developing real technology to help.

Did you know that the US spends less on scientific research than it does on dog grooming services? (c) BBC2

We need to develop the tocamak http://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=traff ... 8#imgdii=_

China are a fast developing country. They are building 20 lane highways thousands of miles long. They used bycycles and struggled to feed themselves and died early 10 years ago. If the UK ceased to exist tomorrow, they would take over our total contribution to fuel usage in 3 months.

We need better safer nuclear power today.
We need better batteries.
We need better solar (efficiency is just 20 percent today)
We need better faster more efficient crops that will grow in bad areas (genetics)
We need better space exploration and spread the fragile humans about...
Etc etc. All the very things the greenies try to stop...

Science, education, development, research and throwing money at all of this is the real answer.
Everything we have in the modern world is DIRECTLY because of science.

[redder]

The world of science excites me also BM, it offers huge potential, and it could help to create a world where humans are able to eliminate most of the serious obstacles that currently stand in our way - poverty, disease, hunger, inequality, warfare etc.

Yet..

These serious issues, matters of life and death for millions, are not likely to be erradicated by science alone. Prior to every positive decision taken by a boffin, there are usually a multitude of other political and economic decisions which are really more important than science alone. Don't overlook the fact that before we humans can use our intrinsic ingenuity and unique capacity for creating our own environments, we have first of all to be able to feed and shelter and cloth ourselves adequately - that's how and why we were able to initially develop - it was only after those basic problems were overcome, when we stopped being hunter gathering and grazing creatures, that we were able to begin the many processes that brought us to our current state - in which science offers to be a part of the necessary solutions that might liberate us all.

Human life and the earth and its rich heritage of wild creatures and flora are too important to leave at the mercy of science alone.

First of all we need to work out ways of planning and controlling our world economy (which currently operates mainly for the wealthiest 1% at the top) and develop methods of meeting the needs of the billions.

The main problems are not scientific. They are political.

[Burgerman]

I would say

Political, and a mix of religion, intelligence, education, and so on.

Science is what makes the western world tick. And richer than the rest of the world. Including the 1 percent.

We need to:
Wipe out woo and religion, and teach logic and thinking skills of all types.
Educate
Push science and engineering in schools above all else.
Invest in science and engineering development in industry 10x more than we do.
Pay science teachers much more to get good teachers in the schools.

Any country that does that will lead the world and be rich.

[Lord Chatterley]

First of all we need to work out ways of planning and controlling our world economy (which currently operates mainly for the wealthiest 1% at the top) and develop methods of meeting the needs of the billions.

Oh, dearie me no - planning is the last thing we need, to my knowledge this is the best [short] book on planning ever written:

https://mises.org/books/planningforfreedom_mises.pdf

And the 1% receive very little in return for their enormous contribution to society, the 99% owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

LC

[Burgerman]

Quite...

Take Bill Gates.

How many people does he produce income for, indirectly. Never mind the sheer quantity of trade done, on windows, or the massive money making and people employing projects that have run on it. And what do you suppose happens to all his money?

It gets spent, sooner or later, employing and paying countless more.