Off-the-grid Nickel–iron energy production

w1z4rd

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
I was speaking to someone at a meeting this weekend about technologies and he was discussing a new product he is trying to get involved with to sell. It is some kinda modification to Nickel–iron battery technology that produces energy for 10 years. The cost saving appear to be around 70% over those 10 years.

Does anyone know more about this? Or had experience with this? I really really would love to give up my reliance in Eskom.
 
There's a guy in Joburg that makes them. One of my friends in the US has one of the experimental models powering the fridge and microwave in his house, and says they've been working for a couple weeks. (Haven't seen one myself though)

It's experimental stuff, I wouldn't look too deeply into it until the Eskom techs verify his equipment (Sorry, but Eskom was on the ball and is already ontop of this one).

I'd have to ask him first, but I could put you in contact with his company.
 
I'm sorry to tell you guys this but the technology will never happen, there is no money in something like this so much like the electric car it will be bought out and never developed.

Think about edison's battery, that was over a century ago and yet nothing has come of it. The main reason is money.
 
i know you say nothing will come of this but im pretty sure eventually something will? There are already factories in china etc that produce closed system ones, granted they are pretty expensive i think the payoff period was 7years?
 
The person I spoke to suggested that these things will start at a price of about 10k (I dont know for how much) with payment plans. I cant wait till my next sub-committee meeting so I can ask him more questions :D
 
The main problem is patentability. Companies don't want to spend money on developing products that the competition can just copy. Just look at pharmaceuticals. Big pharma has been spending billions on developing new anti-depressants while small supplementation companies make millions from ordinary Vitamin D that has the potential to work better with less side effects. Why? Not much return on investment when everyone else can use your research to sell their own product.
 
Swa said:
The main problem is patentability. Companies don't want to spend money on developing products that the competition can just copy. Just look at pharmaceuticals. Big pharma has been spending billions on developing new anti-depressants while small supplementation companies make millions from ordinary Vitamin D that has the potential to work better with less side effects. Why? Not much return on investment when everyone else can use your research to sell their own product.
Click to expand...

What you say is not true. Its a generalization. Many companies invest in stuff that can be copied, like IBM, Google, Yahoo and Apple in FOSS.

Also your advice to people suffering from medical issues to just take, "vitamin D" is horrendous, false, misleading information.
 
Done a lot of reading about Edison or Nickel-Iron batteries. The really big disadvantages are corrosion, hydrogen gassing, low energy density, high self discharge rate, and low charge retention rates - which is why other battery types mostly replaced them. They're also pretty difficult to manufacture. Battery comparison chart here.
 
ghoti said:
What you say is not true. Its a generalization. Many companies invest in stuff that can be copied, like IBM, Google, Yahoo and Apple in FOSS.

Also your advice to people suffering from medical issues to just take, "vitamin D" is horrendous, false, misleading information.
Click to expand...
It's generally the case. And stop attacking strawmen. I told nobody suffering from medical issues to just take Vitamin D so stop making false accusations against me.
 
Swa said:
It's generally the case. And stop attacking strawmen. I told nobody suffering from medical issues to just take Vitamin D so stop making false accusations against me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, based on my previous experience of watching you lie about evolution, I didnt think all of a sudden you had found an honesty bone. I figured you saying, "Just look at pharmaceuticals. Big pharma has been spending billions on developing new anti-depressants while small supplementation companies make millions from ordinary Vitamin D that has the potential to work better with less side effects.". Implied that people suffering from depression should take Vitamin D as it has, "has the potential to work better with less side effects". It could be that your sentence structure was just terrible and I misunderstood you.
 
ghoti said:
What you say is not true. Its a generalization. Many companies invest in stuff that can be copied, like IBM, Google, Yahoo and Apple in FOSS.

Also your advice to people suffering from medical issues to just take, "vitamin D" is horrendous, false, misleading information.
Click to expand...

+1.
hayseus! vitamin D for depression!?
 
ghoti said:
Sorry, based on my previous experience of watching you lie about evolution
Click to expand...
And there you continue with the attacks. If you can't treat people with respect then just STFU!

PS: There's nothing wrong with my sentence structure and especially in the context. Any kid can understand it.
 
Swa said:
And there you continue with the attacks. If you can't treat people with respect then just STFU!
Click to expand...
If you want respect. Earn it. I only treat people with respect when they deserve it. If they constantly lie about something like evolution... well...I call a duck a duck.

PS: There's nothing wrong with my sentence structure and especially in the context. Any kid can understand it.
Click to expand...
Aaah. Two of us so far seem to think you are implying that people who are suffering from a medical condition known as depression should take vitamin D. Its very confusing the way you structured your sentence. Care to elaborate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X