▲ 61 ▼ Is WW3 more likely to accelerate or slow down anthropogenic climate change? (lemmy.dbzer0.com) submitted 1 year ago by hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world 27 comments fedilink hide all child comments On one hand many countries will invest in heavy industry, manufacturing, and fall back to fossil fuels. On the other hand, economy overall should slow down and consumption of non-essential goods and services will drop. I'm not expecting any definite answers or numbers, of course, just some food for thought.
[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It has been tried many times in history since the first tanks. I wonder if modern battery tech makes it more feasible than it was 100 years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) This is indeed not a new concept. Almost all locomotives are diesel electric. Some also have batteries making them hybrids. But the previous tank (Ambrams) was using an absolute gas guzzling turbo-shaft. So this is a pretty radical departure. As for battery technology... Let's compare LiFePo4 (not the densest, but safe, reliable, long lasting with wide operating ranges) to modern lead acid (let alone 100 year old lead acid)... Energy Density (Weight): 120-200 Wh/kg vs 30-50 Wh/kg Energy Density (Volume): 250-530 Wh/L vs 75-120 Wh/L Cycle Life: 1000-3000 cycles vs 200-1000 cycles permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) This is indeed not a new concept. Almost all locomotives are diesel electric. Some also have batteries making them hybrids. But the previous tank (Ambrams) was using an absolute gas guzzling turbo-shaft. So this is a pretty radical departure. As for battery technology... Let's compare LiFePo4 (not the densest, but safe, reliable, long lasting with wide operating ranges) to modern lead acid (let alone 100 year old lead acid)... Energy Density (Weight): 120-200 Wh/kg vs 30-50 Wh/kg Energy Density (Volume): 250-530 Wh/L vs 75-120 Wh/L Cycle Life: 1000-3000 cycles vs 200-1000 cycles permalink fedilink source parent