I'm glad you brought this up Duncan as I've been thinking along the same lines.
To trickle charge the batteries you mention takes about 1/10C, or about a tenth of the total battery capacity. For example, if you have an AA battery with a rating of 1400mA/h, then you'll need to generate about 140mA to charge it in any reasonable time. The more current you can generate, the faster the battery will charge – to a point. Too much current will damage the battery. To estimate how long the cell will take to charge use: a charge rate of 0.1C will take about 10 hours, 0.5C about 2 hours, and 1C about an hour. I always tack on another 30% in time just to be sure (as heat is generated during charging).
I think the best, and safest, way to go about this project is to find a DC charger already built, and supply it with whatever voltage/current it needs. Let's guess that your charger has an input requirement of 12V and 3A maximum. You'd need a Stirling that can, after all losses, generate 36 watts of power. That's a lot of power for a little Stirling. It could be done, but you wouldn't want to use a low-temperature-differential type. Perhaps a Stirling powered by some type of combustion process would be better suited. Love to see it!
Second question:
Stirling's change a difference in temperature into mechanical work. There is a formula to figure out what the theoretical maximum performance (conversion ratio) is: measure the temperature difference, and divide it by the hottest temperature (do it in Kelvin). For example, say it is –20C outside, and 20C inside. Change to Kelvin (K = ° C + 273) And you get: 293K minus 253K divided by 293K = about 14% efficiency.
That is the theoretical maximum; in reality you can expect to get much, much less. Perhaps you can convert 20% of that theoretical 14% into mechanical work if you're lucky, or about 3% efficiency. Then if your generator is running at, say, 60% efficiency, you total now drops to under 2%.
If you were to dissipate the heat from within your building to the outside through a Stirling, you could only expect to get about 2% of the energy flowing outside returned to you as useful work. Pretty bad eh?
A better place to find useful energy in a cold climate is probably the furnace exhaust. Use that as the hot side, and the ambient air as the cold side, and you'll generate plenty of power. Or how about the exhaust stream from a gasoline generator, or even a parabolic solar reflector? It's just a matter of getting the temperature differential as big as you can.
I've been thinking, there may be a place where a small temperature differential could be put to practical use: Antarctica. In the middle of winter it may be possible to get a 60C difference using ocean water as the hot side, and the air as the cold side. Still, the conversion rate would be pathetic, but it would be neat to try. Solar panels love cold weather, and Antarctica has some of the worlds strongest winds that could be harnessed with a wind turbine…. So the Stirling would just be used to power the penguin rotisserie.
I'm somewhat of a plebe myself; so if any of my info is incorrect and you are a Stirling guru, please correct me
