Real prices for Lithium batteries !

El Gringo · Senior Member

Real prices for Lithium batteries !

Dickodownunder · Guru

rockylizard wrote:
T1 Terry wrote:
I give up, you win, you are now the new expert on all things and you can answer the questions, but you will have to fight a few others here who think they are the experts. I always get sucked into answering a question on these forums that was really a set up and then I get it thrown back at me. Stuff it, I've had enough
Gday...
Untwist the knickers Terry.
I am sorry, but you don't "simply answer questions" ... you insist on telling everyone they are foolish for continuing to use "outdated 1900s" technology when everyone should have lithium. To be honest, I think you rarely simply answer any question but rather you grasp them as an opportunity to introduce why lithium is the only way.
I very much doubt questions posed to the forum regarding solar/AGM/Lithium are "set up" just to goad you into trotting out your long-winded sales pitch on why we all should be updating to lithium.
I am sure everyone concedes you are very knowledgeable in what you do ... and obviously have the experience to provide 'advice'. However, all too often that 'advice' is more 'informing' the forum of why they are outdated and wasting their time, money and effort in persisting with AGM technology.
It is not my place to offer advice to anyone ... but just as an observation, you should consider the hackneyed saying - you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Personally, I don't like vinegar much ... so unless the 'advice' is pertinent to my needs, requirements, and plans it goes right on over my rather uneducated melon.
[EDIT: re-read my post Terry ... it is peppered with ... praps ya should jest lighten up ]
Cheers - and have a good day mate - John

-- Edited by rockylizard on Sunday 3rd of December 2017 10:23:01 AM

As someone that is not wanting at this stage to buy a new battery solar system I dont find T1's posts the way you see them.

I find them to be informative and polite until he is provoked.

If people like Terry are frustrated to the point of not contributing then it is to the detriment of the whole forum and to the members on here. As I commented in another topic involving solar controllers, most of us on here only see a "Peeing Contest".

If Terry or anyone else for that matter has a business interest then so be it. He did ask the enquiring member to PM him regarding his enquiry. Because he is involved in the technology on a daily basis he would be in a good place to comment accurately on the subject.

Telling someone to lighten up and stating that the post involved "smileys" after you provoked and ridiculed him only smacks of the forum behaviour of another (recently departed) member.

Buy all means if the topic involves the technical details required to highlight the pros and cons of each alternative then go for it but participate in a civil debate not a slinging match about a members business.

As I commented in the other topic, I have no affiliation with T1 Terry but many on here are fed up with the nonsense that takes place in the solar and technical areas.

rockylizard · Guru

Dickodownunder wrote:
As someone that is not wanting at this stage to buy a new battery solar system I dont find T1's posts the way you see them.
I find them to be informative and polite until he is provoked. From observation over some time, your comment of 'informative and polite' only continues until someone states they do not want to change from AGM to Lithium - So by advising the 'salesman' one is not wanting to 'buy' their product that is considered 'provocation'??
If people like Terry are frustrated to the point of not contributing then it is to the detriment of the whole forum and to the members on here. As I commented in another topic involving solar controllers, most of us on here only see a "Peeing Contest".
If Terry or anyone else for that matter has a business interest then so be it. He did ask the enquiring member to PM him regarding his enquiry. Because he is involved in the technology on a daily basis he would be in a good place to comment accurately on the subject. No place on this, or other forums, for a business to shove its product down members throats ... the PM system is the place to keep it.
Telling someone to lighten up and stating that the post involved "smileys" after you provoked and ridiculed him only smacks of the forum behaviour of another (recently departed) member. Fer gawd's sake Dicko - read that response agen ... ya seem to have the bull by the proberbials. One accustomed to digital communication would, SHOULD, have realised that, when peppered with 'smilies' the comment was meant to be humourous. Surely even you must agree that Terry is a very vocal and outgoing 'salesman' for his beloved lithium.
Buy all means if the topic involves the technical details required to highlight the pros and cons of each alternative then go for it but participate in a civil debate not a slinging match about a members business.
As I commented in the other topic, I have no affiliation with T1 Terry but many on here are fed up with the nonsense that takes place in the solar and technical areas.

Gday...

Your loyalty to Terry is laudible and quite probably well placed. I am very aware of the high regard he is held in the "lithium world' he services ... and promotes.

I would always seek information from Terry if I wanted to 'update' my 'outdated AGM system' - indeed I have done so in times past.

However, the problem is not from 'provocation' by members on the forum, but rather by Terry's inability to realise that the 'hard-sell' for lithium he pushes in the face of those who simply want ... repeat want ... to remain with their 'outdated AGM system' and advise him of that which seems to be interpreted by him, and those who 'support' him, as 'provocation'.

It is in no way denigrating his knowledge or experience. It is simply that, should one want to remain 'outdated', his 'hard-sell' becomes harder and increasingly contains techno jargon that 'proves' he is right and anyone not accepting his 'proof' is derided.

I again suggest that old saying - one catches more flies with honey than vinegar.

If people aren't allowed to simply not want to 'upgrade' from their 'outdated' systems by so stating, without being made to feel like a ludite by the 'salesman', then this forum has become not the one I joined.

Cheers - John

Dickodownunder · Guru

Looks like we agree to disagree John,

I am interested only in the Technical side of for and against statistics not any other banter which becomes as I said, a"Peeing Contest"

Your comment re Vinegar, Honey and Flies in my opinion is unnecessary and antagonistic and I am sure that most people who contribute regularly to forums understand the meaning of smilies.

I have no loyalties to Terry or his business but I really thought he answered the OP's enquiry re the "True Cost Of Lithium"when he explained that off grid camping is about energy used IN TOTAL. His contribution in which he explained this is only a few posts into the topic. Anyone that needs to review what he typed can easily look back.

I am typing on my phone and it is too dificult for me to highlight previous posts and then disect them and personally I dont want to but I just wish that these solar type topics could be discussed in a courteous and informative matter so as to maintain the interest the topic deserves.

El Gringo · Senior Member

rockylizard wrote:
Dickodownunder wrote:
As someone that is not wanting at this stage to buy a new battery solar system I dont find T1's posts the way you see them.
I find them to be informative and polite until he is provoked. From observation over some time, your comment of 'informative and polite' only continues until someone states they do not want to change from AGM to Lithium - So by advising the 'salesman' one is not wanting to 'buy' their product that is considered 'provocation'??
If people like Terry are frustrated to the point of not contributing then it is to the detriment of the whole forum and to the members on here. As I commented in another topic involving solar controllers, most of us on here only see a "Peeing Contest".
If Terry or anyone else for that matter has a business interest then so be it. He did ask the enquiring member to PM him regarding his enquiry. Because he is involved in the technology on a daily basis he would be in a good place to comment accurately on the subject. No place on this, or other forums, for a business to shove its product down members throats ... the PM system is the place to keep it.
Telling someone to lighten up and stating that the post involved "smileys" after you provoked and ridiculed him only smacks of the forum behaviour of another (recently departed) member. Fer gawd's sake Dicko - read that response agen ... ya seem to have the bull by the proberbials. One accustomed to digital communication would, SHOULD, have realised that, when peppered with 'smilies' the comment was meant to be humourous. Surely even you must agree that Terry is a very vocal and outgoing 'salesman' for his beloved lithium.
Buy all means if the topic involves the technical details required to highlight the pros and cons of each alternative then go for it but participate in a civil debate not a slinging match about a members business.
As I commented in the other topic, I have no affiliation with T1 Terry but many on here are fed up with the nonsense that takes place in the solar and technical areas.
Gday...
Your loyalty to Terry is laudible and quite probably well placed. I am very aware of the high regard he is held in the "lithium world' he services ... and promotes.
I would always seek information from Terry if I wanted to 'update' my 'outdated AGM system' - indeed I have done so in times past.
However, the problem is not from 'provocation' by members on the forum, but rather by Terry's inability to realise that the 'hard-sell' for lithium he pushes in the face of those who simply want ... repeat want ... to remain with their 'outdated AGM system' and advise him of that which seems to be interpreted by him, and those who 'support' him, as 'provocation'.
It is in no way denigrating his knowledge or experience. It is simply that, should one want to remain 'outdated', his 'hard-sell' becomes harder and increasingly contains techno jargon that 'proves' he is right and anyone not accepting his 'proof' is derided.
I again suggest that old saying - one catches more flies with honey than vinegar.
If people aren't allowed to simply not want to 'upgrade' from their 'outdated' systems by so stating, without being made to feel like a ludite by the 'salesman', then this forum has become not the one I joined.
Cheers - John

Absolute and utter rubbish John, The only time things get nasty is when you and/or others like you have to stir the pot.

Go back through this thread and take out all your rubbish and see how it changes the whole tone of it.

I don't know what it is with you, but you just can't control the urge to put down.

Tell me, what positive input have you had to this thread?

If you think we can't do without your style of comments your wrong, the whole forum would be better of without it.

T1 Terry · Guru

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
El Gringo wrote:
Yes your right Peter, it sure can, but I wanted to get the full T1 system with all the fail safes, and as I think most people would probably go that way as well I put it in as my costing.
Could I do the relays etc myself - probably, but I would prefer a 'store bought' system.
And for most people the cost comparison is therefor typical.

Cheers,
The point is that the comparison is not quite balanced. Any solar controller system that can safely charge a Li set up could also safely charge an AGM set up except the AGMs do not need the BMS, so is inherently very much cheaper. My existing solar controller would not need to be changed if/when I change to Li, but I will certainly need a Battery Management System to monitor cells and protect the Li's. So if you needed to spend $1,000 to charge the Li's, the AGMs would cost $400, not "$1,000+".

Next question....trying to remain quite objective here....
(I presume when you say "400A" or "600A" you actually mean '400Ah' or '600Ah'?)
I think your cost comparison between the types is a bit unfair. On one hand you quote the cost of the cheapest Lis on the general market and about the most expensive brand of AGMs.
I also dispute the need to have 600Ah of AGMs as an equivalent to 400Ah of Li. That comparison depends very much on the job that the batteries have to perform. It may be fair if you want to run an air conditioner all night after sunset, but if your general use is compressor fridges, lap tops, lights, electric blankets, and the odd coffee via the electric jug, it certainly is not a fair comparison. At lower discharge rates there is absolutely no significant detriment to voltage or life as a result of running them to the same 80% DOD as you quote for the Li's. And you can take them up to 100% too, something that many Li owners avoid (so their "real" usable storage is really about 70% of 'name plate').

Cheers,
Peter

After a number of emails and PM's on another forum I'll have yet another go and simply ignore the trolls.

At lower discharge rates there is absolutely no significant detriment to voltage or life as a result of running them to the same 80% DOD as you quote for the Li's. And you can take them up to 100% too, something that many Li owners avoid (so their "real" usable storage is really about 70% of 'name plate').

I find this rather interesting Peter and it seems to run against the flow regarding most test data including that from the manufacturer of the batteries you use. Can you please upload a chart or link to an actual chart/graph that verifies this claim?

As far as many owners not taking their Li batteries down to 100% of the advertised capacity, how is that related to the actual useable storage? If an AGM battery owner only ever takes their AGM battery to 80% SOC, does that mean they only have 20% of the real name plate useable?????

T1 Terry

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

I am surprised you ask for a chart to demonstrate what I am sure you know already Terry.
But for the benefit of others....

The number of cycles is a very poor way to measure the life of a battery, ....... any battery.
The better way is to measure total energy in Wh, (or Ah, but that is not as good) delivered over its whole life. That is a much more accurate representation.
There is a life cycle chart from Fullriver attached

It shows that the life is 650 cycles if it is discharged to 50% every time. Current wisdom is that you will kill your AGMs if you regularly discharge lower than that.

The chart shows 450 cycles if discharged to 70% and just 275 cycles if discharged to 100% EVERY time and those numbers would seem to support the popular opinion UNTIL you measure the actual energy delivered over the lifetime of the battery.

Based on a 100Ah battery, 50% discharge delivers 50Ah per cycle X 650 cycles = 32,500Ah total life energy delivered.

70% discharge delivers 70Ah per cycle X 450 cycles = 31,500Ah total life energy delivered.

Even at 100% discharge EVERY cycle = 100Ah per cycle X 275 cycles = 27,500Ah total life energy delivered.

So the conclusion is YES, the battery life is reduced by deeper discharges, but it is not the instant death of the battery as some clearly believe and there is sometimes good sense in having a smaller battery bank, working them a bit harder, keeping some of your money in the bank (which bank?) for a bit longer and replacing the battery bank a bit more often.

To put a number on it, 100% discharge EVERY cycle will give a battery life which is about 15% lower than 50% discharge EVERY cycle.

Cheers,

Peter

meetoo · Guru

Peter, even better, your chart also shows that at 30% discharge you will get about 1440 cycles giving a total life energy of 43,200 AH.

Even at this many cycles it doesn't explain why some fulltime people sometimes get 5,6,7, or 8 years out of their batteries.

Cheers, John.

-- Edited by meetoo on Monday 4th of December 2017 11:53:14 PM

-- Edited by meetoo on Monday 4th of December 2017 11:54:42 PM

rockylizard · Guru

Gday...

Thanks Peter.

Cheers - John

-- Edited by rockylizard on Tuesday 5th of December 2017 08:35:24 AM

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

meetoo wrote:
Even at this many cycles it doesn't explain why some fulltime people sometimes get 5,6,7, or 8 years out of their batteries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John, I think it is mainly about how much solar you have and when you use your power.

Batteries only "wear out" if the power used comes out of the batteries. If you have a lot of solar, the majority of the power used comes direct from the solar panels and does not pass through the batteries on the way. Only the power used at night when the sun is not shining comes out of the batteries or part of heavy loads that exceed the solar output. Of course, heavy loads like electric jugs for an early breakfast will have a bigger wear factor on the batteries than baking a loaf of bread in the middle of the day when the solar is providing the power directly.

This is why I always advise to maximise the solar. Your batteries will last longer, whatever type they are.

Cheers,

Peter

T1 Terry · Guru

Interesting is what is not made clear in the test parameters.
TESTING CONDITIONS
Capacity test 0.2C5(FV1.7V/cell) C5=0.82C20
Life test 0.2C5 3.5HOURS
Charging:2.45V/cell, constant-voltage control 14- 24hours
Max.charging current:0.25C20
Ambient temperature: 25°C(77°F)

So the capacity test is 0.2C5 and C5=0.82C20..... what the hell does that mean? If the C20 refers to the capacity discharged over 20hrs to and end voltage of 1.7v per cell, then 1.7v x 6 cells = 10.2v so this is the point that 0% SOC is based on?
What goes against the logic of C20 being the max. discharge load required to still deliver that number of amps down to 10.2v at the battery, C5 would mean the battery drawn down to the same 10.2v in only 5hrs..... but the test specs say C5 = 0.82 of the C20 rate, and then the discharge rate is actually only 0.2 of that 0.82 of the C20 rate...... Is that what it says to those that read it?

Next is the Life Cycle test: 0.2C5 or 0.2 of the 0.82 C20 load.... and only for 3.5hrs, not down to 10.2v.... what the .....

Next is the method used to recover the battery to fully recharged, 0.25 of the C20 rate at a max of what ever figure that comes to until 2.45v per cell or 14.7v across the terminals for a total of 14 to 24 hrs.

I gotta ask, does anyone actually understand any of that? Next, does anyone actually hold their battery at 14.7v for 14hr to 24 hrs while charging to ensure they are back to 100% SOC before they use them again? It sure doesn't sound like they use any solar controller or solar in general to recharge in these tests ..... so, is there a relevance between this test chart and the cycle use of the average RV user?
The next trick is to hold the battery at a constant 25*C.... good luck with that one.

Just as a guide for anyone who might want to come up with the numbers to replace the algebra in the equations, C20 for a 100Ah battery is 5 amps, 100/20 = 5.

T1 Terry

markf · Senior Member

T1 Terry wrote:
Interesting is what is not made clear in the test parameters.
TESTING CONDITIONS
Capacity test 0.2C5(FV1.7V/cell) C5=0.82C20
Life test 0.2C5 3.5HOURS
Charging:2.45V/cell, constant-voltage control 14- 24hours
Max.charging current:0.25C20
Ambient temperature: 25°C(77°F)

So the capacity test is 0.2C5 and C5=0.82C20..... what the hell does that mean?

Who knows... The more I read sales blurbs about batteries, battery chargers, solar panel regulators, Amateur Radio gear, etc. the more convinced I am that "they" choose the most obscure data and present it in the most obtuse fashion to present "their" product in a light that makes "their" stuff appear better than the rest. Amateur Radio gear is a case in point. Very often the latest and BEST bit of gear appears to be the bees knees and yet when the independent ARRL test lab uses a standardised test method and presents the results in an easy to understand fashion it turns out to be rubbish.

Terry, I bet that in your research endeavours you've wasted a lot of time and money that could've been saved if only "they" presented data in a plain English fashion using data gleaned from a standardised test method.

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

T1 Terry wrote:
I find this rather interesting Peter and it seems to run against the flow regarding most test data including that from the manufacturer of the batteries you use. Can you please upload a chart or link to an actual chart/graph that verifies this claim?

Sorry you don't like the answer Terry.

Cheers,

Peter

T1 Terry · Guru

markf wrote:
T1 Terry wrote:
Interesting is what is not made clear in the test parameters.
TESTING CONDITIONS
Capacity test 0.2C5(FV1.7V/cell) C5=0.82C20
Life test 0.2C5 3.5HOURS
Charging:2.45V/cell, constant-voltage control 14- 24hours
Max.charging current:0.25C20
Ambient temperature: 25°C(77°F)

So the capacity test is 0.2C5 and C5=0.82C20..... what the hell does that mean?
Who knows... The more I read sales blurbs about batteries, battery chargers, solar panel regulators, Amateur Radio gear, etc. the more convinced I am that "they" choose the most obscure data and present it in the most obtuse fashion to present "their" product in a light that makes "their" stuff appear better than the rest. Amateur Radio gear is a case in point. Very often the latest and BEST bit of gear appears to be the bees knees and yet when the independent ARRL test lab uses a standardised test method and presents the results in an easy to understand fashion it turns out to be rubbish.

Terry, I bet that in your research endeavours you've wasted a lot of time and money that could've been saved if only "they" presented data in a plain English fashion using data gleaned from a standardised test method.

At least a manufacturer that clearly explains their test procedure the results can then be adapted to a standard test condition so apples are matched with apples. Fullriver use small ref numbers beside the test condition but there is no listing for what each of those ref numbers mean .... so either only part of the information was posted to this forum, or, Fullriver did not disclose those ref for their test conditions. Either way, a shopping docket from Woolies would have provide more useable information than the link Peter provided, so at the moment both Peter's link and the Wollies shopping docket are completely irrelevant to the subject being discussed, the figures are meaningless, well accept for the 2 bits of information such as it takes 14hrs to 24hrs to fully recharge one of their batteries, and the life cycle test was an unknown load for 3.5 hrs, not till the battery was discharged to 1.7v per cell.

The chart itself doesn't make sense either, the 100% DoD graph shows 5 hr discharge and after 400 cycles the capacity has dropped to 80%.... so when the battery test first started out it represented the capacity divide by 5 as the load current, e.g. 100Ah battery under a 20 amp load for 5hrs deliver the 100Ah to the load leaving the battery at 0% SOC or 100% DoD...... but after 400 cycles the chart says there was only 80% of the capacity remaining, so a 20 amp load would result in a fully discharged battery in 4hrs? So where does the 5 hrs become relevant.... unless the load is tapered through out the test to reflect the available capacity, start at 20% of the capacity as the load measured in amps (CA) and taper the load down to next to nothing as the remaining capacity becomes less and less, so only a 12 amp load when the battery dropped to 60% capacity? If it was to 0% capacity then how do you calculate 20% of 0, so I guess that is the end of the test, but with 10Ah remaining the load was 2 amps?

T1 Terry