Lithium Ion Batteries

Depends on what you need.

LiPo is awesome for high-cycle, hi-current devices. They're light, powerful and discharge incredibly strong (15C-20C is average). They do require special charging, handling and can't be allowed to completely discharge like nicads.

CPseudonym said:

I would choose something else for the cordless tools you mentioned. NiCad.

I would not and will not own lithium battery operated tools. Stupidly expensive for no benefit real or perceived. The folks that expound their virtues in the tool application, and there are plenty of them, seldom use them professionally. If they do they are maintenance personnel or homeowners looking for a cool toy. Hardly what I would call rugged field use.

Ryobi makes the most cost efficient tool in the category and their NiCad batteries can be replaced with new when needed for less than $30/pair in 18 volt.

Click to expand...

Well, your response makes me hesitate to disagree with you because you are implying that I am stupid for buying/using them. That's one of the mindsets that makes participation in the forum unpleasant at times.

I would not and will not own lithium battery operated tools.

Click to expand...

You are backing yourself into a corner here. There may come a time when the best (or only) tools for the job are lithium battery operated. What will you do then, go back to corded tools? Brace and bit?

I bought this set last year. The power is AMAZING! They rival anything that a corded tool can do and are MUCH stronger than anything NiCd or NiMh. Got it for $100 off and an extra battery to boot.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planes

Chevy Volt Fire Prompts Federal Investigation Into Lithium-Ion Batteries - NYTimes.com

Cars


BoatUS: Seaworthy Jan '12

Boats

Thanks SDC for the links.

SanDiegoCaptains said:

Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planes

Chevy Volt Fire Prompts Federal Investigation Into Lithium-Ion Batteries - NYTimes.com

Cars


BoatUS: Seaworthy Jan '12

Boats

Click to expand...

I'm guessing your not pro lithium. Even though the thread is labeled lithium ion, we all know that isn't the chemistry of the cells we would use as house banks. LiFePO4 do not have the thermal issues of lithium ion, and due to very low voltage sag under heavy discharge, makes for a perfect battery for inverter loads.

Its not the type of the battery,its about charging and how deep you will run the battery.Its to risky and to complicated.

DEEP CYCLE BATTERY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS


Shallower the average depth-of-discharge (DoD), increases the battery life. For example, a battery with an average of 50% DoD will last twice as long or more as an 80% DoD; a 20% DoD battery will last five times longer than a 50% DoD. For example, golf cart batteries will average 225 cycles at 80% DoD and increase to 750 cycles at 50% DoD. Try to avoid DoD that is less than 10% or greater than 80%. Industrial traction and stationary deep cycle batteries are designed for 80% DoD and most marine an RV deep cycle batteries are designed for 50% DoD.........

Starting (Used as a deep cycle)
0 to 12 months
Marine
to 6 years
Golf Cart
to 6 years
Gelled Deep Cycle
to 8 years
AGM
to 10 years
Ni-Cad
to 10 years
Telecommunications (Float)
to 10 years
Fork Lift
to 10 years
Industrial (Traction)
to 20 years
Industrial (Stationary)
to 20 years
Ni-Fe
to 20 years

deckofficer said:

I'm guessing your not pro lithium. Even though the thread is labeled lithium ion, we all know that isn't the chemistry of the cells we would use as house banks. LiFePO4 do not have the thermal issues of lithium ion, and due to very low voltage sag under heavy discharge, makes for a perfect battery for inverter loads.

Click to expand...

I just do not see the reason to spend so much money for batteries.On cruising sailboats that use 25 to 35 amp/h we can get easy 6 to 8 years per battery bank with AGM batteries.
3 X 7 AMP solars and Superwind 350 wind generator,Hawaii to Sydney with 15 gall of diesel.

http://genasun.com/products-store/lithium-battery-systems/

$ 6 400.00 per battery and $ 9000.00 for hydrogenerator, for VOR boats make sense

SanDiegoCaptains said:

I just do not see the reason to spend so much money for batteries.On cruising sailboats that use 25 to 35 amp/h we can get easy 6 to 8 years per battery bank with AGM batteries.
3 X 7 AMP solars and Superwind 350 wind generator,Hawaii to Sydney with 15 gall of diesel.

Lithium Battery Systems | Genasun

$ 6 400.00 per battery and $ 9000.00 for hydrogenerator, for VOR boats make sense

Click to expand...

At those prices I agree with you. But for less than $4500 I can assemble a 48 volt (52 volt) 700 a-hr bank (36.4 KW-hr), that will run A/C, electric galley through an inverter plus give 60 nm range of electric propulsion. Check the price per 700 a-hr cell > Balqon - Advanced Transportation Solution and each cell is a very manageable 47 lbs. Life is good in the LiFePO4 camp. I was an early adopter for marine use because I also build EVs, but check out this thread on the Cruiser's Forum and you will see I have a lot of company. 173 page thread with 2500+ posts all on LiFePO4 cells. LiFePO4 Batteries: Discussion Thread for Those Using Them as House Banks - Page 173 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

I really like the idea of these batteries diva.net 4500 dollars the prices are ridiculous my thought is much better to spend money on solar panels

To me it's still a simple business decision. The cost doesn't outweigh the benefit. I can change my lead acid batteries every couple hundred cycles and even pay someone else to do it MUCH cheaper than buying a single implementation of Lithium based batteries.

SomeSailor said:

To me it's still a simple business decision. The cost doesn't outweigh the benefit. I can change my lead acid batteries every couple hundred cycles and even pay someone else to do it MUCH cheaper than buying a single implementation of Lithium based batteries.

Click to expand...

Stop using common sense and let us play with our toys!

motion30 said:

I really like the idea of these batteries diva.net 4500 dollars the prices are ridiculous my thought is much better to spend money on solar panels

Click to expand...

Since I quoted $4500, I guess you mean my cell's prices are ridiculous?

Did you consider the size of my bank? In 12 volt battery terms that would be (28) 100 a-hr 12 volt batteries. Take that $4500 and divide by 28 for a battery with 7 times the cycle life. It is a bargain.

deckofficer said:

Take that $4500 and divide by 28 for a battery with 7 times the cycle life. It is a bargain.

Click to expand...

It is if you need that sort of amperage, plus you'd really be racking up cycles. Ironically, I'm at IHOP across the street from Pacific Power Batteries. Just bought 8 T145 Trojans for $165 each so my whole house bank was only $1400 or so after tax. Now if they would delivery them to my engine room and haul away the old...

Wait. somebody's correct me if I'm wrong 100 anp. 3.2 volt.cells
. X 4. ... ,still.only 100 amp.at 12.volt

motion30 said:

Wait. somebody's correct me if I'm wrong 100 anp. 3.2 volt.cells
. X 4. ... ,still.only 100 amp.at 12.volt

Click to expand...

Those were for the kayak, (8) 100 a-hr cells, or (2) 12 volt 100 a-hr batteries.

The above post was for (16) 700 a-hr cells or (1) 48 volt 700 a-hr bank.

I've learned it's never a good cost/benefit case when you're jumping to new technology.

To justify it, you have to assume that the early model you're buying is going to last the entire payback period. When that period is very long (5-10 years or more) then you have two issues. One is that they may not last that long. What if there was some hidden manufacturing defect that won't be corrected until the technology matures?

Second, your brand-new technology will be hopelessly obsolete in 5-10 years. Obviously if you made a good decision for your application, and nothing changes in that time, and you're NOT the kind of person who wants the latest technology, your business case may still stand. But it's quite a gamble.

I jumped on the CFL bandwagon early and bought light bulbs that would pay for themselves in just 10 years (or something like that.) Here I am a few years later, replacing them with newer models that put out more and better light, take less time to come on, and aren't dim for the first 10 minutes like those original models. I have no intention of living with those crappy old bulbs until they pay for themselves. Oh, and the new ones don't cost much more than the old incandescents.

"Oh, and the new ones don't cost much more than the old incandescent".

So the best saving might have been a draw full of incandescent.

New unproven tech is for the chest pounding "first adapters" , with a draw full of unwanted currency , that wish to strut the dock touting their greenness..

Anybody want an all electric car from another bankrupt car assembler??

Some slightly used Boeing batt packs?

CaptTom said:

....................I jumped on the CFL bandwagon early and bought light bulbs that would pay for themselves in just 10 years (or something like that.) Here I am a few years later, replacing them with newer models that put out more and better light, take less time to come on, and aren't dim for the first 10 minutes like those original models. I have no intention of living with those crappy old bulbs until they pay for themselves. Oh, and the new ones don't cost much more than the old incandescents.

Click to expand...

You too, ehh? I got tired of waiting two or three minutes for light after flipping the switch. And ended up stubbing my toes and crashing into things.

I also have two of the early US Congress mandated low water use toilets at home that as often as not, clog when attempting to flush a #2.

CaptTom said:

I've learned it's never a good cost/benefit case when you're jumping to new technology.

Click to expand...

That's not true. I am a project manager at Boeing and everything I do is funded with IR&D (Integrated Research & Development) money. I don't need a business case at all. I only have to identify a legitimate technology need or a market gap in technology to proceed through discovery and feasibility studies.

All of this good stuff (I'll use the 787 as an example) was a great technology bet that had little (if any) business case. You just have to have a keen sense of the difference between invention and innovation. First to market innovation can build a business case where there is none currently.

Lithium batteries, onboard oxygen generation, self inerting fuel tank, electric brakes, heads up displays, full carbon wing and fuselage, full time data connectivity, onboard aircraft health management, active dimming windows, LED interior lighting, RFID tagging of LRUs, paperless cockpit, elimination of engine bleed for start and cooling, decreased cabin pressure, wireless tire pressure monitoring, synthetic vision, glidepath optimization, airport position awareness, and many more are examples of things that didn't have much (if any) business case at the time, but is at the heart of why so many people want this airplane.

Nothing wrong with innovation, but that bleeding edge can be a lonely place. Especially if it's misplaced technology. My batteries work just fine, and no new battery technology is probably gonna improve that enough for me to jump on just yet.

MurrayM said:

Resale? Nope, no way. I'm a one boat kinda guy! Been using the same camera, lenses, tripod, and spot meter I bought 30 years ago and never needed to buy more gear. One girlfriend/common law wife for 28 years too. Man, I'm on a roll

Click to expand...

Need pictures of the camera gear.

MurrayM said:

Resale? Nope, no way. I'm a one boat kinda guy! Been using the same camera, lenses, tripod, and spot meter I bought 30 years ago and never needed to buy more gear. One girlfriend/common law wife for 28 years too. Man, I'm on a roll

Click to expand...

It's good that you can also see the future. Know that your boat will never be wrecked or sunk. Know that you will never forced to move far from the water (job, family, etc.), know that you have enough years of healthy life in front of you to enjoy those high priced batteries.

Any person who states that they will "always" or "never" do something just isn't thinking clearly.

As for the camera, those film cameras were cool, what with the detachable flash and interchangeable lenses, but digital photography and computer manipulation are far in advance of what could be done 30 years ago.

rwidman said:

It's good that you can also see the future. Know that your boat will never be wrecked or sunk. Know that you will never forced to move far from the water (job, family, etc.), know that you have enough years of healthy life in front of you to enjoy those high priced batteries.

Any person who states that they will "always" or "never" do something just isn't thinking clearly.

Click to expand...

Silly me. I forgot the little blue dude "I'm joking around here taking things to the extreme for the halibut" winky face

Oh, and again, I'm not buying these batteries ( )

rwidman said:

As for the camera, those film cameras were cool, what with the detachable flash and interchangeable lenses, but digital photography and computer manipulation are far in advance of what could be done 30 years ago.

Click to expand...

Get your nose inches away from a 20x24 print of mine made from a 4x5 negative, and the skies / clouds are buttery smoooooth. Match that.

alormaria said:

Need pictures of the camera gear.

Click to expand...

Weird, as I have a digi-snapshot camera, but I've never taken a photo of my gear with it. Here's a shot I poached off the web. (For those who are into large format gear, I have an early Zone VI 4x5 camera outfit).

I used to have a Linhof 4X5 sheet film camera. I was an early adopter of CFL because at the time 25 years ago I was designing off grid power for remote home sites. When you have to roll your own power and store it, a bulb that gives 5X the lumens per given watt is the way to go.

If I used LA batteries for my kayak that would give 80 nm range, the weight would sink it. For a catamaran sailboat weight is also an issue, and if you want electric propulsion with good range, the the only option is lithium.

deckofficer said:

For a catamaran sailboat weight is also an issue, and if you want electric propulsion with good range, the the only option is lithium.

Click to expand...

For a trawler though (37,400# worth) the extra battery weight is not an issue, and electric propulsion isn't an option... then LA is still the best solution.

SomeSailor said:

For a trawler though (37,400# worth) the extra battery weight is not an issue, and electric propulsion isn't an option... then LA is still the best solution.

Click to expand...

Some trawlers give you that option. The PDQ 34 at 15,000 lbs displacement can cover 1 nm @ 4 kt and only use 600 w-hr. If your not in a hurry, why not cruise at 4 kt? A 75 KW-hr lithium bank would give a range of 100 nm to 80% DOD, at which point you could spend a day at a marina and recharge or have enough solar panels to recharge in a week on the hook in some pristine anchorage.

deckofficer said:

I used to have a Linhof 4X5 sheet film camera.

Click to expand...

Them's nice for sure, but I opted for a field camera for hiking and sea kayaking (see avatar).

deckofficer said:

Some trawlers give you that option. The PDQ 34 at 15,000 lbs displacement can cover 1 nm @ 4 kt and only use 600 w-hr.

Click to expand...

First of all, I'm closer to 3 times that than 2 all up, and I'm starting to be skeptical about your numbers

Given your claim of .6KWH(and 1 kW = 1.341 HP)

You'd only need only: 0.8 HP

Just tear out your motors and install a Honda EU1000.

Not quite. If 600 w-hr per nm, and your travelling at 4 kt, then that is 2400 watts / 746 = 3.2 hp.

Still kind of hard to believe you could push a trawler at 4kts for only 3.2HP. Wouldn't do you much good if you ever had a current to deal with.