AlligatorHater
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Messages
- 4
Hello everyone!
I understand time is valuable; what follows immediately below is some background and framing for the central question- please feel free to skip to the bolded section for the elevator pitch version.
~
First time poster here. A quick thanks to members of this community and several others. Beginning my education in this field and stepping back in time these last weeks to posts made over a decade ago has been quite the experience. So many opinions, a few firsthand experiences, guiding voices, misguiding voices, people referring to themselves in the third person- an adventure in every thread! Hell of a ride.
So, I'm a young adult with an interest in what my future might hold, both as a homeowner and hobbyist. I've come to realize over this last while that every energy storage method comes at a price, with often price itself being the burden. However, until I own enough estate and capital to slap together a personal pumped-hydro reservoir... expectations need to be grounded.
I won't name names just yet, but of all the information still collating in my grey mush- I've definitely noticed a common theme of personal preference has immerged. I think it can be mostly succinctly summarized as a bias towards the type of mindset found in the "prepper" or "SHTF" communities. Specifically, the ever-elusive 30yr battery. With that bias declared, I'd like to ask the reader a possibly naive question, one which I have a genuine desire to dispel promptly if it has no merit.
In every debate about X chemistry vs Y- or how A option is antiquated and B is the superior choice- everyone references statistics or performance that I think is for the most part, realistic. People talk in terms of ~50% or more Depth of Discharge. Occasionally less but, still. Yet when I look at datasheets(not always the most truthful I know but, better than me guessing the performance, ignorant as I am at this stage) there's this bothersome trend- the same which arises during talks about the lifetime of a lead-acid configuration compared to its low buy-in, and again for when electrolyte needs to be replaced in certain batteries named after a famous scientist. Over and over this theme of battery lifetime being substantially modulated by its DoD springs up, both from user commentaries on their systems/experiences and the datasheets themselves.
For example, the estimated cycle count of a specific LiFePo4 battery is listed as rocketing up from ~8,000 @ 80% DoD to north of ~14,000 @ 50% DoD.
~
So then: if longevity is the goal- a system I can pass to my children, or one which would be viable for months/years through Ragnarok or whichever XYZ end-of-days scenario you fancy- if all that is the goal... What would be the critical vulnerabilities for very long-term use of an intentionally, drastically, oversized system? One which sees 10% DoD or less?
~
I'll narrow it down to LiFePo4 or NiFe chemistries, because the former I think is quite maintenance free(?) with the benefits of the Lithium family, doesn't wrestle with electrode carbonation issues or electrolyte changes(?) needing only very controlled charging. Then the latter type for antiquities sake.
My caveman brain sees 14,000 Cycles @ 50% DoD, a 20yr projection, and can't help but wonder what 10% would do. I imagine it's not quite so linear but. Regarding numbers, I've tallied the initial pricing considering what ranges of daily consumption I might expect across a variety of future homes, and have a grasp on the cost of such a massive generating capacity necessary for such a system. Heck if all this head bashing learning software engineering doesn't land me a gig somewhere in Silicon Valley that could reasonably fund this thing one day, then I guess I'm going about it all wrong anyways! ?
But such is my fundamental query at present- whether there exists some inherent inability for certain(any) chemistries to simply last decade after decade, regardless how minimal the depth of discharge per bank/unit/cell is made to be. I prefer to buy once and cry once, and though technology is changing every day, I think some years of saving up / planning to save now while I'm young is somewhat feasible, if the methodology is. Heck, looking at NiFe and its black sheep existence, I'm up for sourcing distilled water every decade if that's all it takes over many decades @ miniscule discharge depths. As well, I aware that self-discharge limits the existence of a perpetual energy vault. Hell, the panels and intermittent equipment could very well fail during that time too. But it would be comforting to know that with enough saving and intent, a generational power supply could be possible.
~
If you've made it this far, thank you for reading! I apologize for any scruples, quirks, and time-wasters here. Honestly all the information is still ricocheting around the inside of my skull. Need to take a few days and let it all solidify- but to sleep at night I need to silence the pestering voices in my head demanding whether hope for this alternative exists.
Be safe,
Alligator
I understand time is valuable; what follows immediately below is some background and framing for the central question- please feel free to skip to the bolded section for the elevator pitch version.
~
First time poster here. A quick thanks to members of this community and several others. Beginning my education in this field and stepping back in time these last weeks to posts made over a decade ago has been quite the experience. So many opinions, a few firsthand experiences, guiding voices, misguiding voices, people referring to themselves in the third person- an adventure in every thread! Hell of a ride.
So, I'm a young adult with an interest in what my future might hold, both as a homeowner and hobbyist. I've come to realize over this last while that every energy storage method comes at a price, with often price itself being the burden. However, until I own enough estate and capital to slap together a personal pumped-hydro reservoir... expectations need to be grounded.
I won't name names just yet, but of all the information still collating in my grey mush- I've definitely noticed a common theme of personal preference has immerged. I think it can be mostly succinctly summarized as a bias towards the type of mindset found in the "prepper" or "SHTF" communities. Specifically, the ever-elusive 30yr battery. With that bias declared, I'd like to ask the reader a possibly naive question, one which I have a genuine desire to dispel promptly if it has no merit.
In every debate about X chemistry vs Y- or how A option is antiquated and B is the superior choice- everyone references statistics or performance that I think is for the most part, realistic. People talk in terms of ~50% or more Depth of Discharge. Occasionally less but, still. Yet when I look at datasheets(not always the most truthful I know but, better than me guessing the performance, ignorant as I am at this stage) there's this bothersome trend- the same which arises during talks about the lifetime of a lead-acid configuration compared to its low buy-in, and again for when electrolyte needs to be replaced in certain batteries named after a famous scientist. Over and over this theme of battery lifetime being substantially modulated by its DoD springs up, both from user commentaries on their systems/experiences and the datasheets themselves.
For example, the estimated cycle count of a specific LiFePo4 battery is listed as rocketing up from ~8,000 @ 80% DoD to north of ~14,000 @ 50% DoD.
~
So then: if longevity is the goal- a system I can pass to my children, or one which would be viable for months/years through Ragnarok or whichever XYZ end-of-days scenario you fancy- if all that is the goal... What would be the critical vulnerabilities for very long-term use of an intentionally, drastically, oversized system? One which sees 10% DoD or less?
~
I'll narrow it down to LiFePo4 or NiFe chemistries, because the former I think is quite maintenance free(?) with the benefits of the Lithium family, doesn't wrestle with electrode carbonation issues or electrolyte changes(?) needing only very controlled charging. Then the latter type for antiquities sake.
My caveman brain sees 14,000 Cycles @ 50% DoD, a 20yr projection, and can't help but wonder what 10% would do. I imagine it's not quite so linear but. Regarding numbers, I've tallied the initial pricing considering what ranges of daily consumption I might expect across a variety of future homes, and have a grasp on the cost of such a massive generating capacity necessary for such a system. Heck if all this head bashing learning software engineering doesn't land me a gig somewhere in Silicon Valley that could reasonably fund this thing one day, then I guess I'm going about it all wrong anyways! ?
But such is my fundamental query at present- whether there exists some inherent inability for certain(any) chemistries to simply last decade after decade, regardless how minimal the depth of discharge per bank/unit/cell is made to be. I prefer to buy once and cry once, and though technology is changing every day, I think some years of saving up / planning to save now while I'm young is somewhat feasible, if the methodology is. Heck, looking at NiFe and its black sheep existence, I'm up for sourcing distilled water every decade if that's all it takes over many decades @ miniscule discharge depths. As well, I aware that self-discharge limits the existence of a perpetual energy vault. Hell, the panels and intermittent equipment could very well fail during that time too. But it would be comforting to know that with enough saving and intent, a generational power supply could be possible.
~
If you've made it this far, thank you for reading! I apologize for any scruples, quirks, and time-wasters here. Honestly all the information is still ricocheting around the inside of my skull. Need to take a few days and let it all solidify- but to sleep at night I need to silence the pestering voices in my head demanding whether hope for this alternative exists.
Be safe,
Alligator
Last edited:
