3 ms·
If you want a battery that will last a really long time, nickel-iron batteries already do that. They have 50+ year life spans and are incredibly robust. And if
by AngryData 2y ago
If you want a battery that will last a really long time, nickel-iron batteries already do that. They have 50+ year life spans and are incredibly robust. And if you care about recycling, well its just nickel and iron. The nickel you obviously would want back, but the iron is worth almost nothing.
Until we can surpass current lithium batteries in energy density, cycle stability, and safety all at once, iron-nickel is more than good enough to be used in any application where current lithium tech struggles, and will outlive you along with being infinitely recyclable and basically as safe as any battery ever could be.
- adrian_b 2y agoNickel-iron batteries self-discharge quickly, so they are not suitable for long-term energy storage.
- tryptophan 2y ago1% per day which is the number I found doesn't seem terrible for solar type systems.
- nine_k 2y agoThis may be an issue for very small draws, like a TV remote. This can be moot in situations of constant recharge and only staying without any recharge for 2-3 days, rarely, like in utility-scale renewable generation (solar, wind). They seem to cost much more per kWh than LiFePO4 batteries though.
- userbinator 2y agoThey have 50+ year life spans Exactly the sort of thing the planned-obsolescence cartel doesn't want.
- ErigmolCt 2y agoThe real challenge is finding a chemistry that balances density, stability and sustainability without major compromises
- pjc50 2y agoThese have been around for a while. I remember the Center For Alternative Technology in Wales was using them for their solar array, twenty years ago. However, all the more recent deployments are using lithium based cells. I'm guessing the weight (energy density) issue matters for overall costs because of shipping?