3 ms·
Just looking at table 2 from the article you link, it looks like lithium ion has the following advantages over lead acid for this application: * Greater energy
by bunderbunder 13y ago
Just looking at table 2 from the article you link, it looks like lithium ion has the following advantages over lead acid for this application:
* Greater energy density, which means you need to carve less space out of your existing floor plan to make room for batteries.
* About twice the cycle life, so batteries need replacement less often.
* Can discharge more deeply without harming cycle life, so for applications where discharging happens frequently that means either the effective energy density or the effective cycle life is even greater.
* Better efficiency for <24h charge-discharge cycles.
These are all things that are more advantageous in this kind of application, where you can expect to see a lot of repeated cycling during hot summer months. For a telco application, where you're presumably only expecting infrequent use during occasional power outages, they'd be of negligible value.
Keep on reading to figures 5 and 6, where they look in more detail at cycle life, and the lead acid batteries start to look like a straight-up bad choice for this kind of application.
- wpietri 13y agoOops, I read the first table wrong. You're exactly correct on the deep discharge stuff. Thanks!
- avoid3d 13y agoThat still feels iffy to me. Do you agree that lead acid would be the better choice if it was vastly less expensive? Remember that the deep cycle thing can be counteracted by installing twice the number of batteries. I think that maybe power density (as opposed to energy density) is the problem here anyway, rendering the discharge depth argument moot.