EDF confirms funding for Sizewell C

[Mart]

Yep, the long range models, and performance models are sticking with Lithium ternary. Obviously for stationary batts, the size and weight are less important, or non important.

China owned the patents having bought them up from the USA and Canada. here's an article, but picked at random, there will most likely be better. :-

Why LFP batteries are poised to bring down entry-level EV prices

An older, cheaper and safer battery technology already dominating China’s electric vehicle industry is now poised to reshape battery manufacturing worldwide and boost EV sales in the United States — if the global lithium supply remains stable.

A slew of patents for lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) chemistries due to expire in 2022 could shift the face of battery production in the U.S. and Europe.

China has owned the market for nearly a decade due to an agreement with patent holders — a consortium of universities in the U.S. and Canada — that let Chinese manufacturers use them to supply local markets. Meanwhile, manufacturers outside China have focused on developing other lithium-ion chemistries to power their EVs because their higher energy density translates into longer range on the road.

[Oldgreybeard]

Yep, the long range models, and performance models are sticking with Lithium ternary. Obviously for stationary batts, the size and weight are less important, or non important.

That was my conclusion, LiFePO4 just wasn't worth the hassle for vehicles. Apart from the poor energy density, the other issue that bugged me was that the internal resistance of LiFePO4 varies far more than it does for LCO or NMC cells. After playing with the Headway LiFePO4 cells I reverted back to using LCO, really just because they were easier to use, even with the slightly higher risks involved in managing their charge and discharge.

I did look long and hard at importing a zinc bromide redox flow battery from Australia a few years ago, as a house battery (it was going to replace some very old NiFe cells I used to have). That deal didn't work out, for a host of reasons, mostly associated with the immature state of development.

As I've got older, my appetite for trying relatively risky new technology has diminished, something that my wife is overjoyed with. The LiFePO4 batteries we're running now have been easy to install and use, and over the nearly two years they've been in use have worked very well. Interestingly, the chap that bought my old (made in 1948) NiFe cells is still using them, and reckons they are every bit as good now as when they were originally made. They were originally fitted to a ground power pack for starting aircraft engines, so had a pretty hard life before the RAF disposed of them some time in the 1970's. They never missed a beat for all the years I used them, either. Not sure how many modern secondary batteries would still be working well after more than 70 years.

[Mart]

Yep, the long range models, and performance models are sticking with Lithium ternary. Obviously for stationary batts, the size and weight are less important, or non important.

That was my conclusion, LiFePO4 just wasn't worth the hassle for vehicles. Apart from the poor energy density, the other issue that bugged me was that the internal resistance of LiFePO4 varies far more than it does for LCO or NMC cells. After playing with the Headway LiFePO4 cells I reverted back to using LCO, really just because they were easier to use, even with the slightly higher risks involved in managing their charge and discharge.

I did look long and hard at importing a zinc bromide redox flow battery from Australia a few years ago, as a house battery (it was going to replace some very old NiFe cells I used to have). That deal didn't work out, for a host of reasons, mostly associated with the immature state of development.

As I've got older, my appetite for trying relatively risky new technology has diminished, something that my wife is overjoyed with. The LiFePO4 batteries we're running now have been easy to install and use, and over the nearly two years they've been in use have worked very well. Interestingly, the chap that bought my old (made in 1948) NiFe cells is still using them, and reckons they are every bit as good now as when they were originally made. They were originally fitted to a ground power pack for starting aircraft engines, so had a pretty hard life before the RAF disposed of them some time in the 1970's. They never missed a beat for all the years I used them, either. Not sure how many modern secondary batteries would still be working well after more than 70 years.

Wow, small world. I haven't been looking to import an Aussie batt, but have been eyeing up the kit for a few years and following the news. The residential flow batts are looking promising, but if LFP costs can fall (Wrights Law and falling costs of production, v's rising demand for the materials, and a 5(ish)yr potential lag in ramping up supplies) then that looks better, especially given the higher cycle warranty, v's Lithium ternary. I suppose at a residential level, the lower round trip cycle efficiency of flow batts makes a difference too.

Just remembered, another downside of the LFP's for Tesla (any manufacturer) is the lower power output. I completely agree that Tesla's have more than enough power and speed, but the shorter range MIC vehicles do have a slower 0-60mph time, as they can't kWh for kWh of battery, supply as much power. I think the standard range TM3 went from 4.8s to 5.6s (too lazy now to look it up, but something like that). hardly the end of the world, but a consideration none the less.

[Oldgreybeard]

As an aside, the reason I was ejected by (the late) Martin from the old forum was because at the time I was still running the NiFe cells. This caused him to go apoplectic with rage, and despite Heather's intervention he summarily ejected me . . .

[nowty]

Just remembered, another downside of the LFP's for Tesla (any manufacturer) is the lower power output. I completely agree that Tesla's have more than enough power and speed, but the shorter range MIC vehicles do have a slower 0-60mph time, as they can't kWh for kWh of battery, supply as much power. I think the standard range TM3 went from 4.8s to 5.6s (too lazy now to look it up, but something like that). hardly the end of the world, but a consideration none the less.

I don't think that's right at all, LFP support very high charge and discharge rates. With regard to the TM3, they reduce the performance to increase the range from a limited capacity battery.

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/b ... -batteries

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/b ... ithium-ion

[Adokforme]

X link is a ridiculous pipe dream and if you have invested your money is gone.

No investment in X-link, but at least we all had that choice.

[Oldgreybeard]

I don't think that's right at all, LFP support very high charge and discharge rates. With regard to the TM3, they reduce the performance to increase the range from a limited capacity battery.

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/b ... -batteries

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/b ... ithium-ion

My experience was that the internal resistance varied a great deal with LiFePO4, so they didn't work at all well when cold, for example. They didn't need to be particularly cold to start to sag under load, either, certainly not down to freezing temperatures. They also suffered from not accepting high charge current when cold, same cause, the internal resistance increasing.

A similar effect occurs with LCO cells, but to a very much lower degree. I didn't notice any significant related temperature issues with LCO, other than a bit of paranoia about making sure they didn't overheat, just on safety grounds. The LiFePO4 cells did warm up from cold quickly when discharged at a modest rate, maybe 2C or so, and the voltage sag then got far less severe. Mind you, the last time I played with LiFePO4 cells was with the batch of fifty 10Ah cells I bought back in 2004, and those cells were far less robust than the newer cells I think.

[Andy]

My experience was that the internal resistance varied a great deal with LiFePO4, so they didn't work at all well when cold, for example. They didn't need to be particularly cold to start to sag under load, either, certainly not down to freezing temperatures. They also suffered from not accepting high charge current when cold, same cause, the internal resistance increasing.

I'm building my power plant room at the moment. It's fully insulated with 100mm celotex left over from a previous project. The whole thing is one big celotex box with the door being the only break to the outside. Even that I am considering blocking with a celotex rectangle I pull behind me as I exit. . I'm hoping the inverter inefficiency will be enough to keep the temperature up for the batteries to be in their happy zone.

[Oldgreybeard]

Might need to provide cooling for the inverter with all that insulation, as they get pretty hot when running hard. I added an extractor fan to mine, as even with it in an uninsulated and shaded outbuilding it was regularly hitting 75 deg when charging. The batteries sit on the floor under the inverter and even in midwinter I've never seen them colder than about 8 deg.

[Ken]

https://www.caixinglobal.com/2022-10-25 ... 55814.html

This a much better prospect for utility storage , but then there is iron batts,air batts,flow batts ...... no shortage of batts actually being produced.

Its no good looking back, need to be looking 5yrs in the future.

PS and where do think our uranium comes from -Russia.