LiFePO4 vs FLA - The Real Deal

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

So nobody ever runs the holding plate refrigeration, freezer, instruments, 12 or 24 volt watermaker etc, while running the engine?


That's pretty simple stuff too.

Yes they do, but the vessel systems you are referring would draw far more than the 100 A-hr per day vessel system example I am referring to.

Of course if one increases the daily consumption from 100 A-hrs to 200 A-hrs with all of those systems, they would have to increase their storage and charging capacities (either tech.)

As I indicated in a previous post, the ratios of storage and charging sources is per 100 A-hrs of average daily demand. If one increases the average daily demand, they must obviously increase the storage and charging capacity.

For a typical 100 A-hr average daily consumption, the average hourly consumption is 4 A-hrs.

If one has an 80 A alternator, 4 A-hrs goes to loads (average) and 76 A-hrs is available for charging.

Simple stuff.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Paul L

But that isn't the lithium battery chemistry that most people are using.

maybe, but I am using it on purpose, and I am happy with it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Yes they do, but the vessel systems you are referring would draw far more than the 100 A-hr per day vessel system example I am referring to.

For a typical 100 A-hr average daily consumption, the average hourly consumption is 4 A-hrs.

If one has an 80 A alternator, 4 A-hrs goes to loads (average) and 76 A-hrs is available for charging.

Simple stuff.

The vessel systems lets see we will use my Spencer for example . It has a holding plate refrigeration system which uses average 35ah. A watermaker that uses 4ah and is run about 6 hours a week. All of the instrumentation and systems running I saw an average of less than 50ah per day.

I said on a boat not wanting to run engines. Your scenarios require at least 4 hours daily running of the engine driven alternator to recharge your 100ah use to the point that solar can top it. With Fla.
Even with engine charging I could run the engine 1 hour in the morning and guarantee full charge of the used 100ah by mid day with Lfp. .
Now here is another Cavite ( keeping it simple ) 100ah Lfp 200 watts solar. Running the 80amp alternator for one hour. 75ah in 3 hours of solar and the bank is fully charged. Now the 10ah of solar is available to run the systems. So I run the refrigerator holding plates. 0 battery power used run watermaker no battery power used. Now with Lfp I am actually cutting my battery power usage by at least 40% by using solar to run systems after battery is fully charged. ( more likely 60% with a properly sized and operated holding plate system.)
now your Fla are having to provide the full 100ah daily however my Lfp are using less than half that. Thereby using both banks I am using 40ah battery and you are using 100ah battery. Now by having a bank that is half the ah capacity I actually have more usable power days available.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Reference the lead / Lithium hybrid.
I supposed the idea is use the Lithium’s better charge abilities and then discharge them into the lead so as to maintain a safety buffer if you will?
So do you charge them both when charging? If so then you only need enough lithium to cover both house loads and 15% of the leads capacity so that when discharged to a comfortable level the lead is 100%?
Run off of the lead until 50%, then crank the generator and charge both lead and Lithium?
I don’t see what that won’t work?

Indeed, you could do it that way -- store most of your power in the lead, and use a small lithium bank to provide the finishing charge to the lead. It would dramatically improve the performance of the lead bank and might be worth the complexity. But a small lithium bank which is not connected to any loads except a B2B charger charging the lead, would not actually be very complex and not even very expensive. This could be a great idea. You would not get the high charge acceptance rate of lithium but you might not really need that so much, and what you do get is the cheaper storage per amp/hour which you can get from golf cart batteries.


The lithium could be scaled up to whatever, and it will be providing power besides the finishing charge.



For some practical applications it might make sense to just split the storage between one lithium bank and one lead one. If someone is adding lithium to a boat built for a lead bank (or two, like mine), then this might make for an especially simple installation, and you can add a separate large charger to whatever you already have, in order to use more of the available charge acceptance rate.



The various levels of complexity required for such a system will not be worth it for many cruiser, but there are some use cases which will surely benefit greatly from such a system.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The vessel systems lets see we will use my Spencer for example .

Please, show proper forum decorum.

I am trying to be polite to you, I expect the same in return.

I do know what to expect for cruising sailboat daily consumption on average.

As I have stated previously, it is necessary to perform an energy analysis to best determine how to balance the energy demand with storage and charge capacity needs.

Any particular vessel may deviate from norms for any number of reasons.

For discussion purposes, I have been using numbers consistent with an average 35 foot cruising sailboat.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Please, show proper forum decorum.

I am trying to be polite to you, I expect the same in return.

I do know what to expect for cruising sailboat daily consumption on average.

Any particular vessel may deviate from norms for any number of reasons.

I'm sorry for being blunt.
Here is the base fact for some boats Lfp would make little sense. Those are the ones that rarely if ever leave the dock or that dock daily or every 2 or 3 days where shore power can charge the batteries . many cruisers don't touch docks for weeks at a time . I for one don't want to dock just to purchase fuel to charge my batteries. I also don't want to clutter my decks with fuel cans when on long passages just to charge my Fla batteries.
Another aside is that Lfp would many times not be worth the extra initial cost on most power cruisers due to them running their engines many hours a day as a matter of course.
( if you having noticed 9o% of the posters on this thread are sailboat owners.)
If as you say you do know what to expect from cruising sailboats why are your estimates so off and misguided?

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The premise of this thread ignores the great differences between different cruisers' use cases, and seems to want to say that there is only one right choice, which only smart people see.

No.

The premise of this thread is to identify that a lot of people believe or promote that certain "features" of LiFePO4 always translate into significant "benefits" over other technology for all use cases.

I am merely trying to demonstrate that this is not so.

When I consult an individual boater, we review their very specific use case.

I provide various solution options at different price points, and provide truthful and accurate information regarding the pros and cons of each solution so that they can make an educated decision.

I do not promote the "features" listed on the product manufacturers colour brochure, that are not likely to be realized as "benefits" in their particular use case.

I concur that for some with a high energy demand and would prefer to charge by ICE as opposed to wind and solar, a large generator or high output alternator and LiFePO4 may be a valid option.

For the average cruising sailor, who would prefer to charge by wind and/or solar, a LifePO4 bank is still an option, but other options likely represent far better value for money.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

No.

The premise of this thread is to identify that a lot of people believe or promote that certain "features" of LiFePO4 always translate into significant "benefits" over other technology for all use cases.

I am merely trying to demonstrate that this is not so.

When I consult an individual boater, we review their very specific use case.

I provide various solution options at different price points, and provide truthful and accurate information regarding the pros and cons of each solution so that they can make an educated decision.

I do not promote the "features" listed on the product manufacturers colour brochure, that are not likely to be realized as "benefits" in their particular use case.

I concur that for some with a high energy demand and would prefer to charge by ICE as opposed to wind and solar, a large generator or high output alternator and LiFePO4 may be a valid option.

For the average cruising sailor, who would prefer to charge by wind and/or solar, a LifePO4 bank is still an option, but other options likely represent far better value for money.

I would guess there are very few cruisers on Lake Ontario or the other Great lakes for that matter who would be able to reap the benefits of LiFePO4 batteries.

It would be normal for a marine service provider based on the Great Lakes to see very few or perhaps never even see let alone install a LiFePO4 system. Also, a marine service provider based there would have a skewed view of the real world requirements of cruisers who sail a larger pond.

I have no doubts as to your experience in FLA installations. But please do take a moment and describe your experienced in installing LiFePO4 batteries on your own boat and on the boats of your customers.

How many LiFePO4 systems have you installed? How Many LiFePO4 systems have you worked on? Or is your knowledge based on theory rather than experience?

I can only presume that your answer is none and that your opinion of LiFePO4 systems is based on the "features" listed on the product manufacturers colour brochure.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I'm sorry for being blunt.

I know blunt.

Your posts are beyond blunt; I believe they are purposefully insulting and inflammatory.

Here is the base fact for some boats Lfp would make little sense.

Those are the ones that rarely if ever leave the dock or that dock daily or every 2 or 3 days where shore power can charge the batteries .

I concur in most cases, though not just limited to this set.

Many cruisers don't touch docks for weeks at a time.

I don't agree with this.

The vast majority of cruising sailboats are not owned by full time cruisers, and are on a dock (with shore power available) most of the time.

Some full time cruisers marina hop and rarely anchor out.

Most full time cruisers are connected to shore power, at least once per week, and sometimes for longer stretches.

Commuter cruisers may be any combination of shore power use while cruising, and full time float while away.

There are relatively few cruising sailboats that are rarely connected to shore power.

I for one don't want to dock just to purchase fuel to charge my batteries.

Few would.

Some cruisers may dock to adventure ashore, work, visit friends or relatives, provision, fill the water tanks, etc. While at it, they will likely get fuel if they need to.

I also don't want to clutter my decks with fuel cans when on long passages just to charge my Fla batteries.

If ICE is required to charge the battery bank, either they don't have wind and/or solar by choice, or it is undersized for their needs. The battery technology used has little to no bearing on whether ICE charging is required.

If as you say you do know what to expect from cruising sailboats why are your estimates so off and misguided?

They aren't. They are very accurate and reasonable based on the average use case I encounter.

Specific use case may differ, but in my experience far fewer are as unique as they wish to believe.

[CatNewBee]

I agree, LFP is not for everybody.
It is an elite system, that stands out in any matter, it is like a Porsche compared to a VW Beetle, It is fast, adorable, outperforms the Beetle on any race track and trafic light, it is engineered to maximize stability on the road, curve the race track and bring the kids to school.

The Beetle is designed to be cheap and easy to maintain, many people are happy with it. Thats OK, I like the Porsche and do value the extra power and enigineering ingenuity. Dont get me wrong, this are just contrary design goals, both are very successfull designs.

Anyway, for a flower power greenie, there is nothing that compares to a rusty hand painted VW Beetle, and they are religious about it. They would never understand the difference thet a Porsche makes, even it is a evolution product by the same designer, Ferdinand Porsche.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

.



If ICE is required to charge the battery bank, either they don't have wind and/or solar by choice, or it is undersized for their needs. The battery technology used has little to no bearing on whether ICE charging is required .

this contradicts your own statements concerning using the iron wind to do an 80% capacity recharge then allow solar to top it off .

The battery tech has a lot to do with acceptance rates .
You recommended 200 watts solar 200 watts wind and an 80 amp alternator per 100ah of battery.
With Lfp I can effectively remove the iron wind from the equation for my sailboat customers.
With power boat customers I would rather not install Lfp unless they are insistent .

[evm1024]

Just to be clear I am not trying to put any poster on the spot. And I am asking nicely.

If I were going to contract out for work on my boat I would check the references of the vendors and see if they had done the type of work I wanted done before. And I would want to talk to their customers to see how those projects turned out.

If I were going to pay for a LiFePO4 install I would have no problem with Mainesail or Bruce Schwab doing it due to their known significant experience with LiFePO4.

Likewise, opinions here on CF are just that, opinions. The opinions of Mainesail and Bruce carry a lot of weight. Again, due to their well known experience. Others opinions need to be evaluated and an estimate made of how valid those opinions are.

Thus my asking for a specific poster (or any poster for that matter) for their experience in the topic that they are giving an opinion on is just a normal way to allow me to form an estimate of the value of their opinion. Nothing insulting there. At least no insult intended.

Inquiring minds want to know!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Just to be clear I am not trying to put any poster on the spot. And I am asking nicely.

If I were going to contract out for work on my boat I would check the references of the vendors and see if they had done the type of work I wanted done before. And I would want to talk to their customers to see how those projects turned out.

If I were going to pay for a LiFePO4 install I would have no problem with Mainesail or Bruce Schwab doing it due to their known significant experience with LiFePO4.

Likewise, opinions here on CF are just that, opinions. The opinions of Mainesail and Bruce carry a lot of weight. Again, due to their well known experience. Others opinions need to be evaluated and an estimate made of how valid those opinions are.

Thus my asking for a specific poster (or any poster for that matter) for their experience in the topic that they are giving an opinion on is just a normal way to allow me to form an estimate of the value of their opinion. Nothing insulting there. At least no insult intended.

Inquiring minds want to know!

I for one would actually want you to talk to several of my customers and see the work I had done prior to me even giving my input as to what you wanted accomplished.
Since I don't advertise or even do work on vessels anymore that aren't refered to me by one of my current customers . This is really simple

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by evm1024

How many LiFePO4 systems have you installed?

My customers range from local PHRF club racers to world cruisers and everything in between.

Approximately 50% of my customer base are part-time cruisers in Lake Ontario, ranging from marina hoppers to those who swing on the hook for weeks and months at a time.

The truth is, I have yet to encounter a use case where LiFePO4 was a better, economically justifiable solution over FLA.

I'm sure it will happen someday, and when it does, I will recommend a LiFePO4 solution.

I haven't installed LiFePO4 on my boat because even though I am outfitting it for full time cruising, based on my education, experience, and research, I realize that my needs will be adequately served with FLA batteries, and the actual limited benefits I will realize as a result of selecting LiFePO4 instead, simply aren't worth the additional money.

If I can't justify the cost of LiFePO4 to myself, I surely can't justify the cost to my customers with similar needs, unless I was some kind of con man salesman, which I am not.

I could install LiFePO4 on my boat, use it as a tax write-off, sell it to customers who won't really benefit from it, and make a boat load of money at their expense.

I could also do it to show others I'm cool because I have the latest technology on my boat.

I don't operate that way.

I want my boat and my customer boats to serve the owners cruising needs efficiently and affordably.

FLA will do this.

At least at present, LiFePO4 won't.

It is far too expensive for what little real benefit can be realized by most cruising sailors.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I for one would actually want you to talk to several of my customers and see the work I had done prior to me even giving my input as to what you wanted accomplished.
Since I don't advertise or even do work on vessels anymore that aren't refered to me by one of my current customers . This is really simple

Is this one of your water maker installations?

Cruisers & Sailing Forums - newhaul's Album: Watermaker install - Picture