|
The initial cost of any Li-on is certainly going to be higher than
lead-acid, but the lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) has such a longer life span
both in charging cycles and calendar time (shelf life) that it should
more than offset the initial cost. Still, there is a time lag before you
hit that point.
I would think there are also significant advantages in weight, volume, and
flexibility in location. The biggest negative with Li-on other than
initial cost has always been the thermal issue. The LFP's solve that but
at some sacrifice of energy density. It's very likely that a
substitute for iron that will increase energy density will be available
before long. Sadly, it doesn't appear that a substitute for money will be
forthcoming.
For a vessel that initially will be powered by lead-acid, It might be
a good idea during the design phase to provide for a possible
conversion to newer battery technology at some point in the future (weight,
balance, etc.).
Jim T
In a message dated 6/3/2011 8:47:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
jonw@psubs.org writes:
Hi Alan, |