Nickel Iron vs. Lead Acid - Off Grid battery debate

[Sundetective]

<snip> However, if I was someone just starting a solar electric system, I would probably go with them. Then hope that 12.5 years or so later a newer, better battery system is not developed, and I am stuck with it for another 12.5 years.

Moguitar, Does this mean that you would hope to get 25 years of service out of the Chinese
Ni-Fe Batteries?

How far down would you plan on discharging the cells most of the time.
Did you look into the suggested charging rate yet.
Also who and when the charging rate (or rates) were suggested.

As far as charging efficiency goes do you feel that the DOD will make a dramatic difference
when comparing the Net results between Ni-Fe and Lead Acid.

I'm starting to wonder about using the low battery discharge scheme (in many cases)
more and more this year.
Of course with Ni-Fe you pay dearly not only at the high end of the charging scale
but also when charging at 50% DOD (or so) and below.

The charging of the Ni-Fe cells becomes less and less efficient as you drop the SOC (state of charge)
below a certain point according to Changhong Batteries that builds them.

Of coarse China can't match that old Mercury magic any longer.
The using of Mercury was long lived and a huge deal for Edison.
He made no secret of it.
I don't cherry pick his words. Quote and believe this one - but wait - don't believe that one.
Naaaahhh.
Until proven otherwise I believe he learned more as he went along just like we do.

People talk about experience.
Changhong and Edison both had plenty of millions of dollars worth
of experience and usually had a good reason to tell anybody anything.
A lot of kindness of the heart doesn't seem to have EVER been a big part of it.
Some Ni-Fe knowledge (that a regular person could use) is being reversed rather
than being expanded upon. Old Bill tries to store a tad of it.

You pushed the thread past 22,000 views.


Bill Blake

[moguitar]

Got some info from IE.com

I had emailed http://www.ironedison.com again on the maintenance and sizing compared to lead acid. I was told they need to be in vented containers/areas like the lead acid, also giving off hydrogen gas. They need distilled water added about half as often as lead acid, but I don't know about the quantity difference. In sizing, the AH of the nickel iron batteries they sell can be about 58% of the same requirements for lead acid like my L16Ss.
Too bad I can not re-size my battery cabinets for the larger area needed by changing to nickel iron batteries. However, if I was someone just starting a solar electric system, I would probably go with them. Then hope that 12.5 years or so later a newer, better battery system is not developed, and I am stuck with it for another 12.5 years.
Right now, I am hoping for a smaller compatible long lasting battery to replace the L16Ss. The others in the possible forecast look like they would need a whole different charge controller at the minimum, but maybe maintenance free. Cost comparison is important and unknown.

[russ]

Robert - Not to worry - your discussion, points and questions are quite right.

The constant beating on one company, even if deserved, are tiresome and do nothing.

[Robert1234]

Sounds like you don't need any more info from me, Mr. Edison or anyone else.
You can leave me out and tell everybody (who will listen) how Edison and his teams didn't really know about the Edison batteries -
but you do.
Bill Blake

Wow... That was quite a sour response. I simply asked for current data and for people with experience to join in. I tried to move us forward in the discussion without ruffling feathers too much. Quess that didn't work out so well. I apologize if you took offense.

The Ni-Fe batteries aren't all THAT bad (even the Chinese forms) or the technology wouldn't still be in production 100 years later. The market would see to that. You may not like a vendor or two, but in my opinion to discredit a technology's ability to serve the solar folks without solid research would be just downright foolish. Are there issues that concern me? Absolutely yes, but the discussion here into what really concerns me about this technology never got that far.

As far as your comments I quote above, let me simply quote "His Excellency" himself from one of his own patents I tried to get discussed...

"I am not able to explain why the addition of Lithium hydroxid as explained, to the electrolyte, should result in such striking and noticeable phenomena." - USPTO - No. 876,445.

I'm not saying Edison was dumb, and even he says Lithium was more than "a BIT of a help". The reference I entered into this discussion thread with (from almost 8 decacades later) studies and explains that phenomena. It's a shame we didn't even get to delve into it's findings so as to discuss it's best utilization. Also, there are references still being published as recent as April of this year dealing with the core understandings of the redox chemistry itself. We didn't get to talk about that either. Lots more research underway at many, many universities.

Do I know more about Edison's own battery than he did? I can say will all humility "Yes" - but not just because of myself, but because of the continuous work of others. We've got 100 years of experience by scores of researchers on him. Can his battery technology be improved? - No doubt in my mind that it can (and in some ways it already has). Is there still room in the patent space with reagards to this technology? Yep - and that's the goal of a lot of the current research.

I should have looked more closely at the title of this thread "Nickel Iron vs. Lead Acid - Off Grid battery debate". The DEBATE word should have cued me in that firm opinions had already been set. Going forward, I'll try to limit my discussions on this board to more non controversial subjects such as array configurations, charge controller settings, etc. For the record, I'd like to leave this thread with one last thought as it has served me well over the years in my career:

"It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast." - credit Konrad Lorenz - 1973 Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

[Sundetective]

Yep, already got 'em. Thanks.

To me that is not the kind of data I seek. They are references of information, but what is missing (as in most old patents) is the data that backs them up (and details with regards to how the data was gathered). These are no exception. We know the technology has issues with the electrolyte - so do LA batteries (even more so). No battery is forever. No need for us to keep singing the same song over and over.

If we want to evaluate how bad (or not bad) this technology is for the purpose we desire to use it in, we need people with personal "hands-on" experiences with these cells (or at least this technology) so as to share and compare data with. How long is that "very long period" that Edison referenced? Was it affected by physical use conditions? How hard were the batteries being pushed? What was the rate of decay vs charge / discharge characteristics employed? Is the rate of decay linear? How is it affected by amp draw? (FYI - My amp-hour ratings all all over the map depending on my draw rates.) Is iron poisioning worse when the cells sit charged or when they are being cycled daily? How is capactity loss affected with % discharge in the cycling. You are right in that it takes a long time to build this bank of information.

I can read all the references I want about hunting, but to actually be a hunter I need to step into the woods with my weapon - AND - to be most efficient and effective, it would be nice to get some knowledge from one of the locals who have hunted the same woods before. Who else out there has personal experience?

Sounds like you don't need any more info from me, Mr. Edison or anyone else.
You can leave me out and tell everybody (who will listen) how Edison and his teams didn't really know about the Edison batteries -
but you do. Your starting to sound like xxxxxx. Mod note - you love to beat on that company but get a life - they may well deserve it but state proven facts only.
Bill Blake

[Robert1234]

Yep, already got 'em. Thanks.

To me that is not the kind of data I seek. They are references of information, but what is missing (as in most old patents) is the data that backs them up (and details with regards to how the data was gathered). These are no exception. We know the technology has issues with the electrolyte - so do LA batteries (even more so). No battery is forever. No need for us to keep singing the same song over and over.

If we want to evaluate how bad (or not bad) this technology is for the purpose we desire to use it in, we need people with personal "hands-on" experiences with these cells (or at least this technology) so as to share and compare data with. How long is that "very long period" that Edison referenced? Was it affected by physical use conditions? How hard were the batteries being pushed? What was the rate of decay vs charge / discharge characteristics employed? Is the rate of decay linear? How is it affected by amp draw? (FYI - My amp-hour ratings all all over the map depending on my draw rates.) Is iron poisioning worse when the cells sit charged or when they are being cycled daily? How is capactity loss affected with % discharge in the cycling. You are right in that it takes a long time to build this bank of information.

I can read all the references I want about hunting, but to actually be a hunter I need to step into the woods with my weapon - AND - to be most efficient and effective, it would be nice to get some knowledge from one of the locals who have hunted the same woods before. Who else out there has personal experience?

[Sundetective]

Data please. I have worked in chemical research for 35+ years and I live by facts and data. When i read patents I evaluate the data and compare it to their conclusions. I have learned not to accept just words so as to avoid the partial truths trap.

Certainly Robert. Since you found that 1908 Patent just go forward 16 years to the 1924 Battery Patents and behold all that His Excellency
Thomas A. had to say. There is an overwhelming amount of data for you that confirms every word ever spoken on this matter by
old Bill, hisself.

Confirmed data signed by 2 witnesses and Mr. Edison's Attorneys as well Mr. Edison himself.
All under the threat of prison if it's not on the up and up.

It's just words, as you say, based on many, many experiments over many years. However I doubt they are considered
"the partial truths trap".

Somebody was asleep at da switch on dis one. I studied Every Battery Patent Mr. Edison ever did and I want to dissect them all
real fine like
someday, when time permits, before saying too much and risk playing the fool on the world wide web.
There is a whole lot to it. We have a long and slow - row to hoe. Thanks for your interest and Good Luck.


Bill Blake

[Robert1234]

Data please.

Bill,

I have seen from some sites that you know of Edison's old thermal regeneration method. I would like to compare it to what I am doing with the batteries myself. Please post the specific conditions / procedure and I will compare it to what I am doing now.

Thanks.

[Robert1234]

Data please. I have worked in chemical research for 35+ years and I live by facts and data. When i read patents I evaluate the data and compare it to their conclusions. I have learned not to accept just words so as to avoid the partial truths trap.

[russ]

Bill - You seem to have something in common with Edison then - crying.

[Sundetective]

Hmm... Edision patented the use of Li as a electrolyte additive in 1908. Work almost a century later using EDAX and XRD (tools Edison never even dreamed of) confirm this was a major advancement in reduction of iron poisoning.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0013468686800561

Are you saying the Li addition into the electrolyte does not resolve this? I ask this question in all sincerity as my purpose in joining this forum is both to share and obtain information specifically for my solar systems and also discuss the Ni-Fe technology. Please elaborate on your knowledge of iron poisoning.

Here's my current information on this subject. If this is not what people want, let me know and I'll shut up

The same "iron poisoning" affects NiCads as well - most specifically the industrial pocket plate designs. It is well known that the oxides of iron formed by corrosion (or Fe oxides preloaded into the system) are a barrier to further iron dissolution and thus help to prevent or minimize the iron poisoning effect (which is due to the corrosion of UNoxidized iron). The degree of corrosion that occurs will depend quite strongly on how easily any protective oxide is reduced to bare metal or oxide is displaced such that bare metal is exposed. That is also why Edison nickel plated most of the internals of this battery thus leading to the necessity of a postive cased system. It may have started out just to keep the battery from corroding through and leaking, but it also had the distinct advantage of reducing the iron poisoning effect.

It is important to prevent physical agitation of the system if you want to minimize the iron poisoning whether your negative electrode be Fe or Cd-Fe hydroxide. This reduces the shedding of iron due to physical force as FeO and Fe(OH)2 are powders. That's good news for the Solar crowd as our batteries pretty much stay put. We can expect a major decrease in iron poisoning as compared to the forklift or railroad applications the cells were / are often used in. Does it totally stop it? No. But it IS a major help.

NOTE: While I'm on this subject, I read some sources where people say to shake all the old "carbon" out of the Edison cells when you recondition them. That's a bit of a sticky wicket. The black that comes out of the cells is not carbon and it's not carbonate as some have told me. It's iron oxide - probably a mixture of FeO and Fe(OH)2. (Put a magnet on it.) It's quite likely sourced from both iron that has sheded from the negative electrode from agitation during it's history of use and also some of the desired iron oxide that is/was currently protective the negative electrode before you picked up the cell and dumped it out. BE CAREFUL WHEN DOING ELECTROLYTE CHANGES AS WELL. you want to minimize the loss of that iron oxide as it is your friend As Bill has stated before... Additon of drain taps on the Chinese cells would help in allowing you to drain and refill without disturbing the oxide layers. More than just convienence. It would be a long term performance improver.

Back to subject.... Whether you are cleaning old batteries or starting up new Fe-Ni batteries, it is important that you carefully form the plates to minimize the amount of iron poisoning you get in startup. You've most likely heard before that the plates on new cells must be "fully formed" for the batteries to perform, but I personally did not recognize the importance of HOW to form the plates with respect to the the subject of iron poisoning (nor did I even have a clue that it could be a factor). Some of the NiCad research by Tseung and Parker at North Hampton City University in London stress the importance of carefully forming the negative electrode so as to minimize shedding of the active / protective oxide materials. They suggested (and employed) four cycles charged at a C-10 rate for 14 hr (with discharge) followed by four charge cycles at a C-5 rate for seven hours. I cannot off the top of my head remember if the Chinese suppier recommends something similar.

Bottom line - from the research I've read - you will never totally eliminate iron poisioning but with proper electrolyte mixtures, proper forming procedures, and permanent installations you can minimize it to the point that it really should not be an issue in your lifetime.

Iron poisoning sure was an issue in Mr. Edison's life and his gangs life for many, many years after 1908.
LiOH was a BIT of a help and that's all it was is exactly what old Bill is saying.

They put brutal numbers of hours into fighting "poisoning" from a number of metals over the years. Iron was just one of them.
Also graphite in the beginning but it was just WAY too fast as far as melting away inside the nasty Alkaline Electrolyte.

Don't forget the "impurities and foreign matter" that Edison liked to cry and cry about.

His Excellency Thomas A. cried using that term for many years as well. How many decades, not years, did he cry about it?

The only thing that stopped the crying was:

#1 They finally figured out how to clean up the positive elements and be able to run the batteries into the ground yet again. (Right on!)
#2 He started working on new battery technology which seems to be some thinking similar to the hot new Nickel Iron Technology
that was in the news recently. #3 Mr. Edison then passed away.

Robert you may want to study a bit more before making too many Nickel Iron Battery proclamations.
Then report back to the group as the thousands of views build up.
There were so many tales and partial truths over the years that it's easy to fall into the 'veneer of knowledge trap' with this one.
It takes context thinking and not going overboard when Mr. Edison gets a little excited because he can reverse himself easy enough.
Bismuth was the BIG thing for both the Positive AND the Negative Elements in 1908. In a few years he would have a new 'marvel'.
Then another. Then another. I like your style. Thanks.


Bill Blake

[inetdog]

This is getting interesting.

[Robert1234]

Now that we know about the Iron Poisoning of the Positive Electrodes due to the true nature of the nasty electrolyte.... His Excellency, Thomas A. Edison started crying about all of it in writing by 1904 and was still crying about it years and years later.....

Hmm... Edision patented the use of Li as a electrolyte additive in 1908. Work almost a century later using EDAX and XRD (tools Edison never even dreamed of) confirm this was a major advancement in reduction of iron poisoning.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0013468686800561

Are you saying the Li addition into the electrolyte does not resolve this? I ask this question in all sincerity as my purpose in joining this forum is both to share and obtain information specifically for my solar systems and also discuss the Ni-Fe technology. Please elaborate on your knowledge of iron poisoning.

Here's my current information on this subject. If this is not what people want, let me know and I'll shut up

The same "iron poisoning" affects NiCads as well - most specifically the industrial pocket plate designs. It is well known that the oxides of iron formed by corrosion (or Fe oxides preloaded into the system) are a barrier to further iron dissolution and thus help to prevent or minimize the iron poisoning effect (which is due to the corrosion of UNoxidized iron). The degree of corrosion that occurs will depend quite strongly on how easily any protective oxide is reduced to bare metal or oxide is displaced such that bare metal is exposed. That is also why Edison nickel plated most of the internals of this battery thus leading to the necessity of a postive cased system. It may have started out just to keep the battery from corroding through and leaking, but it also had the distinct advantage of reducing the iron poisoning effect.

It is important to prevent physical agitation of the system if you want to minimize the iron poisoning whether your negative electrode be Fe or Cd-Fe hydroxide. This reduces the shedding of iron due to physical force as FeO and Fe(OH)2 are powders. That's good news for the Solar crowd as our batteries pretty much stay put. We can expect a major decrease in iron poisoning as compared to the forklift or railroad applications the cells were / are often used in. Does it totally stop it? No. But it IS a major help.

NOTE: While I'm on this subject, I read some sources where people say to shake all the old "carbon" out of the Edison cells when you recondition them. That's a bit of a sticky wicket. The black that comes out of the cells is not carbon and it's not carbonate as some have told me. It's iron oxide - probably a mixture of FeO and Fe(OH)2. (Put a magnet on it.) It's quite likely sourced from both iron that has sheded from the negative electrode from agitation during it's history of use and also some of the desired iron oxide that is/was currently protective the negative electrode before you picked up the cell and dumped it out. BE CAREFUL WHEN DOING ELECTROLYTE CHANGES AS WELL. you want to minimize the loss of that iron oxide as it is your friend As Bill has stated before... Additon of drain taps on the Chinese cells would help in allowing you to drain and refill without disturbing the oxide layers. More than just convienence. It would be a long term performance improver.

Back to subject.... Whether you are cleaning old batteries or starting up new Fe-Ni batteries, it is important that you carefully form the plates to minimize the amount of iron poisoning you get in startup. You've most likely heard before that the plates on new cells must be "fully formed" for the batteries to perform, but I personally did not recognize the importance of HOW to form the plates with respect to the the subject of iron poisoning (nor did I even have a clue that it could be a factor). Some of the NiCad research by Tseung and Parker at North Hampton City University in London stress the importance of carefully forming the negative electrode so as to minimize shedding of the active / protective oxide materials. They suggested (and employed) four cycles charged at a C-10 rate for 14 hr (with discharge) followed by four charge cycles at a C-5 rate for seven hours. I cannot off the top of my head remember if the Chinese suppier recommends something similar.

Bottom line - from the research I've read - you will never totally eliminate iron poisioning but with proper electrolyte mixtures, proper forming procedures, and permanent installations you can minimize it to the point that it really should not be an issue in your lifetime.

[Sundetective]

I had contacted Iron Edison.com and got a quote on replacing my L16Ss. As close as I can remember it was 83% of my cost of 3 sets of L16s, without any tax credits that some people get. The problem is that I had made a custom shed and custom cabinet to fit the L16s and the space the equivalent Nickel Iron Batteries of similar performance was about 25% more. The is no way I can remodel the shed and cabinet, now. Oh well. It would have been nice if they were available in the AH sizes I needed back in 1998. Even then, though, I was strapped for money, and could not have afforded them.
I'm too old to rebuild, but if I could, I would have gone with them from the start. I also would have put thick aluminum foil under the sheet rock where the battery/inverter/charge controller/power center split cab insulated shed is attached to the house in an uninsulated area. Live and learn.
I contacted them again about the bank sizing and maintenance. I'll report anything different than that they apparently need a lot less maintenance, too.

As the old timers would say "don't let that lie get out". Ni-Fe needs a whole lot, way more, maintenance and tons more money after you buy
them than Lead Acid ever dreamed of. When someone puts out an Edison Submarine Type Ni-Fe Cell (which simply means rapid and EASY fluid
additions and EXCHANGES using an air hose and PORTS) plus gets OFF of the Welded Plates and goes back to Edison's Hardware -
you will then be 'On Time'. Until then it seems a chumps game unfortunately.

Now that we know about the Iron Poisoning of the Positive Electrodes due to the true nature of the nasty electrolyte
(not lies and Iron Edison sales pitch)
few people will want to fool with the new Ni-Fe batteries. The old Edison's can be cleaned up, over and over, and are a good investment.
The Ni-Fe carbonate problem is just a window dressing to the real problems involving the electrolyte that slowly dissolves everything that
lays in it.

His Excellency, Thomas A. Edison started crying about all of it in writing by 1904 and was still crying about it years and years later.
The man was obsessed with crying about his struggle with the electrolyte but with a little work he also told you how to get singing
about feeling brand new again. His choices of metals was # 1 how fast does it dissolve in the nasty electrolyte, # 2 what does it cost
and # 3 what decade will old Bill 'Drop the Dime' on me.

As the Ni-Fe salesman know everything is in writing so they take a damn good whipping but still grab plenty of money out of people
so what the hay

This Poisoning problem and Nickel Iron Suicide was one of the Great Riddles that was revealed to you - on the house - right here at wonderful SolarPanelTalk Land. The KW Kid told me "It's like greasing a truck - you can't change dat nasty Ni-Fe Electrolyte too often".

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=youtube+you+make+me+feel+brand+new&tnr=21&vid=&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DU.4956882636636282%26pid%3D15.1&tit=Simply+Red+-+You+Make+Me+Feel+Brand+New&back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dyou%2Btube%2Byou%2Bmake%2Bme%2Bfeel%2Bbrand%2Bnew&sigb=12d9jfl3o

Bill Blake

[moguitar]

Iron Edison

I had contacted Iron Edison.com and got a quote on replacing my L16Ss. As close as I can remember it was 83% of my cost of 3 sets of L16s, without any tax credits that some people get. The problem is that I had made a custom shed and custom cabinet to fit the L16s and the space the equivalent Nickel Iron Batteries of similar performance was about 25% more. The is no way I can remodel the shed and cabinet, now. Oh well. It would have been nice if they were available in the AH sizes I needed back in 1998. Even then, though, I was strapped for money, and could not have afforded them.
I'm too old to rebuild, but if I could, I would have gone with them from the start. I also would have put thick aluminum foil under the sheet rock where the battery/inverter/charge controller/power center split cab insulated shed is attached to the house in an uninsulated area. Live and learn.
I contacted them again about the bank sizing and maintenance. I'll report anything different than that they apparently need a lot less maintenance, too.