So… are the starter lead acid, agm,tppl batteries in their final few years?

[Kettlewell]

We must have run out of reasons why lead is superior by now...I don't mean in this thread, I mean in July 2024.

I like dead simple systems that I can repair, replace, and Mcgyver anywhere in the world. For example, using LA I don't need a special alternator or regulator, or even solar controllers, BMS units, or anything to keep them going when things break. I live aboard a boat for 12 years with just solar and wind charging, and no controllers whatsoever. I just observed voltage and flipped a few switches off and on as needed. I've had my alternator rebuilt at a fish dock. I could go buy one that works at any auto parts store. In a pinch I could buy an auto battery off the shelf and use it perfectly easily, and I have done that. My current LA start battery cost less than $100 at Walmart.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Fuss

We must have run out of reasons why lead is superior by now...I don't mean in this thread, I mean in July 2024.

For house power usage, I think we're pretty much there. Lead is hard to justify in most applications for a house bank at this point now that LFP prices have come down so much. For starting, lead still has the advantage of being a bit simpler (mostly because basic charging systems work well with it). It's not functionally better, but at the same time, for a starting setup, all you really need is "reliable" and "works well enough" unless you've got a specific need like minimizing weight.

[thinwater]

The very modern ICE cars I just bought (2 in the last year) use LA for starting. When that changes, I'll worry about it. Until then, I'm guessing these two builders (both make EV cars) have smart people working there.


No, I'm not paranoid. I'm just guessing that overall, the math does not work yet. And the best chemistry/design for starting may end up being something else entirely. No hurry.

[sailorboy1]

My 400ah LFP house bank started my engine just fine and ran my windlass BETTER than the lead acid start battery. I had a acid start battery to have as an isolated start battery and as a dump load on the alternator in case for some magical reason all the LFP BMS tripped at same time. Plus I already had that battery and there was no reason to replace it

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by thinwater

The very modern ICE cars I just bought (2 in the last year) use LA for starting.

While I think LA are cheap and reliable I don't think that is really a good metric. Car companies are optimizing for sticker price because consumers really consider total cost of ownership. If LA is $10 cheaper they will use it. If it fails it is likely going to fail outside of the warranty period and that is on the consumer.

LFP could have lower total cost of ownership and car companies would still use lead.

LFP is arguably already cheaper than lead even for starters BUT the big challenge is charging. You can't reliably use a cheap internal regulated alternator. So switching up your charging system means a one time additional cost.

To be clear I have a lead starter battery too simply because it is cheap and it works and when it gets old it is cheap and easy to get a replacement. If starter LFP fall iin price by another 30% or so ...

[Fuss]

Ok, so we still have the argument that LA is cheap, more readily available and simpler for charging and management.


Hmm.....



But ok, lets agree this is right .... Now lets offer Nicholson58 and all other forum members that have lifepo4 starter batteries, replacement lead starter batteries free of charge, until they stop sailing , all they have to do is get rid of their Lithium starter batteries.


None of them would do this because even when free, lead starter batteries are not as good as a lithium starter system.


And thats the point, it only appears better when you still have lead, no-one would ever go back, even if you paid them.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Fuss

Ok, so we still have the argument that LA is cheap, more readily available and simpler for charging and management.


Hmm.....



But ok, lets agree this is right .... Now lets offer Nicholson58 and all other forum members that have lifepo4 starter batteries, replacement lead starter batteries free of charge, until they stop sailing , all they have to do is get rid of their Lithium starter batteries.


None of them would do this because even when free, lead starter batteries are not as good as a lithium starter system.


And thats the point, it only appears better when you still have lead, no-one would ever go back, even if you paid them.

Keep in mind there's also a difference in what makes sense if you're building the entire electrical system from scratch vs if you already have significant existing components in place.

[Kettlewell]

Keep in mind there's also a difference in what makes sense if you're building the entire electrical system from scratch vs if you already have significant existing components in place.

How many new cruising sailboats come with an all LFP system in the first place? Keep in mind the number of new cruising boats sold each year is tiny compared to the number of used boats purchased and in use. Not everyone wants to invest $thousands and a lot of time to upgrade their electrical system when many only keep their boats for 4-5 years before moving on to the next one. I can replace all the LA batteries on my boat for less than many here have spent on monitoring, charge controllers, BMS gear, etc.

[Fuss]

I really don't understand the constant protection of such a superceeded technology.
With todays alternative possibilities this technology is no longer acceptable it should now be classed as unreliable and possibly classed as verging on dangerous.

To help you....Here are some more things to consider...


A lead battery at more than 30% discharged enters the realm of not starting your engine.


A lead battery by the very fact that it demands to be always fully charged, will fail catastrophically with no gradual notice. Starts perfect one day, battery sounds like its going flat the next. And thats it, one more day and its over, battery possibly starts to swell and heat up.
Or even worse, motor problems also then show that the battery needs replacing at the most inconvenient time.


It's crazy in these times that an old technology with these faults is still accepted as ok today.

[Statistical]

It isn't crazy. They are cheap and they work and require no modification to the boat electrical system. LFP is starting to make sense for starters but it isn't a huge slam dunk.

Starter batteries especially for the typical 20 to 60 HP aux diesel are cheap. $100 if that and they are solid for 5 years. Probably last longer but I replace them at 5 years regardless. That is $20 a year which is essentially free in boating terms. I spend more than that on zincs.

[lifeofreilly57]

Although I have lithium for my house bank I still use a lead acid for starting.
It's charged by a dc to dc charger off the house bank. Stays topped up to optimum which is what lead acid likes, if they're regularly left sitting they'll deteriorate quickly.
When that one goes I'm on the fence about getting another LA starter.
One thing is for sure, lithium is much less maintenance then LA, which required constant attention, then fail if theres one instance of being drawn down due to an issue.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Statistical

While I think LA are cheap and reliable I don't think that is really a good metric. Car companies are optimizing for sticker price because consumers really consider total cost of ownership. If LA is $10 cheaper they will use it. If it fails it is likely going to fail outside of the warranty period and that is on the consumer.

LFP could have lower total cost of ownership and car companies would still use lead.

LFP is arguably already cheaper than lead even for starters BUT the big challenge is charging. You can't reliably use a cheap internal regulated alternator. So switching up your charging system means a one time additional cost.

To be clear I have a lead starter battery too simply because it is cheap and it works and when it gets old it is cheap and easy to get a replacement. If starter LFP fall in price by another 30% or so ...

a. Yes.


b. If this were really true we would all own Yugos. But they use LA in some very high end cars, ones people buy because of the expectation of longer life, and that is where the logic falls apart.


I'm not claiming I know the engineering reason. There are components, for example toxic ethylene glycol engine coolants, why I do know why the manufacturers have not switched to, for example, polypropylene glycol. Because for any price, it does not work as well. So I'm guessing there are functional reasons.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Fuss

I really don't understand the constant protection of such a superceeded technology.
With todays alternative possibilities this technology is no longer acceptable it should now be classed as unreliable and possibly classed as verging on dangerous.

To help you....Here are some more things to consider...


A lead battery at more than 30% discharged enters the realm of not starting your engine.


A lead battery by the very fact that it demands to be always fully charged, will fail catastrophically with no gradual notice. Starts perfect one day, battery sounds like its going flat the next. And thats it, one more day and its over, battery possibly starts to swell and heat up.
Or even worse, motor problems also then show that the battery needs replacing at the most inconvenient time.


It's crazy in these times that an old technology with these faults is still accepted as ok today.

The "gradual loss of capacity that hasn't been noticed" failure mode is a concern for any starting battery chemistry, but it can be mitigated by periodically testing the battery to determine if it still has acceptable capacity or not. Lead may be a little easier to not notice this because it's normally kept full, but depending on the charging regime, other chemistries are certainly not immune.

That's also why any boat needs a second source of starting power available. Some day the start battery will fail to start the engine (either due to the battery failing unexpectedly or it failing to charge for some reason and being left dead, etc.). So then it becomes "flip switch, start engine, then sort out the problem after the immediate need for the engine is resolved".

[jordanbettis]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

Not all lithium chemistries are dangerous though. LFP is easily as safe as lead acid, for example. Some other chemistries wouldn't be an option on a boat for safety reasons though.

This is absolutely not true. LFP has all the safety downsides of lithium, just less so. It can still catch fire. It will be nearly impossible to put out. In fact it has one serious downside compared to NMC in that the outgas is rich in hydrogen meaning you can more easily have secondary fires/explosions.



One big problem I have with current LFP battery vendors for boats is that they lean heavily on the "inherent safety" of LFP meaning they don't have to worry about packaging. I'm sorry, but the packaging is a key essential part of lithium battery safety and if you don't treat it with the respect it deserves you will not produce a safe battery.


UL is reconsidering its regulations regarding lithium batteries and it is unlikely they will make an exception for LFP because from the perspective of firefighters and insurance there is no meaningful distinction. I expect all current LFP installations will be out of compliance with new rules due to inadequate packaging.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by jordanbettis

This is absolutely not true. LFP has all the safety downsides of lithium, just less so. It can still catch fire. It will be nearly impossible to put out. In fact it has one serious downside compared to NMC in that the outgas is rich in hydrogen meaning you can more easily have secondary fires/explosions.



One big problem I have with current LFP battery vendors for boats is that they lean heavily on the "inherent safety" of LFP meaning they don't have to worry about packaging. I'm sorry, but the packaging is a key essential part of lithium battery safety and if you don't treat it with the respect it deserves you will not produce a safe battery.


UL is reconsidering its regulations regarding lithium batteries and it is unlikely they will make an exception for LFP because from the perspective of firefighters and insurance there is no meaningful distinction. I expect all current LFP installations will be out of compliance with new rules due to inadequate packaging.

From my understanding, while you can get an LFP battery to burn, it doesn't produce the catastrophic runaway that some other lithium chemistries (including NMC) do. It's not like lead-acid is totally safe as a starting point. They can explode, they can off-gas hydrogen, and they can also get very hot and cause a fire if you have a shorted cell in a large battery.