It’s not clear to me why the relentless advocacy of SiO2’s creeps into EVERY LFP enquiry (a topic ‘re-direct’ malady..), but contrary to the non-user, speculative knowledge base of a few SiO2 purveyors (flat-earthers who trade in LFP mythologies - e.g. finicky, huh??), LFP’s are in fact quite liberating - I pay FAR less attention to my 200amp/hr LFP (more similar to grid than to battery power) than I formerly did after 15 yrs of 215 amp/hr (gross) GC lead-acid management...Why??
1) Faster charging (expediting peak solar harvest recovery periods...).
2) Virtually eliminating inverter and furnace low voltage shutdowns - a near voltage stability.
3) Much more ‘usable’ capacity for the same size battery and of battery compartment constraints.
4) No routine need to fully recharge!
5) At least half the weight of chemically sluggish FLA’s.
6) Much longer number of charge cycles and warranty (10yr warranty not uncommon).
7) No equalizations.
8) Uber low self-discharge rate, per this regard second to none.
9) ‘Independent’ White Paper evaluations are ‘readily obtainable’ (Google, et al).
Though it’s apparent that the SiO2 interlopers are fully committed to their cause (in which extended cold WX is their major cause), in light of the above and within the broader user marketplace (e.g. exempting extended extreme weather conditions*), SiO2’s are overpriced, and poorer performing (similar to lead-acid), thus a poor utility and value quotient for the majority of intended users...
Curiously, some may argue that “the jury is still out on LFP’s” (in spite of reputable independent evaluations, evidenced by numerous long Mfg warranties), while simultaneously dismissing this very same standard (or lack of??) for SiO2’s...
Just Saying, :?
*Note: easily mitigated via optional LFP heater circuitry.
3 tons
