Solar Panel Storage Batteries

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Never heard of DSHPs but they sound a very good idea. Expensive I would assume.
I don't think they need be much more mechanically, just a bit more sensors, logic and valves... I'd go multi-source and use air, ground, simple flat solar heated panels - just a couple more valves.
 
I don't think they need be much more mechanically, just a bit more sensors, logic and valves... I'd go multi-source and use air, ground, simple flat solar heated panels - just a couple more valves.
I've not been involved with the industry for about 5 years but when I was, if you wanted to get grants like the RHI, you were only allowed to use certain technologies so multiple heat sources are likely to be not allowed. I'm sure what is being proposed would work but it's unlikely to conform to the rules!
 
I've not been involved with the industry for about 5 years but when I was, if you wanted to get grants like the RHI, you were only allowed to use certain technologies so multiple heat sources are likely to be not allowed. I'm sure what is being proposed would work but it's unlikely to conform to the rules!
I think the grants systems have done a lot more harm than good, pushed prices up, and got a lot of cowboys into the business, especially in solar.
 
I think the grants systems have done a lot more harm than good, pushed prices up, and got a lot of cowboys into the business, especially in solar.
The grant schemes do, unfortunately, create a problematic situation exactly as you describe. About 15 years ago I discovered my conventional open vented hot water cylinder was corroding around the bottom seam. It seemed sensible to take the opportunity to use the inevitable replacement exercise to change to a taller, twin coil cylinder and provide a heat input from a wet solar panel. One of my neighbours had had a system installed by a company from the midlands for close on 5 thousand pounds. It was continually losing primary pressure and spent several days each time standing idle waiting for attention.
They kindly allowed me to study it in detail. I realized that the installers had fitted an automatic air vent at the highest point of the sealed primary system which was atop the evacuated tube roof panel. On sunny days with low hot water usage their cylinder heated up to scalding temperature so the transfer pump was inhibited, the liquid in the panel turned into vapour and the auto air vent released the vapour. Consequently this loss meant when the sun went in and the panel cooled down there had been a loss of primary fluid leading to loss of pressure and the system locked out until it was recharged.
Needless to say I didn't engage that company's services. I bought a "kit" from eBay which comprised tall twin coil prelagged vented cylinder, 1.2m x 1.2m evacuated tube panel assembly complete, electronic controller with sensors, flow controls and indicators, primary pump and corrosion inhibitor/antifreeze. All for the grand total of 650 pounds delivered. I added copper pipe and installed it myself on the South gable wall (with a manually operated vent above in the loft). On dull days it takes the chill off incoming cold water thus reducing heat input required from other sources, on sunny days in summer it provides all the domestic hot water we need. Between the two extremes it contributes "some" of the total daily energy required. Of course being diy I couldn't get grant towards that job but I still ended up in pocket. I had to vent the primary loop a couple of times during the first week of operation until all the dissolved air in the fill water cleared the system. I'm happy to report it has not required any maintenance expenditure during the intervening years.
 
The grant schemes do, unfortunately, create a problematic situation exactly as you describe. About 15 years ago I discovered my conventional open vented hot water cylinder was corroding around the bottom seam. It seemed sensible to take the opportunity to use the inevitable replacement exercise to change to a taller, twin coil cylinder and provide a heat input from a wet solar panel. One of my neighbours had had a system installed by a company from the midlands for close on 5 thousand pounds. It was continually losing primary pressure and spent several days each time standing idle waiting for attention.
They kindly allowed me to study it in detail. I realized that the installers had fitted an automatic air vent at the highest point of the sealed primary system which was atop the evacuated tube roof panel. On sunny days with low hot water usage their cylinder heated up to scalding temperature so the transfer pump was inhibited, the liquid in the panel turned into vapour and the auto air vent released the vapour. Consequently this loss meant when the sun went in and the panel cooled down there had been a loss of primary fluid leading to loss of pressure and the system locked out until it was recharged.
Needless to say I didn't engage that company's services. I bought a "kit" from eBay which comprised tall twin coil prelagged vented cylinder, 1.2m x 1.2m evacuated tube panel assembly complete, electronic controller with sensors, flow controls and indicators, primary pump and corrosion inhibitor/antifreeze. All for the grand total of 650 pounds delivered. I added copper pipe and installed it myself on the South gable wall (with a manually operated vent above in the loft). On dull days it takes the chill off incoming cold water thus reducing heat input required from other sources, on sunny days in summer it provides all the domestic hot water we need. Between the two extremes it contributes "some" of the total daily energy required. Of course being diy I couldn't get grant towards that job but I still ended up in pocket. I had to vent the primary loop a couple of times during the first week of operation until all the dissolved air in the fill water cleared the system. I'm happy to report it has not required any maintenance expenditure during the intervening years.
There was/is also a structural problem, in that to qualify for a grant, the system had to be installed by an approved installer, and the equipment had to be approved. The cost of the equipment approval was significant and caused the cost of the equipment to be increased to amortise the approval cost - all leading to an artificially high cost. Self install of unapproved equipment as you (and I) did cut the costs by an order of magnitude. The approved installers often didn't seem to understand the physics of what they were doing, which led to unreliable, inefficient systems. Accompanied by pressure selling, it was right out of the double glazing scam textbook...
 
Further to my general question about batteries for solar panels, we have made contact with various local green energy firms. One company refuses to fit Tesla batteries, citing that they are unsafe. Another suggested the Huawei luna2000. Does anyone have any experience of this one? It seems that batteries are in short supply.
Thanks
Emily
 
Lifepo4 if you can get them much safer and longer life cycle then lithium ion.
 
Lifepo4 if you can get them much safer and longer life cycle then lithium ion.

Lithium iron phosphate ( LiFePO4 or LFP) is one of many versions of lithium ion. Tesla batteries manufactured in China are generally LFP, but those manufactured elesewhere have until recently tended to be NMC - another version of lithium ion

The Huawei Luna 2000 is an LFP based system
 
Lifepo4 isn't lithium ion, it is lithium iron phosphate the batteries are much denser then li-on and have a much better life cycle. There weight is in the region of 30% heavier, the internal chemistry is different and far safer.
They have a totally different charge/discharge character to Li-on with lower cell voltage so one needs more cells for the equivalent li-on voltage.
 
Lifepo4 isn't lithium ion, it is lithium iron phosphate the batteries are much denser then li-on and have a much better life cycle. There weight is in the region of 30% heavier, the internal chemistry is different and far safer.
They have a totally different charge/discharge character to Li-on with lower cell voltage so one needs more cells for the equivalent li-on voltage.
No

Read this: BU-205: Types of Lithium-ion

and most of the diagrams are taken from the attached document
 

Attachments

  • BCG_-_Revisiting_Energy_Storage.pdf
    1.3 MB
As I said lifepo4 is a differing chemistry to li-on and the many combos whether cobalt /manganese etc,etc is used as an ingredient.
The voltage discharge between the two are totally different li-on can typically can be taken to 4..2v per cell or some can go to 4.35v per cell but for life cycle 4.05v is a better option, lifepo has a very small voltage range of 3.2v - 3.65v out side of this and one can wave good cycle life goodbye.

Just because both have lithium as the main metal doesn't make them the same, for a static solution then lifepo4 every day over li-on.

We found this out many years ago during the early millenium with electric bicycles, lifepo4 was favoured for it's life cycle and safety but the extra weight made it a bit unpopular for bicycle use, but a far better source then nimh and nicad, then the big change when li-on and li-po occurred bringing in a much lighter power source though li-po can be a bit unstable and prone to puffing of the cells and early demise.
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions. They have been really useful. Do keep suggesting ideas as it’s going to be a significant outlay for us and we don’t want to make any mistakes.
 
As I said lifepo4 is a differing chemistry to li-on and the many combos whether cobalt /manganese etc,etc is used as an ingredient.
The voltage discharge between the two are totally different li-on can typically can be taken to 4..2v per cell or some can go to 4.35v per cell but for life cycle 4.05v is a better option, lifepo has a very small voltage range of 3.2v - 3.65v out side of this and one can wave good cycle life goodbye.

We found this out many years ago during the arly milleniium with electric bicycles, lifepo4 was favoured for it's life cycle and safety but the extra weight made it a bit unpopular for bicycle use, then the big change to li-on and li-po occurred bringing in a much lighter power source though li-po can be a bit unstable and prone to puffing of the cells and early demise.
As you will see in the references I made, LiFePO4 is itself a lithium ion chemistry, but is only one of several lithium-ion chemistries.

I would also recommend reading this book: Bottled Lightning: Superbatteries, Electric Cars, and the New Lithium Economy: Amazon.co.uk: Fletcher, Seth: 9780809030644: Books

I should also mention that I have spent some time walking around, on more than one occasion, the largest manufacturing plant in the world for hydrothermal LFP, and discussed the technology with some of the current relevant patent holders. You will be aware, I assume, that the original John Goodenough patent expired in 2017.

LFP has some advantages and some disadvantages compared to other lithium ion technologies, and these are admirably summarised in Exhibit 2 on page 3 of the attached BCG report.

Whilst LFP is generally safer than the others, the safety is greatly dependent on the flammability of the electrolyte used, organic electrolytes being an obvious risk
 

Attachments

  • BCG Batts.pdf
    707.7 KB
Apiarisnt Versus hemo

Apiarisnt is correct. Hemo is wrong (but now seems to be back-tracking somewhat, to cover his initial post?).

Lithium ion batteries come in several types. The chemistry is different. The cell maximum voltages are different. Recharge life-span are different. Charge density is different. But they are all the same basic chemistry in that they use Lithium. All batteries must operate with ions - or they simply would not work.:)

Lithium batteries have changed and improved over the years. High energy density (both volume and mass) were required for electric vehicles and were initially more prone to catastrophic failure if treated below par.

Single cells were never (well, not often) a problem with that chemistry but as soon as batteries were required cell balancing the cells became a problem - hence a lot of battery management systems (bms) were developed and are available.

Lithium ion phosphate cells were a safer development of Lithium ion chemistry, with lower storage and lower power delivery. They turned out to have a longer life regarding number of recharges but could not (initially) deliver the same power as Lithium ion polymer cells (as required for cars, for instance). They have now been developed to a level that they are being installed in BEVs (better energy storage, better power delivery).
 
Probably worth noting that for PV storage, weight is not an issue. Energy density may be, if space is an issue. Cycle life is. Lead acid, properly maintained, takes a lot of beating.
 
Not back tracking at all, I have been building/spot welding batteries cells for many years so know my stuff. Certainly don't need a lesson from you lot.
Chems may be part similar but that is it Lifpo4 needs a totally different charge regime over li-on.
 
Agree on both points. I can't help wondering how many energy suppliers might also happen to be Tory donors. If you want to reduce energy bills, I reckon the simplest, cheapest and fastest way to do it is to help people use less energy.

I am not an economist, and in fact neither are any of my best friends, but I can't help feeling that if you have a government policy that targets, and defines "success" as, annual growth then increasing consumption is the only way to do that.

James
Well they do seem to have done just that.
Triple all forms of energy usage cost and people are now sitting wrapped in blankets in the dark.
We have two wood burners and have not had the heating at all.
 
It is strange that you had a hard time working with the solar system installation company.
When I was about to install renewable energy in my house, I checked all the info on many threads about it and decided to go for yenex. It was pretty easy for me to cooperate with them, but I had a little preparation, which helped e to find a good company. Anyway, you could use this company to install the battery, and I think you won't have trouble communicating. However, it is up to you. And I would also like to say that getting a battery is a great solution; I installed it right away after installing the systems, and it is also beneficial
 

Latest posts

Back
Top