Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and whilst
they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't always
needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries, so surely they would be a
fine candidate for NiMH replacement (I'm thinking of smaller batteries for
a greater load of milk or whatever). Also, speaking to the local Evri delivery
guy, he does about 20 miles a day in his Ford Transit, surely that would be
an ideal vehicle to be electrified, and NiMH would surely be 'better' in terms
of cost and environmental issues than lithium batteries?

So, what I have I got wrong? Is there anything obvious that I am
missing / don't understand?

Is Lithium worse to mine and process than NiMH?
What about the recycling of each?
Other than capacity, are there any operational downsides of NiMH? (I
think Toyota use them in their hybrid vehicles)

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.

On 20/02/2023 23:22, David Paste wrote:

> So, what I have I got wrong? Is there anything obvious that I am
> missing / don't understand?

The milk float crawling back to the depot at 1 mph at the end of the round?

Some of the current crop of electric vans have a range much less than
than cars and with centralised delivery hubs many delivery companies
around my way are doing 60 miles to and from the hub before considering
the mileage covered delivering 100+ packages.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:22:38 +1100, David Paste <pastedavid@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and
> whilst
> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't
> always
> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries, so surely they would
> be a
> fine candidate for NiMH replacement (I'm thinking of smaller batteries
> for
> a greater load of milk or whatever). Also, speaking to the local Evri
> delivery
> guy, he does about 20 miles a day in his Ford Transit, surely that would
> be
> an ideal vehicle to be electrified, and NiMH would surely be 'better' in
> terms
> of cost and environmental issues than lithium batteries?
>
> So, what I have I got wrong? Is there anything obvious that I am
> missing / don't understand?

> Is Lithium worse to mine and process than NiMH?

No, but the problem is where its mined. Not a problem
for Australia given it has lots of those metals, but it is
one of the few first world countrys with much lithium.

> What about the recycling of each?

The detail is less clear yet with recycled lithium batterys.

> Other than capacity, are there any operational downsides of NiMH?

Yes, Li ion works a lot better in cordless tools and laptops etc.

> (I
> think Toyota use them in their hybrid vehicles)

On 2/20/2023 6:22 PM, David Paste wrote:
> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and whilst
> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't always
> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries, so surely they would be a
> fine candidate for NiMH replacement (I'm thinking of smaller batteries for
> a greater load of milk or whatever). Also, speaking to the local Evri delivery
> guy, he does about 20 miles a day in his Ford Transit, surely that would be
> an ideal vehicle to be electrified, and NiMH would surely be 'better' in terms
> of cost and environmental issues than lithium batteries?
>
> So, what I have I got wrong? Is there anything obvious that I am
> missing / don't understand?
>
> Is Lithium worse to mine and process than NiMH?
> What about the recycling of each?
> Other than capacity, are there any operational downsides of NiMH? (I
> think Toyota use them in their hybrid vehicles)
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> David Paste.
>

Rather than using spider diagrams, they use a plain table when
comparing battery chemistry here.

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-107-comparison-table-of-secondary-batteries

For some reason, the manufacturer of NiMh, makes small cells, and
packs multiple of them, into larger casings. There are larger NiMh
packs available (larger than car battery), but it is not clear what
the internal composition is.

I expect for more than one battery chemistry, there is an issue
with making the cells too large for safety.

Lead acid isn't like that. We had "cells" at work, which were
as large as an entire room. The battery backup system, was
in an underground hallway, and that hallway went out beside the
building. Presumably, to change the cells, they would dig up
the ground and pull the cells with a stout crane.

NiCd swells when it charges, and this is a major nuisance.
This could also be why batteries are packaged in weird
ways (pouch cells).

You can see one spider diagram on this page, and the spiders
are overlaid, for easy comparison. Notice how the titanium
cell has huge charging current capability, and the Proterra
transit bus uses those and it charges at 500kW. You can drive
the Proterra all day long, as long as you charge for ten minutes,
drive for fifty minutes. As transit buses go, the Proterra
is kinda small.

https://nordkyndesign.com/lithium-battery-banks-fundamentals/

If NiMh was "the best", wouldn't they all be using it ?

The solid electrolyte batteries aren't on any charts yet,
but they also don't have the charge cycle count to be practical.
Give them time.

*******

Every day, there is a more and more expensive car, with
a larger and larger range.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/02/the-lucid-air-grand-touring-is-a-startups-take-on-a-great-luxury-ev/

112 kWh
830 km on a single charge
starts at $138,000 USD

You will be knackered, when it is time for a recharge.
Climb in the back and go to sleep.

Paul

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 23:22:41 UTC, David Paste wrote:
> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and whilst
> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't always
> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries,

yes, where it wasn't too hilly, and they didn't need to run for long each day. They were awful performers, I wonder why they didn't use Nife cells.

> so surely they would be a
> fine candidate for NiMH replacement (I'm thinking of smaller batteries for
> a greater load of milk or whatever).

they're very heavy, have far less capacity per weight, have very long charge times, and love to die young. Oh, the latter also makes them cost more per mile than lithium.

> Also, speaking to the local Evri delivery
> guy, he does about 20 miles a day in his Ford Transit, surely that would be
> an ideal vehicle to be electrified,

batteries are the expensive part of EVs, so tiny vehicles are the better ones to electrify.
Vans are designed to work all day, something no battery vehicle can do. So companies would pay far more & get far less. Not my definition of ideal.

> and NiMH would surely be 'better' in terms
> of cost and environmental issues than lithium batteries?

if so we'd be using them

> So, what I have I got wrong? Is there anything obvious that I am
> missing / don't understand?

maybe now you do.

You can run a car on lead acids, people used to over a century ago, but don't be surprised if you get the performance of a milk float.

> Is Lithium worse to mine and process than NiMH?
> What about the recycling of each?
> Other than capacity, are there any operational downsides of NiMH? (I
> think Toyota use them in their hybrid vehicles)
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> David Paste.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 02:07:18 +0000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>Some of the current crop of electric vans have a range much less than
>than cars and with centralised delivery hubs many delivery companies
>around my way are doing 60 miles to and from the hub before considering
>the mileage covered delivering 100+ packages.

The german Post Office needed a vehicle: large capacity, electric, relatively
slow, short range, city use to deliver parcels.

They built their own, eventually,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StreetScooter

They also make a "Work Trike": pushbike, tricycle, 90 kilos load, 25 km/h top
speed, "push help" (i.e. moves without pedaling) at 4 km/h, range 30 km. This is
for letter carriers on their rounds, in town, i.e. houses with multiple
letterboxes.

The vans are lithium batteries, the pushbikes don't say -- I'd expect Li because
of weight considerations on a pushbike...

Thomas Prufer

On 20/02/2023 23:22, David Paste wrote:
> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and whilst
> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't always
> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries

They didn't. They used NiFe batteries. Those batteries are still around
today:
<https://ironedison.com/shop/batteries/nickel-iron/nickel-iron-ni-fe-battery/>

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 23:22, David Paste wrote:
>> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and whilst
>> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't always
>> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries
>
> They didn't. They used NiFe batteries.

First I’ve heard of it. Got any links to milk floats with those batteries?

I CAN find links to them having lead acid batteries.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 21/02/2023 10:35, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 23:22, David Paste wrote:
>> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc,
>> and whilst
>> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't
>> always
>> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries
>
> They didn't. They used NiFe batteries. Those batteries are still around
> today:
> <https://ironedison.com/shop/batteries/nickel-iron/nickel-iron-ni-fe-battery/>
>
Er sorry, the original milk floats of my youth were definitely lead acid.

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

David Paste <pastedavid@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and whilst
> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't always
> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries, so surely they would be a
> fine candidate for NiMH replacement (I'm thinking of smaller batteries for
> a greater load of milk or whatever). Also, speaking to the local Evri delivery
> guy, he does about 20 miles a day in his Ford Transit, surely that would be
> an ideal vehicle to be electrified, and NiMH would surely be 'better' in terms
> of cost and environmental issues than lithium batteries?

Today's lithium ion batteries are lithium + nickel/manganese/cobalt, which
are designed for energy density in phones and laptops.

The new generation are lithium iron phosphate. Less energy density but more
robust and harder to catch fire, so you make back some of the energy density
by not needing as much fire protection.

Iron and phosphorus are abundant, so the constraint is only on lithium.
Lithium is abundant too - in seawater. The challenge is how to extract it
in usable amounts. Progress is being made:
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/lithium-from-seawater

Lithium mining is just digging up places where sea water has historically
collected and evaporated, much like the way we harvest table salt in salt
pans from the sea.

There are also sodium ion batteries, which replace the lithium with more
commonly available sodium:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery

> So, what I have I got wrong? Is there anything obvious that I am
> missing / don't understand?
>
> Is Lithium worse to mine and process than NiMH?

Lithium is easier to mine than nickel. You can pump water into boreholes
and extract brine, whereas with nickel you need to dig out the ore.

The 'metal' in NiMH can be fancy too. Wikipedia:

"The metal M in the negative electrode of a NiMH cell is an intermetallic
compound. Many different compounds have been developed for this
application, but those in current use fall into two classes. The most
common is AB5, where A is a rare-earth mixture of lanthanum, cerium,
neodymium, praseodymium, and B is nickel, cobalt, manganese, or aluminium.
Some cells use higher-capacity negative electrode materials based on AB2
compounds, where A is titanium or vanadium, and B is zirconium or nickel,
modified with chromium, cobalt, iron, or manganese.[18]"

> What about the recycling of each?

Recycling is pretty similar. Grind them up and separate the materials.
There's a lot of copper (for electrodes) and graphite in there.

> Other than capacity, are there any operational downsides of NiMH? (I
> think Toyota use them in their hybrid vehicles)

Cost per kWh is a big issue. The hybrid vehicles typically have 2kWh of
NiMH or less.

Theo

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 12:32:50 UTC, Theo wrote:
> David Paste <paste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and whilst
> > they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't always
> > needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries, so surely they would be a
> > fine candidate for NiMH replacement (I'm thinking of smaller batteries for
> > a greater load of milk or whatever). Also, speaking to the local Evri delivery
> > guy, he does about 20 miles a day in his Ford Transit, surely that would be
> > an ideal vehicle to be electrified, and NiMH would surely be 'better' in terms
> > of cost and environmental issues than lithium batteries?
> Today's lithium ion batteries are lithium + nickel/manganese/cobalt, which
> are designed for energy density in phones and laptops.
>
> The new generation are lithium iron phosphate. Less energy density but more
> robust and harder to catch fire, so you make back some of the energy density
> by not needing as much fire protection.
>
> Iron and phosphorus are abundant, so the constraint is only on lithium.
> Lithium is abundant too - in seawater. The challenge is how to extract it
> in usable amounts. Progress is being made:
> https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/lithium-from-seawater
>
> Lithium mining is just digging up places where sea water has historically
> collected and evaporated, much like the way we harvest table salt in salt
> pans from the sea.
>
> There are also sodium ion batteries, which replace the lithium with more
> commonly available sodium:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery
> > So, what I have I got wrong? Is there anything obvious that I am
> > missing / don't understand?
> >
> > Is Lithium worse to mine and process than NiMH?
> Lithium is easier to mine than nickel. You can pump water into boreholes
> and extract brine, whereas with nickel you need to dig out the ore.

It is also possible to dig up a Li ore called spodumene. There are large
deposits in Canada and the USA which are being, or soon will be, mined. After
refining the Li is shipped as lithium carbonate or lithium hydroxide.

John

> The 'metal' in NiMH can be fancy too. Wikipedia:
>
> "The metal M in the negative electrode of a NiMH cell is an intermetallic
> compound. Many different compounds have been developed for this
> application, but those in current use fall into two classes. The most
> common is AB5, where A is a rare-earth mixture of lanthanum, cerium,
> neodymium, praseodymium, and B is nickel, cobalt, manganese, or aluminium.
> Some cells use higher-capacity negative electrode materials based on AB2
> compounds, where A is titanium or vanadium, and B is zirconium or nickel,
> modified with chromium, cobalt, iron, or manganese.[18]"
> > What about the recycling of each?
> Recycling is pretty similar. Grind them up and separate the materials.
> There's a lot of copper (for electrodes) and graphite in there.
> > Other than capacity, are there any operational downsides of NiMH? (I
> > think Toyota use them in their hybrid vehicles)
> Cost per kWh is a big issue. The hybrid vehicles typically have 2kWh of
> NiMH or less.
>
> Theo

On 21/02/2023 11:12, Tim+ wrote:
> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/02/2023 23:22, David Paste wrote:
>>> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and whilst
>>> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't always
>>> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries
>>
>> They didn't. They used NiFe batteries.
>
> First I’ve heard of it. Got any links to milk floats with those batteries?

It was a lot more difficult than I thought! At
<https://www.mpoweruk.com/traction.htm>:

"Practical Traction Batteries

For over a century Lead Acid batteries have been the prime source of
energy for traction applications because they are both robust and
relatively inexpensive. For fork lift trucks, milk floats and similar
applications Nickel Iron batteries, which are almost indestructible and
have a lifetime of up to ten years, have also been used successfully."

That's the only link I could find. Perhaps because a milk float is a
uniquely British thing it's almost never mentioned elsewhere. There are
quite a few mentions of them being used in forklift trucks. I can
remember talking to a guy in the early 70s who was driving a pretty
clapped out milk float used as a vehicle on a big site to help move
stuff around. It was probably at least 20 years old then. When I
commented on the big batteries, asking if they were used in lorries, he
said that they were NiFe cells, which I hadn't heard of.

--

Jeff

I think the issue is the number of cycles and what happens if you flatten
them too much and their tendency to have weak cells that get reverse
charged, though a lot of this could be fixed by some electronics, I'd
suggest.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"David Paste" <pastedavid@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d01f1299-47e2-4eb1-bced-c00d504d8934n@googlegroups.com...
> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and
> whilst
> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't
> always
> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries, so surely they would be
> a
> fine candidate for NiMH replacement (I'm thinking of smaller batteries for
> a greater load of milk or whatever). Also, speaking to the local Evri
> delivery
> guy, he does about 20 miles a day in his Ford Transit, surely that would
> be
> an ideal vehicle to be electrified, and NiMH would surely be 'better' in
> terms
> of cost and environmental issues than lithium batteries?
>
> So, what I have I got wrong? Is there anything obvious that I am
> missing / don't understand?
>
> Is Lithium worse to mine and process than NiMH?
> What about the recycling of each?
> Other than capacity, are there any operational downsides of NiMH? (I
> think Toyota use them in their hybrid vehicles)
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> David Paste.

On 21 Feb 2023 at 03:09:27 GMT, Paul wrote:

> Rather than using spider diagrams, they use a plain table when
> comparing battery chemistry here.
>
>
> https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-107-comparison-table-of-secondary-batteries

30% discharge per month, and a maintenance cycle every 3 months? Not my
expereince of NiMh . . .
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 2/21/2023 12:36 PM, RJH wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2023 at 03:09:27 GMT, Paul wrote:
>
>> Rather than using spider diagrams, they use a plain table when
>> comparing battery chemistry here.
>>
>>
>> https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-107-comparison-table-of-secondary-batteries
>
> 30% discharge per month, and a maintenance cycle every 3 months? Not my
> expereince of NiMh . . .
>

That table does not include the LSD variant.

What we don't know, is whether you can make large cells
with LSD behavior.

Paul

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On 2/21/2023 12:36 PM, RJH wrote:
> > On 21 Feb 2023 at 03:09:27 GMT, Paul wrote:
> >
> >> Rather than using spider diagrams, they use a plain table when
> >> comparing battery chemistry here.
> >>
> >> https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-107-comparison-table-of-secondary-batteries
> >
> > 30% discharge per month, and a maintenance cycle every 3 months? Not my
> > expereince of NiMh . . .
> >
>
> That table does not include the LSD variant.
>
> What we don't know, is whether you can make large cells
> with LSD behavior.

I don't think there's a technical reason why not, but the question is
whether you can do so economically. Also, consumer LSD cells are
cylindrical, whereas EV cells are typically prismatic.

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2023 12:36 PM, RJH wrote:
>>> On 21 Feb 2023 at 03:09:27 GMT, Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rather than using spider diagrams, they use a plain table when
>>>> comparing battery chemistry here.
>>>>
>>>> https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-107-comparison-table-of-secondary-batteries
>>>
>>> 30% discharge per month, and a maintenance cycle every 3 months? Not my
>>> expereince of NiMh . . .
>>>
>>
>> That table does not include the LSD variant.
>>
>> What we don't know, is whether you can make large cells
>> with LSD behavior.
>
> I don't think there's a technical reason why not, but the question is
> whether you can do so economically. Also, consumer LSD cells are
> cylindrical, whereas EV cells are typically prismatic.

Try telling that to Elon!

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 03:09:38 UTC, Paul wrote:

> https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-107-comparison-table-of-secondary-batteries

Interesting link, thanks!

> https://nordkyndesign.com/lithium-battery-banks-fundamentals/
>
> If NiMh was "the best", wouldn't they all be using it ?

Do you know what the costs of each are by any chance?

> 830 km on a single charge

That'll be optimal situation though, right? I.e. not in the middle of winter with
the heater on. I'd love an electric car but other than the cost, it's the true range
that would be important: 200 miles in winter at night with no charging stops.

I know a guy who has an electric Vauxhall tranny van converted into a family
car (to take his son's powerchair) and it gets half the rated range in cold
weather, even when driving carefully. I know some electric cars are better than
others, but it's the optimism of the ideal situation range versus the realistic
range which bugs me in the marketing.

Cheers!

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 05:31:49 UTC, Animal wrote:

> they're very heavy, have far less capacity per weight, have very long charge
> times, and love to die young. Oh, the latter also makes them cost more per
> mile than lithium.

Ah, I didn't know they died young.

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 10:35:13 UTC, Jeff Layman wrote:

> They didn't. They used NiFe batteries. Those batteries are still around
> today:
> <https://ironedison.com/shop/batteries/nickel-iron/nickel-iron-ni-fe-battery/>

Ah! Thank you!

Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2/21/2023 12:36 PM, RJH wrote:
> >>> On 21 Feb 2023 at 03:09:27 GMT, Paul wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Rather than using spider diagrams, they use a plain table when
> >>>> comparing battery chemistry here.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-107-comparison-table-of-secondary-batteries
> >>>
> >>> 30% discharge per month, and a maintenance cycle every 3 months? Not my
> >>> expereince of NiMh . . .
> >>>
> >>
> >> That table does not include the LSD variant.
> >>
> >> What we don't know, is whether you can make large cells
> >> with LSD behavior.
> >
> > I don't think there's a technical reason why not, but the question is
> > whether you can do so economically. Also, consumer LSD cells are
> > cylindrical, whereas EV cells are typically prismatic.
>
> Try telling that to Elon!

EV *NiMH* cells. Lithium cells are an entirely different kettle of
electrolyte.

(although most of those are prismatic too - Tesla started with laptop
form-factor cells and built out from there because the machinery was
available, but most other EV manufacturers use larger prismatic cells.
Remains to be seen whether Tesla's advantage in battery longevity is due to
better cell cooling due to the gaps between the cylinders, or whether that
can be achieved with prismatic. I would imagine it probably could)

Theo

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 12:32:50 UTC, Theo wrote:

> Cost per kWh is a big issue. The hybrid vehicles typically have 2kWh of
> NiMH or less.

I see; I didn't know it was so low. Do you happen to know if any heavy goods
vehicles use a hybrid system at all?

On 21 Feb 2023 at 02:07:18 GMT, "alan_m" <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 20/02/2023 23:22, David Paste wrote:
>
>> So, what I have I got wrong? Is there anything obvious that I am
>> missing / don't understand?

The NiMH battery in my Auris hybrid gives me an EV range of between 1 and 2
miles.

--
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Terry Pratchett

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 21:14:44 UTC, Tim Streater wrote:

> The NiMH battery in my Auris hybrid gives me an EV range of between 1 and 2
> miles.

So does it run on electric only much, or is the motor used as a 'torque fill' feature for the engine?

On 21 Feb 2023 at 03:09:27 GMT, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/20/2023 6:22 PM, David Paste wrote:
>> Everyone goes on about lithium batteries as the goal for cars, etc, and whilst
>> they have a higher energy density, that 'ultimate' performance isn't always
>> needed. Milk floats got by on lead acid batteries, so surely they would be a
>> fine candidate for NiMH replacement ...

Lead is over 20 times heavier than lithium.

--
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf