New Battery or New UPS

Sean Nelson said:

wh1tby said:

Consumer level UPS still use MOVs for surge protection. The voltage regulation circuits in the UPS take care of incoming voltage variations within a specified ranges and over hundreds of milliseconds and with the pure sine wave devices, they often ensure the frequency stays constant too. Surge protection takes care of very short term transient voltage spikes which the voltage regulation circuits cannot handle. Hence these circuits can wear out over time. I used to design power supplies for very sensitive computer systems used for sensitive data transaction processing as part of my early training in systems engineering.

Click to expand...

If consumer surge suppressors have a limited lifetime, wouldn't it make sense to perform that function using a cheap device like a power strip that can be easily replaced every so often rather than rely on it being done by an expensive UPS system? You could replace the power strip when you replace the UPS battery and you'd be golden, no?

Click to expand...

I have tried expensive power conditioning units that are used for high end sound and vision systems. They have more sophisticated surge protection that will trip out and then reapply power after a delay and have enough current carrying capacity to handle high end power amplifiers and TVs. Most UPS usually require you to connect directly to the power socket so they can detect voltages and frequency more accurately and I think these power conditioners interfere with correct operation. Worth more investigation I think. Low end power strips can also interfere with operation and most UPS explicitly recommend that you do not connect to the power supply through such a power strip.

in general I would simply recommend buying a more sophisticated UPS with better power conditioning and pure sine wave output. I tend to think that lower end, lower cost units are disposable units that should be recycled when the battery expires. A $50 to $100 unit that lasts 5 years is not such an expensive experience and if you properly recycle them, the harm to the environment is not too bad though certainly not optimal. Again we are protecting expensive sensitive equipment so we should probably invest in good equipment that is less disposable and a more long term ownership experience. It is a bit like putting cheap tires on an expensive car.

Eric Carlson said:

I'm thinking of getting some small LiFePO4 power stations with UPS capability, instead of continuing to rely on ancient Lead Acid battery technology. They should be good for 10+ years without having to replace batteries. Though they are not yet as cheap as an UPS (Though UPSs have gotten more expensive recently, so it could reach equilibrium before long).

Click to expand...

I spoke of this earlier in the thread. At $450 for 1kwh of battery, I'd argue it has already past price equilibrium, though someone who just wants enough battery to shut down their device might find the $150-200 still a better value, even though it has only 200wh capacity and the battery will need replacing at least once.

Amazon does offer a $200 "Goidenmate" UPS with 230wh, but it strikes me as a fairly immature offering, typical of their generic brands.

XiaoDeer said:

Yes, but a lot of those costs are driven by an insane regulatory framework which seriously needs overhauling.

Click to expand...

Insane would be trusting energy producers to do the right thing. I already highlighted how poor gas refineries are at this.

The US government isn't any more truthworthy. They killed thousands of Americans downwind of nuclear testing sites. The current Administration could attempt to remove all meaningful oversight, but self interested NIMBYism would kick in. And if not, we'll eventually realize (both in mind and in accounting) the external costs of the decision. External costs dominate for both fossil fuels and nuclear.

XiaoDeer said:

XiaoDeer said:

In contrast, a 500 MW solar farm can be built for 350-650M. Granted, you have to apply a multiplier as it only produces that 500 for 6 hour per day, but 10X? No. Won't cost a fortune to decommission either.

Click to expand...

It's a pretty large multiplier when you factor in the cost of the batteries or gas peaker to provide power when the sun sets together with the transmission lines, other infrastructure and management.

Click to expand...

At today's prices, solar + batteries handily beats nuclear, and doesn't have the unknown variable of nuclear fuel costs and availability.

And we really have to account for the inevitable cost overruns for the nuclear build out, while we watch PV panels and batteries continue to decline in manufacturing cost.

XiaoDeer said:

And maintaining frequency stability is tough without lots of rotating machines as they learned in Spain/Portugal a few months ago.

Click to expand...

Surely you know better than to keep repeating that misinformation at this point.

"The two reports agree that the primary cause of the blackout was a failure of conventional synchronous generators to adequately control voltage, with secondary factors including Spain's weak electrical ties to the rest of Europe and the loss of some generation as the transformers that interconnect that generation"

XiaoDeer said:

Energy density has ruled in the past and it will in the future and for that reason wind and solar will turn out to be short term solutions pending future developments. Energy density is the reason fossil fuels became our primary energy source. Ultimately, the winner will be energy dense and clean.

Click to expand...

Or humanity doesn't make it before hitting the consumables cliff.

When each incremental wh comes for free, rather than requiring a non replenishable fuel, efficiency and density matter far less.

Chris Noble said:

Eric Carlson said:

I buy good inexpensive batteries from Amazon. But I do have several UPS's that still don't work with even new batteries.

I'm thinking of getting some small LiFePO4 power stations with UPS capability, instead of continuing to rely on ancient Lead Acid battery technology. They should be good for 10+ years without having to replace batteries. Though they are not yet as cheap as an UPS (Though UPSs have gotten more expensive recently, so it could reach equilibrium before long).

Click to expand...

Lithium batteries are light and compact, so good for portable gear. But expensive to make and hard/expensive to recycle.

Lead Acid is heavy and more voluminous, so better for stationary gear. But also cheap to make and easy/cheap to recycle many times over.

What's better depends on the application.

Click to expand...

Yes. Also Lithium would get rid of the annoying lead acid battery replacement 2 or 3 times in 10 years. And the related UPS unreliability when the batteries start to need replacement within that 10 year period. I find that part really annoying and inconvenient. And you have to deal with recycling all those heavy batteries.

kelpdiver said:

Eric Carlson said:

I'm thinking of getting some small LiFePO4 power stations with UPS capability, instead of continuing to rely on ancient Lead Acid battery technology. They should be good for 10+ years without having to replace batteries. Though they are not yet as cheap as an UPS (Though UPSs have gotten more expensive recently, so it could reach equilibrium before long).

Click to expand...

I spoke of this earlier in the thread. At $450 for 1kwh of battery, I'd argue it has already past price equilibrium, though someone who just wants enough battery to shut down their device might find the $150-200 still a better value, even though it has only 200wh capacity and the battery will need replacing at least once.

Amazon does offer a $200 "Goidenmate" UPS with 230wh, but it strikes me as a fairly immature offering, typical of their generic brands.

Click to expand...

Yes, you can also get more runtime from a LiFePO4 power unit. But I have some $50 UPS's in use, for things like routers and webcams, and the LiFePO4 units don't yet come that cheap.

kelpdiver said:

When each incremental wh comes for free, rather than requiring a non replenishable fuel, efficiency and density matter far less.

Click to expand...

Just see how much it costs when the energy is free. More than half of CA's power is from renewables and it costs me $0.50/kWh.

XiaoDeer said:

kelpdiver said:

When each incremental wh comes for free, rather than requiring a non replenishable fuel, efficiency and density matter far less.

Click to expand...

Just see how much it costs when the energy is free. More than half of CA's power is from renewables and it costs me $0.50/kWh.

Click to expand...

100% of my power is free at this point, as those solar panels are on my roof.

But as for the rate that PG&E is charging, it would have been even higher if they had been building more billion dollar power plants. Generation is one cost, then there is distribution, shareholder dividends, and exec bonuses. We're still paying for their various bad decisions, including homicide. The state should have acquired it when they were bordering on bankruptcy.

An interesting discussion, but I'm a little surprised that the moderators are allowing it to continue.

XiaoDeer said:

kelpdiver said:

When each incremental wh comes for free, rather than requiring a non replenishable fuel, efficiency and density matter far less.

Click to expand...

Just see how much it costs when the energy is free. More than half of CA's power is from renewables and it costs me $0.50/kWh.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert on this, but I suspect there are also other factors at play in California's high prices. Texas has a large and growing green energy infrastructure, and I don't expect they're installing it because it costs more.

Sean Nelson said:

XiaoDeer said:

kelpdiver said:

When each incremental wh comes for free, rather than requiring a non replenishable fuel, efficiency and density matter far less.

Click to expand...

Just see how much it costs when the energy is free. More than half of CA's power is from renewables and it costs me $0.50/kWh.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert on this, but I suspect there are also other factors at play in California's high prices. Texas has a large and growing green energy infrastructure, and I don't expect they're installing it because it costs more.

Click to expand...

Last time I looked at our electricity bill, we were paying about $0.13/kwh.

Traveling through west Texas over the years, every trip I saw more and more wind farms. However, recent statements from the national gov't suggest that'll be discouraged in the future. :-(

It remains to be seen if they'll Mess With Texas.

kelpdiver said:

100% of my power is free at this point, as those solar panels are on my roof.

Click to expand...

Only if your solar panels were bought and installed for free. And they require no maintenance.

kelpdiver said:

But as for the rate that PG&E is charging, it would have been even higher if they had been building more billion dollar power plants. Generation is one cost, then there is distribution, shareholder dividends, and exec bonuses. We're still paying for their various bad decisions, including homicide. The state should have acquired it when they were bordering on bankruptcy.

Click to expand...

Yes, there have been lots of bad decisions. However, PG&E is a "regulated monopoly". They can't really make any decisions without the agreement of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) who in many cases tell PG&E exactly what they have to do.

Newsom made it fashionable to blame PG&E for high rates when many of their actions were mandated by the state and the CPUC that Newson appointed. He similarly blames Big Oil for California's astronomic gasoline prices although the same companies can sell gas at hugely lower prices in other states.

Sean Nelson said:

XiaoDeer said:

kelpdiver said:

When each incremental wh comes for free, rather than requiring a non replenishable fuel, efficiency and density matter far less.

Click to expand...

Just see how much it costs when the energy is free. More than half of CA's power is from renewables and it costs me $0.50/kWh.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert on this, but I suspect there are also other factors at play in California's high prices. Texas has a large and growing green energy infrastructure, and I don't expect they're installing it because it costs more.

Click to expand...

You are correct, there are other factors that are specific to California. Nevertheless, if you examine electricity prices around the USA and the world, it's very clear that a larger proportion of power generated from ("free") renewables almost always leads to significantly higher prices.

And it gets worse because while it's easy to integrate 10-20% intermittent power into a grid, it's exceedingly difficult to integrate 80-90%.

We've gotten a bit too OT and political in our last few posts. Best to lock the thread at this point.

BobKnDP said:

An interesting discussion, but I'm a little surprised that the moderators are allowing it to continue.

Click to expand...

You are right, and I apologize for participating in that.