Talk:Lithium iron phosphate battery

This article was selected for DYK!

++Lar: t/c 13:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this a NPOV violation? The article describes advantages with scant discussion of disadvantages. If this technology was invented almost 10 years ago and has not reached widespread commercial use yet, is there a more serious disadvantage than listed?141.151.74.115 17:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The technology (MIT brand) was licensed by a company now called A123 Systems and is in the new DeWalt line of power tools. Recent agreements between A123, Cobasys and GM also suggest hybrid applications for the technology in the future. Joel Gouker 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording in comparison to "normal" lithium batteries is fishy. There are quite a lot of different lithium batteries, both primary and rechargeable. What is the "normal" here ? Lithium cobalt, lithium manganese or what ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantage

2) Brand new LFP's have been found to fail prematurely if they are "deep cycled" (discharged below 33% level) too early. A break-in period of 20 charging cycles is currently recommended by some distributors.[citation needed]

This statement contradicts my experience with LiFePO4 batteries. Does some no-original-research rule disqualify me from mentioning this? Bealevideo (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

4. The lithium reserves are estimated at 30,000 tonnes in 2015[7].

Not a reliable source. See here for more: [1]. Anders Ytterström (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Charge Rate

What are typical charge rates of these batteries? I seem to recall they are higher than for most types, but is it 2C, 4C , 8C ? 79.161.24.236 (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: The variety of (non-)definitions, symbols and units around the so-called C-rating of rechargeable cells and batteries on the web is maddening. The C rating for a particular battery provides an answer to the question, which maximum current may be drawn from that battery. The following applies to cells in the same way.

A C rating of 1 for discharging the battery means that the maximum constant discharge current would empty the full battery in 1 hour; a C rating of 2 means that the maximum constant discharge current is twice as large, hence would empty the full battery in half an hour, and so on.

The symbol "C" is unfortunate in that it designates the unit Coulomb of the electric charge as well as resembling the word "capacity", in the sense of the maximum electric charge that can be stored in a battery. Worse, capacity is easily confused with capacitance, with which it has nothing to do. However, we will probably have to live with "C", as it appears to have become an industry standard already.

In various discussions, C is often described as a current, which it is not! One also finds formulas to determine the discharge current as the product of the C rating and the full electric charge of the battery, which makes a mess of the units of measurement.

A reasonable way out of this could be the following:

"The discharge rate C_discharge of a cell or battery is the ratio of its discharge current I_discharge and its full electric charge Q_max.

Formula: C_discharge [1/h] = I_discharge [A] / Q_max [Ah]

Conversely: I_discharge [A] = C_discharge [1/h] × Q_max [Ah]

For example, for a battery with a full electric charge of Q_max=5Ah and manufacturer specifications of a charge rate of C_charge=1/h and a maximum constant discharge rate of C_discharge=10/h, the constant charge current is 5A, and the maximum constant discharge current is 50A. At those currents, the empty battery would be charged in 1 hour and the full battery discharged in 1/10 hour, respectively."

Feedback please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelwagnercanberra (talk • contribs) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Can they be charged faster or not

Answer the question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B04B:A96C:A73D:CB67:39AB:270C (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Max. Charge Voltage

Both 3.6 V and 4.2 V are mentioned as maximum charge voltage. 4.2 looks too much to me, as if somebody copied data from 'standard' Lipos - APF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.142.50 (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The LiFePO4 data sheets I've seen say 3.6 or 3.65 V is the normal end of charge voltage for cycle charging, and 4.1 or 4.2 V is the "absolute maximum" (damage threshold). For long-term float (trickle charging) the voltage is about 0.1 or 0.2 V less than cycle charge. Different vendors have slightly different data sheets for these values. I believe there is no absolute value, it is a judgement call to trade off greater charge capacity against longer total cycle life. Bealevideo (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Power density

It looks like one of Valence's products offers about 100 watt-hours per kilogram; is that typical? Is that more or less than NiMH? James S. 05:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

False claim re Prius?

The lead-in paragraph claims the first link mentions that "a Toyota Prius powered by their batteries obtained 125+ MPG" yet nowhere in the linked document does it even mention the Prius. Is the "cite" link just misplaced, maybe belonging just before that clause? PeterHansen 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the company ads should be removed from the introduction. Marketing claims for this or that fuel consumption are just that - marketing claims. Everything depends on the duty cycle: if a PHEV is driven only a few miles each day the gas mileage is virtually infinite, because the engine will never turn on; if you drive the same vehicle 500 miles in a day you'll probably get about 60 mpg. Claims of this nature probably shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. - BatteryGuy 02:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Use by OLPC

This battery technology is being used in the XO Laptop, produced by www.laptop.org The One Laptop per Child outfit. (They'll also have a NiMH battery available.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

History

"LiFePO4 was developed by John Goodenough's research group at the University of Texas in 1997." I think this is a rather bold or careless statement as a 1967 article in Acta Crystallographica by Santoro and Newnham discussed antiferromagnetism in LiFePO4. Reference: Acta Cryst. (1967). 22, 344-347 [ doi:10.1107/S0365110X67000672 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.112.1.3 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be more correct to say that "LiFePO₄" was developed for use as a battery cathode material by Goodenough's group"? sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"This problem was overcome by reducing the particle size, coating the LiFePO4 particles with conductive materials such as carbon, or both."

There is a material missing at the end of the above phrase. Could someone with knowledge please update this? --Niclas Ericsson (SLU) (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Battery classification

This chemistry is currently misclassified as a primary cell under the Galvanic Cells heading. It should be listed as a Secondary cell.Annirak (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Prototype This!

LFP batteries were featured on the November 5, 2008 episode of Prototype This!. They were used as the power source for a hexapod (walking) vehicle.--CheMechanical (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Patent Dispute

This technology is going to court for patent btw. Hydro-Quebec bought the exclusive rights from the board of regent of the university. this site gives the details: http://271patent.blogspot.com/2006/09/patent-battle-heats-up-for-lithium.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.198.121 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifications

Is there a source for any of this?

Also, drawback #4 (global supply of lithium) is a concern for all lithium-ion batteries, not just LFPs, so I don't think it belongs here. Kanhef (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some elements here are inconsistent with earlier text, e.g., "metallic lithium" is mentioned as the anode but earlier comments mention carbon is the common anode material. As others noted, no source is cited for any of this information, which is unacceptable considering the amount of detail. Mrweatherbee (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the caption, "Note the multi-layer copper busbar designed to carry more electrons on the surface of multiple plates rather than using a single solid connector between cells." This is likely incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.95.84 (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Higher current rating, AND low discharge rate?

In the list of advantages is "higher current or peak power rating". In the list of disadvantages is "many brands of LFP batteries have a low discharge rate". Except for the "many brands", isn't the second statement the exact opposite of the first?

I'll guess that the second statement is more true, due to the initial concerns about "intrinsically low electrical conductivity". --Dan Griscom (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Misconception in the advantages

Changing the anion does change the thermal properties of the compound but it seems like this section is saying we've replaced Co with PO4-3 that is not the case at all and fundamentally goes against chemistry. LiCoO2 is not safe because it will go into thermal runaway at temperatures achievable in a natural environment. This is not true for all layered oxides though, the safety of Li(Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3)O2 and Li(LiNiMn)O2 both show different safety characteristics because of a substitution of the metals in the transition metal layer of the layered metal oxide not because of the anionic substitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcamardese (talk • contribs) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdated article 2014-06, needs a complete rewrite

This article is outdated, and definitely needs a rewrite with proper citations (journal papers and published books).

I suggest more or less following the same structure of the lithium-ion article. By the way, a lithium iron phosphate battery is still a lithium-ion battery, so I would not want to repeat the entire information stated in that other article, only the most important points which apply to this technology.

I may make some edits here and there, and some major ones too, but this may take some time.----137.132.22.191 (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused "battery" with "cell"

I changed the word battery to cell a couple of places where it was clear that cell was meant. Somehow the edit was entered without my reason for the edit or explanation entered -- accident. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC))

Suggest merging with article on LiFePo4

There is an article for the material and one for the battery. They both use more or less the same information. As LFP is mostly intented for battery applications, I suggest to merge the LFP article with the LFP battery article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.23.12 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelwagnercanberra (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Anode

What material is used for the anode? Roberttherambler (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think graphite, or some other formulations of carbon. Sometimes carbon fiber with synthetic graphite is used, in different forms. It is evolving all the time too, mostly in the pursuit to improve life time of the battery. 2A02:168:F609:0:6EB4:8A5F:9FC4:E8FB (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Images of batteries or individual cells?

Hello friends, thanks for helping with the previous edits. I have a lot of lithium iron phosphate images. I have many images of complete battery assemblies and individual cells. How many more image files would be helpful on this page?

We have a couple of pictures of large stationary-type cells. Perhaps one or two of portable types would be useful, especially if some significant feature of the cell was well illustrated. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yttrium in cathode

Hi, Winston / Lion energy Limited, is major manufacturer of LYP, LiFeYPO4, where small quantity of yttrium is used to stabilize the cathode, and prolong life, especially when using cells with high charge / discharge currents. I added a small section in a article about Yttrium ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrium#Lithium_batteries ) , but maybe it should be also included here. There is so many LiFePO4 variations, that I am not sure if it is worth making separate article, or put it here. 2A02:168:F609:0:6EB4:8A5F:9FC4:E8FB (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Cell reactions

All battery articles should describe the cell reactions and state if they are discharge or charge reactions, or rather state them as discharge reactions by default. In this case it is a bit confusing since the article describes the electrode materials in their discharged state while in many cases, in particular for primary batteries but also often for chargeable batteries are described in the charged state. I presume these batteries may be manufactured in discharged state and the description refers to this manufactured state.

The line near the end "No lithium remains in the cathode of a fully charged LiFePO4 cell" shows that LiFePO4 is the discharged state. The article on lithium iron phosphate describes its reaction as LiFePO4 => Li+ + FePO4 + e- i.e. as the charge reaction rather than discharge. Without clarification this may be perceived as if the oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric would be the "fuel" of the battery while in reality ferric iron is the oxidiser in discharge. Of course the LFP would not be the cathode material but the anode then, but this is probably not evident for the general reader. (By the way don't anode and cathode change sides in going from discharge to charge?) My conclusion is that the discharge reactions are:

Li(C) => C + Li+ + e- negative side Li+ + FePO4 + e- => LiFePO4 positive side — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Article consistency

Throughout the article it seems that there is no consistency in what to call the battery/cell type. Should they be caled LiFePO, LiFePO₄, LiFePO4, or LFP? Sometimes in the same paragraph it seems to be caled both LFP and LiFePO.

Shouldn't the article list the possible variations in the first paragraph, and then consistency use only one of them?

I personally recommend using one of the LiFePO options, especially since there are comparisons to other chemistries.

I'm working on standardizing the artcile to LFP,when context is appropriate, because it pairs well with the common term NMC. We don't say LiNiMnCoO2 or even "Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt" we say "NMC". Leotohill (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Language construction

"LiFePO 4 is an intrinsically safer cathode material than LiCoO2 and manganese dioxide spinels through omission of the cobalt, with its negative temperature coefficient of resistance that can encourage thermal runaway."

This is not a sentence. The phrase "and manganese dioxide spinels through omission of the cobalt" does not fit the sentence. The text needs to be repaired by someone who knows the chemistry, so I won't try to fix it. --John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I understand what the sentence would be, and I would venture a correction, except that it seems to be comparing LiFePO4 to two alternatives and citing two safety hazards. Spike-from-NH (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Geology (history)

Triphlyte is a phosphate mineral, while Olivines are Magnesium silicate. Someone should double check the geology, to call it an olivine. 99.247.97.89 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Need to add explanation of fire safety

The current version of this article contains this sentence: "Enphase pioneered LFP home storage batteries for reasons of cost and fire safety."

However, the relevance of fire safety is not explained. Please add a few words of explanation so this is made clear. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

LFP battery technology now exceeds 180wh/kg, page needs updating

LFP battery technology now exceeds 180wh/kg, page needs updating Simon676 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)