[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":105},["ShallowReactive",2],{"example-chemistry-comparison-en":3,"faq-chemistry-comparison-en":67,"sources-chemistry-comparison-en":101},{"input":4,"output":10},{"requiredUsableKwh":5,"temperatureFactor":6,"ageFactor":6,"cableEfficiency":6,"inverterEfficiency":7,"acShare":8,"compareLifepo4":9,"compareAgm":9},2,1,0.9,0,true,{"results":11,"capacitySpreadFactor":37,"steps":38,"warnings":48},[12,24],{"chemistry":13,"requiredCapacityAh":14,"nominalKwh":15,"massKg":16,"volumeL":17,"purchasePrice":18,"usableWhPerKg":19,"usableWhPerLitre":20,"pricePerUsableKwh":21,"costPerThroughputKwh":22,"coldFactorAt0C":23,"maxChargeCRate":6},"lifepo4",195.31249999999997,2.5,24.414062499999996,17.578124999999996,292.96874999999994,81.92000000000002,113.7777777777778,146.48437499999997,0.03662109375,0.85,{"chemistry":25,"requiredCapacityAh":26,"nominalKwh":27,"massKg":28,"volumeL":29,"purchasePrice":30,"usableWhPerKg":31,"usableWhPerLitre":32,"pricePerUsableKwh":33,"costPerThroughputKwh":34,"coldFactorAt0C":35,"maxChargeCRate":36},"agm",333.3333333333333,4,90,39.99999999999999,533.3333333333334,22.22222222222222,50.00000000000001,266.6666666666667,0.5333333333333333,0.8,0.2,1.7066666666666668,[39,44],{"label":40,"expression":41,"value":6,"unit":42,"provenance":43},"dischargePath","eta_cable * (f_DC + f_AC * eta_inv)","","assumed",{"label":45,"expression":46,"value":37,"unit":42,"provenance":47},"capacitySpread","C_req,max \u002F C_req,min","exact",[49,56,61],{"level":50,"code":51,"params":52,"anchors":54},"info","CAPACITY_NOT_COMPARABLE",{"factor":53},1.71,[55],"requiredUsableKwh",{"level":50,"code":57,"params":58,"anchors":59},"NO_AGGREGATE_SCORE",{},[60],"candidates",{"level":62,"code":63,"params":64,"anchors":65},"warning","COLD_CAPACITY_LOSS",{"count":6},[66],"temperatureFactor",[68,71,74,77,80,83,86,89,92,95,98],{"q":69,"a":70},"Is a 100 Ah LiFePO4 battery equivalent to a 100 Ah AGM battery?","No — comparing rated capacities is meaningless here. Usable energy differs by more than a factor of two: LiFePO4 tolerates 80 percent depth of discharge against 50 percent for lead, and nominal voltage is 12.8 V versus 12.0 V. That is why this calculator normalises to equal usable kilowatt-hours: 2 kWh usable takes 195 Ah of LiFePO4 but 333 Ah of AGM.",{"q":72,"a":73},"Why is there no overall winner or score in the chemistry comparison?","The six evaluation axes are not commensurable, so any aggregate score would smuggle in a hidden weighting. The calculator reports each axis as an absolute figure — including cold-temperature capacity factor and maximum charge C-rate — and leaves the weighting to your use case.",{"q":75,"a":76},"Why do I have to enter price, mass and volume per amp-hour myself?","Those figures vary widely between manufacturers, and a built-in market database would be outdated within a year, so the calculator works with the datasheet in front of you. Treat the result as a pre-selection: the datasheet of the battery you actually choose governs the final design. Self-discharge, charge efficiency over the charge curve, calendar ageing and lead times are outside the model.",{"q":78,"a":79},"How large is the difference at equal usable energy, concretely?","In the example case (2 kWh usable, pure DC load) LiFePO₄ needs about 195 Ah of nominal capacity (0.8 DoD, 12.8 V), AGM about 333 Ah (0.5 DoD, 12.0 V) — a factor of 1.7, more in colder operation. Comparing “100 Ah vs 100 Ah” instead compares two different amounts of usable energy — i.e. nothing. That is exactly why this calculator normalises to usable kilowatt-hours.",{"q":81,"a":82},"Why does this comparison not automatically end at lithium?","Because the axes stay separate and the weighting belongs to the use case. In a summer garden shed, weight and cold behaviour are irrelevant — purchase and throughput costs decide, and at few cycles per year calendar ageing binds anyway (see the cycle-cost calculator): then AGM can be ahead. Practically all battery comparisons on the web are affiliate-driven and always end at lithium; this one sells nothing.",{"q":84,"a":85},"Where do the candidate numbers come from — and what is built in?","Built in are only the electrochemical basics: nominal voltages per chemistry (LiFePO₄ 12.8 V, lead 12.0 V, NMC 11.1 V per “12 V” block) and guide values for depth of discharge and temperature factors from the versioned dataset. Mass, volume, price and cycle count per amp-hour are deliberately inputs: they vary substantially between manufacturers, and a built-in market database would be outdated within a year. The calculator works with the datasheet in front of you.",{"q":87,"a":88},"Where do the prices in the comparison come from?","From a versioned dataset with a retrieval date, maintained quarterly — not from a worked example. That is no formality here: the LiFePO4 retail price has halved since the 2025 specification (100 Ah blocks in August 2026: €119 to €196). If the prices go stale the calculator warns visibly, and the golden test turns the build red until dataset and changelog are maintained.",{"q":90,"a":91},"What did the price drop change in the result?","It razed the lead battery's last bastion: purchase price. For 2 kWh of usable energy LiFePO4 now costs €293, AGM €533 — lithium is cheaper up front, no longer only over its lifetime. Per throughput kilowatt-hour the gap was already a factor of 14 (3.7 versus 53 ct). A comparison at the old prices would have shown AGM as a budget option that no longer exists.",{"q":93,"a":94},"Which chemistries can I compare?","LiFePO4, AGM, gel and flooded — freely combinable via switches, at least two. Previously the example's two candidates were fixed and no other combination was reachable through the interface. The per-chemistry characteristics (depth of discharge, cold factor, price, mass, cycles) come from the datasets; for flooded the price range is deliberately wide because the class is declining and solid anchors are missing.",{"q":96,"a":97},"Why is there still no overall winner?","Because the six axes are incommensurable: 66 kilograms of weight difference decide a campervan build and mean nothing in a cellar; the sub-0 °C charge cut-off is irrelevant in a heated house and a knockout outdoors. An aggregated score would be a hidden weighting. The calculator shows the axes — the weighting belongs to the use case.",{"q":99,"a":100},"Do the prices include electronics?","No — block prices include the internal BMS of LiFePO4 blocks, but neither charger nor inverter nor installation. What matters is the system consequence: lead needs temperature-compensated charging and tolerates partial charging poorly; LiFePO4 needs a heater or sub-0 °C charge cut-off when installed outdoors. Those follow-on costs depend on the individual case and therefore appear as notes, not numbers.",[102],{"name":103,"url":-1,"retrievedAt":104,"version":-1},"Manufacturer datasheets (Victron, Fronius, BYD) and IEC 61427-1, aggregated","2026-06-15",1786101752186]