Public Report 9 Lithium-Ion Battery Testing: September 2020

Public Report 9
Lithium-ion Battery Testing
E N G I N E E R I N G | S T R A T E G Y | A N A LY T I C S | C O M P L I A N C E
September 2020
Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 I
Disclaimer
A person or organisation choosing to use documents prepared by IT Power (Australia) Pty Ltd accepts the following:
a) Conclusions and figures presented in draft documents are subject to change. IT Power (Australia) Pty Ltd accepts no respon-
sibility for their use outside of the original report.
b) The document is only to be used for purposes explicitly agreed to by IT Power (Australia) Pty Ltd.
c) All responsibility and risks associated with the use of this report lie with the person or organisation who chooses to use it.
This Project received funding from ARENA as part of ARENA’s Advancing Renewables Program. The views expressed herein are not necessarily the
views of the Australian Government, and the Australian Government does not accept responsibility for any information or advice contained within
this report.
ITP Renewables
Office: Level 1, 19-23 Moore Street

Turner ACT 2612
Postal: PO Box 6127

O’Connor ACT 2602
Australia
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +61 (0) 2 6257 3511
itpau.com.au
Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 II

About ITP Renewables
ITP Renewables (ITP) is a global leader in energy engineering, consulting and project management, with expertise
spanning the breadth of renewable energy, storage, efficiency, system design and policy.
We work with our clients at the local level to provide a unique combination of experienced energy engineers,
specialist strategic advisors and experts in economics, financial analysis and policy. Our experts have professional
backgrounds in industry, academia and government.
Since opening our Canberra office in 2003 we have expanded into New South Wales, South Australia and New
Zealand.
ITP are proud to be part of the international ITP Energised Group—one of the world’s largest, most respected and
experienced specialist engineering consultancies focussed on renewable energy, energy efficiency and climate
change.
Established in the United Kingdom in 1981, the Group was among the first dedicated renewable energy
consultancies. In addition to the UK it maintains a presence in Spain, Portugal, India, China, Argentina and Kenya,
as well as our ITP offices in Australia and New Zealand.
Globally, the Group employs experts in all aspects of renewable energy, including photovoltaics (PV), solar thermal,
marine, wind, hydro (micro to medium scale), hybridisation and biofuels.
About This Report
Supported by a $1.29m grant from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) under its Advancing
Renewables Program, the Lithium-Ion Battery Test Centre program involves performance testing of conventional and
emerging battery technologies. The aim of the testing is to independently verify battery performance (capacity fade
and round-trip efficiency) against manufacturers’ claims.
Six lithium-ion, one conventional lead-acid, and one advanced lead-acid battery packs were installed during Phase
1 of the trial. The trial was subsequently expanded with a Phase 2 to include an additional eight lithium-ion packs,
a zinc bromide flow battery, and an aqueous hybrid ion battery bank. Recently a Phase 3 comprising another seven
lithium-ion packs and a sodium nickel battery was also installed.
According to original testing timelines, this would be the Final Report to include results for the Phase 2 batteries;
however, this will be completed in 2022 in line with the extension of the testing period to match Phase 3 batteries.
This report describes testing results and general observations or issues encountered thus far with the Phase 1,
Phase 2, and Phase 3 batteries.
This report, earlier reports, and live test results are published at batterytestcentre.com.au.
Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 III

List of Abbreviations
AC Alternating Current
AIO All-in-one (referring to a battery unit which is combined with a battery inverter and PV inverter)
ARENA Australian Renewable Energy Agency
AUD Australian Dollar
BESS Battery Energy Storage System
BMS Battery Management System
BOS Balance of System
C (number) “C Rate” (charge rate), is a measure of the rate at which the battery is charged/discharged relative to its
nominal capacity. Conversely, it can be thought of as the time over which the entire (nominal) battery
capacity is charged/discharged (ie. a C10 rate indicates a charge/discharge rate at which a full charge/
discharge takes 10 hours. A 2C rate indicates a charge/discharge rate at which a full charge/discharge
takes only 0.5 hours)
CAN (bus) Controller Area Network (a message-based communications protocol allowing microcontrollers and
devices to communicate without a host computer)
DC Direct Current
DOD Depth of Discharge of a battery
ELV Extra Low Voltage
IR Infra-Red (region of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum used in thermal imaging)
ITP IT Power (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as ITP Renewables
kW Kilowatt, unit of power
kWh Kilowatt-hour, unit of energy (1 kW generated/used for 1 hour)
kWp Kilowatt-peak, unit of power for PV panels tested at STC
LFP Lithium Iron Phosphate (a common li-ion battery chemistry)
Li-ion Lithium-ion (referring to the variety of battery technologies in which lithium ions are intercalated at the
anode/cathode)
LMO Lithium Manganese Oxide (a common li-ion battery chemistry)
LTO Lithium Titanate (a common li-ion battery chemistry)
MODBUS A serial communication protocol for transmitting information between electronic devices
NMC Nickel Manganese Cobalt (a common li-ion battery chemistry)
NCC National Construction Code
PbA Lead Acid
PMAC Permanent Magnet Alternating Current (a variety of electric motor)
PV Photovoltaic
RE Renewable Energy
SOC State of Charge of a battery
UPS Uninterruptable Power Supply
VRB Vanadium Redox Battery, a type of flow battery
VRLA Valve Regulated Lead Acid
Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 IV

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY�� 1
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND�� 2
2. BATTERY OPERATION OVERVIEW�� 3
3. PHASE 1 UPDATE�� 4
3.1. Samsung AIO 10.8��4
3.2. Sony Fortelion��5
3.3. Tesla Powerwall 1��5
4.1. BYD B-Box LV��6
4.2. GNB Lithium��6
4.3. LG Chem RESU HV��7
4.4. Pylontech US2000B��8
4.5. Redflow ZCell��9
4.6. Tesla Powerwall 2��10
5.1. BYD B-Box HVM��11
5.2. Deep Cycle Systems (DCS) PV 10.0��11
5.3. FIMER REACT 2��12
5.4. FZSoNick��13
5.5. PowerPlus Energy LiFe Premium��13
5.6. SolaX Triple Power��14
5.7. sonnenBatterie��14
5.8. Zenaji Aeon��15
6. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON�� 17
6.1. Phase 1 Capacity Test Results��17
6.4. Round-Trip Efficiency��20
7. MARKET DEVELOPMENT�� 21
8. LESSONS LEARNED�� 22
APPENDIX A: KNOWLEDGE SHARING�� 23
APPENDIX B: TESTING PROCEDURE�� 26
APPENDIX C: PREVIOUS REPORT SUMMARY�� 28
Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 V

Executive Summary
ITP Renewables (ITP) is testing

the performance of residential and
commercial-scale battery packs in
a purpose-built, climate-controlled
enclosure at the Canberra Institute of
Technology. Eight batteries were installed
initially, followed by a further ten installed
in a second phase. Another eight battery
packs, including a lithium-titanate battery
and a sodium-nickel battery, were
installed in late 2019. This is the ninth
public six-monthly report.
While many battery packs have

experienced faults and/or failed
prematurely, the Sony battery pack from
Phase 1 has proven highly reliable to date,
alongside the Pylontech and GNB Lithium
battery packs from Phase 2. Phase 3
batteries have not yet completed enough
cycles to draw conclusions on reliability.
The Sony battery pack (Phase 1) has

retained over 80% of its initial capacity
after more than 2,500 cycles. The
Pylontech battery pack (Phase 2) has also
retained over 80% of its initial capacity
after nearly 2,000 cycles. Following
replacements, the Redflow ZCell (Phase
2) is also demonstrating excellent
capacity retention, albeit after a lower
number of cycles (~860).
Round-trip efficiency is more consistent

between battery packs, and has generally
been observed between 85-95% (DC)
for both the lead-acid and lithium-
ion technologies. The Redflow ZCell
efficiency is lower, at ~78%, as expected.
With respect to the market at large,

price reductions have stalled in recent
months, with this generally attributed
to cell production constraints and the
weak Australian dollar. Nevertheless,
most analysts believe that the large
amount of production capacity currently
under construction will continue to put
downward pressure on prices in the
medium-term. ITP’s opinion is that price
reductions are still required for mass-
market uptake, alongside improvements
in products, interfaces, and technical
support.
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND
ITP Renewables (ITP) is testing the performance of residential and commercial-scale battery packs in a
purpose-built, climate-controlled enclosure at the Canberra Institute of Technology. The aim of the testing is to
independently verify battery performance (capacity retention and round-trip efficiency) against manufacturers’
claims.
Six lithium-ion, one conventional lead-acid, and one advanced lead-acid battery packs were installed during Phase 1
of the trial, which commenced in August 2016. The trial was subsequently expanded to include an additional eight
lithium-ion packs, a zinc-bromide flow battery, and an Aquion “saltwater” battery bank. Phase 2 commenced in July
2017.
Nine battery packs from Phase 1 and 2 were removed from testing after March 2019, having either concluded the
original testing period or ceased testing for various reasons. The remaining nine batteries from Phase 1 and 2 are
continuing testing and discussed in this report. These include:
• Samsung AIO (Phase 1)
• Sony Fortelion (Phase 1)
• Tesla Powerwall 1 (Phase 1)
• BYD B-Box LV (Phase 2)
• GNB Lithium (Phase 2)
• LG Chem RESU HV (Phase 2)
• Pylontech US2000B (Phase 2)
• Redflow ZCell (Phase 2)
• Tesla Powerwall 2 (Phase 2)
In late 2019 a further eight battery packs, including a lithium-titanate (LTO) battery and a sodium-nickel battery, were
installed in the facility for testing under Phase 3 of the project. These batteries have begun cycling and are listed
below:
• BYD Battery Box HV
• Deep Cycle Systems (DCS) PV 10.0
• FIMER REACT2
• FZSoNick
• PowerPlus Energy LiFe Premium
• SolaX Triple Power
• sonnenBatterie
• Zenaji Aeon
This is the ninth public report outlining the progress and results of the trial thus far. A summary of the eight
previous reports is provided in Appendix C. Complete reports are accessible on the Battery Test Centre website at
batterytestcentre.com.au/reports/.
Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 2

2. BATTERY OPERATION OVERVIEW
Figure 1 below gives an overview of the issues experienced by battery packs installed in the trial. Note that only issues inhibiting all cycling are displayed, including commissioning difficulties, failures requiring replacement, and removal of
batteries.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct
CALB Single faulty cell identified and replaced
SOC algorithm errors cause battery to cycle SOC algorithm errors cause battery
Ecoult outside design parameters, battery replaced to cycle outside design parameters
GNB PbA Testing concluded

PHASE 1
Kokam BMS does not protect battery from undervoltage and it is unable to be restarted
Procurement, installation,
and commissioning
LG Chem LV Battery replaced due to cell imbalance
Samsung
Sony
Tesla PW1 Battery fails to charge after disconnection during Phase 3 construction works and discharges to 0% SOC Testing concluded
Alpha ESS Battery pack cycling affected by overtemperature, Alpha removes its batteries Testing concluded
Commissioning Battery unable to be cycled
Ampetus difficulties
Ampetus enters liquidation $ due to cell imbalances.
Testing concluded
Aquion $ Aquion files Battery not cycling as it is
for bankruptcy unable to be commissioned $ Aquion re-acquired but not offering
support for existing products
Suspected internal BMS failure of one battery module. Awaiting battery replacement
BYD LV BYD states all modules faulty due to cell imbalance with newer LV model
PHASE 2
GNB Li-ion Procurement,

installation, and
LG Chem HV commissioning BMS does not protect battery from undervoltage
and it is unable to be restarted, battery replaced
Pylontech
Battery replaced due to Electrolyte Commissioning of

Redflow contaminated electrolyte leaks, battery second inverter Electrolyte leak, battery replaced
replaced
Recommended inverter setpoints change and
SimpliPhi battery is cycled outside design parameters, Testing concluded
Simpliphi removes its batteries
Tesla PW2 Battery not cycling as it cannot be externally controlled Battery replaced, cycling commences
BYD HV Replaced with new i

HVM model
DCS
FIMER
PHASE 3
FZ SoNick Procurement,
installation, and
PowerPlus Energy commissioning
SolaX
sonnen
Zenaji states that the SMA
Zenaji SI is no longer considered i
a compatible inverter
Figure 1: Overview of battery operation
3. PHASE 1 UPDATE
This section provides a summary of any developments in the past six months for the remaining Phase 1 batteries,
and gives an update on progress overall.
3.1. Samsung AIO 10.8
Operational Issues
The Samsung AIO10.8 has completed a high number of cycles1 (~2,730
cycles). While it has generally been highly reliable, in the last month or so it
has sometimes stopped responding to charge/discharge commands, and
only operates again once power cycled. The cause for this is not yet known.
Moreover, towards the end of charge cycles, the power to the Samsung is
oscillating between charging and discharging.
The Samsung now appears to experience SOC recalculation when reaching

the end of both the charge and discharge periods. As a result, even though
it is reaching a maximum SOC of approximately 90% each cycle, this may
not be accurate as it is jumping from close to 70% SOC. Similarly, during
discharge the SOC jumps from approximately 20% to 10%. ITP expects
that these issues are due to cell voltage imbalances, which are typically
exacerbated by aging.
Capacity Fade
The energy discharged per cycle (Figure 2) can be seen to have decreased
over time, with increasing variance between cycles also evident. This is
attributed to the issues with SOC estimation described above.
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
Energy discharged (Wh)
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Figure 2: Energy discharged per cycle by the Samsung battery pack
1
In this report, a cycle is defined by the nameplate capacity of the battery. Therefore, a 10kWh battery that completes 2 x 5kWh discharges has completed only 1 cycle.

This variance in this dataset makes state-of-health (SOH) estimation difficult, but residual capacity can be seen to be
around 73% of initial capacity (ie. suggesting a 73% SOH) after ~2,730 cycles.
3.2. Sony Fortelion
Operational Issues
The Sony pack has completed a high number of cycles. No faults have been
experienced in the past six months or at any time during testing, and it is still
cycling extremely well. There is a small jump in SOC at the end of the charge
cycle as it recalculates from 95% to 100%.
Capacity Fade
The energy discharged per cycle is depicted in Figure 3. It can be seen that
capacity has generally decreased over time. The data suggests a SOH of
~85% after ~2,610 cycles.
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Figure 3: Energy discharged per cycle by the Sony battery pack
3.3. Tesla Powerwall 1
Operational Issues
The previous Public Report described the failure of the battery to charge
when it was turned back on after Phase 3 construction works. Tesla no
longer stocks the Powerwall 1 model and this battery is no longer being
tested under the trial.

4. PHASE 2 UPDATE
Some battery packs have demonstrated challenges that affect cycling and capacity testing. These issues are
described below.
4.1. BYD B-Box LV
Operational Issues
The previous Public Report described the failure of one the four B-Box battery
modules, and BYD’s statement that the cell imbalance observed in all four
modules indicated that they were faulty. BYD is currently liaising with ITP to
replace the B-Box model with its most recent modular LV offering, which is
planned to be cycling before the release of the next Public Report.
4.2. GNB Lithium
Operational Issues
ITP has not experienced any operational issues with the GNB Lithium battery
pack. When performing diagnostic tests on the battery with GNB’s proprietary
software, a ‘Battery Internal Voltage Too High’ error is returned. When ITP last
contacted GNB, they stated that the errors were regular notifications.
Capacity Fade
The energy discharged per cycle is depicted in Figure 4. The data suggests a
SOH of ~54% after ~1,470 cycles.

9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Figure 4: Energy discharged per cycle by the GNB LFP battery pack
4.3. LG Chem RESU HV
Operational Issues
In Public Report 7, ITP described deep self-discharge of the LG Chem RESU
HV battery pack, and LG Chem’s subsequent design improvements. Prior to
Phase 3 construction works, the LG Chem battery was turned off while at
a high SOC, and the internal DC-DC converter was disconnected according
to LG Chem’s instructions. The battery was turned back on without issue
after construction works were completed. No operational issues have been
experienced since replacement of the battery in October 2018.
Capacity Fade
The full discharge capacity implied by each partial cycle is depicted in Figure
5. The data suggests a SOH of ~84% after ~1,110 cycles.

9,000
8,000
Estimated full charge capacity (Wh)

7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Figure 5: Estimated full charge capacity per cycle by the LG Chem RESU HV battery pack
4.4. Pylontech US2000B
Operational Issues
ITP has not experienced any operational issues with the Pylontech battery
pack.
Capacity Fade
6. The data suggests a SOH of ~82% after ~1,940 cycles.
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Figure 6: Estimated full charge capaciy per cycle by the Pylontech battery pack

4.5. Redflow ZCell
Operational Issues
The Redflow battery has not experienced any operational issues since it was
last replaced in February 2019. This is the fifth Redflow battery to be installed
in the test centre, with replacements due to contaminated electrolyte, and
electrolyte leaks.
The Redflow battery operates on a slightly different cycling regime to

other batteries in the trial. Due to battery charge rate limits, as well as the
requirement for regular maintenance cycles during which normal operation is
paused, the Redflow only completes two full cycles per day (instead of three).
The purpose of the maintenance is to remove all zinc from the electrode
stack so the next charge cycle starts with a “clean slate”. The maintenance
cycle requires the battery be fully discharged before the maintenance can
occur, and in the trial set-up this occurs at the end of each day (after two
complete cycles).
Capacity Fade
7. The data suggests some minor capacity fade (i.e. a SOH of 97%) after
~860 cycles.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Figure 7: Estimated full charge capacity per cycle by the Redflow battery pack

4.6. Tesla Powerwall 2
Operational Issues
In September 2018, the Tesla Powerwall 2 identified a ‘welded relay’ fault.
Tesla suggested that this may have been related to the burnt-out terminal
block discovered following installation, although this was not confirmed and
it is unclear what caused the fault. Both the Powerwall 2 and associated
Gateway (communications and energy management hardware) were
subsequently replaced by Tesla. Cycling of the replacement Powerwall 2
commenced in late November 2018.
ITP still have no direct control over the battery (as Tesla do not allow this
level of control of their products), but rely on Tesla to implement the cycling
schedule. This requires intermittent contact with Tesla as it appears that the
control is only set for a finite period each time it is implemented.
User-friendly monitoring of the Tesla Powerwall 2 is only possible via mobile

app. Data is available from the Tesla Powerwall 2’s local web interface.
Although Tesla has not published local API documentation, community
groups of have published a tutorial on how to take data from the battery
online.2 The data used by ITP in monitoring and analysis is obtained from this
API.
The Tesla Powerwall 2 is experiencing small jumps in SOC at the end of the
discharge cycle (7% to 0%) and the start of the charge cycle (0% to 9%).
Capacity Fade
The energy discharged per cycle is depicted in Figure 8. The data suggests a
SOH of ~88% after ~1,250 cycles.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Figure 8: Energy discharged per cycle by the Tesla Powerwall 2 battery pack
2
https://mikesgear.com/2017/12/07/monitoring-teslas-powerwall2-on-pvoutput-org/

5. PHASE 3 UPDATE
Some battery packs have demonstrated challenges that affect cycling and capacity testing. These issues are
described below.
5.1. BYD B-Box HVM
Operational Issues
The BYD B-Box HV was replaced with BYD’s more recent HVM model in June
2020. There was no issue experienced with the original B-Box HV installed;
however, as the testing period had only just begun, it was considered more
valuable to replace it with the latest model. The original B-Box HV is no longer
commercially available.
In mid-July, the HVM was shut down as part of a scheduled outage. However,
this caused the battery to enter a ‘stuck’ state where it could no longer
be turned off or on. BYD was helpful in assisting and the battery started
operating again after the BCU was temporarily disconnected from the
modules.
In late August, the battery’s internal DC breaker tripped during normal

operation. Following this, the system has been unable to be turned back
on with connection to the inverter for more than a few minutes before the
battery’s DC breaker trips again. The battery LED sequence indicates an
error code; however, at present BYD is unsure of the nature of the error and
undertaking further investigation.
Capacity Fade
Performance analysis will be included in the next Public Report, but no
capacity fade is apparent after ~140 cycles.
5.2. Deep Cycle Systems (DCS) PV 10.0
Operational Issues
The DCS battery in the trial is installed with an SMA Sunny Island inverter.
Although the system has a BMS, it is not designed with any communications
between the BMS and the inverter. Therefore, the inverter is responsible
for estimating SOC based on battery parameters entered, and its own
measurements (e.g. voltage, temperature, Coulombs etc.).
The inverter cycles are controlled with both battery voltage limits (as per DCS
advice) and inverter SOC limits (to avoid inverter shutdown). When cycling
the battery at a C3 rate, the battery voltage and estimated SOC would drop to

their cut-off levels well before the expected energy was discharged. DCS sent
a DC charger to ITP to assist in testing that the battery was still operating as
expected, by performing a slow discharge down to minimum voltage. The
test discharge was performed at 1kW rate, and indicated that the battery was
still at full capacity. However, ITP had difficulty discharging this full capacity
at higher discharge rates. The battery is now cycled at closer to a C5 rate with
four-hour charge and discharge rates, rather than three hours as per other
batteries in the lab.
The last Public Report described how the battery must be ‘woken up’ with
a 48V battery charger both before operation can begin, and also after any
period of time without operation (during which the battery will re-enter the
hibernation mode). DCS subsequently contacted ITP to clarify that the
hibernation state was particularly designed to allow a very low draw on the
battery during periods of inactivity, so that it can remain in that state for years
without destroying the cells. DCS also noted that most battery inverters do
have a ‘battery awaken’ button (i.e. do not require a ~48V voltage from the
battery to start), but the SMA Sunny Islands do not.
Capacity Fade
5.3. FIMER REACT 2
Operational Issues
ITP has not experienced any operational issues with the FIMER REACT 2
battery.
Capacity Fade
~475 cycles.
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Figure 9: Estimated full charge capacity per cycle by the FIMER battery pack

5.4. FZSoNick
Operational Issues
The FZSoNick is connected to a Victron inverter. The battery operates on a
slightly different cycling regime to other batteries in the trial. Due to battery
charge rate limits, it only completes two full cycles per day (instead of three)
FZSoNick also advised that the battery should undertake a weekly cycle
with prolonged charge periods and discharge down to 0% SOC, in order to
preserve battery capacity and keep the BMS SOC calculator accurate. These
operational differences mean that the FZSoNick battery accumulates cycles
at a slower rate than other batteries in the trial.
ITP has not experienced any operational issues with the FZSoNick battery.
Capacity Fade
5.5. PowerPlus Energy LiFe Premium
Operational Issues
The PowerPlus batteries in the trial are installed with an SMA Sunny Island
inverter. Although each battery has a BMS, the system is not designed with
any communications between the BMS and the inverter. Therefore, the
inverter is responsible for estimating SOC based on battery parameters
entered, and its own measurements (e.g. voltage, temperature, Coulombs
etc.).
However, the inverter does not appear to be able to accurately estimate the
SOC as SOC jumps at the end of discharge cycles (in line with the battery
voltage), and there is also an upwards jump at the end of the charge cycle.
The end of each discharge cycle is limited by the inverter minimum SOC
setpoint (to avoid shutdown) rather than the minimum voltage the battery
can reach.
ITP found that when cycling at C3 rates, the energy discharged during each
cycle was not close to the maximum apparently available, due to inverter SOC
limits being reached first. The battery is now cycling at closer to a C4 rate and
the battery discharges more energy at this rate before reaching minimum
SOC.
The battery warranty is dependent on the battery not being cycled below 20%
SOC. Given SOC data is not being directly communicated from the BMS to
the inverter, it appears that PowerPlus is depending on the inverter to either
accurately or conservatively estimate the battery SOC.
The PowerPlus battery also requires a 100% recharge every 7 to 14 days to

keep the external SOC counter accurate.
Capacity Fade

5.6. SolaX Triple Power
Operational Issues
ITP has not experienced any operational issues with the SolaX Triple Power
battery.
Capacity Fade
~475 cycles.
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Figure 10: Estimated full charge capacity per cycle by the SolaX battery pack
5.7. sonnenBatterie
Operational Issues
ITP experienced some small difficulties in controlling the sonnenBatterie
(specifically, the inverter) during the commissioning phases, when the
inverter would sometimes stop responding to commands until power cycled.
This may have been due to either high grid voltages, or firmware updates,
and the issue has not been observed since Sonnen disabled automatic
updates. These issues may have been specifically related to third-party
control commands and may not have resulted in any change to operation for
a regular installation.
Since then ITP has not experienced any operational issues with the
sonnenBatterie.

Capacity Fade
11. No capacity fade is apparent after ~445 cycles.
10,000.0
9,000.0
8,000.0
7,000.0
6,000.0
5,000.0
4,000.0
3,000.0
2,000.0
1,000.0
0.0
Figure 11: Estimated full charge capacity per cycle by the Sonnen battery pack
5.8. Zenaji Aeon
Operational Issues
The Zenaji batteries in the trial are installed with an SMA Sunny Island
inverter. Although each unit has a BMS, the system is not designed with any
communications between the BMS and the inverter. Therefore, the inverter is
responsible for estimating SOC based on battery parameters entered, and its
own measurements (e.g. voltage, temperature, Coulombs etc.).
However, the inverter does not appear to be able to accurately estimate the
SOC as SOC jumps at the end of discharge cycles (in line with the battery
voltage) and then re-calculates downwards. There is also a sharp upwards
jump partway through the charge cycle. The SOC does not generally go
higher than 85%, and the end of each discharge cycle is limited by the inverter
SOC setpoint (to avoid shutdown) rather than the minimum voltage the
battery can reach.
This behaviour has made it difficult to cycle the batteries according to the
test methodology (i.e. 3x full cycles per day). The energy discharged during
each cycle is not close to the maximum apparently available.
ITP has communicated with Zenaji about these difficulties and the best
settings to use. In early July 2020 Zenaji informed ITP that it no longer
recommends the SMA Sunny Island inverter for use with the Aeon batteries
and was removing it from its list of compatible inverters. ITP requested
that Zenaji replace the inverter with a Victron MultiPlus-II, the only other
compatible inverter which is also used in the trial. However, Zenaji stated
that it could only offer a Schneider inverter at this point in time. Since the

Schneider model is not used in the lab, ITP will continue to use the SMA
Sunny Island until such time as Zenaji can replace it with a Victron inverter.
Capacity Fade
Performance analysis will be included in the next Public Report. The trend in
capacity fade is unclear after ~240 cycles.

6. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
Testing the capacity of a battery cell involves discharging the cell between an upper and lower voltage limit at a
fixed current, at a given ambient temperature. Because ITP is conducting pack-level testing, the upper and lower
voltage limits are generally not accessible, and hence the maximum and minimum SOC are used as a proxy. The
result is that the precision of a single capacity test depends significantly on the SOC estimation, conducted either
by the battery inverter/charger or the in-built BMS.
Throughout the trial, ITP has observed erratic SOC estimation resulting in significant variability in the energy
discharged each cycle. As such, this report provides data and analysis based on both the energy discharged during
the monthly capacity tests (below), as well as on the energy discharged each “cycle” over the course of the trial
(see Sections 3 and 4 above). Both data sets should be considered before drawing conclusions.
6.1. Phase 1 Capacity Test Results
Figure 12 shows the estimated state of health (SOH) against cycles completed for each Phase 1 battery pack still
cycling. SOH is estimated by dividing the energy delivered at each capacity test by the energy delivered in the first
capacity test.
Sony Samsung
110%
100%
Estimated State of Health (%)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Cycle Count
Figure 12: Capacity fade of Phase 1 battery packs based on monthly capacity tests
It should be noted that Figure 12 includes lines-of-best-fit that are determined by simple linear regression. While a
linear regression appears to provide a good fit to the capacity test data collected thus far, extrapolating linearly into
the future may not be appropriate.

Samsung AIO10.8
Based on the linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 12), the Samsung AIO pack is
on track for 60% SOH at ~4,400 cycles. As above, however, the cycle data suggests some non-linearity which may
invalidate this extrapolation.
Sony Fortelion
Based on a linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 12), the Sony Fortelion pack is
on track for 60% SOH at ~6,400 cycles. As above, however, a linear extrapolation may not be appropriate.
Figure 13 shows the estimated state of health (SOH) against cycles completed for each Phase 2 battery pack still
cycling. SOH is estimated by dividing the energy delivered at each capacity test by the energy delivered in the first
capacity test.
Pylontech LG Chem RESU HV GNB Lithium Tesla PW2
110%
100%
Estimated State of Health (%)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Cycle Count
Figure 13: Capacity fade of Phase 2 battery packs based on monthly capacity tests
It should be noted that Figure 13 includes lines-of-best-fit that are determined by simple linear regression. While
a linear regression appears to provide good fit to some of the capacity test data collected thus far, extrapolating
linearly into the future may not be appropriate.

GNB Lithium
Based on a linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 13), the GNB Lithium is on track
for 60% SOH at ~1,300 cycles. As above, however, the data suggests some non-linearity which may invalidate this
extrapolation.
LG Chem RESU HV
Based on the linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 13), the LG Chem RESU HV is
Pylontech US2000B
Based on the linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 13), the Pylontech US2000B is
Tesla Powerwall 2
The Tesla Powerwall 2 cycling regime is implemented by Tesla, based on requests from ITP. This requires
intermittent communication with Tesla as their implemented schedules periodically expire.
Based on the linear regression between estimated SOH and cycles completed (Figure 13), the Tesla Powerwall 2 is
Redflow ZCell
The Redflow ZCell is controlled via the ZCell portal, where it follows a daily cycling regime. The portal does not
currently allow for monthly scheduled changes to implement the capacity test regime.
Capacity tests data has been collected for the new Phase 3 batteries but the low number of cycles completed by
each battery means that trends relating to capacity fade cannot be determined. This data will be depicted in the next
Public Report.

6.4. Round-Trip Efficiency
The lifetime round-trip efficiency results are shown for each battery in Figure 14. Note that the results shown for
the sonnenBatterie and Tesla PW2 are in orange as these values are AC round-trip efficiency. DC values are not
available, but can be assumed to be higher.
DC AC
100%
75%
Round-trip Efﬁciency
50%
25%
0%
BYD LV
GNB LFP
LG Chem HV
BYD HV
Pylontech
Red ow
Zenaji
Samsung
Sony
Tesla PW2
FIMER
Powerplus
SolaX
DCS
Sonnen
Figure 14: Lifetime round-trip efficiency for each battery pack

7. MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Since the beginning of the project, the cost of residential and commercial scale lithium-ion battery packs has fallen.
Further, throughout that period, many manufacturers have significantly altered their product offering, and several
have exited the market or become insolvent. In recent periods, cost progress has slowed, attributed to capacity
constraints at the manufacturing level, increasing raw material costs (cobalt, in particular), and a weakening
Australian dollar.
These trends have continued since publication of the last Public Report. Figure 15 shows prices for NMC and LFP
battery models installed in the Battery Test Centre over time.
$2,500 LFP 1
LFP 2
LFP 3
LFP 4
$2,000 LFP 5
LFP 6
LFP 7
LFP 8
$/Nominal kWh
$1,500 LFP 9
LFP 10
LFP 11
LTO
$1,000 NMC 1
NMC 2
NMC 3
NMC 4
$500 NMC 5
NMC 6
NMC 7
NMC 8
$0 NMC 9
December 2016
December 2019
March 2016
May 2020
January 2015
June 2015
November 2015
August 2016
May 2017
June 2018
November 2018
March 2019
August 2019
September 2017
February 2018
September 2020
LFP12
Figure 15: Wholesale prices for lithium-ion battery products installed in the Battery Test Centre
Globally, significant additional lithium-ion production capacity is expected to be developed over the medium term,
and manufacturers are increasingly substituting cobalt out of their cells. This production capacity expansion is in
part related to the expected demand from electric vehicle manufacturers. The effect should be falling lithium-ion
battery costs in the medium-term.

8. LESSONS LEARNED
Having been in operation for over four years now, the Battery Test Centre project has revealed a number of
valuable lessons. The lessons learned relate not only to the performance of the batteries throughout the trial, but
also to the performance of suppliers in delivering products and providing technical support during commissioning
and operation. These lessons have been described in previous reports, available at www.batterytestcentre.com.au.
While all of those lessons are still pertinent, the following additional observations have been made since the last
Public Report.
• Some of the new batteries installed under Phase 3 have no communications between the BMS and inverter.
This approach relies on the inverter to safely and accurately manage operation for optimal performance. All
three of these batteries are installed with SMA Sunny Island inverters. ITP has encountered some difficulty in
commissioning these batteries to cycle according to the test methodology.
• Previous Public Reports have described difficulties in commissioning batteries and inverters to work together
despite statements of compatibility from manufacturers (particularly battery manufacturers, rather than
inverter manufacturers). Some battery manufacturers do not appear to comprehensively test their product with
inverters before declaring compatibility, and this can result in stated battery specifications (e.g. energy capacity
with certain charge/discharge rate) not being realised in practice.

Appendix A: Knowledge Sharing
An important part of ITP’s battery testing project has been to maximise the demonstration value of the trial by:
• Sharing the knowledge with the largest possible audience
• Publishing data in a way that is highly accessible and user friendly
• Adding value to the raw data through expert analysis and commentary
The Knowledge Sharing seeks to publicise data and analysis generated by the battery testing in order to help
overcome the barriers impeding the up-take of battery storage technology. In particular, it seeks to overcome the
barrier that there are no known published studies of side-by-side battery comparisons which test manufacturers’
claims about battery performance. This lack of independent verification contributes to investor uncertainty.
The intended users of the information generated by the project include:
• Future energy project developers, including technology providers and financiers, who will be examining the
investment case of a range of energy storage options.
• Energy analysts involved in projecting future renewable energy costs and uptake rates.
• Electricity industry stakeholders including generators, TNSPs, DNSPs, and regulators.
The Battery Test Centre website3 was established as the key mechanism for sharing knowledge. The website
includes background on the project, live tracking of battery status, and a virtual reality component that replicates
the battery test facility. To date the site has had over 231,800 page views with an average of 2:07 minutes spent per
page overall and 3:55 minutes spent on the reports page.
Figure 16: Number of sessions by country

3
batterytestcentre.com.au

The data from the website shows that the key audience is Australia, with Australian IP addresses accounting for
56,972 sessions (48%). A session is logged as a single viewer who may view multiple pages within a restricted
period (periods are normally reset after 30 minutes of inactivity). Australia is followed by 12,809 sessions from
the United States, 3,974 from the United Kingdom and Germany not far behind on 3,799. It is interesting to note,
however, that the content has been accessed from right across the globe.
1200
900
Weekly Page Views
600
300
0
October 2016
November 2017
December 2018
October 2019
January 2017
April 2017
July 2017
February 2018
May 2018
March 2019
June 2019
August 2020
September 2018
January 2020
April 2020
Figure 17: Weekly active users
Figure 17 above shows the number of weekly active users that have accessed the website and there is a clear rise
between the Phase 1 figures at around 250 weekly users, to the launch of Phase 2 in August of 2017 when the
weekly averages nearly doubled to around 500 active weekly users. The peaks coincided with media articles that
were distributed on those dates. Since then the number of users has been on a gradual upwards trajectory, with an
increase noted after the release of Report 6 and associated media articles in June 2019. Around April 2020 there
was a small decline in viewers, likely due to the focus on COVID-19 related news at that time. Overall though, interest
in the site has remained reasonably constant in the last six months, with the number of weekly users hovering
around 600.
There is a good spread of views across the website, particularly the technology and results pages; the top five most
viewed pages after the homepage (18%) are the batteries page (11%), the reports page (11%), LG Chem RESU (7%),
Pylontech US2000B (7%) and the background page on lithium-ion technology (4%).

Background - Lithium Ion
4%
Pylontech US2000B
7%
LG Chem RESU
7%
Other
42%
Reports
11%
Battery Results
11%
Homepage
18%
Figure 18: Breakdown of the 231,800 page views

Appendix B: Testing Procedure
The key objective of the testing is to measure the batteries’ decrease in storage capacity over time and with energy
throughput. As the batteries are cycled they lose the ability to store as much energy as when they are new.
To investigate this capacity fade, the lithium-ion batteries are being discharged to a state of charge (SOC) between
5% and 20% (depending on the allowable limits of the BMS), while the lead-acid batteries are being discharged to a
50% SOC (i.e. 50% of the rated capacity used). The advanced lead battery is being be cycled between 30% and 80%
SOC. These operating ranges are in line with manufacturers’ recommendations for each technology.
Each battery pack is charged over several hours (mimicking daytime charging from the PV), followed by a short
rest period, then discharged over a few hours (mimicking the late afternoon, early evening period) followed by
another short rest period. In total, there are three charge/discharge cycles per day.
Temperature Profile
The ITP lithium-ion battery trial aims to test batteries in ‘typical’ Australian conditions. It is expected that most
residential or small commercial battery systems will be sheltered from rain and direct sunlight, but still be exposed to
outdoor temperatures; therefore, the ambient temperature in the battery testing room is varied on a daily basis, and
varies throughout the year. The high and low temperatures are given in Table 1.
ITP implements ‘summer’ and ‘winter’ temperature regimes for the three daily charge/discharge cycles. In the
summer months the batteries undergo two cycles at the monthly high temperature and the third at the monthly low
temperature, and in the winter months the batteries undergo two cycles at the monthly low temperature and the
third at the monthly high temperature.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Low (ºC) 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 12 14 16 18 20
High (ºC) 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 26 28 30 32 34
Regime (ºC) S S S S W W W W W W S S
Table 1: Daily high and low ambient temperatures throughout the year
Given the focus on energy efficiency and low energy consumption at the CIT Sustainable Skills Training Hub, the
timing of the high and low temperature cycles is matched with the variations of outdoor temperatures, to allow
transitions between high and low temperature set-points to be assisted by outdoor air. The schedule of charge and
discharge cycles is show in Figures 2 and 3.

40
Low (ºC)
High (ºC)
35
30
25
Temperature (ºC)
20
15
10
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 1: Daily hot and cold cycle temperatures throughout the year
100
80
State of charge (%)
60
40
20
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
0:
1:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Figure 2: Summer temperature regime and charge regime
100
80
State of charge (%)
60
40
20
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
0:
1:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Figure 3: Winter temperature regime and charge regime

Appendix C: Previous Report Summary
Report 1
September 2016
Report 1 was published in September 2016 and outlined the background of the project. The intended audience of the
trial included the general public, research organisations, commercial entities, and government organisations who are
considering investment in battery energy storage.
The report described conventional lead-acid and lithium-ion technologies, the process of battery selection, and the testing
procedure. The implementation process from procurement through installation to commissioning was also described for
the eight Phase 1 batteries listed in Table 2 below.
Product Type Nameplate Capacity (kWh nominal)
CALB CA100 Lithium Iron Phosphate 10.24
Ecoult UltraFlex Lead Carbon 14.8 (C8)
GNB Sonnenschein Lead Acid 14.4 (C100)
Kokam Storaxe Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt 8.3
LG Chem RESU 1 Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt 9.6
Samsung AIO Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt 10.8
Sony Fortelion Lithium Iron Phosphate 9.6
Tesla Powerwall 1 Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt 6.4
Table 2: Phase 1 battery packs
At the completion of the first report, battery cycling had been underway for roughly three months. At that early stage
of testing, data did not provide meaningful insight into long-term battery performance. As such, the report focussed
on the lessons learned during the procurement, installation and commissioning phases and set out the structure in
which results would be released in future reports.
Report 2
March 2017
Capacity tests were conducted in each of the six months between September 2016 and February 2017, and the results
were published in Public Report 2.

It was reported that the Kokam Storaxe battery pack had suffered irreversible damage during that time, due to improper
low-voltage protection provided by the built-in Battery Management System (BMS).
It was also reported that the CALB pack required a replacement cell and thereafter was functional, but still showing
evidence of either a weak cell or poor battery management by the external BMS.
Capacity fade was evident for some of the battery packs under test, as expected. However, for others, long-term trends
were not yet discernible owing to the inherent variability in individual capacity test results, attributed to imprecision in SOC
estimation.
In terms of round-trip efficiency, despite the limited data, already it could be observed that lithium-ion out-performs the
conventional lead-acid battery pack, despite lead-acid efficiency appearing higher than general expectations. Refer to the
complete report for details.
Report 3
November 2017
Report 3 described the process of procuring and installing the 10 x Phase 2 battery packs listed in Table 3 below, and
outlined testing results and general observations or issues encountered with the Phase 1 battery packs.
Alpha ESS M48100 Lithium Iron Phosphate 9.6
Ampetus Super Lithium Lithium Iron Phosphate 9.0
Aquion Aspen Aqueous Hybrid Ion 17.6
BYD B-Box Lithium Iron Phosphate 10.24
GNB Lithium Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt 12.7
LG Chem RESU HV Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt 9.8
Pylontech US2000B Lithium Iron Phosphate 9.6
Redflow ZCell Zinc-Bromide Flow 10.0
SimpliPhi PHI 3.4 Lithium Iron Phosphate 10.2
Telsa Powerwall 2 Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt 13.5
In particular, Report 3 described how battery supply and installation issues continued to hamper the progress of the
market as a whole, and that a number of manufacturers had either exited the market or substantially changing their
product offerings. Of further note was that market leaders Tesla and LG Chem had aggressively cut wholesale pricing, and
introduced second generation battery packs.
In terms of Phase 1 pack performance, one Ecoult cell failure was reported and general SOC estimation issues with the
GNB lead-acid battery and Sunny Island inverter were described.

Integration of battery packs with inverters continued to be problematic generally, with the communications interface being
the most common challenge encountered. There was still no standardised approach to battery-inverter communications
and the report described the expectation that installation and commissioning issues would remain common until
communications interface protocols were standardised.
Results from Phase 1 battery pack testing indicated that nascent capacity fade trends were discernible, and that lithium-
ion batteries continued to demonstrate higher efficiency.
Report 4
March 2018
Report 4 was published in March 2018. It outlined the preliminary testing results and general issues encountered with
both Phase 1 and Phase 2 batteries. This report provided particular detail on the ongoing commissioning challenges with
the Tesla Powerwall 2 and Aquion battery packs, the replacement of the malfunctioning Redflow and Ecoult packs, and
upgrades to the Ampetus pack.
Ongoing SOC estimation issues for the CALB and GNB lead-acid battery packs were observed, but generally higher
round-trip efficiency for lithium-ion technology over conventional lead-acid and zinc-bromide technologies continued to be
demonstrated.
Capacity test results showed characteristic capacity fade for all Phase 1 battery packs (1,000+ cycles completed) still in
operation. Significant variability between packs was observed, and the potential role of temperature effects in contributing
to these results was discussed. Phase 2 battery packs (500+ cycles completed) showed similar initial trends and
variability in capacity fade.
Report 5
September 2018
With testing of both Phase 1 and 2 batteries well under way by the time Report 5 was published, capacity fade trends were
well-established with significant variation in performance between packs apparent. DC round-trip efficiency varied less
between packs, with average values of 85-95%.
Although several batteries continued to perform well, the report described performance and reliability issues with
some battery packs. In most cases the issues were attributed to inadequate product development and/or a lack of
understanding on the part of local salespeople/technicians in regard to product integration (i.e. with inverters or control
systems).
In particular, the report described the replacement of the Redflow ZCell and SimpliPhi PHI 3.4 packs, ongoing challenges
controlling the Tesla Powerwall 2, the insolvency of Aquion and Ampetus, and some operational issues with the CALB, LG
Chem, EcoUlt and GNB lead-acid Phase 1 battery packs.
Report 6
June 2019
With Phase 1 testing concluding at the end of March 2019, Report 6 included a comprehensive analysis of the
performance of those batteries, as well as an update on Phase 2 batteries. Overall, the Sony (Phase 1) and Pylontech
(Phase 2) battery packs demonstrated excellent capacity retention, and the Sony, Samsung, Tesla (Phase 1), BYD and

Pylontech (Phase 2) battery packs demonstrated high reliability. The Samsung and BYD battery packs in particular
demonstrated consistently high round-trip efficiency.
Round-trip efficiency between 85-95% had been observed for both the lead-acid and lithium-ion technologies, while linear
extrapolation of capacity retention to date suggested that between 2,000-6,000 cycles could be delivered by properly-
functioning lithium-ion battery packs.
The report also discussed the high number of battery packs installed in the Test Centre which had been removed or
replaced prematurely owing to faults. These issues are symptomatic of new technology and a new market, and are
expected to improve over time.
Report 7
September 2019
Report 7 included analysis and commentary of the three batteries from Phase 1 (Sony, Samsung, and Tesla Powerwall
1) and seven batteries from Phase 2 (Alpha ESS, BYD LV, GNB Lithium, LG Chem HV, Pylontech, Redflow, and Tesla
Powerwall 2) which were still in testing.
While some battery packs had experienced faults and/or failed prematurely, the Sony, Samsung, Tesla Powerwall 1, BYD,
Pylontech, and GNB Lithium battery packs had generally demonstrated high reliability, with minimal issues encountered
throughout the testing period.
Linear extrapolation of capacity fade to date suggested cycle life varied significantly between products. The Sony,
Samsung, and Pylontech battery packs continued to demonstrate good capacity retention over a large number of cycles.
Following replacements, the current Tesla Powerwall 2 and Redflow ZCell were also demonstrating excellent capacity
retention, though the number of cycles completed was low at the time.
Variability in round-trip efficiency was lower, and had generally been observed between 85-95% for both the lead-acid and
lithium-ion technologies.
Report 8
April 2020
Report 8 included analysis and commentary of the three batteries from Phase 1 (Sony, Samsung, and Tesla
Powerwall 1) and six batteries from Phase 2 (BYD LV, GNB Lithium, LG Chem HV, Pylontech, Redflow, and Tesla
Powerwall 2) which were still in testing, as well as an overview of the procurement and installation of eight batteries
added to testing for Phase 3.
The Sony and Samsung battery packs from Phase 1 have proven reliable, alongside the Pylontech and GNB Lithium
battery packs from Phase 2. Both the Tesla Powerwall 1 and the BYD B-Box LV stopped cycling due to operational
issues, in the period covered by this report.
For the Sony and Samsung battery packs (Phase 1), over 80% of initial capacity has been retained after over 2,000
cycles. Linear extrapolation suggests the Pylontech battery pack (Phase 2) is currently on a similar trajectory.
Following replacements, the current Tesla Powerwall 2 and Redflow ZCell (Phase 2) are also demonstrating
excellent capacity retention.
Round-trip efficiency is more consistent between battery packs, and has generally been observed between 85-95%
for both the lead-acid and lithium-ion technologies.
The Phase 3 procurement exercise highlighted the movement of the market towards either integrated battery and
inverter products, or battery products that are only compatible with inverters from the same manufacturer; as well
as an increased requirement for product registration. Both point towards an increasingly strong preference from
manufacturers for reduced interfaces with, and dependence on, external associated systems.

BYD B-Box HV Lithium Iron Phosphate 10.2
DCS PV 10.0 Lithium Iron Phosphate 10.0
FIMER REACT 2 Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt 8.0
FZSoNick Sodium Nickel Chloride 9.6
PowerPlus Energy LiFe

Lithium Iron Phosphate 9.9
Premium
SolaX Triple Power Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt 12.6
sonnenBatterie Lithium Iron Phosphate 10.0
Zenaji Aeon Lithium Titanate 9.6

ITP Renewables
Office: Level 1, 19-23 Moore Street

Turner ACT 2612
Postal: PO Box 6127

O’Connor ACT 2602
Australia
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +61 (0) 2 6257 3511
itpau.com.au

Public Report 9 Lithium-Ion Battery Testing: September 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Report 9 Lithium-Ion Battery Testing: September 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Report 9 Lithium-Ion Battery Testing: September 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Report 9

Lithium-ion Battery Testing

Office: Level 1, 19-23 Moore Street

Postal: PO Box 6127

Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 II

About This Report

Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 III

ARENA Australian Renewable Energy Agency

AUD Australian Dollar

BESS Battery Energy Storage System

BMS Battery Management System

BOS Balance of System

DOD Depth of Discharge of a battery

ELV Extra Low Voltage

IR Infra-Red (region of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum used in thermal imaging)

ITP IT Power (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as ITP Renewables

kW Kilowatt, unit of power

kWh Kilowatt-hour, unit of energy (1 kW generated/used for 1 hour)

kWp Kilowatt-peak, unit of power for PV panels tested at STC

LFP Lithium Iron Phosphate (a common li-ion battery chemistry)

LMO Lithium Manganese Oxide (a common li-ion battery chemistry)

LTO Lithium Titanate (a common li-ion battery chemistry)

NMC Nickel Manganese Cobalt (a common li-ion battery chemistry)

NCC National Construction Code

PbA Lead Acid

PMAC Permanent Magnet Alternating Current (a variety of electric motor)

SOC State of Charge of a battery

UPS Uninterruptable Power Supply

VRB Vanadium Redox Battery, a type of flow battery

VRLA Valve Regulated Lead Acid

Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 IV

Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 V

ITP Renewables (ITP) is testing

While many battery packs have

The Sony battery pack (Phase 1) has

Round-trip efficiency is more consistent

With respect to the market at large,

• Samsung AIO (Phase 1)

• Sony Fortelion (Phase 1)

• Tesla Powerwall 1 (Phase 1)

• BYD B-Box LV (Phase 2)

• GNB Lithium (Phase 2)

• LG Chem RESU HV (Phase 2)

• Pylontech US2000B (Phase 2)

• Redflow ZCell (Phase 2)

• Tesla Powerwall 2 (Phase 2)

• BYD Battery Box HV

• Deep Cycle Systems (DCS) PV 10.0

• PowerPlus Energy LiFe Premium

• SolaX Triple Power

Lithium-ion Battery Testing — Public Report 9 2

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

CALB Single faulty cell identified and replaced

GNB PbA Testing concluded

GNB Li-ion Procurement,

Battery replaced due to Electrolyte Commissioning of

BYD HV Replaced with new i

3.1. Samsung AIO 10.8