Our Articles  |  Brands  | Curated Articles  |  About Us  |  Contact



01— Welcome to
Komoneed

02— About
Komoneed

03— Our Articles

04— Brands

05— Curated
Articles

06— Contact Us

Search

Lithium vs. Lead Acid Batteries: Is the Higher Cost Worth It?

Komoneed

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

Curated Articles

0 Comment(s)

26 Aug, 2024

This post was originally published on Power Sonic

When choosing between battery options, a common question arises: “Are lithium batteries worth the higher cost?” At first glance, lithium batteries may appear more expensive than lead acid batteries, especially when comparing batteries with similar capacity ratings. However, when you consider the total cost of ownership and performance advantages, lithium batteries can prove to be a more cost-effective option in the long run. In this blog, we’ll explore why lithium batteries, despite their higher upfront cost, offer superior value and efficiency. 

UNDERSTANDING THE COST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LITHIUM AND LEAD ACID BATTERIES 

The initial price difference between lead acid and lithium batteries can be misleading when evaluating the true value and long-term benefits of each battery type.  

Key Factors Influencing the True Cost of Ownership 

Lithium batteries offer several benefits that can lead to significant savings over their lifespan: 

  1. Extended Lifespan: Lithium batteries typically last 10 years or more, compared to lead acid batteries’ 3-5 year lifespan. This longer lifespan reduces the frequency of replacements and maintenance, resulting in substantial cost savings over time. 
  1. Extended cycle life: Lithium batteries typically cycle 4000 times or more, compared to lead acid batteries’ 200-400 cycle life – a 10x improvement! When cycling the battery once every day, that is almost 11 years of service vs. just more than one year of useful cycle life. 
  1. Greater Depth of Discharge (DoD): Lithium batteries can be discharged to a much lower level without harming their lifespan. In contrast, lead acid batteries should not be discharged below 50% full to avoid damage. 30% DoD is an ideal cycle for ensuring a lead acid’s long life whereas lithium can be discharged 100%. This allows lithium batteries to provide more usable energy, potentially reducing the need for a larger battery bank. 
  1. Higher Efficiency: Lithium batteries are highly efficient in charging and discharging, with minimal energy wasted as heat. Internal resistance, the natural opposition to electrical current within a battery, causes energy loss as heat. Lithium batteries have lower internal resistance than other types, like lead acid batteries, reducing this energy loss. This also allows for faster charging, resulting in better performance, lower energy costs, and less downtime spent charging. 
  1. Reduced Maintenance: Lithium batteries require minimal maintenance compared to lead acid batteries. They do not require regular electrolyte checks and are less prone to issues like sulfation, which can degrade lead acid batteries. 
  1. Space and Weight Savings: Lithium batteries are lighter and more compact than lead acid batteries, making them ideal for space-constrained applications such as RVs, boats, and electric vehicles. 
Lithium Batteries for Marine and RV

Lower Capacity Lithium Batteries: Real Cost Benefits 

This is where the real cost benefits become evident. Because lithium batteries can be discharged more deeply and operate more efficiently, you don’t need as large of a battery to achieve the same usable capacity as a lead acid battery. This means you can often opt for a lower capacity lithium battery, resulting in a lower initial investment while still benefiting from superior performance and a longer lifespan.  

For example, if you would like a 100Ah system you must buy three 100Ah SLA batteries to ensure you only discharge them about 30% to guarantee a long life. A 100Ah lithium system would require only one 100Ah lithium battery because you can use 100% of the available capacity.

The Financial Impact of Frequent Replacements 

Another crucial factor in the cost comparison is the frequency of replacements. Lead acid batteries typically need to be replaced every 3-5 years. Over a 10-year period, this could mean purchasing and installing two to three sets of lead acid batteries, incurring additional costs for the batteries, labor, and disposal fees. 

In contrast, a lithium battery with a 10-year (or longer) lifespan requires only one purchase within the same period. This reduces replacement frequency and associated costs, making the overall cost of ownership for lithium batteries lower despite their higher initial price. 

Practical Example: Cost Comparison 

Consider an RV owner needing a 200Ah battery bank. A lead acid battery bank of this size might cost $800 and require replacement every 3-4 years. Over a 10-year period, the total cost for lead acid batteries could reach $2,400 due to the need for frequent replacements. 

On the other hand, a single 100Ah lithium battery, priced at well less than $1,000, provides the same usable capacity due to its deeper discharge and efficiency and lasts the full 10 years. The longer lifespan and lower maintenance requirements of lithium batteries offset the higher upfront cost, making them a more economical choice. 

Lithium Battery Bank

Is Investing in Lithium Batteries Worth It? 

While lithium batteries may have a higher initial cost compared to lead acid batteries, their extended lifespan, greater efficiency, and reduced maintenance can lead to significant savings over time. The ability to use a lower capacity lithium battery to achieve the same performance further enhances their cost-effectiveness. 

Ultimately, the choice between lithium and lead acid batteries should be based on your specific needs and usage patterns. However, with their numerous benefits and potential for lower overall costs, lithium batteries often prove to be a worthwhile investment. 

For more insights, visit our blog “The Complete Guide to Lithium vs. Lead Acid Batteries.” 

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

31 Jul, 2025

In June, I had the privilege of attending the 2025 E-Waste World, Battery Recycling, Metal Recycling, and ITAD & Circular Electronics Conference & Expo events in Frankfurt, Germany.

Speaking in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track on a panel with global Circular Economy leaders from Foxway Group, ERI and HP, we explored the evolving role of IT asset disposition (ITAD) and opportunities in the circular electronics economy.

The event’s focus on advancing circular economy goals and reducing environmental impact delivered a series of insights and learnings. From this assembly of international expertise across 75+ countries, here are some points from the presentations that stood out for me:

1. Environmental impact of the digital economy

Digitalisation has a heavy material footprint in the production phase, and lifecycle thinking needs to guide every product decision. Consider that 81% of the energy a laptop uses in its lifetime is consumed during manufacture (1 tonne in manufacture is equal to 10,000 tonnes of CO2) and laptops are typically refreshed or replaced by companies every 3–4 years.

From 2018 to 2023, the average number of devices and connections per capita in the world increased by 50% (2.4 to 3.6). In North America (8.2 to 13.4) and Western Europe (5.6 to 9.4), this almost doubled. In 1960, only 10 periodic table elements were used to make phones. In 1990, 27 elements were used and now over 60 elements are used to build the smartphones that we have become so reliant on.

A key challenge is that low-carbon and digital technologies largely compete for the same minerals. Material resource extraction could increase 60% between 2020 and 2060, while demand for lithium, cobalt and graphite is expected to rise by 500% until 2050.

High growth in ICT demand and Internet requires more attention to the environmental footprint of the digital economy. Energy consumption of data centres is expected to more than double by 2026. The electronics industry accounts for over 4% of global GHG — and digitalisation-related waste is growing, with skewed impacts on developing countries.

E-waste is rising five times faster than recycling — 1 tonne of e-waste has a carbon footprint of 2 tonnes. Today’s solution? ‘Bury it or burn it.’ In terms of spent emissions, waste and the costs associated with end-of-life liabilities, PCBAs (printed circuit board assembly) cost us enormously — they generally achieve 3–5% recyclability (75% of CO2 in PCBAs is from components).

2. Regulating circularity in electronics

There is good momentum across jurisdictions in right-to-repair, design and labelling regulations; recycling targets; and voluntary frameworks on circularity and eco-design.

The EU is at the forefront. EU legislation is lifting the ICT aftermarket, providing new opportunities for IT asset disposition (ITAD) businesses. To get a sense, the global market for electronics recycling is estimated to grow from $37 billion to $108 billion (2022–2030). The value of refurbished electronics is estimated to increase from $85.9 billion to $262.2 billion (2022–2032). Strikingly, 40% of companies do not have a formal ITAD strategy in place.

Significantly, the EU is rethinking its Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) management targets, aligned with upcoming circularity and WEEE legislation, as part of efforts to foster the circular economy. A more robust and realistic circularity-driven approach to setting collection targets would better reflect various factors including long lifespans of electronic products and market fluctuations.

Australia and New Zealand lag the EU’s comprehensive e-waste mandated frameworks. The lack of a systematic approach results in environmental degradation and missed positioning opportunities for businesses in the circular economy. While Australia’s Senate inquiry into waste reduction and recycling recommended legislating a full circular economy framework — including for imported and local product design, financial incentives and regulatory enforcement, New Zealand remains the only OECD country without a national scheme to manage e-waste.

3. Extending product lifecycles

Along with data security and digital tools, reuse was a key theme in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track of the conference. The sustainable tech company that I lead, Greenbox, recognises that reuse is the simplest circular strategy. Devices that are still functional undergo refurbishment and are reintroduced into the market, reducing new production need and conserving valuable resources.

Conference presenters highlighted how repair over replacement is being legislated as a right in jurisdictions around the world. Resources are saved, costs are lowered, product life is extended, and people and organisations are empowered to support a greener future. It was pointed out that just 43% of countries have recycling policies, 17% of global waste is formally recycled, and less than 1% of global e-waste is formally repaired and reused.

Right to repair is a rising wave in the circular economy, and legislation is one way that civil society is pushing back on programmed obsolescence. Its global momentum continues at different speeds for different product categories — from the recent EU mandates to multiple US state bills (and some laws) through to repair and reuse steps in India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The European Commission’s Joint Research Commission has done a scoping study to identify product groups under the Ecodesign framework that would be most relevant for implementing an EU-wide product reparability scoring system.

Attending this event with the entire electronic waste recycling supply chain — from peers and partners to suppliers and customers — underscored the importance of sharing best practices to address the environmental challenges that increased hardware proliferation and complex related issues are having on the world.

Ross Thompson is Group CEO of sustainability, data management and technology asset lifecycle management market leader Greenbox. With facilities in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, Greenbox Group provides customers all over the world a carbon-neutral supply chain for IT equipment to reduce their carbon footprint by actively managing their environmental, social and governance obligations.

Image credit: iStock.com/Mustafa Ovec

0 Comments