Lead-acid batteries (LABs) have been used for submarines for over 100 years and it appears they will unquestionably be used for Australia's future Attack-class submarines.
If replacement battery technologies were considered? There is a debate in Australia about the suitability of using 100 year old Nickel-Zinc (NiZn) battery technology for these future submarines rather than using newer technology Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs).
Anonymous does not think NiZn is suitable for submarines.
There are two issues (A. short lifetime [1], and B. low voltage) in NiZn battery applications for submarines.
A. The biggest issue is short battery life. Charge/discharge cycles for NiZn is only 200-300 times.
Snorkeling of a submarine (with LABs) is conducted at least once a day.
If the annual availability rate of submarine is 60% (ie. 200 mission days per year) then NiZn main batteries would need to be replaced once a year. This is unrealistic on cost grounds.
NiZn's 200-300 cycles can be compared to:
- 7,000-15,000 cycles for LIB-NTO technology, and
- 2,000 cycles for LABs but with LAB's disadvantages compared to LIBs including lower LAB voltage (power)/weight as well as shallower and slower charging (higher LAB indiscretion ratio).
B. Also, the voltage (power) of a NiZn battery (1.6V) is lower than LABs (2V) and LIBs (3.6V).
[1] https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/nickel_based_batteries see Nickel-zinc (NiZn) subheading
As NiZn batteries have been around since 1901 one would have thought NiZn would have been adopted well before now if LiZn were a serious contender.
Anonymous and Pete