Time for America to Fire First Shot in the EV Revolution

Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that former Intel (INTC) CEO Andrew Grove was pushing the company toward a new venture; becoming a manufacturer of advanced batteries for plug in electric vehicles [EVs]. This week I came across a more detailed article in The McKinsey Quarterly that was co-authored by Mr. Grove and Robert Burgelman and based on a project Mr. Grove undertook with the help of several graduate students from the Stanford School of Business. The McKinsey article added significant color to a number of issues I’ve been talking about for months. It also strengthened my belief that it’s time for America to fire the first shot in the EV revolution.

After discussing the well-known policy issues that favor the use of electricity as a replacement for gasoline, Messrs. Grove and Burgelman argued that encouraging companies to manufacture new EVs would be far less efficient in the short term than an aggressive pilot program to convert 1 million gas guzzling pickups, SUVs and vans to EVs over the next three years.

While Messrs. Grove and Burgelman estimated the cost of such a pilot project at around $10 billion because it would involve battery costs of roughly $10,000 per vehicle, they argued that much of the cost could and should be covered by tax incentives to the owners of the retrofitted vehicles.

The McKinsey article did not discuss the amount of attention that Mr. Grove’s students devoted to an evaluation of the various battery chemistry alternatives that could play an important role in such an EV conversion initiative, but I think there’s a pretty fair chance that the students focused on Li-ion technology without seriously considering the alternatives because of Li-ion’s centerfold hype and star status as the presumptive winner in the quest for a new EV beauty queen.

After briefly discussing some of the engineering and organizational issues that a national gas-guzzler conversion initiative would entail, Messrs. Grove and Burgelman identified four critical issues:

• The conversion initiative should focus on providing single charge ranges of roughly 40 miles, which is the distance that most Americans drive on a daily basis.
• Making Li-ion batteries for 1 million gas-guzzler retrofits would require massive capital expenditures to build new plants and double global Li-ion manufacturing capacity because the bulk of existing capacity is already devoted to laptop computers and portable electronics.
• The new manufacturing capacity should be concentrated in the U.S. instead of overseas to avoid a situation where we are merely trading an imported oil dependency for an imported battery dependency.
• There should be a concerted national drive to improve battery performance through additional R&D that would bring Moore’s Law performance advances to the energy storage sector instead of the 6% annual improvements the industry has traditionally achieved.

The similarities between the Grove and Burgelman proposal and a detailed plan documented by Edward R. Buiel, Ph.D., Vice President and Chief Technical Officer of Axion Power International, Inc. (AXPW.OB), in testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in July of this year are striking. In fact the only major difference between the two is the choice of the entry-level battery chemistry. Dr. Buiel believes that advanced lead acid batteries are a slightly less-ambitious but far more cost effective first step for two reasons:

• Advanced lead-acid batteries are far less expensive than comparable Li-ion batteries and using lead-acid as the entry-level battery chemistry would reduce the pilot project costs without reducing the benefits to the owners of retrofitted vehicles and the nation.
• America’s lead-acid battery manufacturing infrastructure is already well established and expansion of that capacity would be far easier, faster and cheaper than building new plants based on imported manufacturing technology that currently has a purchasing cycle lead time of 12 to 18 month.

I’ve consistently advocated the wisdom of starting work immediately using the tools that are presently available. I continue to believe that advanced lead acid batteries are the logical first step in a journey of a thousand miles. I don’t believe advanced lead-acid is a holy-grail technology for the next 50 years, but it is technology that can be implemented immediately at a reasonable cost.

Several fine public companies including Exide (XIDE), Enersys (ENS), C&D Technologies (CHP) and Johnson Controls (JCI), along with a host of privately owned lead-acid battery manufacturers like GS Batteries, Crown Batteries, Trojan Battery and East Penn Manufacturing have the domestic manufacturing capacity to begin working on the problem today. Additionally, new advances like Firefly’s composite foam electrode and Axion’s PbC hybrid battery/supercapacitor promise life-cycle and power improvements that will give emerging battery technologies like Li-ion enough time to mature naturally, become cost effective and develop a domestic manufacturing base.

A pilot program to convert 1 million gas guzzling pickups, SUVs and vans to electricity would only require a modest revision of the existing tax credit regime to include retrofit conversions of existing gas-guzzlers. The short-term benefits in terms of increased domestic employment; sustained industrial development; and the psychological impact of taking a critical first step on the road to energy independence would be tremendous. A loud and clear first shot in the electric vehicle revolution would also serve as a shining example to the rest of the world that in America we get up in the morning, we go to work and we solve our problems.

Disclosure: Author holds a large long position in Axion Power International, recently bought small long positions in Exide (XIDE) and Enersys (ENS) and may make additional storage sector investments in the future.

Comments

[wz:]

Being personally, deeply involved in electric boating and electric biking for the last 5 years (I've been commuting to work on an electric bicycle for a long time), I've very closely experienced the shift in battery technologies; costs, benefits, complexities and form factor. Anyone telling me that lead based technology can somehow trump the more recent generation nickel or lithium based stuff has a huge mountain to climb. Frankly, the cost of LiFePO4 chemistry has been dropping like a stone, as the use in powertools and alternative vehicles has grown exponentially in just the last 2 years - decent LiFePO4 cells are not much more expensive now than high end AGM lead cells, at less than 30% the weight and over twice the energy for a given volume. Lithium is extraordinarily common in the US, Chile, and China.

When you factor in the extreme weight savings, incredibly long life cycles and simply enormous power to weight ratio advantages of Lithium and even NiMH technology (as used in the prismatic Prius cells) over lead, then add the environmental challenges posed by lead, I can't seem to find any common ground with your position. Good bye lead, and good riddance.

Here are some shots of my boat and bikes. Take note, the NiMH batteries (Prius cells) shown on the bikes can power them for almost 10 miles at 15 to 20 mph, as can the two Dewalt LiFePO4 packs shown in one of the shots. They can then be charged up in less than an hour. 40 miles of power for a car would be nothing in lithium, and lithium can be charged very fast.

powermed.com/electric

2008 Dec 18 07:55 AM

[sstro:]

Your going to have to improve greatly on that 40 mile range for this to really take hold. You also have to improve the infastucture across the nation with charging stations. This generation of Americans won't buy these cars because in the end you still need gas to run them. We do need to continue working forward in this area so my grandkids, grandkids will still be mobile.

2008 Dec 18 08:27 AM

[John Petersen:]

WZ, my prior articles in this series go into considerable detail on new lead acid developments that reduce weight, increase power, slash recharge times and still permit manufacturing for less than half the cost of Li-ion. CSIRO has already road tested a lead-acid supercapacitor hybrid in a retrofitted Honda that would cut $2,000 off the price of the HEV while changing gas mileage by less than 3%. Savings would be much larger in an EV. I wouldn't want to lug lead around on my bicycle either. But a few pounds are not going to matter in a 4,000 pound SUV retrofit that costs thousands less.

sstro, the average driver does 12,000 miles a year, which works out to 40 miles a day for a 300 day year. I agree that longer range would be nice, but the process has to start with baby steps until battery costs fall significantly.

2008 Dec 18 08:50 AM

[vpratt:]

WZ, thanks for making the effort and sharing the results. However, the boat leaves me wondering about a few things. I have always been a sailor. Many of us have a sometimes unfair attitude towards powerboats, referring to them as "stink pots" and such. An electric boat whirring by, especially if the batteries were solar charged, would ruin some of the "holier than thou" attitude we enjoy. Oh well. Keep up the good work. I will be retiring on a small cruising sailboat and I plan to have an electric auxiliary with solar panels. I look forward to more battery choices by then (6 years away).

2008 Dec 18 08:57 AM

[NOWHEREMAN:]

Nissan has introduced a Hydrogen based prototype. What sort of use do you envision for the future of batteries in general if Hydrogen vehicles step to the forefront?

2008 Dec 18 09:41 AM

[John Petersen:]

aitvaras, right now hydrogen comes from processing natural gas to remove the carbon. It's expensive and terribly energy inefficient, but good for proof of principle work. In Switzerland, Hayek the founder of Swatch and developer of the Smart Car is working to develop a fuel cell powered vehicle that can do cost efficient water to hydrogen conversion. All of those efforts are believed to be 10 years out and the first products will invariably be expensive. My sincere hope is that somebody will come up with a hydrogen solution to supplant batteries. But I don't want to freeze in the dark while I wait for it to happen.

Regardless of what happens in the transportation market, I think batteries will be with us for a long time to come because the easiest way to create extra energy is to avoid wasting it in the first place.

2008 Dec 18 09:52 AM

[bricki:]

Electricity, hydrogen meh. Where are you going to get the energy for these?

2008 Dec 18 10:00 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

John,

I don't wish to pour cold water on this, but we'll all end up freezing in the dark if we believe EV's are the answer to our transportation dilemma. What's the title of the old rock song you like to quote about prospective solutions to problems that can't work? Well, it's applicable here.

2008 Dec 18 10:34 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

2009 will mark the 100th anniversary of the 1909 Baker Electric. Jay Leno claims his still runs. Unfortunately, science hasn't sigfificantly improved on it a century later.

A number of years later, Howard Hughes spent millions (when they really were millions) on his automotive steam engine. That didn't work either.
Now auto manufacturers and inventors are toying around with hydrogen engines, so far with abysmal results.

I believe another chorus of your song is applicable here. Sometimes it's just best to know when to drop back and punt.

2008 Dec 18 10:53 AM

[John Petersen:]

Paulk, the numbers on a $10,000 EV conversion are marginal, but they're nowhere near as bad as they are on a 150 mile EV like most want to see. Over the long term, I think we have to get to an electric solution for transport because even Pickens is only a stop gap. But now you have me talking a 20 to 50 year horizon rather than a 1 to 5 year horizon.

Since the economics will be tenuous for the next several years but getting started on the long term solution is critical, lead-acid conversions on vehicles that are destined for the junk yard because people can't afford to drive them is the first logical step.

2008 Dec 18 11:09 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

All this would be more relevant if we didn't already have hundreds of millions of ICE's on the planet and were starting from scratch. But that's not the case.

The Prius hybrid gets 40+ mpg (but not on the highway!) I'm told. Well, the Europeans are running conventional diesels now that get better than 60 at highway speeds.

John Mc Cain wanted to hand out $100 million (or some similar fabulous sum) to whoever came up with a real automotive mileage breakthrough. Great, let's award it to whoever gets the first 100 mpg traditional vehicle in production, hybrid, diesel, or otherwise.

That would resolve our energy crisis in one fell swoop, not to mention the additional savings inherent in operating such state of the art vehicles on natural gas.

2008 Dec 18 11:18 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

Well, sir, when you put it that way I can't argue with you. Man's quest to achieve is truly boundless. Some of his resulting efforts work and others don't. But we learn from them and go on.

2008 Dec 18 11:27 AM

[John Petersen:]

I'll have to disagree with you on that one Paulk because even 100 mpg will only delay the reckoning day instead of avoiding it. We have a whole toolbox of options that are not terribly attractive right now - but they're the only tools we have. So I remain convinced that we have to go to work today with the tools we own and be ready to embrace new tools when they're developed. Another old song I'm sure you'll remember talked about "Wishing and hoping and thinking and praying ... planning and dreaming each night of his charms ... that won't get you into his arms."

The time for wishing and hoping has passed. We have to go to work.

2008 Dec 18 11:31 AM

[Joe Bruin:]

I can only speak for myself. If I can purchase fuel that is a third the cost then I won't mind plugging the car in every night. It doesn't take more than a minute to plug in a socket does it?

2008 Dec 18 11:32 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

One final thought. I also believe the time and money being spent on developing EV's is largely wasted, and should be channeled into improving our electric grid instead. As you and your namesake who retired from the Congress this year so eloquently point out, if we don't pay attention and deal with this real crisis timely, we'll all be whistling in the dark.

2008 Dec 18 11:43 AM

[keithfeather:]

a third the cost? Electricity here is the equivalent of $32/mmBTU, while gasolene is $9.32/mmBTU, natural gas $6.50, and corn is $10.53. Electric motors are 2.5X efficient, but there is still a gap.

2008 Dec 18 11:43 AM

[John Lounsbury:]

There is a great range of opinion in these comments. I am reminded of an experience from 1984 (the year in my life, not the book). In 1984 I bought a day one IBM PC. It was a poor decision based on cost/performance. I paid $4,000 for less computing power than is now available in hand-held devices. But that is not the reason I bring up my history.

In 1984, many of my tech savvy acquaintances ridiculed my purchase based on their arguments that:

1. The new technology had no chance of significnat growth into the turf of the mainframe computer and would never be more than an expensive curiosity.

2. There were no conceivable needs that this PC could ever meet.

3. The idea that a large number of people would ever consider having their own computer was ridiculous.

4. Who would spend 100 times the cost of a scientific calculator for a PC? Their answer: Most students couldn't afford a PC.

This is food for thought.

2008 Dec 18 11:47 AM

[Tekton:]

For the nay sayers here, read up and look around. 40 mile round trips are so , so , like not even in the ballpark,chaps. The real ranges with tne newer batteries are already well over 100 miles at full 100mph performance. Do a search for Electric Cobra, EV Racing, Tesla, or just about anything you didn't think was possible. And remember, the first car ever marketed was electric.

2008 Dec 18 12:02 PM

[k9s-4-k8:]

I would absolutely love to see the U.S. convert to electric battery technology from the internal combustion engine. But economics will and always should win the battle of various technologies. We can't be accepting expensive, and poor performing alternatives ever. We would only be digging our own economic grave. We must never lose sight of the fact that when we make such a change the economic ramifications directly affect our international competitiveness, and our future and current standard of living. The environmental benefit has to take a second seat. To do otherwise would only be rewarding mediocrity and stifling future innovativeness that much more.
Battery technology has made some advances but isn't even close to being competitive with the internal combustion engine in cost, infrastructure needed, expense, or range. Its still a joke.

2008 Dec 18 12:12 PM

[John Lounsbury:]

John - - -

Some comments on your thoguhts:

1. I don't see the comparison between Moore's Law for semiconductor technology and battery technology. Silicon semiconductor technology improvement has been based on the evolution of a photolithography imaging over the past three decades. Battery technology has not identified a controlling technology (like photolithography has been for silicon semiconductors), to say nothing of not even settled on the chemistry framework. I see battery technology at a point more like the 1960's when the future of electronics was still being torn between vacuum tubes and transistors.

2. What are the supply elasticity issues for the various raw materials? wz has stated: "Lithium is extraordinarily common in the US, Chile, and China." Do you agree? What about lead and nickel? What are the mining and production exposures for the various materials, not only supply elasticity, but also environmental?

3. I may have missed it in this article, but don't you think an ICE to HEV to EV is a rational evolution path? Could it be argued that this evolution might be better than a revolution?

Thanks for keeping the focus on this topic.

2008 Dec 18 12:13 PM

[John Lounsbury:]

Paulk8756 - - -

Always find your comments informative.

One note on Prius mileage. You imply that highway mileage is less than the 40+ average. I have talked to every Prius driver I have had met up with in the past year (estimate to be approximately 12). Two of these are personal acquaintance. Most of these have kept written mileage logs. One reported an average mileage on the low 40's. Several reported 44-47 mpg. Two reported average mileage of 49-51. None of these people live in a city, most in low density suburban areas. All reported that local and highway driving mileage to be within 5% of each other. One acquaintance reported a round trip from New England to Chicago, driving at the speed limits, with just over 50 mpg. Now, based on what these people said to me, I believe they all (except the low 40's driver) practice fuel saving driving habits, such as controlled acceleration, not going far above 65mph on interstates, and anticipating stops by taking foot off the gas in advance of the time to break.

I've done this research to aid in making a assessment of whether to buy a Prius. (I have not bought one yet. My wife and I continue to drive an Audi A6 and a Toyota Highlander, both four wheel drive. Incidently, we get 2-4 mpg above the highway mileage ratings of 24 mpg on every trip. The variability is due primarily to wind directions and secondarily to traffic jams. We also practice fuel saving driving habits.)

Finally, clean diesel fuels (biodiesel is especially clean) have the potential to impact the ICE options positively. Thanks for pointing out diesel.

2008 Dec 18 12:39 PM

[John Petersen:]

I'm seeing a bunch of new screen names today. COOL!!

For those that have not been following my work for a long time, I started this series on the energy storage sector in mid-July and have been writing an average of once a week since then. The issues of global energy supply and demand and the responses that will be required as 6 billion people work for the lifestyle that 500 million already have will be rich in opportunity and challenge. When something is not pure conjecture on my part, I try to link in other relevant materials.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is don't judge me by one piece and when I refer to the opinions of others, be sure to follow the embedded links ... and if you're really feeling ambitious, go back and read the whole series. You may not agree with my opinions, but I can guarantee they'll stimulate some thought.

In any event, welcome to all and thanks for taking the time to comment.

2008 Dec 18 12:44 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Nuclear power for electricity generation??? You've got to be kidding. It costs zillions to build such a plant. Way, way, way more than a coal plant, or even dams. NO WAY!!

But, we'll have such cheap fuel. It will produce lower cost energy. We'll make it profitable over time; high front-end cost; low energy cost from there on.

Not in my backyard!! A ticking bomb.

50 years later: we're 20% nuc in the US and 80% for France. Over two hundred plants operating worldwide.

And nuc is touted "Green Clean" vis-a-vis coal. (Yes, we will handle the waste ok - forget about how Hanford handled it - that was a different story).

So much for roadblockers.

Now, about solar. Wind?

Well, how about electric transportation? The sky is the limit. They will come, in one form or another.

Crude will become neanderthal.

As for stripping H from methane to oxidize H; stupid. Burn the methane. Or put the methane into a fuel cell. But burn it. Same for coal, if you must: burn it. Don't put extra costs into converting hydrocarbons if you're just going to burn them (unless, the application ABSOLUTELY depends on it; ie., Hydrogen propulsion as is NERVA Rockets in outer space; or even if a high powered laser is needed in space).

Don't waste energy on liquifying coal, gasifying coal, processing tar sands, processing oil shale, etc., leave it where it is.

The Air Force is demonstrating biodiesel made in Montana in a Japanese 747 partnered with Boeing as we talk. Who need crude?? Neanderthals!

2008 Dec 18 01:03 PM

[John Petersen:]

jlounsbury, as you'll recall Cheap will Beat Cool piece, I'm an inveterate early adopter of technology as it seems you are. I may not have always made the best choices in early technological developments (the beta-max comes to mind) but at least I had them early.

The Moore's Law reference is Mr. Grove's, not mine. I've consistently said that it doesn't apply to battery technology. But if there is a national push of the magnitude advocated by Mr. Grove, who knows what might happen.

For newly manufactured cars, I'm still in the diesel HEV camp with strong Pickens Plan tendencies because they're the best bad solutions in a time of immense uncertainty.

2008 Dec 18 01:03 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

BTW John - unless I've missed it, why don't publish an article about how well electric vehicles satisfy commuters, commerical van and truck delivery, in-plant work and transportation, and small vehicle transportaion throughout Europe? As they have done for, what, 60-70 years? Using OLD TECHNOLOGY. And then, you can update it w.r.t. current technologies and place a bet on the future applications.

After all, it is just a matter of cost (of energy; well, and some practicality; and less pride, not to mention in some cases necessity!S). Everything else works. Proof is in it's use.

2008 Dec 18 01:32 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

And John - then you can an article on electrified transportation THROUGHOUT THE WORLD (as you know, even the old electric trolleys used batteries to hold voltage going over track breaks).

2008 Dec 18 01:35 PM

[a. palmer jr.:]

It appears America is hardly going to fire even the second or third shot, let alone first. Smith electric vehicles has trucks of all sizes for sale and in use NOW. I also read about the Chinese, with help from our own Warren Buffett about to mass produce a real nice looking car for sale in USA sooner than we can produce one. I think it might be a plug in hybrid but still better than our efforts. You might check their website on Smith. It is smithelectricvehicles....

2008 Dec 18 01:41 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

BYD: That's Buffett's 10% investment company (other than steel-wheeled railroads he's buying up - Buffett will be the new Detroit and Rail Mougel - alongside or along with Boone).

Check BYD's website for the Chinese ev's and hevs; they're being produced now. Available in US in several years.

2008 Dec 18 04:25 PM

[Road Runner:]

WZ, you are dead on, and John Petersen is dead wrong. The performance characteristics of LiFePO4 batteries are far better for electric vehicles than lead-acid batteries, and they always will be. The only disadvantage is price, but LiFePO4 batteries have only been in existence for about 3 years compared to many decades for lead-acid batteries. There will be many huge advancements in battery design, manufacturing design, manufacturing scale, etc. that will continually drop the price for many years. John says that there will be newer generation lead-acid batteries that greatly improve their performance. That's total pie-in-the-sky. If there were going to be improvements, why haven’t they been implemented already? Lead-acid batteries are a very mature product. It’s just the nature of lead-acid that limits its performance.

Let me remind everyone of the advantages of LiFePO4:
- 1/3 the weight of lead-acid
- 1/2 the size of lead-acid (this is big if you, like me, don’t want to lose your trunk space to a battery)
- very long cycle life of over 2000 cycles (the BYD F3DM advertises 4000 cycles)
- high operating temperature range of -20C (-4F) to +60C (140F)
- no heavy metals like lead, cobalt, manganese, etc.
- high power output – can sustain high amperage above rating with some cycle life degradation.
- very fast charge rate – with some cycle life degradation
- very safe – no thermal runaway – will not damage battery or explode if overcharged
- completely sealed so can be installed in unusual locations with unusual shapes – not like lead-acid
- holds partial charge without energy loss
- and many of the above stats will improve with time as the technology is very new

Give it up John Petersen, and stop prostituting yourself for the lead-acid battery companies.

2008 Dec 18 04:32 PM

[John Adam:]

People just google 'advanced dead acid battery technology' you will get the Firefly site. Which says among other things:

<<Such a structure results in much higher power and energy delivery and rapid recharge capabilities relative to conventional lead acid products. These foam electrodes can be used in either flooded or VRLA battery designs.>>.

www.fireflyenergy.com/...

Another of their web sites pages says: <<Comparing Firefly’s Advanced Technology
Firefly’s microcell technology compares quite favorably with both lithium-ion and nickel-metal-hydride in larger multi-cell applications. It is competitive in the critical areas of energy density, cycle life, self-discharge rates, and charge acceptance. There are no issues of high operating temperatures or thermal runaway, and there is no “memory effect”. Furthermore, Firefly’s technology does not require the use of any high-priced metal materials. Some lead is used, but this is easily recyclable through the existing lead acid recycling infrastructure. Firefly’s primary new ingredient, carbon, is one of the most plentiful elements in the universe.>>

www.fireflyenergy.com/...

Then there is this critical statement:

<>

Read it here, www.fireflyenergy.com/... .

The big question is cost. However it would appear that if they went into mass production they would be cost competitive:

<<Our first batteries are being developed for specialized applications, working with large organizations like the U.S. Army and major trucking fleets and OEMs. We're in discussions with several large companies in the automotive industry, and hope to be making batteries for hybrid and EV applications.>>

www.fireflyenergy.com/...

This could be a viable option.

2008 Dec 18 06:40 PM

[John Adam:]

Sorry I did not paste this quote about the size and weight of their batteries:

<<Firefly 3D2 battery could be one third to one quarter the size and weight of a conventional battery of similar energy capacity.>>

Read it here, fireflyenergy.com/... .

2008 Dec 18 06:47 PM

[Chall74440:]

As a consumer, I won't buy and don't want a vehicle that only goes 40 miles between charges. That's ridiculous. EV is a waste of effort. If my vehicle doesn't have at least a 300 mile range, forget it.

2008 Dec 18 08:28 PM

[John Adam:]

Chall74440,

The Volt goes the first 40 miles using only battery power and at the average cost of the electricity used to charge it compared to $2 gasoline it get the equivalent of 95 MPG. Then its gasoline powered generator starts recharging the battery. The driver may hear the gasoline engine start but otherwise he notices no change and the electric motor continues to propel the car. The gas generator gets the equivalent of 50 MPG because it runs at a constant optimum RPM to generate electricity.

This is the same technique used by railroad locomotives. They seem fairly reliable to me. The current battery technology is the only drawback and that could rapidly change. If the claims that Firefly makes about their advanced batteries are true perhaps GM and others are missing an inexpensive reliable battery technology just because it used lead,

www.fireflyenergy.com/

.

2008 Dec 18 10:18 PM

[John Petersen:]

Roadrunner, I was delighted to see John Adam respond in detail so that I don't have to. In addition to the material he posted relating to the Firefly carbon foam electrode, you may also want to take a hard look at the published information on the CSIRO ultrabattery and the associated road tests like:

www.autobloggreen.com/.../

One of my favorite quotes in the world is attributed to Herbert Spencer, the British philosopher who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" and is reported to have said:

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

2008 Dec 18 10:52 PM

[John Petersen:]

Naked, I'll have to decline your suggestion that I expand beyond storage technology and discuss the details of applications because I don't have the depth to do that job intelligently.

I also have to agree to disagree with you about nuclear power. As a Swiss resident, 40% of my electricity comes from nuclear, 55% comes from hydro and the other 5% is nuclear imported from France; which has the cheapest electricity on the planet and has it in such abundance they run electric inter-city trains throughout the country with tremendous speed and efficiency, just like the Swiss do. One of the first things I did when I moved here was buy a UPS for my computer because life in Houston had taught me that they were essential. The Swiss thought I was crazy - they were right.

I suppose there will always be a risk of catastrophic failure if today's engineers try to do the same things that yesterday's engineers did while expecting different results, but everything I've seen tells me that living within a few miles of a nuclear plant is far safer than living within a few miles of a car because those things kill and maim people every day.

2008 Dec 18 11:15 PM

[smlcap:]

Or, as Stephen Stills said....."It's been a long time comin" Too long actually.


On Dec 18 11:31 AM John Petersen wrote:

> I'll have to disagree with you on that one Paulk because even 100
> mpg will only delay the reckoning day instead of avoiding it. We
> have a whole toolbox of options that are not terribly attractive
> right now - but they're the only tools we have. So I remain convinced
> that we have to go to work today with the tools we own and be ready
> to embrace new tools when they're developed. Another old song I'm
> sure you'll remember talked about "Wishing and hoping and thinking
> and praying ... planning and dreaming each night of his charms ...
> that won't get you into his arms."
>
> The time for wishing and hoping has passed. We have to go to work.

2008 Dec 19 12:18 AM

[nakedjaybird:]

John - sorry to have misled you. I'm all for nuclear power; been there, done that. I'm against ROADBLOCKERS AND NAYSAYERS.

I love Interlaken and the Eiger, Wengen, etc. And on the way to the Matterhorn is where our bus climbed upon a railcar for most of the trip, instead of using the hiway.

Should you examine a chart of Power Density v/s Energy Density for all electrochemical systems (batteries [standard types, air, molten, etc.] thru fuel cells) and also the ICE's, and then superimpose upon the same chart various vehicle ranges and/or duty cycles, it becomes so obvious that a hybrid fits the bill more closely as "one size fits all", so to speak. Then it's a matter of which fuel (size determines range) and stored energy device (determine power/acceleration). Essentially, starting with a clean sheet, diesel is the fuel of choice, and I would go ultimately for BIODIESEL. As for the stored energy device: the smallest, lightest, cheapest, longest life, least maintenance, safest, most efficient, and available possible. Some things change somewhat.

And that is why I want my hybrids stored energy propulsion system to be a simple burner with no moving parts and the direct conversion of waste heat to electric driven motors, and the GRASS TANK to be the on board storage device with unlimited range via refueling stations. A small cheap PB-acid battery, not unlike for motorcycles, would be necessary for heating the glow plugs and/or the ignitor. That's it. A 90% efficient BIODIESEL HYBRID. And not far away. With your stated love for a diesel hybrid, you should know what I'm talking about.

PS: too bad Edison (Exide) didn't have the nickel et.al. foam metal which became available in the 60's for making his early 1900's Ni-Fe batteries. If so, his energy/power densities would almost still be the best for long cycle life cells.

2008 Dec 19 02:59 AM

[NOWHEREMAN:]

John, suggest you take a look at the technology available Now from Hydrogenics (HYGS). They are already producing Hydrogen propulsed buses.

They have been in business a real long time selling Hydrogen generators.

Wind Farms in the sky, interesting concept. Blimps, kites whatever can hang 1000 feet up or higher,where the wind is constant at a fraction of the cost of a regular Tower with Turbine. Sky Windpower #35 on Time Magazine's best of 2008 awards wants to tap the jetstream with 100 megawat floating structures.

I guess screwing with the Jetstream is next on the agenda.

2008 Dec 19 04:14 AM

[John Petersen:]

aitvaras, I have a hard enough time trying to keep up with the goings on in energy storage devices to expand into fuel cells and power generation systems. But since I think we have a fairly weak toolbox to deal with overwhelming change, I'm thrilled to see smart people working on alternatives that just might work.

2008 Dec 19 07:52 AM

[John Petersen:]

I just saw a report that Panasonic was going to buy Sanyo which will effectively merge two giant advanced battery manufacturers under one roof in Japan - a roof that manufactures a world of portable devices and is closely aligned with Toyota. While it's probably great business for Panasonic, it does not bode well for the future availability of either Panasonic or Sanyo batteries in anything other than finished products.

So we've just seen another reason that the US needs to build its own infrastructure now!

2008 Dec 19 08:45 AM

[33Nick:]

I think it boils down to with lemon, make lemonade. True Detroit has a formidable arsenal of SUVs and pickup trucks and "electrifying" them would be a good short term solution. Your point is valid, a few extra hundred pounds don't mean much for heavy vehicles. At least it will give the choice for those who need SUVs and pickups for their businesses to have them around their neighborhood driving, often less than 40 miles a day. It would be a much more affordable daily operation cost for them.

In the meantime, you made me curious to see how lead acid batteries will evolve going into the future. I still think a hybrid battery system makes so much sense. I recently drove AFS Trinity's "150 miles per gallon" hybrid and was greatly impressed both on papers and actually driving it. Mixing ultracapacitators with newer versions of acid-based batteries would make sense. AFS estimates the use of ultracapacitators stretches the life of its lithium pack to 180,000. Sometimes innovation comes from coupling different technologies and not necessarily inventing new ones.

One thing is for sure, we need a choice to rekindle the economy. People are too emotional. You have to look at what makes sense to your driving habit.

2008 Dec 19 02:12 PM

[John Petersen:]

Nick, In an earlier response to a reader I mentioned the CSIRO lead-acid supercapacitor hybrid that was tested in a retrofitted Honda Civic. The 100,000 mile test went off without a hitch, the extra weight reduced fuel economy by 3% and the cheaper battery solution would have saved a couple thousand dollars on the purchase price compared to NIMH, which goes for about half the price of Li-ion.

autobloggreen.com/.../

It's all dollars and cents with me. Show me a solution that pays for itself at the gas pump and I'm all over it. Show me something that takes 10 years to break even at $7 gas and I'm a cynic.

2008 Dec 19 02:52 PM

[John Petersen:]

Corrected link

www.autobloggreen.com/.../

2008 Dec 19 02:53 PM

[John Lounsbury:]

I have to keep coming back to John Petersen's comment stream because commenters keep coming in for days.

Mark Goldes - - -

Two comments (questions actually):

1. Capturing electrical energy from an electromagnetic field customarily requires moving a conductor (usually a coil) through a magnetic field. Can you explain how the various concepts you have cited capture electrical energy? Does the earth's magnetic field move with respect to a stationary position on the earth's surface? Is motion along the earth's surface required of the wire (coil). Or are we looking at revolutionary applications?

2. I have to look into the absolute zero reference you make. Absolute zero is a concept derived from the physical observation that volume vs temperature measurements for a dilute gas (ideal gas) extrapolates to zero volume at some low temperature. The zero volume temperature is called absolute zero. The zero volume can not be actually reached because it requires the gas that has ideal behavior at higher temperatures to retain ideal behavior as it becomes very dense at low temperatures. The actual size of the gas atoms (or molecules) force deviation from the extrapolation. When they get very close together the ideal gas characteristic of individual atom volume being negligible with respect to the total volume no longer holds. The volume can go no smaller than the volume of all the atoms (or one atom if you invoke nuclear fusion).

Thus the zero volume of absolute zero can never be reached.

It is also a fact that absolute zero is impossible to reach on the temperature scale, as well. It is shown in Thermodynamics that temperture as we know it is actually on a logarithmic scale. The log of zero is minus infinity, an undefined (and therefore unreachable) quantity.

So Mark, I have to spend some time looking into the energy of matter at absolute ideas you attribute to de Broglie, Bohm and Vigler that you mention.

I remember the furor for years over the possibility of cold fusion, including several reported demonstrations. None of the demonstrations were reproducible.

Let me paraphrase a statement that has been applied to predicting economic events, like recessions: "Reported revolutionary discoveries have preceded 100 of the past 2 technology revolutions."

2008 Dec 19 03:50 PM

[John Adam:]

John Peterson,

Oshkosh has been making a large diesel electric hybrid truck for the Military for a few years, www.4x4offroads.com/os... . It only used an ultracapacitor and using the diesel electric techniques gets up 40% better MPG. If Boone Pickens was credible he would know that you can modify diesel engines to run on a mixture of diesel and Natural Gas. Most of the fuel used is NG the diesel is used to ignite the mixture, www.greencarcongress.c... .

Batteries do not make much sense for long haul trucking or trains. Commuting back and forth to work in a car like the Volt, with a battery, does. The amusing thing is that in the USA our stupidGRID for electric distribution wastes huge amounts of energy 24/7. A smartGRID could end most of the waste. Unfortunately the smartGRID 1.0 is still only thinking of off-peak hours rates. We need to rapidly develop the smartGRID 2.0 to minimize waste 24/7.

The USA already generates enough electric power to charge all the PHEVs to replace all the old ICE only vehicles. What we need is better management of the power we generate to stop wasting it. The answer is to SCHEDULE power usage using inexpensive computing power. In this case KNOWLEDGE really equates to better POWER UTILIZATION. Currently the electric utility companies are only THINKING ABOUT using their smartGRID 1.0 to interface with smartMETERS to reduce billing and maintenance expenses. SmartTHERMOSTATS are on their agenda, but charginging PHEVs 24/7 is not.

All the Politicians, Lawyers, and Accountants in the USA are blind to the potential of 21st century technology. Those that believe that Al Gore invented the internet are not Physicists or Computer Scientists.

2008 Dec 19 04:38 PM

[John Petersen:]

John, the Oshkosh spec sheet says their ultracapacitor is 1.5 MJ, or roughly 0.41 kWh, which is good for boost but has no staying power. It's a great system, but not serious EV or even HEV level storage. On the other hand, GE is working hard to build hybrid locomotives that will use recuperative braking systems. That job will take a lot of battery power.

I've never disagreed with Pickens or suggested that there isn't enough electricity to charge an EV fleet. But I've frequently wondered how EVs and PHEVs could make a meaningful contribution to grid stability during peak hours when they will presumably be off grid and driving around town.

In the final analysis, it all comes down to batteries and while the job is technically possible, the economics don't work because batteries are expensive and there is a direct relationship between required range and required battery power. So something that is technically possible is not economically possible.

2008 Dec 20 12:26 AM

[nakedjaybird:]

John, again:

BTW John - unless I've missed it, why don't publish an article about how well electric vehicles satisfy commuters, commerical van and truck delivery, in-plant work and transportation, and small vehicle transportaion throughout Europe? As they have done for, what, 60-70 years? Using OLD TECHNOLOGY. And then, you can update it w.r.t. current technologies and place a bet on the future applications.

After all, it is just a matter of cost (of energy; well, and some practicality; and less pride, not to mention in some cases necessity!S). Everything else works. Proof is in it's use.

Should you examine a chart of Power Density v/s Energy Density for all electrochemical systems (batteries [standard types, air, molten, etc.] thru fuel cells) and also the ICE's, and then superimpose upon the same chart various vehicle ranges and/or duty cycles, it becomes so obvious that a hybrid fits the bill more closely as "one size fits all", so to speak. Then it's a matter of which fuel (size determines range) and stored energy device (determine power/acceleration). Essentially, starting with a clean sheet, diesel is the fuel of choice, and I would go ultimately for BIODIESEL.

As for the stored energy device: the smallest, lightest, cheapest, longest life, least maintenance, safest, most efficient, and available possible. Some things change somewhat

2008 Dec 20 02:23 AM

[John Petersen:]

Naked, on the 18th I responded to your suggestion and begged off on getting into application details because it's really pretty far afield for me. I can talk about 10 years of experience with the Swiss and French trains and living within 15 miles of a nuclear plant and 5 miles of a small hydro facility, but beyond that I'd be wading beyond my depth.

I'm a huge fan of biodiesel but that comes from owning a big chunk of a company that was once the biggest producer in Texas. It's also the experience that taught me "green" counts for nothing if it costs a penny a gallon more than petroleum.

2008 Dec 20 03:06 PM

[John Adam:]

John Peterson,

I was aware that the ultracapacitor was not used for storage. I can read and have degrees in Physics and Computer Science. The US Army uses them because they get much better MPG and can be used to generate electricity for camps, airfields, etc.

The US Postal Service and others could obviously us electric vehicles especially rural carriers.

Electric tow motors etc are fairly commonly used in warehousing.

What part of charging your vehicle in the parking lot at work is beyond your understanding? Most automobiles spend most of their lives sitting someplace where they could be charged on the electric grid. Long haul trucks and trains are often driven 24/7 not 1 or 2 hours a day. The fact is that charging batteries with grid electricity is much cheaper than using a diesel generator. An ICE generator, of any variety, runs at a constant speed and pure electric vehicles or Extended Range EVs, like the Volt, do not need a transmission to weigh them down.

Biodiesel made from soy oil or canola is fairly foolish compared to using mustard or algae. Salicornia oil from desert areas grown using salt water makes more sense than growing soy beans for fuel. Using corn for ethanol or butanol fermentation makes no sense when sweet sorghum will grow on poor soil in areas where corn grows. It requires less water and no chemical additives and can produce nearly as much sugar per acre, or various kinds, as sugar cane.

By the way butanol, unlike ethanol, can be blended with diesel fuel to high concentrations and improves the oil combustion in the diesel engine.

How close are you to the LHC and CERN? Have you ever met any of my red headed German/French relatives from Alsace?

2008 Dec 20 04:35 PM

[John Petersen:]

John, my point was that the ultracapacitor has little or nothing to do with the vehicle drive train and what Oshkosh is producing is a road version of the technology that's been used in railroad locomotives for years.

When it comes to other EVs, there is no obvious; only a rigorous cost benefit analysis. But I do want to thank you for the comment because it gave me a good idea for the next article in this series.

There is a tremendous amount of research going on in the biofuels business and I am guardedly optimistic that something will work better than the virgin agricultural feedstocks that most people currently rely on. Until they do, however, we'll continue making biodiesel for power generation from chicken fat, byproduct streams and anything else that doesn't gum up the system.

We're about 150 km from Geneva, but I try to avoid France whenever possible because while the French may not speak English when an American tourist asks a question, the reaction is far different when they hear my horrid Swiss/American accent spoil the natural beauty of their native tongue.

2008 Dec 21 11:37 AM

[John Adam:]

John P,

The Oshkosh diesel electric large military truck is replacing the old technology for many reasons including battlefield maintenance. Jet engines have replaced piston engine propeller planes because of the Maintenance cost issue.

If you are going to write about fermentation of biofuel, ethanol is obviously not the best alcohol fuel. The MICRO-ORGANISMS metabolize VARIOUS KINDS of SUGARS to produce various alcohols. E-coli bacteria is being genetically modified to produce different advanced alcohol fuels. 1 million gallons of molasses was produced from SWEET Sorghum in Kentucky in 1899. It can produce much more sugar per acre than corn. You do not need CELLULOSE TO SUGAR technology but that could eventually double the fuel production from sugar cane and sweet sorghum. The Indians are smart enough to understand the potential of SS. In the US our leaders never heard of it. The have heard of Hemp but do not encourage the cultivation of INDUSTRIAL HEMP, which does not contain THC. IH has huge amounts of cellulose for cloths, fuel, paper, etc.

Detroit needs to seriously reevaluate its EV programs. Diesel is not necessarily the best engine technology for EXTENDED RANGE EVs. There are no torque issues running at a constant speed. Do some research. The advanced lead acid battery seems to have a big advantage over lithium in the maintenance area. Electric motors may have the same maintenance advantage as jet engines.





Algae, s

2008 Dec 21 06:15 PM

[John Petersen:]

John, you should know that we're basically singing out of the same hymnal on most issues. I view ethanol as federally mandated hogwash that uses to much energy and water to arrive at a sub-par fuel. In terms of environmental impact and thermal efficiency, biodiesel is at least 50% better and on both counts. I am, however, intrigued by your suggestion of sweet sorghum. They grew lots of it in Phoenix when I was a kid but you don't see it today.

An HEV with a diesel motor and great recuperative braking could make a huge difference at a very reasonable cost. But I still have economic issues with big battery capacity unless they're real cheap batteries.

2008 Dec 22 12:43 AM

[John Adam:]

John P.,

Since you live in the EU and are a diesel expert you probably are a big fan of Choren and their biomass to liquid Fischer-tropsch diesel fuel,
www.greencarcongress.c...
www.angtl.com/pdfs/Web... .

Diesel cars are great, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) . However using soy beans or Rapeseed oil is foolish in my opinion. There are much better biomass crops for biodiesel. Here are a few links that I have collected over the last few years.

**********************...
www.technologyreview.c...
www.marketwire.com/mw/...
PetroSun 2.56 billion gallon SW US and Mexico project:
www.biodieselnow.com/f...
UNH Biodiesel Group:
www.unh.edu/p2/biodies...
Solix Biofuels and Greenfuel Technologies Corp.:
claytonbodiecornell.gr.../
www.popularmechanics.c...
Algae Gasoline:
Sapphire Energy algae-to-gasoline process 5/29/8:
biofuelsdigest.com/blo.../
Furfural biodiesel:
www.thecesite.com/Pure...
**********************...

However, there are better solutions for EXTENDED RANGE EVs, www.greencarcongress.c... . There are better alternatives out there unfortunately the Politicians, lawyers, and Accountants running the show usually fail to understand ADVANCED MATH.

2008 Dec 23 05:57 PM

[John Petersen:]

John Adam, the Swiss were far to sensible to join the EU. So actually I live on an island of sanity in a sea of irrationality. I'm involved in one biodiesel company (www.biofuelspower.com), but don't consider myself an expert on emerging liquid fuel technologies.

I'm with you on using virgin oils for biodiesel. The commodity price swings on both the feedstock and finished fuel sides of the equation are far to violent for my taste. In fact, the biodiesel company I work with uses junk fats and byproducts to make fuel to run a turbine generator. It's far more stable than trying to compete with wholesale diesel prices in the transportation fuel market. Moreover, we don't care if the product would gel at ambient temperature because there's plenty of waste heat from exhaust gasses to keep it liquid. I don't know whether the company will succeed over the long term because of expansion requirements and the risk of new business models, but it's a lot of fun and another chance to learn something new.

2008 Dec 23 11:31 PM

[Vienna:]

As far as I know Lithium is not available in high amounts.

According to the article the is 12 mio Tonns available on the plant as far as currently known. How far will this go, if we want to replace a battery for every of the 800 mio cars within the next 50-80 years?

Would be apprx. 15 kg by car, not having dealt with notebooks or other usage of LI.

I think we always tend to hope that something will help us in future, instead of acting now. Everybody is talking about price/cost ..., while spending billions for other things. How about just investing 100 bio USD of military costs for different kinds of alternate energy, even if it is not profitable, its better than dropping a bomb, and also employs the people.

I don't want to be so foolish to believe that this will be done, but just from the point of view in the discussion about the whole topic.

This topic is not not about absolte return, btu investment in the future.

www.mii.org/Minerals/p...

2008 Dec 26 09:50 AM

[frflyer:]

Vienna

I agree. We give $49 billion a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. every year . $39 bilion of that is for oil.
Nuclear has received at least $100 billion in subsidies.
And then people whine about spending $17 billion on all the renewable energy technologies put together.

Not one oil subsidy from 1918 to the present has ever been phased out, but Republicans voted 8 times this year against renewing the tax credits for renewables. And they blocked any attempt to touch the oil industry subsidies.
Did I mention last year's $700 billion trade deficit, which oil boosted from $300 billion?

The thinking goes... "sure we'll save ourselves from environmental collapse, as long as it doesn't cost too much.

It's costing us plenty to do nothing!
Oil is killing our economy, and with coal, our environment.
Coal is said to cause 24,000 deaths in the U.S. every year from repiratory diseases alone.
The mercury is making fish inedible. and the ocean is becoming acidified from CO2 dissolving, which destroys coral reefs and shellfish. There is a sea of plastic in the pacific ocean as big as the lower 48 states, where near the surface, plastic outweighs zooplankton 6-1. Microscopic bits of plastic are being inadvertently ingested by the creatures at the bottom of the food chain. PCBs , DDT and other toxins cling to these little bits of plastic. About 75% of most fish stocks are gone, 90% of many.
That's just the ocean, and probably not near the whole story.
But that's ok, just don't raise the cost of fueling my SUV.
Nah, man can't bring about ecological collapse. Those scientists must be wrong. Rush Limbaugh even says so.

Most studies have shown that converting to clean energy will have little if any economic loss and in fact maybe a gain over the next 20 years or so. One study said that it would mean reaching $23 trillion GDP in April of some year in the 2020s instead of in January of that year.

The Google plan sees a net economic gain of $80 billion by 2030.

The Solar Grand Plan proposal, that Scientific American published, would create a 69% solar grid by 2050 using less in subsidies over about 40 years than we give the oil industry every 10 years.

But you know, us reasonable people don't believe all that hippie renewable energy stuff. It's way too expensive.

You are right, as John says, we need to use the tools we have now, while continuing to improve technology, and bring down the costs.

What's wrong with Pickens' Plan:
climateprogress.org/20.../

John Adams I agree about hemp. The law against growing it is like the old blue laws. It's absurd. We should be making paper from hemp and saving millions of trees every year. There are many other practical uses of hemp, including very nutritious seeds.

In regard to biofuels, I think we need to consider whether there are better uses for some of the land than just biofuel. For instance, bioplastics would go a long way toward solving the plastics pollution problem. Plastic production uses at least 5% of our oil.
Metabolix's Mirel bioplastics are completely compostable and can replace at least half the oil based plastics we presently use.
The other use of land that might compete with biofuels is hemp.
Actually they probably don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Metabolix says they can produce biofuel feed stock as a byproduct of making bioplastics.







.

Jan 01 12:23 AM