Lead-Acid, Lead-Carbon Batteries: The Only Option for Average Consumer 88 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Why Long Range EVs Can Never Be Cost Effective
America’s love affair with the automobile has always been based on the freedom of the road and the ability to hop in the car and drive wherever we want to go; be it to the corner store to buy a loaf of bread or out to the lake for a long weekend. Even though most of our trips are short, people invariably want the flexibility to go for a long drive when the open road beckons. Unfortunately, that mentality is disastrous when it comes to EV economics.
I’ve been writing about energy storage issues for several months and discussing a variety of battery technologies that could be used in EV applications. My basic premise has been that advanced lead-acid and lead-carbon batteries are good enough for EV applications and they are far cheaper than their sexier NiMH and Li-ion cousins. My critics have argued that the size and weight advantages of NiMH and Li-ion batteries are essential to the development and widespread acceptance of EVs that have the flexibility we’ve come to expect in an automobile. It finally occurred to me last week that most of the visionaries who advocate the widespread adoption of EVs do not understand that:
- You can have an EV that is cost-effective, or
- You can have an EV that will travel 100 or 200 miles between charges, but
- You cannot have both in a single package.
It’s a classic economic conflict between capital costs and operating costs. In a conventional automobile, you pay almost nothing for the fuel tank and then pay pump prices for gas when you use it. In an EV, you pay a huge price for the batteries that give you an acceptable travel range and then pay a low price to fill your ‘tank’ with electricity. If you buy more batteries than you use on a daily basis, the breakeven cost of daily travel skyrockets.
In other words, the phrase “cost-effective long-range EV” is an oxymoron and an economic impossibility.
To demonstrate the point, I’m going to become a technology agnostic for a couple of minutes and discuss the basic laws of battery economics. While I will use a pure EV for discussion purposes, the fundamental rules apply with equal force to both EVs and PHEVs. In an attempt to avoid controversy and focus solely on fundamental economics, I’ll work with the following basic assumptions:
- EV Range – 4 miles per kWh of battery storage;
- Battery Cost – $500 per kWh;
- Average Use – 12,000 miles per year (40 miles per day); and
- Comparable Gas Mileage – 25 mpg (480 gallons per year);
The following table shows the battery economics for EVs that have ranges of 40, 60, 80 and 100 miles based on these assumptions. For purposes of the table, I’ve used straight-line depreciation of 10% per year on battery cost, imputed interest of 6% per year on unamortized battery cost, an average electricity price of $0.06 per kWh and annual maintenance savings of $180. The only assumption that varies is the maximum EV range. If you don’t like my assumptions, feel free to change them and re-run the numbers using assumptions you like better.
click to enlarge
The table shows that when you cut through the bafflegab, EVs only offer attractive economics if you carefully match your EV range with your daily driving habits. As soon as you start adding EV range that you won’t use on a daily basis, the economic benefits of EVs plummet. You can have an EV that is cost-effective, or you can have an EV that has long range for the weekend, but you can’t have it both ways!
There is an inherent logical conflict in the visionary argument that we need to develop expensive batteries so that we can manufacture a long-range EV that cannot possibly be cost effective. General Motors’ (GM) EV1 was a great car that was initially powered by lead-acid batteries. GM ultimately changed over to NiMH batteries because the lead-acid batteries of the day were not robust enough to handle the heavy demands of an EV. In the last decade there have been tremendous advances in lead-acid and lead-carbon technology and we now have a new generation of products that can stand up to the demands of an EV, but can’t provide the elusive 100 or 150 mile range that the visionaries assume everyone needs and wants.
As the EV markets develop, there will undoubtedly be buyers who insist on a long-range EV and are willing to pay a substantial premium for the flexibility. Those purchasers, however, will be a very small minority who don’t need to worry about petty details like monthly budgets, payment books and cost-benefit comparisons. For average consumers that need to stretch a paycheck and balance a household budget, the only sensible EV will be one where battery capacity and daily use are carefully paired to optimize the cost-benefit relationship. Given the basic laws of battery economics, I can’t help but believe average consumers will choose the cost-effectiveness of advanced lead-acid and lead-carbon batteries over the svelte lines and lower weight of their NiMH and Li-ion cousins.
The underlying theme of the Clinton and Obama campaigns was “It’s the economy stupid!” As long as the newly elected policy team in Washington remembers that theme, the market advantage in the energy storage sector will go to lead-acid and lead-carbon battery producers like Exide (XIDE) Enersys (ENS) C&D Technologies (CHP) and Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) who make affordable products for ordinary consumers. Developers of expensive Li-ion batteries like Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI), Ener1 (HEV) and Valence Technology (VLNC) will then find themselves fighting over the small percentage of the market that doesn’t care about price. If the new policy team forgets that fundamental economics matter in flyover country, the current push for electric automobiles will follow the same disastrous route as ethanol and result in huge capital outlays for feel-good facilities that have no economic value or enduring benefit.
Disclosure: Author holds a large long position in Axion Power International, a leading U.S. developer of lead-carbon batteries, and small long positions in Exide and Enersys.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 88 comments:
.
I'm personally skeptical about the life cycle claims as I prepare to replace my cellphone battery for the second time in three years, but maybe I just have bad luck.
I was wondering about the lifespan of these batteries in cars - how long would they be expected to last in your above scenerios? The price of a battery that goes in as OE and is built into the price of the car is much different than the price of replacing the battery in the after-market.
John: Apply that same rule to your cell-phone battery, and I am confident that you will never need to replace another battery.
1. Most people expect electric windows, heat/AC, stereo etc, that will surely take a toll on range, especially since heat/ac will have to be thermo-electric, or perhaps mini-heat pumps. With no engine heat source, fast heat might even require a resistive heating element and a fan, which presumably will kill the range.
2. On the macro grid level, the vast majority of battery recharging will occur overnight, when wind and solar are poor and non-existent sources respectively. If one plans for success, and assumes 10% of the cars could be electric in ten years, you'll need more clean baseload power for off-peak charging. So we would needs tens of nuclear reactors to provide this, otherwise the re-charging will be from new baseload Nat. gas and dreaded coal plants, and the environmental advantages will be greatly reduced, if not wiped out. Thus, for a "plan for success" approach, and given the long lead time for nuke plants, we need a nuclear building boom to start right now.
Marcap, you've brought up one of the scariest aspects of EVs in general and batteries in particular. Human beings are careless by nature and none of us are very good at reading the instruction manual from cover to cover, much less following all the rules to the letter day in and day out. That's what makes computer controlled testing so useless. A computer cannot make all of the foolish mistakes that owners will.
Dave Marsh, all of your concerns are valid and I don't have all the answers. In fact, I'm not entirely confident that we even know all of the questions. I do know that proposing a technical solution without test results to conclusively demonstrate that the solution works is a very bad idea. I try to stay out of power generation issues, but I seem to recall reading that wind speeds are more consistent and reliable at night. There also seems to be a lot of evidence that solar-thermal will be a better power source than photovoltaic. But you'll never hear me condemn nuclear because I believe it's an important part of the overall power mix.
Proclaimer, just as I try to stay out of power generation issues, I try to stay out of power utilization issues. I can speak with authority about the differences between riding a bicycle in Houston and riding that same bicycle in central Switzerland, but beyond that there are better men than me out there to explain the specifics.
Douglas, people I've spoken with who are personally familiar with the details of the EV1 project have told me the primary problem with the Gen1 vehicles was the inability of the lead-acid power packs to take the abuse of repeated deep discharge cycling which lead to rapid sulfation. If you have reliable and verifiable reports that say otherwise, I would like to see them.
Truth is an important thing to me and I think my record of questioning the availability of adequate lithium supplies and then backing down when new information became available proves that I'm not infallible, but I am teachable.
I may be a complete moron, but I fail to see how the technology Toyota used for its Prius HEV would have any bearing on GM's selection of the best technology for a CARB exempt pure electric vehicle. I'm more than willing to learn so if you have more detailed information, please provide a link.
In rural Maine we already have people driving their cars to the nearest bus or train or airport, parking and traveling on using public transport rather than driving all the way. More parking with recharging facilities as nodes in a feeder system linked to public transport will help people deal with rising energy costs.
We have seen a tremendous increase in long commutes in the past 20 years around here. This is now beginning to reverse and a return to towns and cities is already happening.
All of these trends should make the least expensive short range EVs practical for most people and therefore a mass market success. Long range vehicles will be needed for certain purposes and I suspect the market will sift that one out also.
One final point on the actual subject here. I've owned VLNC off and on, and while listening to their conference calls, realized that these aren't just batteries, they are battery systems. The associated electronics in each battery pack, for "in and out" power management, are intrinsic to the system properties and, to Marcap's point, should automatically prevent excessive discharge that shortens the battery life. I believe the 20% or so charge retention needed for optimal longevity is (or should be) discounted from available kWh (and mileage) remaining in the battery. John may know more about that. I don't know if there is proprietary or revolutionary knowledge in this system management aspect, that would give one company an edge.
From what I understand of battery management systems, they're each designed for a specific performance profile and not easily transportable from one manufacturer to another. So a management system patent for a particular cell only confers a benefit if that particular cell commands a dominant market share; but in that event you would presumably have a solid patent position on the cell so the management system patent is backup at best.
I think America is heading in a different direction than the lithium and global warming cultists believe, and I think that silly rich men's toys like the Tesla will one day soon be considered positional goods of those who are green frauds. As for the Volt its too little, too late, and too expensive now and for the indefinite future. The dominant battery technology for SLI will obviously remain lead-acid. For propulsion in hybrids it will probably be nickel-metal hydride and will be resource limited in total production numbers. The future of the all electric car belongs to "advanced" lead-acid.lead-carbon battery technology. These will be limited range urban passenger and freight vehicles intended to keep the air over our cities as clean as possible. Am I being too subtle?
On Feb 01 01:58 PM The Proclaimer wrote:
> One thing that I have not seen mentioned is the effect of driving
> in a mountainous region vs driving in a flat region of the country.
> Common sense tells me that it would take more energy to drive up
> hill. Even if you take into account utilizing the down hill grade
> to generate/recover the power there would be greater losses vs steady
> load conditions. Could you explain more on the difference between
> driving on a more or less level road vs driving on a mountainous
> terrain?
I had never taken into the equation the question of what the demands on EV batteries would be, beyond propulsion. Thanks to Dave Marsh and Proclaimer I now will.
Now into this debate is thrown the demands that will be placed by such things as internal heaters. Were I live we have just had our first serious snow falls, have any of the road tests been conducted that have drawn down power for heaters.
I don't think the current prototypes would get you to the local store and back with heaters running.
Were the road tests done on level roads or hilly areas.
lead acid batterys can do that.
we allready have the tech but the big car companys move so slow it makes me wonder if they arent in the bed with the oil companys. anyway if the big boys dont do it, ordinary people will start converting theyr cars one by one showing the other people that its easy and practical. and the idea will spread.
So the pure EV give people the willies because they think of getting stranded, when in fact that is not gonna happen.
It seems to me that the lead carbon may well be able to be this -- except for one thing that is not clear: Tell me about the voltage curve on a lead-carbon. Is it not true that this requires a *much* more capable power control system? Let's put that factor on the table too.
Nice article.
Speculawyer, to my way of thinking concepts like Aptera's are the only rational solution to pure EVs. As long as the total vehicle weight to driver weight ratio remains low, EV solutions can make a lot of sense. As vehicle weight increases, the economics get progressively worse. Thats why I like the bicycle and scooter applications and have more than a little disdain for the two and three thousand pound city car proposals. I've read all the speculation about economies of scale for li-ion, but have never heard a cogent explanation of exactly where the economies will come from. Berkley labs is saying materials costs run to 70%, so that doesn't seem to be a big cost reduction item. Labor costs are rising across the planet so I don't see much help there. PP&E is also terribly expensive. My BS sensors flash red whenever somebody that's seeking loans to build new factories instead of using the idle ones he already owns talks about future cost savings. Heck, if you already have an idle factory shouldn't you be proving the economics before seeking a hand-out for a new factory that will take 18 to 24 months to build and may never make a battery? Remember the chart assumes that all of the happy-talk about 10 year battery service lives in EV applications works out the way people hope it will. Since none of the manufacturers can point to an EV that's been on the road for more than a couple years and 10 year battery lives run contrary to everything I've experienced, I'd like to see something more substantial than puffery.
Florin and TSVee, PHEVs have the same issues as EVs. As long as you use 100% of the battery capacity every day, the economics are pretty good. But if you don't use it all, you're wasting money because of the capital costs vs operating costs dichotomy. So in most cases a PHEV-10 or PHEV-20 will offer far more reliable economies than a PHEV-40+. As I understand it, every battery requires a different type of power control system, but frankly they're beyond my ability to discuss accurately or intelligently.
In a perfect world, engineers, meeting with intelligent consumers, would select the winner, looking at the big picture despite minor obstacles. In the real world, the engineers report to morons (such as GM's senior management) and the consumers are largely guided by the information planted or advertised by marketeers who also report to those same morons. And then there are the politicians, who are guided by the lobbyists who also report to those morns. It is little things such as "naaah let's not test that one, it will delay production by almost a year" that select a winner.
Let me rephrase this topic: "it may be that lead carbon is not exactly a plug and play battery substitute in new EV designs." I am hearing a rumbling that "one just cannot swap a lead-carbon battery as a lead acid or Li-Ion or NiMH substitute".
I do not know how to weigh this issue within in this fine article series, since it is a topic which requires some commentary and expertise from (say) Axion, or, say a vehicle power conversion partner, in order to dispel. But, fair is fair in Seeking Alpha, and this question may be a lurker which can only be dispelled by fair and expert commentary.
I'd love to hear that this is not a problem.
"The study, "Lights Out In 2009?" warns that the U.S. "faces potentially crippling electricity brownouts and blackouts beginning in the summer of 2009, which may cost tens of billions of dollars and threaten lives."
"If particularly vulnerable regions, like the Western U.S., experience unusually hot temperatures for prolonged periods of time in 2009, the potential for local brownouts or blackouts is high, with significant risk that local disruptions could cascade into regional outages that could cost the economy tens of billions of dollars," the report warned.
U.S. baseload generation capacity reserve margins "have declined precipitously to 17 percent in 2007, from 30-40 percent in the early 1990s," according to the study. A 12-15 percent capacity reserve margin is the minimum required to ensure reliability and stability of the nation's electricity system. Compounding this capacity deficiency, the projected U.S. demand in the next ten years is forecast to grow by 18 percent, far exceeding the projected eight percent growth in baseload generation capacity between now and 2016. ..."
www.utilityproducts.co...
There are lots of other reasons to think that we may be walking or bicycling lots more in the future.
You might wish to listen [audio book] to "The Road" by Santa Fe author Cormac McCarthy to perhaps get a more accurate view of future travel ... and its dangers.
biz.yahoo.com/prnews/0...
I don't have any details on the grant terms, but this has all the earmarks of a study that will test a number of different vehicle configurations a variety of real world conditions and provide reams of useful data.
As you might suspect, I'm more than a little excited.
0) leverage existing proven technologies
1) leverage electric use on short trips (wind, solar feeding the grid...)
2) reduce our imports of foreign oil
3) reduce greenhouse gas emissions
4) create good jobs in the energy and automotive industries
and
5) create an infrastructure that will pay dividends for decades.
any thoughts?
www.afstrinity.com/ind...
They've integrated ultracapacitors with lithium batteries and a sophisticated control package, and are looking at strong results. Sure they may end up shifting to PB-C batteries, and hopefully offering a NG version. I'm watching them with great interest.
"The remaining marginal generation capacity consists of coal-fired thermal plants, natural-gas-fueled steam plants, and combined cycle plants. Not considered as marginal capacity for the valley-filling are nuclear, conventional hydro power, and renewable energy capacities because these are already fully utilized. Nuclear capacity is normally operated at its maximum capacity. Wind and solar generators are fully utilized whenever the resource is available. Conventional hydro generation is limited by finite water resources and seasonal water flows."
Thus, the paper assumes that essentially all the increased demand would be met by coal and nat. gas. The overall increase in U.S. electricity demand based on 73% of Light Duty Vehicles being PHEVs would be 24%, and this would be a "valley-filling" change in off-peak demand, all provided by nat. gas and coal! Proves my point beautifully. Namely, we need more baseload nuclear to do this "valley-filling" in off-peak hours. Otherwise, all these PHEVs are being charged by incremental increases in CO2-producing sources.
On Feb 01 12:42 PM thedivot wrote:
> John, you are a most prolific writer but your articles are much appreciated!
>
>
> I was wondering about the lifespan of these batteries in cars - how
> long would they be expected to last in your above scenerios? The
> price of a battery that goes in as OE and is built into the price
> of the car is much different than the price of replacing the battery
> in the after-market.
Your next article will probably address the >50 mi "commuter" using the diesel hybrid.
AND THEN, you can write about the BIODIESEL hybrid with the no-moving-parts biofuel injected container encapsulated with solid state direct coversion to electric ChorusMotor powered transmission-less hybrid with the ONLY ON-BOARD STORED ENERGY DEVICE being a GRASS TANK, refuleable at any of the then existing biofuel stations, because this hybrid captures and makes use of 80-90% of the energy in every gallon of biofuel instead of the 20% we get from every internal combustion engine.
It seems like most folks writing or responding in SA don't get the fact that our useful total energy needs are less than 1/2 of what we consume due to waste because we are using inefficient methods for both POWER GENERATION and TRANSPORTATION. Of course, DC doesn't get it either.
But times may be a'changin': Steven Chu, Obama's new Energy Czar from Livermore Labs understands the real energy issues from a proper perspective. I truly hope he is effective in properly directing our money the Government is going to spend for us.
Since the big automakers target these same states for HEV sales, they have no choice but to adopt these stringent warranty requirements for their entire line, and to their credit most of these packs have performed very well indeed. The failure rate on the Panasonic EV NIMH packs used in the Prius, for example, is miniscule--something like 300 failures out of a million cars sold, and some of the original older packs are in cars that have seen 200,000 miles. As far as I know these same warranty minimums will be met by the GM Volt and other PHEVs coming to market soon--at least these are the performance targets GM is using in developing the Volt pack.
Separately, I would agree with the poster who suggested that pure EVs could well have a place as a second car in many Amercians' driveway to be used strictly in local driving/commuting. But in the end PHEVS are obviously far more practical than a pure EV, and I doubt most owners will give a hoot whether there's a small gasser under the hood recharging the packs whenever they get depleted.
Virtually all the big automakers, including Toyota and Honda, are fairly negative on pure EVs (and have been for a long time, mostly from a cost point of view), so JP's thesis here is solid but far from new. IMO pure EVs will always be a small niche compared to hybrids, but I like the model of the PHEV best, mainly for its flexibiity and "best of both worlds" potential.
Dave Marsh, I'm actually far more interested in grid storage than I am EVs. With any luck I'll be able to refocus on that sub-sector very soon.
Optimist, the theory seems to be "let's sell experimental products instead of testing them first. I sure hope the FAA doesn't take the same approach when it comes to aircraft certification.
Old Wizard, for what it's worth I think the problems are massive enough that we need to be running all out to find as many solutions as we can. We are already way behind the curve and have an immense game of catch-up staring us in the face.
Leh, I certainly hope we'll get to a point where PHEVs work. That means I hope the li-ion battery packs the car companies are experimenting with perform for years; I hope that li-ion battery manufacturers will be able to shave 60% off the price of their products by negotiating big discounts on commodity prices; and I hope the vision of an EV future is more than a mirage. We may well get there some day. But today is not that day. We need to get up in the morning, go to work with the tools we have, solve our problems to the best of our abilities and be ready to accept better tools when they become available.
In addition, you keep making it seem like there are no legitimate real world tests being done with Lithium Phosphate batteries. Why don't you call Segway and ask them if Lithium Phosphate works for them (I did)? Call the bus companies and EV delivery vehicle manufacturers in England or the US and ask them how the batteries are holding up.
You keep talking about the advances in Lead based batteries. Find me one company that can ship a production model Lead based battery that gets these supposedly high energy and recharge cycles that our company can test. These new lead based batteries you talk about are vapor ware compared to the testing that has already been done with Lithium Phosphate. By the way, I don’t know of anyone who has a lead based battery in their cell phone. If you did, care to guess how many minutes it would last? How much it would weigh? And how often you would have to replace it?
We manufacture a product called Cyber Sport and use Valence Technology’s Lithium Phosphate batteries. These batteries are used on vehicles we manufacturer. They are basically high-tech bumper cars that we use in our Cyber Sport attraction. These bumper cars have been operational for over a year and they have matched the manufacturer specs exactly. Well not exactly, they actually ended up performing above their specifications. Instead of 130 Ah, the batteries actually produce 140 Ah. Since, we did our first tests about 2 years ago they increased their specs to 138 Ah.
Because batteries are so important to the products we manufacture, we make it a point to stay on top of all the things going on in this industry. And like I said, if there is a battery that can produce the same power or at least close to lithium phosphate at a lower price and doesn’t weigh double the weight, then tell me who makes it and we will buy it and test it.
The one thing you don’t take into account is the residual value of the lithium phosphate batteries. In one of our products, we need the full capacity of the batteries to maintain a full charge level of 80% of the original capacity to get the run time required for our attraction. Once it goes below 80%, it is less than adequate for the use. But, in another product we manufacturer we can reuse the same battery until it gets down to 15 to 20% capacity. Based on our current product application, even with a 200% improvement in current lead based battery technology and a weight reduction of 50%, it would still be less expensive to go with Lithium Phosphate.
Saying something is better with no “real world” proof is vapor ware.
Speculawyer, we both know that all manner of counterfeit products and factory seconds are available on the internet. We also know that first line manufacturers do not buy from websites, they buy from first line manufacturers because of potential product liability issues. I calculated the $1,300 number from data in a recent Form S-1 filing by A123 Systems that shows they incurred $1,300 per kWh of cost of products sold for every watt hour they sold during the first 9 months of 2008.
BTW, for all electric motor fans - I bought a Neuton rechargeable lawn mower a while back and it's WONDERFUL. Do not buy another gas mower. Also, no oil and no maintenance. Even on a lead-acid battery it has power and range to spare. If you don't want to dip your foot in the EV pool yet, at least get one of these. One way to lower your CO2 footprint right now. And all those mowers really add up. Sorry for getting off the subject (again).
When the DOE (and the US) addresses electrified TRANSPORTATION other than the LVT's of your referenced paper AND the inefficiencies of POWER GENERATION, we'll not only knock off the rest of imports but attack coal and ng and their wastes, being left with the need for the INTER/INTRASTATE right-of-way Power Grid and ELECTRIFED FERRIES while removing most rubber tired vehicles from long distance transport, all powered by the upcoming solar, wind and bio farms.
Secondly, if something has significant residual value, then it doesn’t mean the user has to deal with recouping that value. The manufacturer or distributor would be the logical choice to take the battery back and facilitate the resale of the remaining capacity. The remaining capacity would still be very high for a power grid application or other type of backup use.
You are correct we do have another 8 years to prove 10 years of life for our current application. Can you show me 10 years of useful life from any one of these “new” lead based batteries that has or is being used in any real world application (not a prototype or limited run battery)?
Your point about IBM main frame’s value problem was almost exclusively caused by Moore’s Law in which computing capacity doubled every two years. If this problem occurs in batteries, then residual value would be very low indeed. That’s a problem I would love to see.
The go-karts we purchased came with (4) top of the line lead acid batteries (from a brand name company). We have replaced almost half the batteries in less than 3 years and will most likely have to replace the rest this year. We operate two sets of go-karts (20 go-karts at a time). Based on the two sets of go-karts we never deep cycle the batteries. Because of the slow recharge rates we have to top off the batteries after each race. You can’t run the go-karts for more than 5 to 6 minutes or you will eventually kill the batteries before the end of the day even with two sets of cars.
You are correct gas go-karts will eventually go away. Electric go-karts are growing very fast in the amusement industry. Overall maintenance is a lot lower, but the number one maintenance problem is guess what? Batteries. What kind of batteries Lead Acid.
We started out using two very large lead acid batteries in our bumper car. They weighed 240lbs. We had to have two sets of batteries and had to change them every 3 hours (other problem they took 7 hours to fully charge). Out staff members hurt their backs even though we designed a special deck system that helped them slide the batteries in and out of the cars. We also had 6 batteries fail in less than 12 months out of 48 batteries.
After a lot of research we decided to test Valence Technology’s batteries. We would have tested more but nobody had a production model battery we could order off the shelf (if there is another battery company out there that is reading this and you have something as good as Valence email me at jkessler@lasertron.us I would like to have an equal alternate).
When we finally decided to switch to lithium phosphate, we went from two sets of batteries weighing 240 lb a piece (total 480 lbs of batteries) down to one set of lithium phosphate batteries weighing 86 lbs total. Our new 24 volt bumper car can run 8 hours continuous or you can run 6 hours charge for 1 hour and run for 6 more hours and most importantly we never change the batteries. We also have a 36 volt version that can run for 12 hours continuous. The batteries will also fully recharge in 2.5 hours. If you add up all the factors you are looking at a huge difference. The thing that kills me is that for all the different lead acid batteries we have utilized almost none of their specs where accurate to the real world testing we have done.
John is right about the cost of Lithium Phosphate batteries. They are in the range that he quotes. I have looked at some of the cheaper batteries that you talked about in one of your other posts, but they are not what I would consider to be production model batteries.
Another product we manufacturer is high-end laser tag equipment. We have utilized just about every type of small format battery available over the last 20 years and the regular lithium ion batteries are superior to every other batter we have tried. The key is designing the correct charging system for the battery. On average our batteries last 4 to 5 years with at least 60% full charge capacity remaining. The warranty on our laser tag system is bumper to bumper and can go up to 5 years so everything in our system has to last. The cost of our lithium batteries has dropped in the last 6 years by about 50%. Can the same or better be done with lithium phosphate? My guess is yes, but I think you will also see an increase in power by at least 50% over the next 5 years as well.
Sorry for the long response, but our company does know something about the differences between lithium and lead based batteries (under real world applications).
I've always appreciated your insights because you have hands on experience with li-phosphate, which is hard to find. Nevertheless, the fact that li-phosphate serves well in your application does not mean it will serve well for years in an EV that a consumer plans to drive to work on a daily basis. You need a battery alternative that works and stands up to the demands of your application. Consumers need a battery that works and is cost effective when compared with other choices, including internal combustion.
I suspect a big part of your issues today arise from the headline Seeking Alpha gave this article. My title was "Why Long Range EVs Can Never Be Cost Effective." The analysis was technology agnostic and applies to all batteries. It also assumed for the sake of discussion that everybody would be able to get their product down to a $500 per kWh cost, which I believe is an unreasonable assumption when 70% of manufacturing cost is raw materials.
You apparently achieve significant benefits in:
- faster full-charges,
- fewer charges,
- fewer chargers,
- fewer batteries,
- no battery changeout chores,
- faster turn-around,
- significantly lighter weight batteries, and
- fewer demands of the maintenance crew, or
- maybe fewer maintenance crew and which must
- translate into lower capital, labor cost, power cost and
- better vehicle performance, or
- more payload.
And for the greenies, no emissions.
Walla!! Impressive toy.
How's it stack up to the Volt? Much cheaper, for starters.
Go cart!
And here's the important question: would you go back to internal combustion engines??????
I have been thinking about the title and tone of this article, and I now have to take some exception to it. I would like to argue that on the basis of things that I believe that you already acknowledge, based on your articles.
a) Lead Carbon is not the only option for consumers. Period.
Bad title. If, as per your previous article, someone is rewriting your titles, they should stop.
b) I can accept that Lead Carbon is a surprise entry into the scripted automotive coronation pageant of King Lithium, but Lead Carbon is still an untested infant. So, consumers and manufacturers will not take it up in the next few years; I believe that the cycle is longer than that.
c) In the world of bulk power storage, grid buffering, and power conditioning, batteries are not the only option, and not even a proven-viable option. Period. So again we wait.
d) In the world of high efficiency transportation, batteries are not the only option, and certainly not the proven option. So we wait.
I think that you have done well in placing Lead Carbon into the line of sight, but there is only so far that you can go in your arguments. You need proof (we all need proof), and we can only await the actions of the players. It's gonna be a while yet. {sigh}
b) I agree wholeheartedly that lead-carbon is an untested infant, but think you would have to agree that li-phosphate isn't much more than a toddler. Neither has been around long enough for anybody to have more than an educated guess about what the cycle life will be in the hands of ordinary consumers who don't read user manuals and don't follow the instructions even if they read them.
c) I'll be getting back to grid applications in the immediate future so I won't get into the details today. Suffice it to say I disagree with your conclusion. I also disagree about waiting. We need to start serious large scale testing of all the available options under real world conditions starting now or we'll spend the rest of our lives waiting because data to support a rational conclusion won't exist. But we need to be careful that we don't foreclose any options by crowing a champion before the race is run.
d) I personally think that over time, the transportation mindset will have to change. After 10 years in Europe I rarely drive more than 25 miles round-trip. Anything longer and I'm checking train and airline schedules. My best guess is that changes in the energy landscape will be very beneficial for central cities and very destructive for pure residential suburbs. Cities like Houston that have dispersed business districts will likely fare better as people will gravitate closer to their workplace, but those are societal changes that will likely take 15 to 20 years to unfold. In the interim, I still have to disagree about waiting. We need real world testing of everything so that we can make smart choices based on comprehensive data rather than sound bites and feel-good PR.
The really crazy part of all this is I don't believe lead-carbon is the be all and end all of energy storage technologies. There will be applications that need the power of Li-ion and justify the cost. There will also be applications that can get by with lead carbon and other applications that can get by with advanced lead-acid. We have a monster problem on our hands and it will take everything we know and lots that we don't know to solve the problem. Humans are simple creatures and naturally desire simple solutions. This time around the solution isn't going to be simple but there will be more business than anybody can say grace over.
Since I believe valuations will equalize across the sector over time, I have to conclude that the greatest appreciation potential (the Alpha we all seek) is in the companies that are undervalued when compared to their peers.
Watch this video below and you will know why every car company (Including Toyota) is terrified of electric powered vehicles. The video below shows an unbelievably simple solution that can be manufactured using an electric in wheel motor. All the space that is currently being used for the drive train, motor, struts, gas tank, radiator, battery, electronics, steering, fuel injection, exhaust system, etc. etc. are gone. And guess what, there is plenty of room for batteries without losing your trunk space.
www.youtube.com/watch?...
I love simplicity. It is an amazing video when you think about how dramatically the rules will change. I am not worried about the average Joe messing with the batteries because none of that will be accessible to Joe. He will only be able to plug the car in. If you want scary, take a look under the hood of a car today. Even Joe realizes how much more dangerous it is that we let him open the hood of a car today.
By the way - the savings on the elimination of all the parts related to a combustion engine will help pay for the more expensive batteries.
I don't really have a clue as for motivation of Mr. Petersen, but this cost analysis seems to be useless given the assumption that production costs of new types of batteries are going to plunge as volumes are going to grow. (For instance, the production costs of FLASH memory got down about 240 TIMES just in 5 years due to transition to mass production).
I believe that 100 year old technically inferior (albeit cheap) and toxic technology of LEAD and ACID must die just as CRT display technology have.
In this economically turbulent times, a bitter battles are going to be over Obama's alternative/green energy stimulus budgets. Mr. Petersen's publications (two in a single week) seem to be shots in these battles.
We are probably not looking in the right direction when it comes to batteries, but something will come along that will reduce the dependency on heavy batteries. And no, not hydrogen either.
1. The basic issue around modifying actual combustion motor uses in my understanding is environmental, after all, the advances in combustion engines and increasing efficiency can cope with oil prices for some decades, last year it was very clear how Europe or U.S handled the impact that oil prices had in one and the other, here in Europe the economics of EV will be underline by public policies.
Having an economic analysis of it is useful but You John, living in Zurich or myself in Barcelona Spain knows the photo voltaic to grid market and how to adjust costs to public policies.
2. There is in the U.S an idea of "one fits for all" that is very american, living in Europe, i have (and use)...walking, public bycicle, private bycicle, scooter, my VW Passat (40 MPG) sedan diesel car, metro, buses and a suscription in a cheap carshare system where i get SUV´s or minivans 2-3 times a year in holidays or family visiting....and I use all of them depending what is in the moment.
I travel a lot to Texas and is amazing the amount of 4WD SUV´s for a 95% city and suburban driving, is common to find 7,000 pounds vehicles just for going to WalMart,
Having a multimodal transport network it is perfectly possible to have a EV for urban conmute where I believe 75% of the miles are drived, as a matter of fact this applies to all small- medium size cities, speciallt if green measures (taxes, carbon print policies etc) are applied.
The Asassi-Renault initiative for Israel or Hawaii and others like them will consolidate the multimodal transport.
Regards.
Nick, as long as the distance you can travel per kWh of stored electricity is a constant and batteries cost more than zero, long-range EVs will always be less cost effective than EVs where the battery size matches daily use. I rarely use never for the reasons you suggest, but it's appropriate in the context I used it. I'd also be willing to bet that history will prove you right on the idea that something better will come along, even if neither of us can describe it today. But we still have to go to work today with our current toolbox and be ready to change as circumstances change.
Speculawyer, I'm not convinced that any battery system will prove cost effective in EVs and PHEVs and that opinion is technology agnostic. I love the current and planned HEVs and mild hybrids, but believe that as soon as you add a plug, the economics suffer greatly. I also agree that accelerated aging testing is a wonderful thing to get a good feel for what the performance might be, but vehemently disagree on the need for at least a couple years of structured consumer testing. Scientists and test equipment always follow protocols to the letter. Consumers do so rarely. Until you know how a system will work in the hands of human beings who make human errors and commit acts of carelessness on a daily basis, you'll never have more than a theory of how something might work. It is not hypocritical to say that li-ion hasn't been tested and that an emerging technology that hasn't been thoroughly tested either may be able to give it a run for the money at a lower price. The only thing I keep saying is it is too early in the game to be making billion dollar decisions when the knowledge base is so feeble and the changes are coming so rapidly. Test everything, evaluate everything and then pick the best alternative based on facts rather than theory and PR. My bet is we will end up with a bell shaped curve with lead-acid at one end, lead-carbon in the middle and li-ion at the other end. I for one will be happy to deal with the average guy business because that's where the money is.
Advill, mercifully we don't have a whole lot of need for PV because the weather here is suboptimal for PV and the Swiss grid is 60% nuclear, 35% hydro and 5% imported. But if your gas prices are anywhere close to the $5 per gallon I've been paying for years, you understand the desire to budget transportation alternatives to fit the particular trip. I think perhaps that's one place where you and I differ from many readers, multi-modal transportation is second nature to us and is not for many.
If you look at the claimed improvements for new lead based batteries (which I have seen claims of 25 to over 100% improvements in either capacity or cycle life), then you can’t discount the idea that lithium phosphate may improve by 50 to over 100% in the next 3 to 5 years (which I believe it will). Lithium Phosphate is very new and there are different formulations that are still in the testing stage that are supposedly showing significant capacity improvements. Will batteries improve at a rate similar to electronics? No it won't, but it will improve by a significant amount.
I think there is a flaw in your thinking, at least as far as comparisons with gasoline. You are not including the externalities of fossil fuels. I bet the price of gasoline would be at least double, if these hidden costs are included.
They are hard to quantify, but they are real costs. I don't know how cap an trade or carbon taxes would effect the equation, but doubt that even they would account for all these hidden costs, as they will mostly be adjusting for CO2 and not all the other impacts of fossil fuels. How do you quantify the cost to society of blowing the tops off hundreds of mountains in Appalachia to mine coal, for instance? Or the costs of wars over oil in the MidEast and the thousands of deaths that have resulted.
The whole discussion of renewables verses conventional energy sources ususally fails to consider these factors when considering costs.
Doesn't it seem that quick charging of batteries would solve the range issue?
I suppose there's a tradeoff, and I'm sure you'll tell us what it is.
Shelby Super Cars just announced they will roll out a high performance electric car, in ten months, that outdoes the Tesla. It has 150-200 mile range and can be charged in 10 minutes, with a 110 volt charger.
It will do 0-60mph in 2.5 seconds. The twin electric motors produce 1000 and up to 1200 horsepower with over 800 footpounds of torque.
The price wasn't mentioned but I'm sure it's expensive. The article didn't say what the batteries were, other than Li -ion
They indend to build less performance oriented cars as well.
Phoenix Motor Cars talks of 10 minute charges with 480 volt charger as well. They use Altair's Li -titanate batteries. Or at least they will when they get a good batch of batteries.
Dave Marsh
Wind power is best at night, not poor and non existant as you say. And we have excess electricity at night now. You are also not including solar thermal with heat storage which can be designed to run all night.
We will not have a nuclear building boom for at least ten years. And in the meantime, solar and wind can be built much faster and will ultimately be much cheaper. Solar thermal with heat storage IS your clean base load power. We could probably build 100 gigawatts of that, before the first 1 gigawatt nuclear plant comes online. The DOE says the grid can handle millions of cars being charged at night right now, up to 80% of cars.
Nuclear will be part of the energy solution but not as large as some imagine, probably no more than the current 20%, once you factor in the older reactors, which will be phased out as they get too old. It will not be able to compete with cheaper wind and solar. Estimates of electricity prices from new nuclear plants are 12-17 cents/kWh, and some estimates are 20-30 cents. Solar thermal will be 5-8 cents by the time the first new reactor is completed. PV will cost much less in the future and wind is cheap power now.
Jack Lifton
by global warming cultists, I assume you are referring to the 97-99 percent of actual climate scientists who study the topic. I'm sure you are better informed than they are. A cultist believes things with no evidence like the crazy theories of the Oregon Petiition hoaxers who claim industrialization improves biodiversity. Now that is a cult.
.
www.saftbatteries.com/...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
If you drill down into the DOE data, the biggest sellers with be EV-10 and EV-20 models. All the talk of EV-150s and EV-200's is fluff, hype and pipe dreams because buying more battery power than you use every day is a huge waste of money. It's one thing to acknowledge the possibility of disruptive advances in the performance or cost of any class of battery technology and another entirely to bank on it.
All the talk of 10 minute recharge times is hogwash. Charging a 25 kWh battery pack on a 480 volt charger (2x household voltage) will take 52.1 Amp hours, so a 10 minute recharge would take a 300 Amp circuit (3x household amperage). I don't know much about electrical wiring, but charging a car on a single circuit that has more power than a big house seems risky to me.
aseflong, I ran the numbers in detail in an earlier Seeking Alpha article:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
My original assumptions were the most gentle set I could devise and remain reasonable, if you start using SUV power requirements, the economics really tank. If you want to consider resale value for any component (including batteries), you reflect the discounted present value of the future payment in your cash flow stream. You don't net it out against the acquisition cost. Unless your experience selling 10-year old used equipment is far better than mine, I wouldn't count on a big number unless you don't expect battery technology to advance over the next 10 years.
the link ...
www.lockheedmartin.com...
If this application can be replicated in other uses then the "one for all" EV can be possible based in a combination of batts and Eeesors in a single working unit.
Regards
Regards.
www.toshiba.co.jp/abou...
John – your comment about the value proposition related to the size of the battery system and the average daily driving range makes sense and got me thinking.
It seems to me that it would make more sense to buy a car with up to 50 miles of battery capacity, with an additional compartment designed to hold a long distance battery pack. If you have to go on a long trip, you drive to a commercial large capacity battery station. The battery station loads in the long distance battery pack and you proceed on with your long distance trip and return the battery when you get back from your trip.
In this scenario you only use the battery for what you need. You would charge the battery on the road at a commercial electric station that has the electrical capacity to fast charge your onboard long distance battery in 30 minutes or less.
Fast charging only make sense in a commercial electric station (just like today’s gas station infrastructure). Home recharging can be done with 220 in 2.5 to 8 hours based on today’s charging systems. The standard home wiring will work fine with the addition of one or two 220 outlets.
The commercial gas stations could also make money by providing peak shaving electrical capacity to the grid when storing unused long distance battery packs.
JKessler, the best solution I've seen for long-distance driving has been proposed by StromCar of Germany. Photos of an city car with battery trailer are at the following site www.stromcar.de/
The combination may look goofy, but as long as the battery trailer is available for rent on short notice, the solution might actually work given German gas prices which are north of $5 per gallon.
I understand that recharge times of a few hours are not a problem even at home. It's just the 10 to 15 minute recharge times that evoke gales of laughter.
bariumtitanate.blogspo...
This is a veeery focus blog about EEStor but the information coming from Lockheed official web looks more interesting, device A it´s a Eestor according this info.
Regards
Now, I don't want to listen to their quarterly report tomorrow! But I will.
John, you must be rubbing your hands together! Because I bet you'll be buying more shares tomorrow.
But, how can I buy more shares of what now is by far my worst performing stock?
Anybody have some extra Viagra? Because I will need some tomorrow when I reach down deep and buy more Exide tomorrow, likely not long after the bell. That is, if the hedge funds don't beat me to it.
"It's all about the upside." Though, with Obama throwing salt peter on the infrastructure stimulus plan, and Detroit going blind by playing with too many monster SUV's, I have a feeling the battery sector is more of a third quarter investment. Well see...
If it were not for my soaring gold mining stocks, I'd be off right now to the local tavern to support my Deageo stock by ordering a double Johnny Walker! Or, five!
What amazes me is that here on your forum there is so little discussion about battery stocks and their movements. I believe that a great percentage of Seeking Alpha readers are seeking out how to deal with this topsy turvy market; what to buy, what to sell, when to buy, when to sell, charts, beliefs, what Uncle Sam is doing, etc. Especially in this sector--which I am certain that a great percentage are huge believers that batteries are a future money maker; a sector repleat with future multi-baggers.
Yet here, not very often does someone write something (but you and me) about battery stocks & balance sheets, and their recent, albeit dismal, performance. Guess it's just the human nature of the "Downs Syndrome" I see everywhere, including talking to friends who don't even want to open their financial statements.
This happens over in the "Gold and Precious Metals" forum, too. It makes me want to slobber all over myself (sorry for the creepiness) that of the hundreds of gold articles I've read over the the past few months, that no one has pointed out that MOST of the micro, junior, and the leviathon gold minors have nearly doubled, or more than doubled since November 19th, last year. Yes, I do own a few that are nearing or way over 100% increase.
Here's hoping the battery sector gets its due later this year. Still sick to my stomach that I did not see the air coming out of the Exide balloon. Guess I'll indulge myself a scotch afterall; make the self-flagellation a little less painful! Then wake up tomorrow and buy some more Exide. With great hesistance because there's that insanely high corporate bond they have to pay, so I won't be buying much.
I'm awed by the number of people who have me on watch lists and amazed by the detail and civility of the comments these articles draw. I think those are both earmarks of a market sector that has tremendous drawing power and enough complexity to make people think long and hard before jumping in with both feet.
On balance I think it's better this way. I would feel tremendously less free to express my opinions if I thought the articles I wrote were going to move the markets one way or the other. Instead I'm much happier building a body of work before the sector begins to get frothy so that I can step aside and keep my opinions to myself when things really heat up.
NEW CASTLE, Pa., Feb. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Axion Power International, Inc, a leading developer of battery technologies and advanced energy storage devices, announced today that it has received a pair of prestigious grants from the Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium, the leading industry association made up in part by the largest companies supplying the world's battery market. The pair of grants total approximately $380,000, and will help support further research into two key areas: (1) the lead sulfate corrosion that tends to accumulate on non PbC lead-acid anodes, shortening the useful life of batteries in most cases; and (2) the use of non-corroding PbC(TM) batteries in HEVs (hybrid electric vehicles). These grants follow by days the announcement of a grant from the State of Pennsylvania to advance demonstrations of the same battery in HEVs, PHEVs (plug-in electric vehicles) and EVs. Both new grants address work on energy storage, energy density, inexpensive battery technology options, and the diminution of carbon emissions.
Axion Power CEO Thomas Granville commented, "The prestige of this ALABC grant is an important boost to us at Axion Power. ALABC is comprised of the largest battery companies in the world - you name the company, and they are members. It is generally conceded these days that carbon added to lead-acid batteries may be the key to eliminating corrosion, and this grant recognizes that our research into this phenomenon, together with our substantial patent portfolio in the area, is authoritative. We are pursuing these same initiatives on our own, and are also being assisted by grants from the State of Pennsylvania, and the US Department of Energy and Department of Defense.
"We believe," Granville said, "that our PbC and lead-carbon technologies are the keys to making electric vehicles affordable, dependable and safe. Clearly we have the attention of the world's leading battery companies, and that is rewarding in and of itself. It takes on added significance when you consider that our long range business plan calls for us to eventually sell our proprietary negative electrodes to these same lead-acid battery companies. This next step will occur as we begin to max out our own battery production capabilities."
Granville continued, "For the most part, the media is fixated on newer applications of more exotic and more expensive batteries that have, mainly, been adapted from smaller applications - such as cell phones and computers. Our US-developed and US- manufactured batteries are a natural evolution of time-tested automotive technology, and as a direct result can be made anywhere in the world, with readily available and inexpensive raw materials, and on standard lead-acid battery lines. They are also much more affordable than the exotic and expensive batteries that are imported from the Far East."
The grants are administered through the Durham, NC-based International Lead Zinc Research Organization acting on behalf of the ALABC. The first grant seeks to identify "the mechanism by which the optimum specification of carbon, when included in the negative active material of a valve-regulated lead-acid battery, provides protection against accumulation of lead sulfate during high-rate partial-state-of-charg... operation." The second grant seeks simply to characterize "Axion's Proprietary PbC(TM) Battery in HEV-Type Duty-Cycle Testing."
Work on the grant objectives is set to begin in the next couple of weeks.
A further improvement in the economics of PHEVs would be to have an AER that is about 50 to 60% of your daily commute and recharge the battery during the day, but only when excess solar or wind power is available. If the sun doesn’t shine bright enough and the wind doesn’t blow strong enough, then the trip home would be in a PHEV running in battery-sustaining mode, which is essentially a HEV. Plugging in during the day might also allow the PHEV owner to further improve the economics by providing and getting paid for some V2G services, e.g., spinning reserve.
Also, if the battery pack could be rejuvenated by the addition of new modules, then GM would not need to warranty the battery pack for 10 years but merely warranty the drop off in the performance of the battery pack. It should be cheaper, particularly with the anticipated decrease in battery costs in the next several years, than providing a 16 kWh battery pack in order to guarantee 8 kWh of useable battery capacity for ten years. A lighter Volt would have more AER and better gas mileage and performance.
Northern Piker, the detailed transportation sector tables that support the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (link at www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/a...) reflect two classes of plug-in vehicles, a PV-10 and a PV-40. That kind of detail never makes it to the headlines, but the DOE is clearly aware of the need to match battery capacity and driving distance if you want the biggest bang for the buck.
I did stumble upon Morand's article. Excellent! You would think that those "sideliners," of which this trader really is, would start speculating in the storage sector now. As you wrote, and battman, too, the government grants are already coming. The battery sector, I believe, is a coiled spring. And maybe when the spring months come, this sector will pop! Kind of like how gold mining stocks are behaving right now! Let's hope!
Glad that Axion is ripe with all the good news!
I can´t say who the winners will be but i´m sure there will be winners, nowdays as i read about batteries substitutes as ultracapacitors or ultraefficient combustion engines asociated with thermoelectric technology or things like that i am convinced that important changes in the transportation industry are coming but the winners.....that´s another matter.
Regards.
Well, you'll be pleased to hear that GM has hinted that they will have versions with smaller batteries in their next generation.
gm-volt.com/2009/01/30...
And I agree that a car with variable battery pack sizes . . . especially one where you can easily add-on later would be ideal. Buy what you need now . . . and if battery prices go down, you may decide to add more later.
And it would be wrong to think GM wouldn't be able to live up to its targets and promises of great things to come. That would be Unprecedented.
Advill, given the beating that all the stocks in this sector have taken and my conviction that the cleantech revolution will add about $100 billion to the sector, I don't think your hopes for VLNC are unreasonable. I have similar hopes for my favorites. If I was really smart and a lot more liquid I would be diversified across the entire sector because I'm unwilling to count anybody out of this game. When the tsunami comes it will almost certainly lift all boats. The real question is how much?
Speculawyer and Batttman, plug and play battery packs in 1 to 3 kWh modules that allow for easy expansion like computer memory would make a lot of sense for consumers.
Engstudent, I've seen the reports of plenty and the reports of shortage and only know enough to be confused; which in and of itself is a red flag. It seems pretty clear that there's enough through 2015 and then supplies will get tighter and costs will start rising. Since the costs of mining, milling and processing hard rock ore are an order of magnitude greater than the costs of separating useful salts, I worry about folks that do not include future cost data in their reports.
Forget about which battery technology is going to be the best for one minute and realize that the focus has shifted from combustion engines and gas as the power source to electric motors and a device that can supply power to those electric motors.
That is a huge shift. Based on this shift of focus, we are going to see billions of dollars and most importantly a huge number of human brains that are going to be focused on making improvements on top of the ones already being made. None of us should be surprised to see 100%+ improvements in battery technology (we already have seen it).
You are right been worry about Li. availability, we are talking about range of batts, average driving,HEV, PHEV, etc and lithium is highly concentrated right now (more than 50% of world reserves) in Bolivia!, read the link below, whatever the technical advances, global warming etc, it will faced against the cultural realites of Bolivia.....
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/bu...
Regards.
"Charging a 25 kWh battery pack on a 480 volt charger (2x household voltage) will take 52.1 Amp hours, so a 10 minute recharge would take a 300 Amp circuit (3x household amperage). I don't know much about electrical wiring, but charging a car on a single circuit that has more power than a big house seems risky to me."
Understood, but what about commercial charging stations that do the same? After all, it's while on the road on longer trips that it would be critical to get a fast charge.
Revolt Technology www.revolttechnology.c... ( I think is near from Zurich) claims in his papers a 4x Li-ion energy density in a rechargeable zinc electrode prototype, which claims is also lot cheaper than all the other techologies except lead.
It seems interesting and has some heavyweights after them but there are not listed, perhaphs i losted from your comments but a Zinc- air product ,if they deliver what are after, looks pretty, a comment in this area will be appreciated.
Regards.
[URL=imageshack.us][IMG]img21.imageshack.us/im...[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=g.imageshack.us/img21/.../][IMG]img21.imageshack.us/im...[/IMG][/URL]
It's on imageshack, so here's the link in case that doesn't work:
img21.imageshack.us/my...
So if your cell phones battery bar drops, get it into a charger soon. On the other hand, your cell phone might be lemon that's damaging the batteries.
BTW: I really enjoy your articals.
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not keeping up with all the acronyms.
What is NVH?