DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Last month the DOE released its 2008 Annual Progress Report for the Energy Storage Research and Development Vehicle Technologies Program. This report is a frank and relatively upbeat assessment of the current status of Li-ion battery research and development that also provides a stark wake-up call for investors in energy storage stocks. The reality check has been done and the DOE’s verdict is clear: Lithium-ion batteries are not ready for prime time.

In its description of ongoing research efforts to develop high-energy batteries for PHEVs, the DOE said:

“The high-energy efforts are focused on overcoming the technical barriers associated with commercialization of PHEV batteries, namely:

• Cost – The current cost of Li-based batteries (the most promising chemistry) is approximately a factor of three-five too high on a kWh basis. The main cost drivers being addressed are the high cost of raw materials and materials processing, the cost of cell and module packaging, and manufacturing costs.
• Performance – The performance barriers include the need for much higher energy densities to meet the volume / weight requirements, especially for the 40-mile system, and to reduce the number of cells in the battery (thus reducing system cost).
• Abuse Tolerance – Many Li batteries are not intrinsically tolerant to abusive conditions such as a short circuit (including an internal short circuit), overcharge, over-discharge, crush, or exposure to fire and / or other high temperature environments. The use of Li chemistry in these larger (energy) batteries increases the urgency to address these issues.
• Life – The ability to attain a 15-year life, or 300,000 HEV cycles, or 5,000 EV cycles are unproven and are anticipated to be difficult. Specifically, the impact of combined EV / HEV cycling on battery life is unknown and extended time at high state of charge [SOC] is predicted to limit battery life.”

In its description of ongoing research efforts to develop high-power batteries for HEVs, the DOE said:

High-power energy storage devices are among the critical technologies essential for the development and commercialization of HEVs. This effort is focused on overcoming the technical barriers associated with commercialization of high-power batteries, namely:

· Cost – The current cost of Li-based batteries is approximately a factor of two too high on a kW basis. The main cost drivers being addressed are the high cost of raw materials and materials processing, the cost of cell and module packaging, and manufacturing costs.

· Performance – The barriers related to battery performance include a loss in discharge power at low temperatures and power fade over time and/or when cycled.

· Abuse Tolerance – Many high-power batteries are not intrinsically tolerant to abusive conditions such as short circuits (including internal short circuits), overcharge, over-discharge, crush, or exposure to fire and/or other high-temperature environment.

· Life – The calendar life target for hybrid systems (with conventional engines) is 15 years. Battery life goals were set to meet those targets. A cycle life goal of 300,000 cycles has been attained in laboratory tests. The 15-year calendar life is yet to be demonstrated. Although several mature electrochemistries have exhibited a 10-15 year life through accelerated aging, more accurate life prediction methods need to be developed.

I’m a simple-minded creature and I believe that little things like costs and benefits matter, particularly in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s. When the Annual Progress Report from the DOE group responsible for supporting Li-ion battery research and guiding national policy concludes that:

• Li-ion batteries will not be a cost-effective solution for HEVs unless and until somebody finds a way to slash manufacturing costs by 50%; and
• Li-ion batteries will not be a cost-effective solution for PHEVs unless and until somebody finds a way to slash manufacturing costs by 67% to 80%;

I believe them.

When the same Annual Progress Report says that the principal cost drivers are the high cost of raw materials and materials processing, the cost of cell and module packaging, and manufacturing costs, I have to wonder whether the DOE’s target price reductions of 50% to 80% are even remotely possible.

My limited understanding of the laws of economics tells me that the price of raw materials invariably increases when demand for those materials increases. Since approximately 70% of finished Li-ion battery costs are attributable to raw materials I have to at least ask where the cost savings will come from. I have never heard a reasonably specific answer to that question.

I fully support Federally funded research to develop cost-effective Li-ion batteries for large scale energy storage, but I’ve spent enough time representing R&D stage companies to know that technical dreams and visions are frequently not attainable in the cruel world of cost accountants and the most spectacular failures occur during the transition from the laboratory bench to the factory floor. Li-ion batteries are a great concept for electric transportation but they are not currently viable products for HEV and PHEV applications and they have some very high hurdles to clear before they become viable products.

Until all of the technical barriers identified in the DOE’s Annual Progress Report are overcome, proposals to spend Federal money building factories to manufacture devices based on existing Li-ion battery technologies are nothing more than Catch 22 arguments that the applicants can manufacture a product for a dime, sell it for a nickel and make up the difference on volume.

I’ve written volumes criticizing the nosebleed market capitalizations of U.S. based Li-ion battery developers including Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI), Ener1 (HEV) and Valence Technologies (VLNC). I’ve also written volumes on why I believe advanced lead-acid battery producers like Exide Technologies (XIDE), Enersys (ENS), C&D Technologies (CHP) and Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) are undervalued. A complete archive of my articles is available at Seeking Alpha.

My recurring theme since day one has been that Li-ion batteries have insurmountable cost, performance, abuse tolerance and cycle life problems that must be overcome before they become viable products. It’s nice to see a hot off the press DOE report that confirms the reasonableness and validity of the questions I’ve been asking for months.

America’s energy problems are too urgent to overlook and its economy is too stressed to invest billions in technologies that may never become cost effective. Our only rational choice is to go to work today with the tools we have and be ready to embrace newer and better tools when they prove to be cost effective.

Disclosure: Author is a former director of and holds a large long position in Axion Power International (AXPW.OB), a leading U.S. developer of lead-carbon batteries, and also holds small long positions in Exide (XIDE) and Enersys (ENS).

Comments

[John Petersen:]

NorthernPiker, BYD will reportedly charge an $8,000 premium over a $14,000 IC version to sell a PHEV-60 with a 16 kWh battery pack. A lot of bloggers and commenters have decided that the only way BYD can keep the PHEV price that low is if they can make LiFePO4 batteries at $300 per kWh. That leap of faith overlooks several critical questions that I can't answer including:

Is the car a deliberate loss leader like the Volt is reputed to be?
Can anyone describe the Chinese subsidies I've seen references to?
How do the economics look at current Chinese gas prices?
How many people in China or the US can pay a 60% premium for a plug?
What would the same car cost in the US after shipping, import duties and taxes, title and destination charges?
Does anybody believe that a US company with no manufacturing expertise will be as good as the largest Chinese manufacturer?
Does anybody believe that a US company will have the same cost structure (labor and other) as the largest Chinese manufacturer?
Does anybody believe a Chinese manufacturer has the same litigation and warranty risks as a US manufacturer?

So far the only hard cost per kWh data I've seen came out of the A123 prospectus which specifically delineated watt-hours shipped and cost of sales. That data is a very close tie to the DOE estimates. All of the other numbers you see floating around are back of the napkin calculations that ignore the questions I raised above. I wish every batter producer was as forthcoming as A123. The fact that they aren't leaves me quite uncomfortable.

Feb 17 12:20 AM

[Conan the B...:]

John: Preferences are just preferences. Its a no win situation.

I have never believed that AXPW would survive because of the inherent use of Lead. I understand about cost and efficiencies, etc., you know this.

Lead is still lead and The Greens will resist any usage which will extend its use.

The Stimulus Package should show you that Cost is not going to be an issue on the road to Energy Independence. I can see its usage on a niche basis but that's about it.

Only another Immediate Energy Crunch will save AXPW.

Such a crunch is not foreseeable at this point. IMO

Feb 17 04:03 AM

[John Petersen:]

paultaut, if your logic about lead is correct, then you can kiss 75% of the US battery industry goodbye and replace it with products that cost 3 to 5 times as much and are difficult, if not impossible to recycle. It all boils down to a question of whether the 95% of the population that don't read Seeking Alpha can afford the solution. I've seen consumer behavior in the biofuels market and do not expect it to be any different in the storage market. If it doesn't save the consumer money, he is not going to buy it no matter how good somebody tells him it is.

Knee jerk reactions notwithstanding, lead-acid is the most recyclable and environmentally friendly technology on the planet and rumors of the king's imminent demise are significantly over-rated.

Feb 17 05:28 AM

[Conan the B...:]

I don't disagree with you John, "preferences are preferences, its a no win situation" to me means that the Road is to eliminate lead regardless of the Costs involved.

Coal will have Carbon Caps. So what if most of the electricity in the nation is coal derived, The Agenda is to decrease/eliminate Carbon emmission. The consumer will pay this as well.

The Government will tell the Consumer what is in their best interests.

Feb 17 06:23 AM

[Ricknplano:]

John,

Thanks for your article. Some good comments above but the tone of some comments was more argumentative than instructive which serves no one really.

Renzo, my kudos to anyone who uses both apotheosis and Arrhenius equation in the same comment. Also you are right to mention thorium fission as the future of nuclear. Others above are also right to mention the long lead for nuclear plants. Together these two arguments tell me to start now on safer nuclear and also to implement shorter term solutions like smart grids, wind and solar (with storage systems to smooth the supply) and CNG and even coal where necessary.

I will also share a fact I recently learned about natural gas. While it is a clean burning fuel, it is not such a clean fuel to access. Here in the Dallas Ft Worth area we are in the midst of a drilling boom into what is called the Barnett Shale. Recently the EPA announced that the methane and CO2 emissions from the gas wells in the area now exceed the emissions from all the vehicles in this area of over 6 million people. That was news to me for what I thought was a more green alternative to coal and oil. I am not sure if those emissions end once the drilling is completed or if that is an ongoing issue with gas wells. Perhaps other readers can educate me.

All of us want to be green if reasonable and feasible. We will disagree about what exactly is reasonable and feasible, to an extent, but John is right to point out that few of us will be economic martyrs if the cost of lithium is substantially above that of a lead alternative. Axion, CSIRO and Firefly all have good LAB alternatives coming to market that will (probably) find their respective niches regardless of lead content.

Questions about this industry that nag me remind me of Donald Rumsfeld when he said, "We know what we know and we know what we don't know. What worries me are those things we don't know that we don't know". By that I mean there are constant efforts to improve all battery and capacitor technologies. None of the technologies are standing still. There could be an announcement tomorrow that makes my conclusions today obsolete. While the technological changes may not change radically or swiftly, I just do not know what I don't know about this industry. With time I may be more comfortable in my knowledge level. That is one reason I read these postings and one reason I have yet to invest heavily. I want to see sales and performance charts and warranty claims data and profit projections from these new companies with new ideas. As John has so elequently argued, manufacturing and marketing a profitable product is a lot different than a lab report. And while I share much of John's enthusiasm for his former employer, my desire for such proof goes as much for Axion as it does for any lithium manufacturer.

I also wonder about the intellectual property of Axion versus that of Firefly and CSIRO. They seem to be following the same general idea of substituting carbon (the more surface area the better) for lead in the anode of the battery and then trying also to improve the cathode. Improving the cathode seems to be more challenging. To what extent does the IP of Axion, for example, protect it from challenges by its LAB competition, in particular that of CSIRO and its U.S. licensee, East Penn? Could CSIRO have priority IP claims that may stifle Axion at some point? Will Firefly prove to have a better design once they perfect their carbon cathode design?

I have more questions than answers and welcome comments from anyone with insight into these matters.

Feb 17 02:16 PM

[John Petersen:]

Speculawyer, I'll not argue with you about headlines written by Seeking Alpha or the plain meaning of the words used in the report. You obviously think the report says something different than I think it does. I think the best alternative is to let other readers decide for themselves.

I don't know GM's motivations for choosing LG over A123 and I don't know whether the batteries in the Volt will be different from the batteries in the Tesla, but I would venture to guess that you don't either.

The processing cost differences between separating useful lithium from a salt lake and separating lithium from hard-rock ore are measured in orders of magnitude. I think you should revisit my prior article on the differences before trying to go down that road with me:

seekingalpha.com/artic...

The last thing I would suggest is that anybody use lead-carbon in a mass produced product until it has been thoroughly tested in rigorous road tests. The fact is that people are trying to rush to judgment based on inadequate knowledge of the impact of their decisions. In my years I've never been impressed with the outcome of rushed decisions and my conservative nature tells me that when people tell me "we don't need no stinking tests" that's exactly the time we need them.

Rick, it's always good to hear from you.

Feb 17 02:24 PM

[NorthernPiker:]

John, the headline statement that li-ion is not ready for prime time (for EV applications) is too sweeping; for Europe, the statement is not applicable due to high gas prices, a moderate climate and a commitment to reduction of pollution and GHGs and to the reduction of dependence on foreign energy.

The basis of your statement is that none of today’s flavors of li-ion batteries have demonstrated the ability to meet USABC requirements. This is probably quite true but the USABC requirements are far too onerous. These are not requirements for market entry but for market dominance of EVs over ICEs. (In fact, they approach requirements that would make solar and wind power dispatchable – another game changer and another topic.)

If a battery could meet the USABC requirements, then PHEVs and EVS would rapidly become ubiquitous. The economics and other benefits are that compelling and they would be compelling even if gasoline cost $1 per gallon, which it probably did when the USDABC requirements were originally adopted.

Feb 17 02:40 PM

[John Petersen:]

Northern, the statement is a fair summary of the DOE's conclusions.

It's a promising technology that has to overcome cost, performance, abuse tolerance and cycle life issues before the DOE believes it will be a commercial technology in the U.S.

The same goes for Europe. I have more writers telling me how much different things are in Europe and the US, but since I have lived in Europe for the last 11 years now, I know differently from personal experience.

The idea that we would build billion dollar factories to manufacture anything based on lab reports and engineering estimates is ludicrous. If the board of directors of a company decided to do that with the company's money, they would likely be subjected to a monster class action suit for malfeasance.

Li-ion has some promise . . . but do are a lot of technologies that never succeed in the world of commerce. The universally accepted steps in the development and introduction of any new product are build it; prove it's not dangerous; prove it works in a small sample under tightly controlled conditions; prove it works in a large sample under tightly controlled conditions; and then approve it for manufacturing and general use. Anything less is unconscionably irresponsible and I don't care what the technology is. We need to have a whole series of tests for a whole series of technologies before we can crown a winner.

Feb 17 03:34 PM

[John Adam:]

John Petersen, I do agree with the premise of your article. It should be obvious to Detroit's engineers that TODAY advanced lead acid batteries make much more sense than Lithium-ion batteries for all types of EVs. I got my degree in Physics 40 years ago to get into fusion power development. Instead I have always worked in IT. However, Lithium is very important for Nuclear fusion to produce power, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Nuclear Fission is still the way we produce nuclear power. Nuclear Fusion is still being developed.

For both Nuclear Power and EV Battery development using large amounts of Lithium is obviously not very practical in the near future. It is unfortunate that the CLOWNS, bean counters and politicians, that run the Detroit Automakers know so little about science.

Feb 18 12:26 PM

[John Petersen:]

Speculawyer, I think it is absolutely too early to crown a winner or a loser. I don't think any technology should be widely implemented until it has been thoroughly tested and we have accurate cost data prepared in accordance with accepted management accounting standards.

I have to disagree with your assertions about LiFeP04 testing. There is no question that LiFePO4 has worked relatively well in power tools for the couple years the technology has been available. Everything else you mention is either anecdotal or what we lawyers like to refer to as mere puffery. In my opinion it is foolish to deploy anything on a wide scale until all of the contenders have been thoroughly tested and all of the costs and benefits have been calculated based on experience rather than hope.

I keep telling you and anyone else who will listen that I think Li-ion is the best thing on the planet for electric bicycles, hybrid scooters and other devices where the device to driver weight ratio is under 2 or 3. But using batteries to move 3,000 pounds of steel and a couple hundred pounds of passengers at highway speeds is an extremely difficult cost benefit proposition and until somebody proves he can bring in product at price for the long term, it is immoral to ask taxpayers to pay for an experiment that even the DOE says won't work under current conditions.

Someday, perhaps. Today, absolutely not!

Feb 18 03:26 PM

[John Petersen:]

Speculawyer, I wish you luck with your investing.

Feb 19 12:25 AM

[Advill:]

The case in batteries is quite similar to ethanol for combustion market, there are different technologies (grain and sugarcane a proven bet and cellulosic ethanol with the 2 basic processes and many variations (extreme physical against biological enzimatic).

DoE is saying that oil comsumption will be flat from now to 2030 supporting the increasy in biofuels and CE improvements, there are huge amounts of public money in the bet....in the last days AFTER Obama plan, 3 companies are in chapter 11 or stoping investments.... a glut of ethanol in US market is affecting biofuels european markets, this is AFTER GM and others are offering Flex 85 engines, prices of ethanol is below gasoline....as John says marketing a winner is not a Science and markets behaviour is sometimes a mistery.

Regards.

Feb 19 01:54 PM

[John Petersen:]

Advill, part of my intense focus on consumer behavior was getting involved in biodiesel long before it was cool. A company that I represent started making biodiesel in Houston in 2002 because it had huge advantages in offshore oil and gas development where even a small diesel spill can add up to hundreds of thousands in fines. When the rage for using biodiesel as a transport fuel kicked in, we tried to sell into the trucking market and found that everybody was happy to use biodiesel as long as it didn't cost any more at the pump. As soon as there was any price premium, the demand evaporated. I don't see people other than the emotionally committed acting any different when it comes to electric cars. As long as the price is right, everything's cool. as soon as the price is too high, nobody buys.

Speculawyer, in the 1990s, Asian exports of lead-acid batteries almost destroyed the U.S. industry. Beginning in the early 2000s, home country demand for lead-acid batteries increased to the point where the number of batteries available for export plummeted, which has resulted in a boomlet of sorts as the U.S. manufacturers rapidly expand production to make up for the imports we are no longer able to buy from Asia. While Asia may have batteries available for export for a while, I have a hard time believing they are a reliable long-term source of supply. I've spent almost three months in Vietnam over the past 2 years and it is one exciting scary place that is teeming with well-educated hard working young people who all want cell phones and ipods and if they're really lucky, an electric bike or a motor scooter. The pictures I'm sure you've seen of three and four passengers on a 50 cc scooter are far closer to the rule than the exception. As their home country demand increases, I'm convinced we will see the same behavior with Li-ion batteries that we have already seen with lead-acid. The imports will become more and more scarce with each passing year and Asian manufactured final products will have first claim on production. They may be willing to sell all the batteries we want right now, but I do not believe that will be the case 5 or 10 years down the road.

Were I looking at this sector today I wouldn't even try to pick a winner because I think everybody in the sector will be a winner. That being said, I think the companies that trade at very high market multiples will not perform as well as the companies that trade at very low market multiples. A diversified portfolio with a little of everything might not perform as well as the gift of prophecy for one technology or stock, but it also avoids a lot of the downside risk.

Feb 19 03:21 PM

[Mad Hedge F...:]

Politicians, industrialists, and environmentalists who see battery powered vehicles as the wave of the future are overlooking the fact that 50% of the world supply of lithium comes from impoverished, landlocked Bolivia. This is a country that until now was best known for killing off famous foreigners (Che Guevara, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid), and being the source of a new form a venereal disease. Lithium ion batteries are four times more efficient than the current generation of nickel cadmium batteries, and are essential for electric cars to finally become economically viable. But now that the country finally has something the world wants, nationalism is rearing its ugly head. Local politicians see their country as the Saudi Arabia of the highly corrosive, toxic, reactive metal, and are already discussing ways to restrict access. The only other supplies are to be found in Chile, Argentina, Australia, China, and Nevada. Should the US invade to insure supplies? Iraq worked didn’t it? The best way for opportunistic investors to play this is to buy Sociedad Quimica Y Minera (SQM), Peru’s largest producer of lithium.

Feb 21 09:22 AM

[Advill:]

Lithium is an small percentage of total material volume fo a batterie ( which i thought wrongly was the reason for the high cost of the batts), I had the same doubt that you have right now, there is lithium enough avaliable for the time being even without Bolivia, if Li-ion is to be the basic technology (as lead is today) then there will be a shortage, but there is time enough to find new deposits.

The is an interesting link of speculawyer about a bet in relation of commodities( actual oil situation included) you can assume materials will not be scarce.

Zinc-air, NiMH II, Ultracapacitors and perhaps lead III, could be a better long term investment (and i am saying it being trap with VLNC shares)

Regards


On Feb 21 09:22 AM The Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> Politicians, industrialists, and environmentalists who see battery
> powered vehicles as the wave of the future are overlooking the fact
> that 50% of the world supply of lithium comes from impoverished,
> landlocked Bolivia. This is a country that until now was best known
> for killing off famous foreigners (Che Guevara, Butch Cassidy and
> the Sundance Kid), and being the source of a new form a venereal
> disease. Lithium ion batteries are four times more efficient than
> the current generation of nickel cadmium batteries, and are essential
> for electric cars to finally become economically viable. But now
> that the country finally has something the world wants, nationalism
> is rearing its ugly head. Local politicians see their country as
> the Saudi Arabia of the highly corrosive, toxic, reactive metal,
> and are already discussing ways to restrict access. The only other
> supplies are to be found in Chile, Argentina, Australia, China, and
> Nevada. Should the US invade to insure supplies? Iraq worked didn’t
> it? The best way for opportunistic investors to play this is to buy
> Sociedad Quimica Y Minera (seekingalpha.com/symbo...), Peru’s
> largest producer of lithium.

Feb 22 02:47 PM

[NorthernPiker:]

… 50% of the world supply of lithium comes from impoverished, landlocked Bolivia. …. The only other supplies are to be found in Chile, Argentina, Australia, China, and Nevada …

Trader, this statement needs some perspective. The Bolivian lithium reserves are estimated at 5 million metric tons, or 5 billion kilograms. For a li-ion battery, each kWh of capacity requires a bit less than 0.3 kg of lithium, costing about $10. For example, the proposed GM Volt will have 16 kWh of Li-ion batteries, which would contain a total of 4.8 kg of lithium. So, the Bolivian lithium reserves identified to-date would be sufficient to build over a billion Volts (or 300 million Tesla Roadsters).

We are not going to see such cumulative numbers of EVs for another two decades. In the interim, the supplies “to be found in Chile, Argentina, Australia, China, and Nevada” should be enough.

Meanwhile, less lithium will be used per kWh because of more efficient battery designs and different battery chemistries, e.g., alkali-ion batteries in which another alkali, say sodium, displaces some or all of the lithium. Also, other viable lithium deposits will be found because lithium is just too abundant – more abundant than lead in the earth’s crust. Lithium is also relatively abundant in seawater (0.178 ppm) compared to nickel and zinc (~ 6 ppb) and, especially, compared to lead (0.03 ppb) and gold (0.01 ppb).

Feb 22 03:02 PM

[Batteryfan:]

Isn't ironic...

Axeon looks to power ahead
thescotsman.scotsman.c...

Feb 22 09:20 PM

[frflyer:]

Renzo

"Nuclear and coal are for base load generation. Solar and wind should be pursued to supplement base load generation. My problem is that people take it as dogma that solar and wind are somehow a panacea, when in reality they can only supplement not replace existing coal, gas and nuclear plants-and then only in areas with a lot of sun or wind. (Ergo we shouldn't use tax dollars to put solar panels on roofs in Seattle.) "

I don't think anything is a panacea.

You are ignoring the fact that CSP (solar thermal) can be base load power, if it has heat storage, like molten salt. And it is inexpensive and low tech. So low tech we could have done it 100 years ago.

Many people think nuclear is a panacea also. I disagree.
I will admit to not knowing much about nuclear technology. My biggest opposition to nuclear power is that it's a stepping stone to nuclear weapons. If not, then why are we worrying about Iran now? Imagine similar scenarios happening all over the world. How do you control that? Why encourage it when there are alternatives?

The thorium technology which John Lounsbury comments on does sound very promising and I have no problem with developing that. My point is that we have alternatives that can be deployed now, that are clean, inexpensive and quick to build. Money for research for things like thorium reactors, but commercialization money for technologies that are ready now.

So much depends on where you stand on global warming. If the scientists are right, which I believe to be so, then we don't have time to wait for these types of development. Use them when they are ready, but in the meantime, deploy what we have.

I stress solar thermal because it can be base load power, and because it doesn't need batteries to store energy.
In short, it is not intermittent if it has heat storage, which is far more efficient than storing electricity in batteries.
It's a proven technology with 9 small pilot plants built in the late 80s and early 90s putting out 355 MW in California. Now plants are that big each. It's unique among renewables for the above reasons, therefore should be a priority. It can displace coal plants.

It can even desalinize water while making power, which may not be applicable in our southwest, but applicable in other parts of the world like North Africa, the Mid East, India etc.

www.salon.com/news/fea...

www.solarserver.de/sol...

climateprogress.org/20.../

And if you are worried about spending tax dollars, lets eliminate the $39 billion annually for oil. 90 years of subsidies? Why?
Nuclear has had 50 years of subsidies.

Concentrating PV solar can also be designed to provide hot water and electricity at the same time. At least that is what Zenith Solar of Israel is doing. I think they've hit on a winning idea.
Of course this is new and falls more in the category of future solutions. But It's not rocket science to add the hot water idea to CPV.

According to Zenith Solar:

"An ordinary photovoltaic cell, which is 10 by 10 centimeters, normally produces one watt of electricity. We managed to extract more than a thousand times more - 1,500 watts. In this way, the cost of a cell is 1,500 less, becoming almost nothing."

"No one has ever produced so much electricity from a solar cell at this strength."

"In conventional CPV systems, the excess heat generated in the solar cell needs to be removed to avoid damaging the cell and to maintain high efficiency of electricity conversion. ZenithSolar utilizes the heat generated at the solar cell receiver to provide usable hot water heating, improving overall solar power conversion efficiency to 75% ."

Mar 03 05:41 PM

[Miro Kefurt:]

We have been selling NEV (neighborhood electric vehicles) since 2003

okaauto.com

and have tested 26 different battery systems before we have implemented them in our vehicles.

The only two that worked were technologically obsolete flooded lead acid batteries that lasted about 18 to 24 months but the cost was only less than 5 cents per mile, while the cost of charging was only about 1.2 cents

More hitech spiral wound batteries are still fully functional after 6 years of use but the predicted cost per mile is about twice that amount.

Li-ion battery that costed over $4,200 however only lasted 6 weeks or 942 miles of use that is a staggering $4.46 per mile !

People seem to forget that battery has to be thought of as "FUEL" since it is inevitably used up in the operation of EV.

So the penny per mile for the AC power form household socket may be great alternative to $3.00 per gallon in 25 MPG car, or about 12 cents per mile, till you add up the real life cost of replacing spent batteries.

There is no question that EV does not emit any pollution - although generating the power for it somewhere else does, but as far as cost effectiveness is concerned, it is just NOT there, and at best only in NEV there is a marginal break-even.

When you go to TESLA vehicle, you can be chauffer driven in a limo for lot less per mile cost !

Sep 24 03:27 PM

[PaulTD:]

Interesting and thought-provoking article and comments. If one comment is correct, there are ample quantities of lithium to build any number of electric vehicles. If the gentleman who actually builds electric vehicles is correct, lithium-ion batteries are extremely expensive and hopelessly inadequate. If the writer of the article is correct, lead-carbon batteries are a superior solution. The current generation of Toyota Prius averages about 51 mpg, which would make gasoline affordable for many people even at $6 or $7 per gallon. (Based on my experience, most cars are lucky to average 25 miles per gallon in normal use). It appears to me that the Chevrolet volt is a marketing gimmick at its projected $40,000 price tag, although admittedly cheaper than a Hummer. Our politicians have proven time and again that given a set of alternatives, they will invariably choose the worst one. How can so many smart people find themselves in such a quandary?

Dec 06 06:21 PM