Long Live the Cleantech Revolution 61 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
It’s official! Cleantech, the sixth industrial revolution, has arrived on time and in the midst of extraordinary crisis. Like every good revolution, blood is flowing in the streets; the guillotine is en route to Wall Street and the mob is so busy plotting retribution for the excesses of the past that most have no time to consider the future. But as yesterday’s dynasties decay, crumble and fall, a new generation of visionaries is already building on the wreckage of the past. These are indeed troubled times that bear an eerie resemblance to the opening sentence from A Tale of Two Cities.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.” Charles Dickens (1812 – 1870)
However like all times of trouble, this too shall pass.
In mid-February, President Obama signed an economic stimulus package that included $38 billion in alternative energy spending. A week later, in a memorable address to a joint session of Congress, the President outlined a vision for America’s future that rests on four pillars: energy independence, improved education, reduced healthcare costs and jobs.
Last Thursday, he unveiled a 10-year plan that envisions $150 billion in alternative energy subsidies that will be paid for by a carbon cap and trade scheme. After decades as a backwater agency with a modest mandate and budget, the Department of Energy is finally surging to the forefront as the powerful agency it should be. With a little luck we may even see a comprehensive national energy policy and that would be a wonderful thing.
If you believe the press and listen to the politicians, a brave new world of clean renewable energy is just around the corner, but there are a couple of particularly nasty flies in the ointment. Alternative energy is inherently less stable than its conventional counterparts and cost-efficient transmission, distribution and storage systems do not yet exist. While the litany of potential solutions grows longer with each passing day, these solutions are largely unproven and will take years if not decades to implement nationwide. In the interim, our only option is to wake up in the morning, go to work with the toolbox we own, solve our problems to the best of our ability and be ready to embrace newer and better technologies when they are perfected. If we're lucky and sensible, cheap will triumph over cool.
I’m a dilettante when it comes to power generation, transmission and distribution, so I’ll leave those issues to better-informed writers and focus my attention on a narrow sector that I know well, manufactured energy storage devices.
Historically, batteries have been a critical but largely invisible part of daily life. They start our cars and power our cell phones but the only times they merit more than a passing thought are when they need to be recharged or replaced. With the dawn of cleantech, however, rechargeable batteries are no longer mere conveniences. For the first time in history, rechargeable batteries are fundamental enabling technologies that can help smooth the peaks and valleys in renewable power and foster the development of electric vehicles. Unfortunately, the battery industry is not ready for the current challenges, much less the sweeping changes that the cleantech revolution will require.
To understand the current state of battery technology, one must first understand the historical necessities that were the mother of invention. Around 250 BC, a clever Babylonian discovered that a genie could be released from a clay pot containing the right combination of lead and acid. During the 1800s, people began to find ways to make the genie do useful work beyond electro-plating and parlor tricks. Until the 1970s, there were only two primary classes of batteries: rechargeable lead-acid batteries and disposable dry cells. Lead-acid batteries handled the heavy work like starting cars and providing emergency lighting while dry cells were used for flashlights, toys and consumer goods, including the first portable radios and tape players.
In the mid-70s, maintenance free valve regulated lead-acid (VRLA) batteries were introduced and rapidly became the dominant automotive technology. They worked so well in fact that most battery manufacturers cut their R&D budgets to the bone because VRLA batteries performed well and a complacent auto industry saw no reason to pay premium prices to fund further research. While there was some progress on deep-cycle batteries for golf carts, forklifts and industrial systems, R&D in the lead-acid sector essentially took a 25-year siesta as electrochemistry became passé and college students gravitated toward more exciting, glamorous and rewarding careers in electronics, communications and information technology.
Over the last few years, rapidly evolving bulk energy storage needs have sparked a new wave of lead-acid research that uses modern materials and manufacturing methods to improve and revitalize an old-line chemistry. The results have been almost magical and an entirely new generation of advanced lead acid and lead carbon batteries is in the final stages of pre-commercial development. These products are not widely available yet, but the new generation of batteries promise extraordinary performance at a lead-acid price, which once again proves the ancient wisdom that with time, everything old is new again.
The late 70s were a time of sweeping change as electronics manufacturers shifted their focus from toys, radios and tape players to productivity tools. The introduction of business tools like electronic calculators and the pagers, computers and telephones that quickly followed, drove the development of compact and light-weight rechargeable battery chemistries including nickel cadmium (Ni-Cd) nickel metal hydride (Ni-MH) and lithium ion (Li-ion). Since buyers of portable electronics invariably viewed run time between charges as a critical performance metric, R&D spending on these technologies soared and continues to this day.
Until recently, rechargeable batteries were not something the average consumer would think of as a discrete product class. Instead, they were relatively inexpensive components in high-end consumer durables like cars and electronics. In automobiles, batteries typically represent less than 1% of total product cost and in electronics it is rare for batteries to represent more than 5% of product cost. This historically low ratio of battery cost to total product cost resulted in a market dynamic where the auto industry could afford to be complacent, while electronics manufacturers were willing to pay huge premiums for modest improvements in battery performance. Both approaches were sensible in an earlier epoch, but neither has any utility in the emerging world of cleantech.
Where batteries were once viewed as low-cost components in expensive products, the pendulum is swinging in the other direction with a vengeance as the ratio of battery cost to total product cost escalates to the point where the batteries represent up to 20% of the cost of an HEV, up to 50% of the cost of an EV and over 90% of the cost of a grid-based system.
Unfortunately, most batteries are simply too expensive for the jobs people want them to do. As thought-leaders, policymakers, manufacturers and consumers come to grips with the cruel and inflexible economic realities, cost accountants and industrial engineers will end up making the hard buying decisions and the opinions of futurists, scientists, techno-geeks and bloggers like me will become increasingly irrelevant. In the end, the only thing that will matter is a rigorous and comprehensive cost benefit analysis for each new energy storage application.
A couple days before Christmas, I published “Alternative Energy Storage Needs to Take Baby Steps Before It Can Run,” an article that was selected as an Editor’s Pick at Seeking Alpha and included cost data from a July 2008 Sandia National Laboratories report on its Solar Energy Grid Integration Systems – Energy Storage program. While the Sandia report focused on the current and projected capital costs of energy storage for solar power installations, the basic cost structure applies to the entire spectrum of energy storage applications. Several Li-FePO4 advocates promptly pointed me to Chinese Internet sites to support their arguments that Sandia's cost estimates are wrong, but I've found the Sandia estimates consistent with available industry cost data and believe they provide a reasonable basis for investment decisions. The Sandia capital cost estimates are set forth in the following table:
| Technology | Current Cost ($/kWh) | 10-yr Projected Cost ($/kWh) |
| Flooded Lead-acid Batteries | $150 | $150 |
| Sealed Lead-acid Batteries | $200 | $200 |
| Low-speed Flywheel | $380 | $300 |
| Na-S Batteries | $450 | $350 |
| Asymmetric Lead-carbon Hybrid | $500 | <$250 |
| Zn-Br Batteries | $500 | $250/kWh + $300/kW |
| Ni-Cd Batteries | $600 | $600 |
| Zebra Na-NiCl Batteries | $800 | $150 |
| Ni-MH Batteries | $800 | $350 |
| Li-ion Batteries | $1,333 | $780 |
| Vanadium Redox Batteries | 20 kWh=$1,800/kWh 100 kWh =$600/kWh | 25 kWh=$1,200/kWh 100 kWh=$500/kWh |
| High-speed Flywheel | $1,000 | $800 |
With the basic cost structure firmly established from reliable sources, it’s probably worthwhile to revisit some cherished mythologies and incontrovertible realities that I assembled from eight months of reader comments and discussed at length in an article on the importance of rebuilding America’s domestic battery infrastructure.
Cherished Mythology Lead-acid batteries are environmental hazards.
Incontrovertible Reality With recycling rates approaching 99%, lead-acid batteries are the most highly recycled product on the planet and substantially all of the materials recovered through recycling can be used to make new batteries. Neither NiMH nor Li-ion chemistries can even come close to matching the natural resource efficiency and environmental safety of lead-acid batteries.
Cherished Mythology Li-ion batteries are one-quarter of the weight of their lead-acid counterparts.
Incontrovertible Reality The relentless but frequently unsuccessful quest for product safety has doubled the weight of Li-ion batteries. So while the explosive Li-ion chemistries have four times the energy density of lead-acid batteries, the safe Li-ion chemistries only cut the weight in half. In either event it’s silly to fret about battery weight in the context of a 3,000-pound car or a stationary power storage installation.
Cherished Mythology NiMH and Li-ion batteries have more power than lead-acid batteries.
Incontrovertible Reality The recent development of asymmetric lead-carbon hybrids has improved the power profile of advanced lead-acid batteries to competitive levels at a fraction of the cost.
Cherished Mythology NiMH and Li-ion batteries have far longer cycle-lives than lead-acid batteries.
Incontrovertible Reality The recent development of asymmetric lead-carbon hybrids has improved the cycle-life of advanced lead-acid batteries to competitive levels at a fraction of the cost.
Cherished Mythology NiMH and Li-ion batteries will improve as the technology matures.
Incontrovertible Reality NiMH and Li-ion batteries are already fully mature technologies. Substantially all of the recent advances in Li-ion technology are like changing a carrot cake recipe; call it what you will, but it's still a carrot cake when it comes out of the oven. There have been big safety gains from new flavors of Li-ion chemistry, but those gains have always come at the cost of reduced energy density.
Cherished Mythology Li-ion batteries are an ideal solution for most energy storage problems.
Incontrovertible Reality Li-ion batteries are the best solution for small format energy storage needs including cellular phones, power tools and portable computers. They also have significant potential for use in electric bicycles and hybrid scooters. Their cost effectiveness plummets when the battery pack is bigger than a breadbox. Even if Li-ion batteries could be cost effective in power-hungry applications like EVs and stationary applications, sound economics and rational industrial policies will always favor the manufacture and sale of 5,000,000 cell phones or 500,000 laptops over exporting the same batteries to power 1,000 EVs.
Cherished Mythology Plug-in electric vehicles provide a cost-effective path to a clean energy future.
Incontrovertible Reality Plug-in electric vehicles provide dramatic PR sound bites for politicians, car companies and environmentalists, but even the auto executives are quick to acknowledge that pure electric vehicles cannot be paying propositions for the average consumer until gas prices are far higher than they have ever been.
Cherished Mythology NiMH and Li-ion batteries will get cheaper as demand increases.
Incontrovertible Reality Roughly 75% of the cost of any battery is raw materials and NiMH and Li-ion batteries have been mainline industrial products for almost 20 years. The bulk of the potential manufacturing cost savings have already been achieved and the only way battery prices can fall dramatically is if massive new supplies of raw materials become available at bargain basement prices.
At the dawn of the cleantech revolution, the financial sector is in shambles and the Obama administration has thrown down the gauntlet on healthcare spending. While I have every confidence that the banks and insurance companies will heal with time, I also believe that margins in healthcare will be pressured for the foreseeable future.
So the only investable long-term trend that I see in the current economic and political environment is alternative energy. In the alternative energy sector, the fundamental enabling technologies are transmission, distribution and storage. Each of these sub-sectors is essential, each is a target rich environment for investors and each will be a major recipient of long-term government support. Since accepted market wisdom holds that you should never fight the Fed, I think the policy clues for investors are crystal clear.
I can identify a dozen pure play public companies that have the potential to make a real difference in America’s energy storage future. Since I’ve made my personal opinions clear in earlier articles, I won’t bother re-plowing that ground today. However I encourage readers to study each of the principal market participants, consider where their existing and proposed products will mesh with the needs of the coming cleantech revolution, and consider who the likely buyers of their existing and proposed products will be. The short list of pure play public companies includes:
| Name | Trading Symbol | Product Class | Product Status |
| Active Power | ACPW | Low-speed flywheels | Manufacturing |
| Altair Nanotechnologies | ALTI | Li-titanate batteries | Demonstration |
| Axion Power International | AXPW.OB | Lead-carbon batteries | Demonstration |
| Beacon Power | BCON | High-speed flywheels | Demonstration |
| C&D Technologies | CHP | Lead-acid batteries | Manufacturing |
| Enersys | ENS | Diversified batteries | Manufacturing |
| Ener1 | HEV | Li-titanate batteries | Demonstration |
| Maxwell Technologies | MXWL | Ultracapacitators | Manufacturing |
| Ultralife Batteries | ULBI | Diversified batteries | Manufacturing |
| Valence Technologies | VLNC | Li-phosphate batteries | Manufacturing |
| Exide Technologies | XIDE | Lead-acid batteries | Manufacturing |
| ZBB Energy | ZBB | Zinc-bromine batteries | Demonstration |
The following comes from the 2010 budget proposal for the DOE. For the sake of clarity I've edited the paragraph to use numbered subparagraphs, but made no other changes.
"The Budget provides support for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy reliability as part of the President’s investment plan to modernize the Nation’s electric grid. It includes:
1. energy storage;
2. cyber-security and investments in research, the development and demonstration of smart grid technologies that will accelerate the transformation of the Nation’s energy transmission and distribution system;
3. enhancement of security and reliability of energy infrastructure; and
4. facilitating recovery from disruptions to the energy supply."
As a student I strove for the extreme right hand tail of the bell shaped curve. As a businessman, I’m delighted to sacrifice the extremes on both ends of the curve because the bulk of the revenue will go to the company that best serves the needs of the guys in the middle.
Disclosure: Author holds a large long position in Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and small long positions in Active Power (ACPW), Exide (XIDE), Enersys (ENS) and ZBB Energy (ZBB).
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
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 61 comments:
www.sopac.org/data/vir...
some are smelted in Australia to recaputure the toxic lead. but less than a quarter of earths "USED" find a secondary market. I still pay attention to the contributions of substance that you make. Thanks you have inspired me to re-read "ATale of Two Cities"..The greatest story never told here is "FLYWHEELS" you shouldn't even have them in your mix. Are these justs props to try and make your battery stocks look better? I wonder...no I don't....:K™
Disclaimer. I hold a long position in BCON, And didn't make a dime for my rebuttal to your ...'article'... let the flagulation begin
…
a new combustion design so clean no smoke stack is needed while capturing co2 in a liquid form...amazing!
www.babcockpower.com/i...
I'm curious about Active Power. Their website (www.activepower.com/) shows that they focus almost exclusively on uninterruptible power supplies (UPS). There is, however, an interesting note suggesting their flywheels could complement battery stacks by isolating them from frequent charges and discharges, thereby increasing their lifespan. There is no mention of utility-scale power quality applications and also no discussion that I could find on their intellectual property.
How would you compare the utility of ACPW's flywheels to Pb/C batteries in the UPS market (competitive or complementary?) and do you think they have potential for utility-scale (substation) use?
Low-speed flywheels seem somewhat low-tech (not that there is anything wrong with that). Do you have a sense of their IP position and barriers for potential competitors?
This may be a lawyer's attempt to fund repeal of the first law of thermodynamics?
Kedrosky appears to be getting close to this conclusion.
Alternative Energy Is a Giant Capital Pit, Kedrosky Says: "There's No There There"
finance.yahoo.com/tech...
Is "Long Live the Cleantech Revolution" attempted business PR for
www.altenergystocks.co...?
Until the PbC and other advanced lead acid batteries are available in commercial form (as opposed to pre-commercial prototypes) and the makers publish detailed performance data, I couldn't begin to make a comparison. I would also note that there is no such creature as a low tech energy storage system. Regardless of whether you're talking batteries or flywheels, the control and management systems are amazing.
billp37, it's hard to disagree with the points Kedrosky makes, which is the big reason I think cheap is far better than cool. I for one am a global warming agnostic but a firm believer in peak cheap oil. I'm also a firm believer that there are about 5 billion people in the world who want the lifestyle 500 million of us have. As developing economies demand a larger share of the pie, the only choices are make do with less or make a bigger pie. There are a world of AE choices, but with the exception of nuclear, they all require storage systems for stability. I feel much better investing in fundamental stability than I would fundamental instability.
The PR is for Fefer Petersen & Cie, one of my favorite law firms that is always looking for new clients.
I also find it kind of strange when Li-ion supporters talk about how mystically and magically prices will come down because of advances we don't yet know about (or that may never transpire), but want to knock lead acid type batteries even though there have been advances that we actually know about (Axions Pbc and CSIROs Ultrabattery). On one hand they are prepared to suspend their disbeliefs, on the other they won't open their eyes to a reality.
John as you've said from day one, many different battery techs will win for many different applications. The pie is definitely big enough, that's for sure.
Now, it is an incubator in the so-called "Green Economy" that President Obama and others hold out as both the answer to America's industrial decline and its dependence on foreign oil. ..."
www.cnn.com/2009/POLIT...
Facts:
1 Laws of thermodynamics are tough to repeal
2 HEAT RATE - second law
3 CAPACITY FACTOR - reality
An email message from Whitman [a liberal arts] College college president Gerorge Bridges.
home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/whitman59/w...
Money to be made from those who don't understand 1, 2, and 3.
Thanks
billp37, I fully understand the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of supply and demand. While I don't have any problems with nuclear, lots of folks are not as sanguine on that issue. The economics of AE are not as good as the economics of oil used to be, but they beat freezing in the dark.
isaac, the Zebra is an interesting technology but there are no U.S. public companies in that particular space, so I don't really focus on it because like CAES and molten salt, it's no fun talking about neat developments that folks can't invest in. The principal developer is MES-DEA, a Swiss company that's only a couple hours from my home. With any luck, they'll decide they need counsel on matters of US law.
I think billp37 has a conflict of interest he's not telling us about.
Those who are forever telling us how renewable energy is a no go have lost all credibility with me.
climateprogress.org/20.../
climateprogress.org/20.../
climateprogress.org/20.../
www.scitizen.com/scree...
climateprogress.org/20.../
8.3 GW of new wind energy came online in 2008. Oh yes the capacity factor! OK, 35% for wind. That still is the equivalent of 3 nuclear power plant being completed in one year., or 5-6 coal plants. At 7-8 cents/kWh wind is hardly expensive.
And wind is the cleanest of all, with the lowest land footrint of all.
Not all renewables will need electricity storage. Geothermal and solar thermal with heat storage are two exceptions.
In regard to climate change, read the new book "The Carbon Age"
by Eric Roston. A fascinating read that covers many topics and is much more than just another book on global warming.
Then explain how speeding up the natural carbon cycle a hundred fold could possibly be anything but trouble. And explain how pumping the carbon that took 60 million years to precipitate out of the carbon cycle in the form of coal deposits, back into the carbon cycle in a few hundred years, or a geological nanosecond, could possibly not be trouble. This is unprecedented in the history of the earth. And it upsets a balance in the carbon cycle that has been in place for hundreds of millions of years.
Nah, man can't effect a big ole thing like the planet.
On the cost of clean energy conversion
www.hks.harvard.edu/pr...
How Much Would You Pay to Save the Planet?
The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change
By Eric Pooley
25 peer reviewed studies have shown that changing to clean energy and efficiency will have minimal economic cost.
Or you could believe the heavily biased, heavily flawed, non transparant, and not peer reviewed, study by the Manufacturers Association and a chamber of commerce proxy that has been widely debunked.
According to some data on Green Car Congress, the Axion batteries have an abysmal Energy Density of 20.5 watt hours per kilogram. That is lower than even ordinary lead acid batteries!
The Phoenix SUV uses 35,000 watt hours of Altair's "NanoSafe" Lithium batteries. So, with Axion, 35,000 divided by 20.5 = 1707 kilos!! 1707 x 2.2 = 3,756 lbs. of Axion batteries required to run the Phoenix EV!! (That is if it would even move...)
I see no use ever for Axion batteries in EV's. Cost is not an issue. They could give them away for FREE and it wouldn't make any difference.
www.greencarcongress.c...
solveclimate.com/blog/...
Nah, we can't effect the big ole Earth.
E. O. Wilson, who is an expert on biodiversity, commenting on Bjorn Lomborg's innacurate numbers in his book "The Skeptical Scientist"
"Before humans existed, the species extinction rate was (very roughly) one species per million species per year (0.0001 percent). Estimates for current species extinction rates range from 100 to 10,000 times that, but most hover close to 1,000 times prehuman levels (0.1 percent per year), with the rate projected to rise, and very likely sharply."
"Area-species curves. Ecological research across a wide range of habitats shows that the number of species inhabiting a patch of land increases exponentially with the size of that patch. Different studies have produced different estimates for the species-area exponent; the higher the value of the exponent, the steeper the general relationship between land area and species diversity, so that a small change in land area has a large effect on diversity. In The Diversity of Life, I use the conservative values of the area-species exponent and rate of tropical deforestation to arrive at about 0.25 percent of tropical forest species extinguished or committed to early extinction annually."
"Studies from tropical America, New Guinea, and Indonesia (cited in The Diversity of Life) show that when forest fragments are reduced to anywhere from one to 27 square kilometers, 10 to 50 percent of the species in the fragment go extinct within 100 years, consistent with the Diamond-Terborgh models of exponential decay. The area-dependent decline in mammal species of the U.S. and Canadian western national parks also accords with the picture of committed extinction by area reduction alone. "
On ocean acidification
'Basic chemistry leaves us in little doubt that our burning of fossil fuels is changing the acidity of our oceans,' said John Raven, professor of biology at the University of Dundee, UK. 'The rate of change we are seeing to the ocean's chemistry is a hundred times faster than has happened for millions of years. We just do not know whether marine life which is already under threat from climate change can adapt to these changes.'
www.rsc.org/chemistryw...
Another article on ocean acidification here:
www.cbc.ca/technology/...
And in the book "The Carbon Age" you will learn how ocean acidification is potentially destroying one of the biggest carbon sinks on Earth, the gazillions of shelled algae called cocolithophores that live in the ocean, and take carbon to the sea floor when they die, effectively removing it from the carbon cycle .
They have been doing this for hundreds of millions of years, helping to keep the carbon cycle in a balance that has supported life as we know it for all that time . They can't form their alkaline shells in an acidic ocean.
Nah, man can't effect the big ole earth.
"Massachusetts Institute of Technology
has joined the climate realists. The realists are the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe...."
climateprogress.org/20.../
Greenhouse Gamble
The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
globalchange.mit.edu/r.../
The most expensive thing we can do is to continue with the fossil fuel based energy, or business as usual.
westcoastclimateequity...
Global Warming Solutions for Governments
"Behind fossil fuels’ global dominance lies the shocking fact that governments still subsidize them with tax-breaks and price supports, some dating back to World War I. The total global give-away to fossil fuels comes to more than $210 billion a year."
Not to mention the externalized costs of continued fossil fuel use, which is in the hundreds of billions annually.
I know you have an open mind. My comments are not necessarily directed at you. But the majority of deniers who endlessly repeat every skeptic argument, or usually a whole littany of them, when only one in a hundred is even worth talking about. And the majority of deniers are motivated by politics, not science.
The fundamental problem is the vehicle weight to passenger weight ratio. Electric works great when the ratio is low and gets incredibly expensive as the ratio increases. Electric bicycles and scooters pay well, as do ultra-light EVs, but when you start talking about thousands of pounds and more than an absolute minimum battery range, the economics just aren't there.
There will always be people who can splash out $75,000 to $100,000 for a Tesla or Phoenix roadster, just like there were people who could splash out for a Delorean. But until we get to a product that an average guy will find acceptable and can afford, vehicles with plugs will be curiosities rather than mass market products. Right now, the DOE does not expect plugs to be on more than about 7% of the new vehicles in 2030. I think we can do better than that but not with the current crop of batteries.
frflyer, I don't take it personally and know that you understand where I'm coming from. In the final analysis we just have different reasons to reach the same result.
Usually inventions goes in a far different ways of what inventors think is the most obvious use, this is the case of laser which was ahead of its time until it was use as the ideal vehicle to telecommunications, Minoxidil was designed as a blood pressure control agent until it was found to be the only FDA aproved anti hair loss treatment.....and so on.
In energy something similar will happen, we are assuming that "storage" will be important part of Grid 2.0 however it s foresable that centalized power systems (smarter and more open to bidirectional flows) will be kept as basic backbone of postindustrial society, in this, there will be some other equipments that are not consider in this and some of them will play the basic role that we now assign to batteries (as related by John):
1. Ultracapacitors (there are 3 well funded start ups related with this application, DARPA already commited hugh amounts for this technology that will change perception of energy storage.
2. Nuclear "batteries", there are a couple of iniciatives on this fascinating possibility (see Hyperion.com), batteries that last 50 years, without maintenance and no nuclear residuals or proliferation problems....available from 2012.
3. New discoveries in chemistry as MIT Dr. Nocera slow energy electrolysis which hopefully will transform hydrogen use in the smart grid.
4. New materials for use in batteries as MIT liquid batteries announced few days ago.
5. And finally there is the another field that promises in the long term to be a feasible, the storage of light, physics of "frozen light" are being developed and promises radical new ways of "storage" ratios that are science fiction today.
I know we are in John" s article talking about investment realities but keeping an eye in what is in the future, some of the products in a matter of months could be advisable
Regards
Nice bit on A123, too.
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that (maybe) the best answer to the next-gen battery will come from growing and duplicating a virus.
But then, has anyone studied how an electric eel works?
During the last year, the price of 1/6 of a gallon of gas has varied from 30¢ to 65¢ (in the US and from $1.00 to $1.60 in Europe). I cannot imagine US peak electricity rates being much greater than 30¢ in the next several years. Furthermore, there will be more subsidies for EVs than for grid storage batteries because of the national security and balance of payment issues related to petroleum usage, primarily by the transportation sector.
However, favorable economics in either application will not assure marketing success because both applications will require the consumer to commit initial capital outlay for the promise (from a car salesman or a utility company) of future savings.
Just a quick aside. There are many grid storage applications. This presentation from Battery 2008 will help everyone appreciate the many, often niche, applications that one technology, let alone one flavor of battery chemistry, could satisfy.
www.batterypoweronline...
Video of presentation is here. It’s bit slow but does provide some color.
www.batterypoweronline...
First, we all want to reduce fossil fuel use in a way that doesn't destroy the economy.
Alternatives to fossil fuel are needed. Pick your reason: the trade deficit, geopolitical concerns, peak oil or AGW. Energy storage bets will pay off handsomely as a consequence.
We commonly use religious terminology--believer, denier, agnostic-- when we are talking about AGW. It’s an easy shorthand that exposes the blind faith needed for a belief in imminent, catastrophic AGW. It’s not enough that I simply believe (as I really do) that increasing CO2 can warm the environment. I have to believe not only that the environment will be harmed, but also that it’s going to be an immediate, Gadarene decline that requires us to institute cap-and-trade this minute to save the planet. If I question the magnitude of AGW, its timing, or the efficacy of proposed draconian cures, then I am a “denier”. (This is a particularly cynical and stupid epithet considering its implicit allusion to the Holocaust).
There are reasoned arguments against the “consensus” of urgent, catastrophic AGW. Any of us can research these issues on our own. Comments composed mostly of quotations with a half-dozen links thrown in are unhelpful. Bibliographorrhea is no substitute for sober analysis of the issues.
I apologize for that last bit of snark and for the opening quote, which was meant as hyperbole. The popular consensus that Burke actually wrote the “triumph of evil” quote is wrong—it’s a 20th century fabrication. You can read an interesting, lengthy analysis in this, my sole link: (tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkeq...
Mayascribe, thanks for the information. I'm always fascinated by what may be coming out of the research labs in the future. I've also been around long enough to know that things that look like they could be "just around the corner" are usually reflected in a distorted mirror. My very best guess is that carbon nanotubes and graphene will be next, but they've been on deck for 10 years now so there's no predicting timing.
Northern, I agree wholeheartedly that trying to use batteries for load shifting does not work because you can't recover the capital costs. The only sensible options for that kind of mass storage are pumped hydro, CAES, molten salt or something else that hasn't been developed yet. The places batteries do make sense are governor response, frequency regulation and facility upgrade deferral. There is a great 2004 chart from Sandia that shows the break-even cost of storage for over a dozen utility applications. More than half are uneconomic using current battery technology, but the half that are economic represent a nationwide market potential of roughly $50 billion, which is nothing to sneeze at.
See: seekingalpha.com/artic...
Renzo, the problem with consensus is that both sides of an argument typically claim it ;-)
That's why I try to avoid emotion and stick to economics. Besides, I've been around long enough to know that folks who try to play off emotion usually can't get there with logic.
I have reviewed the Hyperion Power Generation information. Here's a summary:
1. The will make portable nuclear power generation units.
2. They expect to have a "couple of delivery dates available" in 2013.
3. They are privately funded (that's why they are not on your radar, John).
4. Units are cylindrical, about 1.5 meters in diameter and 3 meters tall.
5. Units are ... "Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail."
6. Units cost $25,000,000 to $30,000,000.
7. Units produce 25MW for 5 years before they are "recharged" at the factory. That translates to $0.57 to $0.69 per kwh. This is 4-7 times what most in the U.S. pay for electricity. (I pay $0.10 in North Carolina.) I don't know how much the Hyperion cost for the first five years is increased by delivery, installation and "secuirty detail" costs. Also, there is no information given by Hyperion on how much the cost might be reduced in five year periods after the first (recharged periods).
The web site is www.hyperionpowergener...
As things stand, there is no incentive for producers of RE electricity to store what they produce, and deliver when required.
I have found no evidence in either Europe or N.America, of a financial incentive, that would make the expenditure to store RE electricity something that the producers would do.
It seems that the various schemes in place to subsidise RE's leave no funding to finance your hoped for bubble in energy storage companies.
Energy storage may be "cool", but it is not "cheap", and cheap is always at the optimum position in a bell curve.
However, there is no incentive for power companies to do anything about that. It's not like we as consumers can easily unplug if they don't meet our needs for reliable green energy.
The consumer market has always been the only place where dynamic change takes place. If it weren't for the break up of Ma Bell, we'd all be dialing phone numbers and listening to our neighbor's phone calls as we waited for them to get off the multi-party line. Instead, today, we get to interact with your blogs on our i-phones.
The gas and electric meter on the side of my house is the same one that was there when I was born in the 50s and the energy is delivered over the same pipes and lines. The electricity is generated at the same coal-fired plant. Do you really think they are going to make huge investments to become more reliable, green and efficient today because they should? Do you really think all that free government money pouring into Homer Simpson's power plant will get him up off his ass ... or will he just use the money to buy more donuts?
Look at where the changes are happening today in the US--wind mills and solar plants are popping up in rural cooperatives (where the public owns the utility), on military bases where they are forced to consider efficiency and where paranoia makes them consider becoming energy independent, and in CA where the mountains don't blow the coal smoke to Canada or the next state over (somebody else's problem).
Europe is making great strides because they have to buy their NG from Russia, and that's enough to scare anyone into being green.
The only other signs of progress are public relations stunts such as solar panels on the Children's Museum, etc..
What incentives will drive this sweeping revolution you keep talking about?
I hope that the DOE will have more sense than to spread the massive subsidies for AE and batteries around to folks who will actually put the money to work instead of letting Homer buy donuts.
We Americans can be a complacent lot until a real threat arises, then we can react with amazing vigor. As things stand today, the have nots who have gotten the memo about how the privileged live are working 18 hours a day for a better life and I promise our children will not have it as easy as we did.
Thank you for you discussion of Hyperion Power. It sounds interesting and safe but as far as I understand, it's still uranium-based and will therefore still have the problems of the highly, longly radioactive transuranics (like Pu) that are formed when non-fissile U238 (about 97% of low-enriched uranium) absorbs neutrons and decays. I fear that regardless of how safe or economical it may be, we will never accept a technology that will increase our nuclear waste problem. The other problem is there will at some point be a problem with peak uranium, just like peak oil.
Another nuclear technology (that is currently investable through microcap stocks) that is probably a better, though longer-term solution is thorium-based reactors. Thorium is a non-fissile very slightly radioactive element that is 500-times more abundant that fissile U235. When thorium is put in a reactor with a small amount of low-enriched uranium or plutonium it absorbs a neutron and decays to U233, which is fissile. This then produces energy just like U235. The cool thing is that ALL of the thorium is burned and the production of transuranics is greatly reduced compared to conventional reactors.
The really cool thing is that the waste produced from one type of thorium reactor (the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor--LFTR) is highly radioactive for only a few HUNDRED years, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
The really, really cool thing is that it is almost weapons proliferation-proof.
The really, really super cool thing is that because it requires U or Pu to start the reactor, it can actually be used to burn Pu and other persistent, toxic transuranics that we already have lying around waiting to go to Yucca Mountain.
Problems?
1)It's "nuclear", which carries all that baggage, justified or not.
2)The nuclear industry is based on uranium and thorium reactors would eliminate the huge profits on uranium sales. Thorium is cheap. In fact the government has 3200 tons of thorium buried in Nevada because it became worthless when uranium reactors became the de facto technology.
3)The LFTR doesn't exist yet (though the concept was proven at Oak Ridge National Labs in the '60's with a somewhat similar molten-salt reactor). Development will take years, but could be done "quickly" as the reactors are in many ways simpler that current light-water reactors.
There is a microcap stock (which I own) that has a thorium fuel rod design which will supposedly be able to replace uranium rods in existing reactors. I don't know how far this is from commercial use, but it's closer than LFTR. As I understand it, this technology loses some of the advantages of LFTR in terms of reprocessing and waste issues. It's being developed in India.
I'm not a nuclear physicist, but thorium seems like almost a panacea for our long-term power needs.
Here are two recent Google Tech Talks on the subject (See, I'm not making this up). The first is a little less technical than the second.
1) www.youtube.com/watch?...
2)thoriumenergy.blogspot...
Here's a very readable Cosmos Magazine article from 2006: www.cosmosmagazine.com... and there's a lot of blogging on the subject.
It does appear that the Volt battery temperature control is done by software interpreting what to do according to the battery temperature,
gm-volt.com/2009/01/05.../ .
So I see no reason that a simple software change would not allow you to use an advanced lead acid battery instead of the Li it uses now. The 40 mile range on battery would have gotten me to work and back for the last 30 years. The same could be said for almost everyone I know.
As you well know, the Extended Range EV concept used by the Volt has a huge advantage because the ICE runs at a constant speed and only charges the battery after a trip goes over 40 miles. Throwing away the transmission is a huge cost and MPG advantage.
When the Volt goes into production the other auto makers will also soon ditch their transmissions to convert their PHEVs to EREVs. The problem now is that companies have spent so much on developing better transmissions that politics and old habits are getting in the way. Honda, Toyota and Ford may not be addicted to Li and using advanced lead batteries instead wiIl make the conversion easy.
John Adam, Green Car Congress is reporting a new study out of Carnagie Mellon that basically concludes low-range EVs are more cost effective than EREVs.
www.greencarcongress.c...
Given all of the weight and space variables I'd be reluctant to beat the table over a lead-acid or lead-carbon solution for a PHEV-40+ because I'm not sure the economics would work. I keep going back to the DOE chart in my December 26th price vs performance piece that shows vehicles with plugs growing to a 6% to 7% market share by 2030. Since I'm happy to throw away both extremes on the bell curve, I personally view the plug-in market as irrelevant. It has immense PR and goodwill value for manufacturers, but doesn't work for average consumers.
That Green Car Congress does not even refer to an EREV which is nothing like a PHEV. A PHEV has a standard ICE drive train which includes a transmission. The Volt EREV ICE runs at a constant speed that optimizes its economy while charging the battery pack.
The article states <<nearly 50% of US passenger vehicle miles are traveled by vehicles driving less than 20 miles per day.>> . What does nearly actually mean? Now in Ohio (like most of the non costal continental USA) we have urban sprawl and almost nobody has a work commute of less than 20 miles per day. Now it is true that before or current depression idiots living out in our boondocks would drive 10 miles to buy a loaf of bread or milk a few times a week, but better planning has mostly ended such stupidity.
Now personally it seems clear to me that the Volt batter pack could be sold with different amounts of its total capacity being populated. The totally populated battery pack costs $8,000, so cut the price 75% to $2,000 and you get what you and this article seem to think people would want. The Volt computer could be easily made driver programmable to change its range before the ICE starts to be anywhere from 0 to 40 miles. Flexibility should be the rule when possible.
www.its.berkeley.edu/s...
This number of $250 is at variance with the $1,000 breakeven figure from the 2004 Sandia Labs presentation that John has referenced in previous articles because 2004 pre-dates the availability of batteries with a cycle life of 4,000 or 2,800, now claimed by A123 Systems and Valence, respectively. In 2004, several hundred, deep-discharge life cycles was the norm for Li-ion batteries, typically using a LiCoO2 cathode chemistry, and for NiMH batteries. If Sandia Labs were to redo the diagram on slide #11 of cumulative market size versus breakeven cost of storage in $/kWh, then they would undoubtedly include another axes, life cycles.
www.sandia.gov/ess/Pub...
"We commonly use religious terminology--believer, denier, agnostic-- when we are talking about AGW. It’s an easy shorthand that exposes the blind faith needed for a belief in imminent, catastrophic AGW. It’s not enough that I simply believe (as I really do) that increasing CO2 can warm the environment. I have to believe not only that the environment will be harmed, but also that it’s going to be an immediate, Gadarene decline that requires us to institute cap-and-trade this minute to save the planet. If I question the magnitude of AGW, its timing, or the efficacy of proposed draconian cures, then I am a “denier”. (This is a particularly cynical and stupid epithet considering its implicit allusion to the Holocaust). "
Far from being alarmist, the IPCC has been overly conservative. In fact it is the somewhat political nature of the IPCC that makes it so, contrary to skeptic arguments that it's proof of exaggeration. It's reports got watered down if anything, as a result.
“The recent [Arctic] sea-ice retreat is larger than in any of the IPCC climate models” — and that was a Norwegian expert in 2005. The retreat has accelerated in the past two years.
The ice sheets appear to be shrinking “100 years ahead of schedule.” That was Penn State climatologist Richard Alley in March 2006. In 2001, the IPCC thought that neither Greenland nor Antarctica would lose significant mass by 2100. They both already are.
Sea-level rise from 1993 and 2006 — 3.3 millimetres per year as measured by satellites — was higher than the IPCC climate models predicted.
The ocean carbon sink is saturating sooner than expected.
The subtropics are expanding faster than the models project."
climateprogress.org/20.../
The short answer is that if the scientists are right we don't have time to argue about it.
Yes, it could be that bad. If we exceed certain tipping points it will be beyond our control.
Worried about big government and draconian measures? If we do nothing now and it's as bad as scientists fear, those will be the only solutions later. Much much more draconian than anything being discussed now.
Now it's an oppurtunity. Later it could be far more expensive, and about survival, no matter the cost.
I don't believe it's an allusion to the Holocaust to use the term denier. I think you are imagining that. John Holdren, the new energy secretary comments on deniers verses skeptics.
"The few climate-change 'skeptics' with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. The attention and credence they receive are a menace, of course, insofar as this delays the development of the political consensus that will be needed before society embraces remedies that are commensurate with the magnitude of the climate-change challenge."
"Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by this vocal fringe should ask themselves how it could be, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that the leaderships of the national academies of sciences, of every country in the world that has one, are repeatedly on record saying that global climate change is real, dangerous, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early and concerted action to reduce those causes; that this is also the overwhelming consensus view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every major university in the world; and that all three of holders of the one Nobel prize in science that has been awarded for environmental science, are all leaders in the climate-change scientific mainstream."
"The fact is that anybody who could believe that the cream of the part of the world scientific community that has actually studied this phenomenon could be co-opted by hoaxers or suffering from mass hysteria is just not thinking clearly."
"We should really call them 'deniers' rather than 'skeptics', because they are giving the venerable tradition of skepticism a bad name."
"As my original reference to 'the venerable tradition of skepticism' indicates, I am in fact well aware of its valuable and indeed fundamental role in the practice of science. Skeptical views, clearly stated and soundly based, tend to promote healthy re-examination of premises, additional ways to test hypotheses and theories, and refinement of explanations and arguments. And it does happen from time to time — although less often than most casual observers suppose — that views initially held only by skeptics end up overturning and replacing what had been the 'mainstream' view."
"Appreciation for this positive role of scientific skepticism, however, should not lead to uncritical embrace of the deplorable practices characterizing much of what has been masquerading as appropriate skepticism in the climate-science domain. These practices include refusal to acknowledge the existence of large bodies of relevant evidence (such as the proposition that there is no basis for implicating carbon dioxide in the global-average temperature increases observed over the past century); the relentless recycling of arguments in public forums that have long since been persuasively discredited in the scientific literature (such as the attribution of the observed global temperature trends to urban-heat island effects or artifacts of statistical method); the pernicious suggestion that not knowing everything about a phenomenon (such as the role of cloudiness in a warming world) is the same as knowing nothing about it; and the attribution of the views of thousands of members of the mainstream climate-science community to 'mass hysteria' or deliberate propagation of a 'hoax'."
"The purveying of propositions like these by a few scientists who do or should know better –and their parroting by amateur skeptics who lack the scientific background or the motivation to figure out what’s wrong with them — are what I was inveighing against in the op-ed and will continue to inveigh against. The activities of these folks, whether witting in the case of the scientists or unwitting in the case of their gullible adherents, have nothing to do with respectable scientific skepticism."
You might find this interesting also.
climateprogress.org/20.../
Clearing Al Gore's name part 1
What is wrong with me giving references? Is that worse than shouting that Al Gore is the devil and global warming is a hoax with nothing to back it up?
And you seem to not understand the difference between the harm being immediate and the fact that there is a time lag associated with emmissions we create now. You are ignoring the cummulative nature of it. All signs show that the 1.4 F change so far is changing the planet. 3 degrees? 5 degrees? maybe 10 F increase by the end of the century? That's what the latest models suggest with business as usual. Many skeptics doubt the models accuracy, but the models keep getting better.
Now that the fossil fuel PR campaign knows they can't win the argument, they are selling the idea that it will cost too much. Or haven't you noticed that change in strategy?
As far as consensus? In reality there is no comparison.
Not unless you believe the phony lists of skeptics from the Oregon Petition with it's 19,000 (actually about 200 climate scientists)
Or Senator Inhofe's list of 650 skeptics.- about 2 dozen of these belong to the AGU, which has 14,000 members in the US. and 20,000 in the EGU. Or the fact that every major scientific organization in the worldl agrees with the IPCC. Both sides may claim consensus. One is lying.
www.electricmotorsport...
As for A123’s cost per kWh, it would be one main reason why they lost the GM Volt contract to LG; the other main reason would be A123’s small size.
LG-Chem will supply Li-polymer batteries for the Volt, Li-FePO4. A123's 9-month sales were $32 million, which compares well to Valence's most recently reported 9-month sales of $20 million. So while A123 may be small in the absolute sense, they are far and away the biggest pure-play Li-ion battery company and the only one that discloses sales data in terms of both dollars and watt hours shipped.
You obviously believe the Chinese will have unconstrained capacity to make things at cheap prices in perpetuity. You also seem to think the Chinese government will think selling batteries as crude industrial exports will serve their economy better than using those batteries in value-added manufactured products that can be used domestically or exported. I think those beliefs are naive and a controlled economy like China will invariably (1) build manufacturing capacity by selling products to the export market, (2) cut back on exports as domestic demand for a particular class of products increases, and (3) choose to export 5,000 finished iPods instead of exporting a single battery pack. In the 90s, Asian lead-acid battery exports almost killed the US industry by selling finished products at something close to materials cost. Today, all of the principal domestic manufacturers are building new plants because the Asian supplies are no longer available at any price.
True believers always bash folks like Carnagie Mellon and me who have the temerity to ask if the emperor is wrapped in Saran rather than silk. You can ignore the industrial development history and practices of China if you wish, but I take them very seriously.
GM: Volt Pack Now “Hundreds” Less than $1,000/kWh; Headed to $250/kWh
4 March 2009
In a response to a recent study by researchers at CMU on the cost-effectiveness of different sizes of battery packs for plug-in hybrids (earlier post), Jon Lauckner, GM Vice President Global Program Management, wrote on the GM Fastlane Blog that the current cost of the Volt Li-ion packs is “many hundreds of dollars per kWh” lower than the $1,000 kWh figure used in the study.
Moreover, our battery team is already starting work on new concepts that will further decrease the cost of the Volt battery pack quite substantially in a second-generation Volt pack. Unfortunately, the impact of dramatically lower battery costs (to $250 per kWh) was treated only as a “sensitivity” in the CMU study when it probably should have been highlighted as THE critical element that would dramatically change the cost-effectiveness of plug-ins with greater electric-only range.
<SNIP>
www.greencarcongress.c...
I don't want to seem overly cynical, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I enjoy this kind of interchange but I don't want to pollute this investing post with too much hot air on my AGW philosophy. You may have noticed that both of our posts on this topic have mostly been ignored by the "thumbs".
Catastrophic AGW proponents and policy makers have decided on a Procrustean solution--chop off the generally less expensive legacy technologies that hang off the bed and stretch the newer, generally more expensive renewable technologies to try to fill the bed. I think it's a bad choice for both battery technology and energy policy.
I appreciate everyone's indulgence
Anyway, I am sure that GM will be subjecting the battery packs to extreme testing since the LiCoO2-based chemistry has tainted all li-ion chemistries in the public's eye. So, the pathological case of a child strapped to a flaming PHEV battery pack will hopefully remain an ambulance chaser's wet dream.
On Mar 05 09:42 AM NorthernPiker wrote:
> John, the battery chemistry that LG is using is more stable than
> that used in laptops and cell phones. Basically, LG's LiMnO2- based
> cathodes need to get considerably hotter than LiCoO2-based laptop
> battery cathodes before surrendering oxygen to allow combustion.
> A123's (and Valence's) LiFePO4 chemistry in turn is more stable LG's.
> The Valence web site used to show the effect of bullets being shot
> at fully charged li-ion batteries. Surprise! The LiCoO2-based batteries
> flamed violently and the LiFePOP4-based ones showed no effect other
> than a bullet hole.
>
> Anyway, I am sure that GM will be subjecting the battery packs to
> extreme testing since the LiCoO2-based chemistry has tainted all
> li-ion chemistries in the public's eye. So, the pathological case
> of a child strapped to a flaming PHEV battery pack will hopefully
> remain an ambulance chaser's wet dream.
But what are the real costs of those legacy power sources? I believe that if you added the hidden or externalized costs of fossil fuels to the price of gasoline and coal etc., it would completely change the equation. Gasoline would likely be at least a few dollars/gallon higher. Even adjusting for carbon, with a carbon tax or cap and trade, doesn't begin to account for the total cost, because CO2 is just one of several costly impacts from their use.
Or maybe we should do as Colbert joked about on his TV show, and just let the "free market" decide which species to let go extinct. I hope you are smart enough to realize that the welfare of the ecosystem IS our welfare. Too many anti environmentalists fail to understand this basic truth. It's not humans OR the environment.
SetAmericafree.org estimates the hidden costs (including subsidies) of fossil fuels at $800 billion annually in the U.S. I take that with a grain of salt, as it's probably high, but who knows for sure? Even half that would likely double the price of gasoline from where it is now. And chopping off the energy sources we have now is not what's being advocated. That's an exaggeration. Phase them out as new sources come online, yes. coal first
Global subsidies to fossil fuels are $200 billion a year. $49 billion a year in the U.S. Why?
I repeat my suggestion made elsewhere to read "The Carbon Age" by Eric Roston. - global warming aside, it's a fascinating book.
The worst case scenarios may be too pessimistic, but should we only prepare for the best case scenario? It's the speed of the change that is so dangerous . And all current observations show that change is happening faster than thought just a few years ago. The IPCC's 4th Assessment report is already proving to be way too conservative. And it's only two years old.
Mayascribe, my only guess is more hedge fund redemptions, and even that is just a guess; but it's a guess that makes sense when you look at the total trading volume since the planned liquidations by Tontine were announced. I'm looking around to figure out a way to average down.
At one time there were conversion kits to replace the corvair engine with a small V8 and with that setup you could out handle anything and go about 200 miles an hour. The Corvette was an overweight pig with a pickup transmission compared to it. GM can make a great product if the bean counters that run the company get out of the way of their engineers.
Speculawyer, this is one of those areas where I think you and I will have to agree to disagree. Right now we are seeing daily carnage in the stock market because investors have no choice but to liquidate positions at a loss. The same is happening in the real world of widgets. Just as it is unreasonable to assume that current fire sale prices in the equity markets will hold over the long term, it is unreasonable to assume that current fire sale prices on a Chinese web site will hold for the long term. So in this particular environment, the choice is (a) or (b), but definitely not (c) for anybody who is trying to put together a long term plan.
In an industrial society that has production capacity for any widget, policy will always favor maximizing the value of the value added products that result from that capacity. So if you can make 5,000 batteries the policy priorities will be:
First, 5,000 cell phones or iPods,
Second, 500 laptop computers,
Third, 100 electric bicycles,
Fourth, 50 electric scooters,
Fifth, one PHEV,
Sixth, one battery pack,
Seventh, 5,000 cells.
As long as there are cells left over after priorities First through Sixth are satisfied, cells will be available. As soon as aggregate demand at levels First through Third equals capacity, the availability of scooters, PHEVs, battery packs and cells will evaporate and the cold economic reality is that a scooter manufacturer has nowhere near the price flexibility as a manufacturer of cell phones.
We are keying up to make long-term manufacturing policy decisions in the States, it would be insanity to assume that prices distorted by a major recession are a reliable indicator of future pricing or that supplies that are currently available will remain available.
'Plug-in' Prius due in 2010
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
A ‘plug-in’ version of the third-generation Toyota Prius powered by lithium ion batteries will be ready for market early in 2010.
In an exclusive interview for Autocar, Toyota’s Executive Vice President responsible for research and development, Masatami Takimoto, confirmed that the company’s long-standing scepticism towards lithium ion battery technology has now been put to rest.
“We have made much development progress with lithium ion batteries over the last six months,” said Takimoto. “We are now convinced that they can be used in our future plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles, although our cheaper hybrid models will continue to use nickel metal hydride batteries.”
The first of Toyota’s lithium ion-powered cars will be a ‘plug-in’ version of the Prius, which will be available in Japan later this year, and will come to the UK in very limited numbers at first in early 2010.
The car’s zero-emissions electric-only range – the distance it will travel on battery power alone after a full mains charge – is not yet set in stone, but it’s expected to be no more than 20 miles. That being the case, however, it will need a much smaller lithium ion battery pack than the GM Volt, and so will be cheaper; expect a sub-£30k price tag.
Extended electric-only running won’t be the only thing going for the ‘plug-in’ Prius, however. Toyota has been trialing the lithium ion battery technology in collaboration with EDF Energy, in development cars running around Paris. It has found them to return between 60 and 80 per cent better fuel economy than the nickel metal hydride version once the combustion engine comes into play, depending on usage.
Takimoto also confirmed Toyota’s plans for a lithium-ion battery only ‘EV’ city car – “not an iQ, but something similar in size,” – which will arrive in 2012.
www.autocar.co.uk/News.../
I've been writing on storage since last July and every time I suggest that PHEVs with electric ranges beyond 20 miles have little or no economic merit, I get blistering responses from the defenders of the faith claiming that 100 to 150 miles of electric range is critical and the market would never accept something as paltry as a PHEV-20.
Time will tell, but I am not willing to presume success on anything.
"I've been writing on storage since last July and every time I suggest that PHEVs with electric ranges beyond 20 miles have little or no economic merit,..."
It may be some consolation that you are not alone
in this opinion. Joseph Romm at Climate Progress has written an article essentially saying the same thing you are. He is definitely pro renewable energy and has been a big supporter of PHEVs, so it was interesting to see his sobering take on this.