Energy Storage: Chrysler - A123 Alliance Likely to Spark Interest in Sector 120 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
On April 6th, Chrysler LLC announced the creation of a strategic alliance whereby A123 Systems, Inc. will become a primary battery supplier for Chrysler's planned line of plug-in electric vehicles. This is a huge step toward rebuilding America's domestic battery manufacturing infrastructure and both companies should be congratulated. The next steps I see in my murky crystal ball are finalization of A123's pending IPO coupled with an announcement that A123's $1.8 billion loan request under the DOE's Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program has been approved. If the foundation has been properly laid, it will all come together very quickly.
I've been following A123 since it first filed its SEC registration statement. While the IPO was delayed by last fall's market implosion, its team stayed the course and announced plans to build a $2.3 billion battery manufacturing facility in early January. To help pay for the planned facility, A123 applied for a $1.8 billion loan under the DOE's Advanced Vehicle Technology Program.
In an earlier article that focused on the ATVM loan requests from A123, Ener1 (HEV), Tesla Motors and Integrity Automotive, I questioned how those requests could be approved without proof that the applicants would have willing buyers for their products. Monday's announcement provides a clearer picture of the negotiations that have been going on behind the scenes for months.
Thirty years ago, Michael Milken popularized the use of letters that said Drexel Burnham Lambert was "highly confident" financing could be arranged on specified terms if the underlying business transaction could be negotiated. These letters then formed the basis for negotiations between sellers, bankers and other necessary parties. My guess is that A123 and Chrysler have used the same mechanism quite effectively. If I'm right, the Chrysler release is just the first piece falling into place and the others will quickly follow.
From a securities regulatory perspective, A123 is almost done with its IPO filings. The registration statement went through three rounds of staff review and comment last year and was basically ready to go by late November. Updating the registration statement to include year-end financial information and disclose the terms of the agreement with Chrysler and the terms that have presumably been negotiated with the DOE should be fairly simple. So the only critical timing issues seem to be a final DOE decision, a registration statement amendment and a road show.
This is great news for the energy storage sector because like I said last August, there is nothing like a high-profile IPO road show to draw market attention to energy storage in a new way and mark the beginning of a major upward trend in a basic industry that's been undervalued for years. It should be a fun spring after a dismally hard winter.
In addition to the visibility boost I think the Chrysler – A123 alliance will bring to the storage sector, there may well be a second tier of good news for other manufacturers of energy storage devices. The ATVM program allocated $22.5 billion to major manufacturers and set aside another $2.5 billion for loans to "small automobile and component manufacturers" that have fewer than 500 employees.
While I originally questioned whether A123's loan request was part of the large manufacturer allocation or the small manufacturer set aside, it's now clear that A123 has been joined at the hip with Chrysler for months. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that the $2.5 billion set-aside for small manufacturers will remain intact. While I remain skeptical about how the small company applicants will be able to meet the stringent business viability requirements I discussed in my earlier article on the ATVM loan program, it is entirely possible that similar behind the scenes negotiations are already in process on other ATVM loan requests.
While the Chrysler – A123 alliance will almost certainly spark a tidal wave of interest in the energy storage sector, I think it's important for investors to remember that the best opportunities are often found in the least glamorous stocks. The energy storage sector is a target rich environment that does not have a single ‘silver bullet’ technological solution. The root causes of the challenge include:
- Storage needs that range from watt hours to megawatt hours or even gigawatt hours;
- Discharge needs that range from seconds to hours or even days;
- Cycling rates that range from infrequent (e.g. back-up power) to intense (e.g. recuperative braking);
- Cycle depths that range from very shallow (e.g. engine starting) to very deep (e.g. fork lifts);
- Technological improvements that are usually incremental gains instead of disruptive advances;
- Products that require huge inputs of high value or exotic raw materials;
- The need to carefully analyze costs and benefits for each potential storage application; and
- The sheer immensity of the current and potential market for energy storage products.
The informed consensus is that annual revenues of companies in the energy storage sector will increase from $30 billion to $100 billion or more over the next several years. While I track a handful of pure-play public companies that are focused on billion-dollar market segments and likely to be strong competitors in those segments, none of their technologies has broad utility across the entire energy storage spectrum. So instead of a future where a couple of dominant competitors survive and the others fall by the wayside, it’s easy to envision a future where dozens of strong competitors will thrive by serving different billion-dollar market segments.
Over the last nine months I've written a total of 47 articles on the energy storage sector and the principal pure play companies that are active in the sector. The entire archive can be accessed from my Seeking Alpha author's page. While I have a strong personal preference for lead-acid technology, I also have a contingent of faithful readers who help round out the discussion so that a clear and informative picture emerges. You may find some of my analysis useful if you're looking at storage for the first time.
Disclosure: Author is a former director and executive officer of Axion Power International(AXPW.OB) and holds a substantial long position in its stock. He also holds small long positions in Active Power (ACPW), Exide Technologies (XIDE), Enersys (ENS) and ZBB Energy (ZBB).
Related Articles
|
This article has 120 comments:
I commend your equanimity, although I observe that you failed to mention one important word in your article: lithium. It maybe important for those that "are looking at storage for the first time" to know that A123 happens to be a lithium-ion battery producer, a storage system you´ve been criticizing for quite some time.
I follow John's articles and I get the impression that John is critical of the cost of lithium, not the technology, and is skeptical of projected cost reductions and market penetrations. Lithium is without a doubt the best technology where size and weight are critical and cost is secondary, like watch batteries or laptop computer batteries. For applications like cars, buses, trains, or electrical grid backup, wind power smoothing and backup, etc., where cost is critical and size/weight are secondary I sense that John favors existing low cost battery and flywheel technologies and emerging new lead acid technologies like those from Axion, CSIRO and Firefly. His is an informed approach and his arguments make sense. I am sure he can defend himself quite adequately, but as a reader I take issue with your comment which seems to question the integrity of his arguments. Of course he would like the market to prove him correct and make his stocks go up, but then don't we all.
seekingalpha.com/autho...
Sonrisa777, there wasn't a chance that any of the majors would divert from the Li-ion track they're on until the technology either proves itself or fails to prove itself in the field. We all know about my reservations, but I hope everything works according to plan. You've always heard that a rising tide raises all boats and its true. The A123 - Chrysler alliance and the IPO I expect to see from A123 will definitely qualify as an incoming tide for the storage sector.
Look closely at the list of bullet points John has provided, particularly his incremental Vs. disruptive technology, volume of exotic raw materials, and the emphasis on cost benefits points. Those speaking points speak volumes when considered in the context of John's excellent series of articles in this area.
The Chrysler deal in conjunction with ATVM funding should prime the current battery technology sector. In the course of doing that, an A123 IPO will also prime the Lead-Acid new, disruptive technology area with its non-exotic raw materials requirements and its potential cost benefits.
In other words, the Chrysler deal is the now, while Lead-Acid (AXPW), a potential disruptive technology is the near future. The only negative I see for A123 is that the deal is with Chrysler, the weakest of the automotive Big 3. However, given the ATVM, an A123 IPO should be an investment opportunity. Holding it depends on how your crystal ball sees the future.
I own AXPW because I totally agree with John that Lead-Acid could be a disruptive technology. Consequently I am long on AXPW.
Cyberspies have hacked the energy grid!
Just one more reason why upgrading the grid is becoming an emergency, not an option. Of course I strongly disagree that we should help the energy monopolies upgrade so that we all become even more dependant on them. National and individual security would be better served if the grid was more like the web--a convenience that connected micro energy producers and storage rather than a lifeline that can be easily severed.
Electric transmission allows 30% + waste. Economies of scale don't apply when distribution is so expensive. Better in every way to generate and store energy locally. Also a consumer market would be much better for the storage industry.
We can also build an interplanetary spaceship, you know. But we may be waiting a couple hundred years to figure out how to make the damn thing fly. On the EV front, so far we have the Smarts, the Tesla, the Baker and the EV-1. We're still waiting on how to make them work in the real world, too.
seekingalpha.com/autho...
User283977, I'm a firm believer that a rising tide lifts all boats and the more activity you have in a sector, the better it will be for everyone in the sector. The following response to Road Runner applies equally to the rest of your comment.
Road Runner, I'm not as skeptical of the A123 - Chrysler deal as you seem to be. Even if Chrysler is forced into a Chapter 11 reorganization, it's business will not dry up and blow away. In fact, the political pressure will be immense for the EV initiative to survive and hopefully prosper. The A123 – Chrysler alliance is a big step in that direction.
The fact is that everybody needs a centerpiece EV project involving a U.S. auto manufacturer and a U.S. battery manufacturer. Chrysler needs a big project to support its restructuring plans. The DOE and the administration need a big project to show that the $25 billion in auto industry bailout money isn't simply being thrown down a rat-hole. Lastly, A123 needs a big project because all of its current manufacturing capacity is in Asia.
The business viability requirements of the ATVM rules are very strict and without a partnership of this magnitude, it would be almost impossible for anyone other than established lead-acid battery manufacturers like Exide and Enersys to make a compelling case. When it comes to Li-ion manufacturers, I'm inclined to think that A123 is the best and biggest of breed (although Valence fans might disagree).
I'm unwilling to predict whether the A123 – Chrysler alliance will in fact be a business success because I have lingering doubts about the economics of PHEVs in general, but it will certainly be a watershed event for the storage sector.
ZZQuince, A123 has capacity in Asia and solid revenue from its power tool battery pack business. It's wanted to build a U.S. plant but it takes a contract with somebody like a Chrysler to give it enough bulk to pull the financing off. A123 announced plans to build a $2.3 billion plant in Michigan and asked the DOE for 80% financing. Since it's a political hot potato to have the GM Volt batteries imported from Korea, this deal can be a political star.
I just heard something that I thought you might find interesting. Here's a link with a bunch of pictures of the upcoming Chevy Volt: www.popularmechanics.c...
If you scroll down, you'll see a picture of the car's interior taken from the back of the cabin. What you should immediately notice is that the car only has four seats, and that there's a big hump between the two rear seats. That's because of the way that GM has decided to incorporate the car's battery into the design of the car. If you scroll about halfway down this page, you'll see what's going on on the inside: blogs.edmunds.com/gree...
A big premise for your position on the potential for lead carbon batteries in automotive applications has been (if I have understood correctly) that battery size and weight are non-central issues in automotive applications, and that engineers simply need to design around them. But it looks like even with a much more energy-dense lithium ion battery system, GM still needed to make the rather serious sacrifice of one of its car's back seats in order to accommodate the car's battery. And this car is only supposed to go 40 miles on a charge!
So I guess my question is, does this create problems for your argument? It seems to me that if this is what's necessary to accommodate a lithium ion battery into a reasonably-side automobile, then it wouldn't really be feasible to use a lead acid battery for the same purpose. At best, you'd end up with something like the first-generation Honda Insight, which no one wants. What do you think?
Thanks!
I have read all of your articles and the comments from readers. Thanks for the very informed discussions.
When you get a moment I would appreciate your analysis of AXPW recent financial report. They can make 250,000 units per year. Is there enough profit per unit to overcome the R&D losses this company is sustaining? I appreciate that the company is on a snails pace to do things right. Just was curious as to how you read the last report.
Thanks.
Coby, I have a fundamental problem with the idea of vehicles with plugs because the economics are so hard to work with when you try to use batteries to power several thousand pounds of vehicle and passengers at highway speed.
For the PHEV and pure EV market which is focusing on relatively small vehicles, I think Li-ion will probably be the best choice because space is a mission critical constraint. As you get into larger vehicles like pickups, delivery vans and SUVs lead-acid may be competitive because space is not as critical an issue.
The place where I see a lot of competition between Li-ion and lead-carbon is the HEV and mild-HEV market, which the DOE thinks will be 10X larger than the PHEV and EV market. The reason is that the space required for a couple of kWh in batteries is so much smaller.
As I see the market the driving factor will not so much be what everyone wants, but what most people can afford. Unfortunately, all of the PHEV and EV proposals are too costly for most working people. So the working man's choice will be to do nothing, or buy an HEV or mild-HEV that fits his budget and cuts his fuel costs. Since the number of people who won't be able to afford a PHEV or EV is so great, I'll be delighted to sell smaller battery systems to a much larger population.
Futurist, a top end lead-acid battery sells for about $200 and Axion has always talked about selling the PbC for a premium in the 50% range. If we pick $300 as a hypothetical price, 250,000 batteries a year would throw off $75 million in revenue. At an industry average gross margin of 20%, that would leave $15 million for R&D and overhead. Since losses in the last two years were $9.5 and $5.8 million, respectively, sales of less than 250,000 units would take things to break-even.
I would never own a car that only seats 4 even though 95% of the time it's only me in the car.
Surprisingly, the Toyota Prius is very roomy inside. I was shocked the first time I sat in one. Leave it to Toyota to get it right and for General Motors to screw it up.
Also, by the time Chevy comes out with this $30K to $40K Volt, Toyota and Honda will have much cheaper hybrids out.
Please, bring on bankruptcy for GM and put them out of their misery. I know – even in bankruptcy, they will be operational and probably building the Volt. But, at least there is a chance (just a chance) to get a major flushing of management.
"Raser Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:RZ - News) announced today it will unveil a 100+ mpg SUV at the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) World Congress in Detroit, Michigan April 20-23, 2009. The Vehicle is powered by Raser’s E-REV powertrain and was developed in conjunction with Raser’s integration partner, FEV and a global automaker. "
finance.yahoo.com/news...
I only recently put Raser on my list of alt energy stocks to pay attention to, based on their geothermal business, but hadn't done any research on.
Surprise; they also develop electric drive trains and high efficiency electric motors.
Note: the 100 mpg is for local driving, with overall higway mileage in the high 20s. Interestingly, the overall range is more than for standard ICE model.
One thing I noticed, is that the SUV is heavier than a conventional one, which is not surprising with 30 Kw of batteries on board. Seems like weight reduction is something that needs more attention in overall vehicle design.
Here is a rough space calculation using 646 of the A123 model 32157 cells. These are LiFePO4 cells which, if anything, are slightly less dense than the Li-ion manganese batteries committed to the Volt.
Each cell delivers about 30 Whr of energy (I believe the spec may be 32 but I am being conservative here). So 646 cells will deliver about 19.4 KWhr of energy (646 * 30). This is well above the 16 KWhr battery that was originally specified for the Volt (maybe the spec has changed some recently).
Each cell is a cylinder. It is about 6.18 inches long and 1.26 inches in diameter. I believe that all 646 cells can be put under the back seat of most sedans. Each cell would sit up on end so that would take up about 7 inches of vertical space. That’s very doable. There would be 38 cells across for a width of 49 inches (38 * 1.26 plus an extra inch for overlap). That’s doable. The rows are “honeycombed” together so each row only uses about 1.09 inches front to back (geometry – I won’t give details). So, 17 rows fits in about 18 inches. And, 17 * 38 is 646.
I realize that this is not an optimum configuration. But, it shows that the battery should fit totally under the back seat and not take up any of the center divider of the car. I’m baffled.
Am I missing something?. Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere in these calculations.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
www.transportation.anl...
I'm specifically referring to Table 6.4 on page 42. I am waiting with bated breath for a follow-up report that is expected from Argonne sometime this summer. My fervent prayer is that it will provide hard cost data on LiFePO4 (both current and expected) so that the issue can be laid to rest based on reliable third party cost analysis. I'm sure some other adjustments will need to be calculated to fairly compare Li-cobalt (150 Wh/Kg) with LiFePO4 (70 Wh/Kg), but at this point I'll just be happy with the hard data.
I'm also perfectly willing to have my skepticism prove unfounded. Until I can see the numbers, however, let's just pretend I'm from Missouri.
That being said, GM and Segway unveiled the PUMA yesterday and it could be a game changer in the EV world. A 300 pound vehicle that can move 300 pounds of passengers is a great use for the LiFePO4 batteries made by Valence, as would any vehicle with a passenger to vehicle weight ratio of 1. It starts getting tough when that ratio reaches 5 and is obscene at 10, but that's just my opinion.
seekingalpha.com/autho...
So basically they built an armor plated housing for the battery in the Volt so they could use the unstable Li-ion polymer (non phosphate) chemistry. I'm scratching my head. I could never own, or let anyone I know own, a car that has a Lithium Polymer battery in it, no matter how armor plated it is. If you don't know why, check out some Lithium battery fire videos on YouTube. Then, picture a fire 500 times that size under your car. Nasty doesn't describe it.
You say:
"Discharge needs that range from seconds to hours or even days;"
What batteries can discharge in seconds? Beacon Power (BCON) is the only storage company I have read about that can do realtime discharges?
NiMH does not claim to be more than it is. The same cannot be said for Li-ion.
We both know that li-cobalt is dangerously unstable, li-manganese is better but still has thermal management issues, and li-phosphate is better still. GM took mid-range batteries that have an energy density of well over 100 wh/kg and engineered them into a battery pack with an effective density of 50 wh/kg. If you look at the housing, there is no fair way to describe it other than armor plated. Whether the reason was a real risk or merely a perceived risk, the armoring is a fact just as the heat management systems are facts.
Another Wagonner silly action?
What is good for Chrysler and was not good for GM?, perhaps the answer is the italian partnership, FIAT has a new gasoline engines generation that will deliver 100HP in about 1L.displacement engine.
Anyway what is happening this days in in the world motor industry has nothing to do with business processw by itself, more with burocrats, politics and media, i could take this (as others) similar news carefully.
Regards.
Look up Ohms Law and do the math yourself.
Advill, my guess is that GM had to land on and announce a battery supplier before the legislation was in place to facilitate a monster loan for a domestic battery plant. The proposed A123 plant is supposed to have enough capacity for 500,000 PHEVs per year. That figure, incidentally, exceeds the plug-in demand projected by the DOE for 2030, but that's another discussion altogether. I'd be willing to give odds that A123 has a letter from GM saying if you build it we will change.
lefty37, if you read through my article archive you'll find that I've never had anything good to say about using batteries to move a couple hundred pounds of passengers and a couple thousand pounds of vehicles at highway speeds. Today, the politicians and media want cars with plugs. When the market rejects cars with plugs on purely economic grounds, more reasonable HEV and Mild Hybrid solutions will become pre-eminent. Until then, there's no sense fighting and the best I can do is caution investors that buying the hype is a risky investment strategy.
>On Apr 08 04:43 PM Road Runner wrote:
>> Thanks John for the explanation.
>>
>> So basically they built an armor plated housing for the battery in
>> the Volt so they could use the unstable Li-ion polymer (non phosphate)
>> chemistry. I'm scratching my head. I could never own, or let anyone
>> I know own, a car that has a Lithium Polymer battery in it, no matter
>> how armor plated it is. If you don't know why, check out some Lithium
>> battery fire videos on YouTube. Then, picture a fire 500 times that
>> size under your car. Nasty doesn't describe it.
>
>See . . . I told you it was very confusing and misleading.
>This guy fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
If an electrical engineer like myself, and someone who has been reading a lot about this stuff, gets scared about the "armor plating" in the Volt, then Mr and Mrs. Public is probably going to be scared. This armor plating is a very bad statement no matter how safe the battery is. If LiMn2O4 is safe, then why armor plate it?
LiMn2O4 will start to breakdown at about 250 degrees Celsius (about 482 degrees Fahrenheit). Smoke and fire can ensue after that. This is much safer than Lithium Cobalt batteries, but not safe enough for the extreme conditions that can happen in an auto accident. Sorry – I’m not putting my family in that. The LiFePO4 battery only starts to breakdown at 800 degrees Celsius (1472 degrees Fahrenheit). These 2 batteries are not in the same league when it comes to safety.
P.S. I read somewhere that the real reason why GM did not pick A123 and its LiFePO4 battery was because they didn't trust A123 to manufacture it in volume (there might have been some price issues here too). That seems like a more plausible answer than storing more energy and thermal dissipation. I calculated in a previous post that an A123 battery pack could fully fit under the back seat. And, there would be NO need for armor plating. Only some thermal management as LiFePO4 batteries run very cool compared to other batteries.
Like you, I appreciate yours and everyone else’s input.
The Internet is great! The Socratic method of approaching knowledge through debate is reborn here. In our hyper-sensitive politically-correct culture it long ago died a bitter death.
Sorry, cable TV, with its extremely short attention span, is not the Socratic method. It’s mostly just an exchange of buzz words and jabs.
Thanks for being here!
Thank you for the informative articles. You briefly mention super capacitors. What is your thought on the future of Maxwell Technologies (MXWL) in the automotive & storage sector.
On Apr 08 05:44 PM John Petersen wrote:
> jp17622, the flywheel companies Beacon and Active Power have the
> lead (along with supercapacitors) in the pure seconds category. Next
> on the speed list you'll find some of the Li-ion chemistries that
> can stand 10C or greater discharge rates for short periods. Both
> Altair and A123 have units out with utilities for those kinds of
> applications. In any event, it's an ultra-large playing field and
> there is room for a lot of teams to do very well.
www.technologyreview.c.../
Eestor and Maxwell and a couple of Science folks are officially in the game, It seems the Navy, Lockheed, and Darpa are developing a rail gun where this devices are a most,
Regards.
On Apr 09 08:58 PM John Petersen wrote:
> murph3637, supercapacitors are wonderful for storing big jolts of
> power and delivering it almost instantaneously, but they typically
> have no staying power and are discharged within a couple seconds.
> They're also very expensive in terms of cost per unit of stored energy.
> Overall, I've not seen a lot of automotive applications where it
> looks like supercapacitors will have a lot of utility, but there
> are a lot of smart folks who read these articles and perhaps one
> of them can contribute something more useful on this issue.
You're right., Regarding the SUV that Raser is supplying the drivetrain for. They are talking about 40 mile a day commuting on the battery. The 100 mpg is a clever way of stating that it gets 40 miles in electric mode.
My previous comment attempted to explain this,
but should have been worded differently.
"Note: the 100 mpg is for local driving, with overall higway mileage in the high 20s"
At least those who buy a large SUV, and then mosly use it for commuting and shopping, will be doing so in electric mode.
www.mckinseyquarterly....
With less than a month left to finalize a tie-up with Fiat SpA as a condition of additional aid from the U.S. government, Chrysler is plowing ahead with plans for a lineup of five extended-range electric and all-electric vehicles. Today the automaker announced that Massachusetts-based startup A123Systems — the runner-up to supply GM’s Chevy Volt battery — will provide lithium-ion battery packs for electric versions of Chrysler’s Jeep Wrangler, Jeep Patriot, Town & Country minivan, as well as the Dodge Circuit EV and Chrysler 200C EV (pictured). Last year, Chrysler set a target of putting one model into production for North America in 2010 and three more by 2013.
Today’s announcement highlights differences in the strategies at Chrysler and General Motors as the two automakers endeavor to show progress on cleaner cars. A123 plans to build a plant in Michigan to make modules and battery packs for Chrysler’s vehicles using prismatic (as opposed to cylindrical) lithium-ion cells — a technology with which GM decided the startup had yet to gain much experience, as we explained in our post about why A123 lost the Volt battery deal.
Whereas GM plans to source lithium-ion cells from South Korea-based LG Chem, and then assemble packs with proprietary software and electronics in Michigan, Chrysler is handing off a larger chunk of development to A123. Back when GM announced its deal with LG Chem at the beginning of this year, Chevy Volt frontman Bob Lutz (who has since stepped down) took a jab at U.S. lawmakers for failing to provide support for energy storage R&D on par with the government backing enjoyed by battery developers in Japan and South Korea. Since then the landscape of aid has changed, with the stimulus package providing $2.4 billion in competitive grants for advanced vehicle battery technology development.
Earlier this year, A123 said it had requested $1.84 billion in direct loans from the U.S. Department of Energy to build a Michigan facility as part of its goal of producing (at several factories throughout the U.S.) enough lithium-ion batteries for 500,000 plug-ins or 5 million hybrid vehicles by 2013. Whether that loan comes through for A123 — one of more than 70 applicants seeking funds under the $25 billion DOE program — and whether Chrysler has the wherewithal to follow through on its ENVI plans remains to be seen.
There are twenty companies in the advanced battery market trying to have a go, Boston power is one of them, they all want government money, who would NOT try that, as they cannot get money for production facilities in the US outside of the government (A123 has tried).
I think the Gems are fine for what they are, but not as proof of anything related to lithium. It is impossible to prove the negative, there are no economically sold lithium powered fully electric autos at present to my knowledge.
Now Tesla may sell a few hundred at 100k apiece, Tesla use Lotus engine with Sanyo battery, Gem may sell 10k lead acid to public works departments, but the vast middle is an unproven economic case.
Now the interview I would like to see you do, is a drill down on department of energy pricing estimations for advanced lithium power from a variety of manufacturers measuring the kw hour comparisons. When that number hits the sweet spot then billions spent might not be wasted, just like JOhn Petersen has said repeatedly, no use to invest in lithium, guys.
So yes I understand the numbers of 50k plus gems sold to date, or the estimate that lithium is currently about 3x the price for mainstream adoption by department of energy analysis, or that hybrids are believed to have offered almost no profits, and only done ok for Toyota.
It is the public's billions, and I really don't like the government making company specific policies or designations. Back to the point on money, yes I put a great deal into the developing electric ecosystem, but I want the public money treated as only right to be applied to something obviously right, and in pure electric from A123 and Chrysler that is not obviously the case.
Chrysler may be gone in a few months, A123 may be leapfrogged by several technologies, what is government supposed to fund both of them for?
Also Dr. Cui from Stanford proved to be a genius, his Sil based battery will improve the performance by a factor of 100 times, so now you have an EV with a range of 5,000 after 2h full charge, also if you use MIT technology, you ca charge the 12MWh battery in 2-5 minutes, so you basically see the revolution which coming and beckoning at us.
Free america from mideast Oil!
I would like someone to build a serial hybrid pickup truck using a portion of the truck bed to store 12 Oasis batteries from Firefly Energy. Although the battery pack would weigh 800-900 lbs, it would probably cost the auto company $1000--a guess--and the vehicle would still qualify for a $7500 tax credit.
www.dailymail.co.uk/ho...
www.meridian-int-res.c...
The best we can hope for is that they leave it alone. Will EV and ZEV technology EVER be an affordable, realistic option for the majority of Americans if the Gov't intervenes with subsidies, laws, and restrictions?
No. Like a scientist fudging his own experiment, the very act of government intervention guarantees the deal will get queered. And the only problem li-ion has is a matter of scale. As the lightest metal in existence (and therefore the greatest energy/weight ratio), the usage of lithium in batteries is an inevitability.
Scientist from South Korea designed a new cathode which provides a capacity >500 mAh/g at an average voltag of 3.94V. Here are the links in Korean:
www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0104...
news.joins.com/article...
www.edaily.co.kr/News/...
anyone can translate it?
((((((( University faculty members depend on grants to fund their research projects, but Stanford's Yi Cui, an assistant professor of materials science and engineering, just got a larger-than-usual grant: $10 million from a Saudi university.
He will begin hiring students and staff for his lab in McCullough Building when the grant begins in May, figuring out how to spend $10 million.
"The money will allow me to explore a lot of exciting ideas which are not otherwise possible," Cui said. "Very crazy ideas but potentially very high impact projects that could change the whole world if successful."
Cui, 32, specializes in nanotechnology.
The $10 million grant is from the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia, which is in the process of being built.
Both Stanford and UC-Berkeley have established ties to help recruit world-class faculty members. Stanford will advise KAUST on hiring faculty and creating curricula in mathematics and computer science.
Cui is one of a dozen scientists internationally chosen by KAUST as "global research partnership investigators" who will be expected to spend between three weeks and three months a year on the new Saudi campus once it is built.
Others selected were from UC-Berkeley, MIT, Penn State, the Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Oxford, University of Tokyo, University of Cambridge, Chalmers Institute of Technology in Sweden, University of Toronto and the University of Rome.
Cui was in the news recently for his work on producing rechargeable batteries for laptops and iPods that would hold a charge much longer than current batteries.
Cui is a native of Guangxi Province in China, holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry from the University of Science and Technology in China and a doctorate in chemistry from Harvard. He was recently named an "outstanding young investigator" by the U.S. Office of Naval Research.)))))))
Here are some typical responses:
I think Saudi Arabia is getting concerned that their “light sweet crude” (the cheap, easy to get out of the ground kind) has peaked and is on the downslope. They keep that information secret, so you never know how much oil they really have underground.
It’s not too surprising that a Saudi Arabia university is giving out grants for things like Dr. Cui’s research on silicon nanowire batteries. The Middle East oil countries are going to spend A LOT on solar R&D and solar power plants in the next few years. That’s very good news. I’m all for that. The more the better. Sure beats having them build a bunch of nuclear plants. Why would they need nuclear plants anyway with all that sun just waiting to be converted to electricity?
You can’t blame them for liking solar thermal and solar photovoltaic in the Middle East. They are sitting on ANOTHER gold mine of energy wealth that they could export to their neighbors. The Sahara desert will be a booming energy center in the future no doubt about it.
Desalination plants too … for more drinking water and crop irrigation. If it gets cheap enough, the deserts might be growing crops like they do along the Nile river someday. If they can’t grow regular crops, maybe they can grow lots of switchgrass in the desert for cellulosic ethanol to deal with corn ethanol causing problems with the food supply. Grow switchgrass and other energy crops on the marginal lands … not the prime crop land like in Iowa!
uk.reuters.com/article...
www.geotimes.org/apr08...
www.geotimes.org/apr08...
www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp...
Dr. Cui’s research on batteries could be applied to the wind and solar industries. There’s a big need for new energy storage and transmission technologies in general … cheaper high capacity batteries, ultracapacitors, superconductors, HVDC transmission lines, etc. Solar needs to be able to store energy so that it can feed the grid around the clock after the sun goes down. Wind farms need to be able to store electricity because the wind tends to blow more at night and TOO much at times … which causes problems with supply meeting demand at the right times. Gotta transfer it long distances with low losses around the region too.
I kind of doubt that this Saudi Arabian university would have any claims on what any patents that might result from Dr. Cui’s research. They couldn’t bury his invention to protect their oil business I’m sure. They might get a little percentage of the royalties if other companies license Dr. Cui’s technology. Who knows?
I’d prefer than an American university or the US government give him the $10 million grant but I’m sure Dr. Cui would take it from whoever offers it. I personally just want to see him get VERY busy on his research and get it commercialized SOON if they come up with some revolutionary batteries. Batteries that have TEN times more capacity would be world changing alright.
Gotta admit, the oil sheik tycoons in the Middle East have more money than they know what to do with these days. $10 million is probably no big deal for them. They don’t have massive budget deficits and a national debt like our government does. The oil sheiks probably have every luxury product you can think of already. Maybe they figure they better invest in other energy related technologies instead of spending it all on frivolous luxuries that future generations of Saudis will resent them for. They already have big problems there with how the royal family lives vs. everyone else. It’s like feudal lords and peasant serfs really.
The Saudi royals “live large” compared to everyone else that’s for sure. They make J.R. Ewing’s lifestyle in that old TV show “Dallas” look pretty modest. I’m sure their houses outshine anything you’d see on MTV “Cribs”. On “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” there was this one 18 year old son of an oil sheik who gave Mariah Carey a $5 million dollar necklace just because he liked her. They live in a whole different world from the rest of us.
Investing in alternative energy technologies might be a way to reduce resentments for the price of oil if it keeps going up dramatically. OPEC knows America is totally addicted to oil, so maybe they are trying keep us oil junkies from freaking out at them if they tell us someday that they really ARE on the fast downslope in their oil fields. Maybe the gas tank really IS running low … quarter tank maybe. Who knows, maybe the Saudis wouldn’t tell us if they thought the oil field “gas gauge” was already close to empty.
Addicts aren’t too happy when they are realize their supplies of drugs are running low. Al Gore said something on “TED” recently that is analogous to what the oil companies are doing now. He said they’re like drug dealer/junkies looking for veins between their toes and other places because they can’t do it in their arms anymore. America needs to go to rehab for oil addiction … no doubt about. At least these days America appears to be on step 1 in rehab and admitting we have a problem that is out of control
April 12th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
My first reaction was that the Saudis are taking care of their “mother lode”. A cooler head says that this guy’s research isn’t on the verge of reality and the beauty of EV technology is that its potential is almost limitless. This means that even if the Saudis “own” both Stanford and Cui, (both are ulikely to say the least) , they aren’t any closer than a Pluto shot at owning EV technology.
So should we be concerned? Of course we should and this is only good in every sense of the word. The reality is, as has been stated , the next breakthrough is anyone’s guess. Ultra caps? Non chemical energy storage? If either of these or any other unforeseen technologies come to be (and there will be many) , nanowires are obsolete out of the starting blocks.
The truth is that long after cars no longer burn oil at all, there will still be huge demands for petroleum based products. Like plastics, fertilizers, lubricants, etc. Saudi Arabia will continue to do just fine selling oil in a post-gasoline car world.
If only our government would promote battery research like we promote “freedom” the Saudi’s would not have the need to take the credit for fossil fuel independence. Dr. Yi’s discovery is only a beginning and to take a laboratory experiment and scale it up to a real viable product will take a lot more than $10M. Expect at least 5-7 years and many more millions to get there. In the meantime there are good viable battery solutions already on the market if there becomes a market for Electric Vehicles or PHEV’s. Personally I feel that American car makers should be focusing on PHEV’s for the next 10 years.
If only our government would promote battery research like we promote “freedom” the Saudi’s would not have the need to take the credit for fossil fuel independence. Dr. Yi’s discovery is only a beginning and to take a laboratory experiment and scale it up to a real viable product will take a lot more than $10M. Expect at least 5-7 years and many more millions to get there. In the meantime there are good viable battery solutions already on the market if there becomes a market for Electric Vehicles or PHEV’s. Personally I feel that American car makers should be focusing on PHEV’s for the next 10 years.
SA work ethic has been destroyed, if it ever existed, by big oil bucks. Don’t worry about SA economic competition, only about the Wahabi poison they permit and encourage in the Muslim world. If we all survive the coming Iranian nuclear debacle, the hatred of Muslim fanatic ascetics will destroy their own societies.
I love them and they are very strong.. but that test surprized me alot!
Their choice of battery suppliers might be a simple business decision - LG Compact Power might have better service and bigger production facilities.
And arguing that there should be a user upgradeable battery to upgrade with new technology makes zero sense in a car. This is not an MP3 player. Do you think current cars should have an upgradeable engine? My 1990 pushrod powered car doesn't have an upgrade option to a more modern DOHC. Man those car companies are so stupid.
Executive pay in America is out of line with their contribution to the company and society. The finance industry is a poster child of this excess. Those guys think they are master of the universe when in reality they were master of destruction.
Cylinders also waste a ton of space and it is more difficult to keep them uniformly at efficient temperatures. In addition to wasting space, the open space around the cells lead to issues with structural stability. Stacking flat plates pretty much only have 1 shear plane.
Less space, fewer materials to contain and maintain the cells. This seems like an obvious choice from an engineering standpoint.
Cylinders have a high volume compared to its surface area. This fact makes for low heat dissipation.
Rectangular prisms have a low volume to its surface area. This fact makes for high heat dissipation, especially as they become thinner and wider.
As to why A123 did not switch to making flat cells, it would require them to engineer a whole new production plant. They probably have existing contracts with the round shape, and did not have the time or capital to build a new facility from the ground up. The high volume to surface area also allows for more electricity storing chemical and less casing.
Chrysler, run by private equity house Cerberus [CBS.UL], is scheduled for a public demonstration of its battery-powered car for the first time on Tuesday, the paper said.
Watertown, Massachusetts-based A123 Systems, which is competing to supply lithium-ion batteries for General Motors Corp's (GM.N) all-electric Chevy Volt, had filed for a $175 million initial public offering in August.
A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the company "has nothing to announce at this time" about suppliers for its electric car while a spokesman for A123 could not be reached, the paper said.
Chrysler and A123 Systems could not be immediately reached for comment by Reuters.
Most of the rumors in recent months have indicated that LG Chem/CPI have the upper hand and are likely to be chosen by General Motors to supply the lithium ion battery packs for the Chevrolet Volt. However, there are plenty of electric drive vehicle projects out there and just because A123 systems may not get the Volt business, it doesn't mean they are completely out. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Massachusetts based battery maker may be in the running to supply energy storage systems to Chrysler for that companies ER-EV. During a nationwide video conference today with dealers today, Chrysler is expected to show a preview of the challenger it is developing to the Volt. ABG asked Chrysler about attending the video conference which will be held in 100 movie theaters around the country but was told the event was for dealers only. However, a spokesman told ABG that we would see the new ER-EV "very, very soon." We'll be watching to see if the tortoise can come from behind and beat the hare, even though the long-eared one hasn't been napping of late.
Most of the rumors in recent months have indicated that LG Chem/CPI have the upper hand and are likely to be chosen by General Motors to supply the lithium ion battery packs for the Chevrolet Volt. However, there are plenty of electric drive vehicle projects out there and just because A123 systems may not get the Volt business, it doesn't mean they are completely out. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Massachusetts based battery maker may be in the running to supply energy storage systems to Chrysler for that companies ER-EV. During a nationwide video conference today with dealers today, Chrysler is expected to show a preview of the challenger it is developing to the Volt. ABG asked Chrysler about attending the video conference which will be held in 100 movie theaters around the country but was told the event was for dealers only. However, a spokesman told ABG that we would see the new ER-EV "very, very soon." We'll be watching to see if the tortoise can come from behind and beat the hare, even though the long-eared one hasn't been napping of late.
Chrysler, which now depends on trucks, sport-utility vehicles and minivans for 75% of its sales, is scheduled to demonstrate its battery-powered car for the first time in public Tuesday.
A123, Watertown, Mass., is a seven-year-old company vying to break into the nascent market for lithium-ion battery packs for automobiles. A123 is in the running to supply batteries for the Chevrolet Volt, the electric car General Motors Corp. is developing.
A deal to supply Chrysler would give a boost to A123's business ahead of a planned initial public stock offering. It registered for the offering in August.
A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the company "has nothing to announce at this time" about suppliers for its electric car. An A123 spokesman declined to comment, noting the company is in a quiet period because of its registration for an IPO.
Chrysler has been keeping its work on electric cars under tight wraps. But in recent weeks, as GM's Volt drew heavy media attention, Chrysler management became concerned that the company was being left out of the increasing buzz about electric vehicles, people familiar with the matter said.
GM has poured millions of dollars into its Volt project and has hyped the car in television commercials, although it is still uncertain whether the batteries for the car will be available on time. The Volt is set for launch in late 2010.
Tuesday, Chrysler will also demonstrate the electric car in a presentation that will be broadcast to dealers across the country. The company is hoping to energize dealers who have been hit hard by the downturn in auto sales this year.
Chrysler, which was acquired a year ago by private-equity group Cerberus Capital Management LP, has been searching for partners to help it keep pace with GM and others in the race to launch high-tech cars that cut fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions.
The company had originally thought it might be able to have a working electric car by the spring, people familiar with the matter said. But with Chrysler burning cash and its sales falling, Cerberus has pushed the company to focus on cutting expenses, they said. The auto maker's sales have sagged this year as high gas prices spooked American consumers away from large vehicles like trucks and SUVs. Although Chief Executive Robert Nardelli has slashed costs and sold off assets, Chrysler is still on track to lose money this year.
Chrysler LLC, in a rush to develop new, fuel-efficient vehicles, is in advanced talks about using batteries made by A123 Systems Inc. in an electric car due to be launched by 2011, people familiar with the matter said.
Chrysler, which now depends on trucks, sport-utility vehicles and minivans for 75% of its sales, is scheduled to demonstrate its battery-powered car for the first time in public Tuesday.
A123, Watertown, Mass., is a seven-year-old company vying to break into the nascent market for lithium-ion battery packs for automobiles. A123 is in the running to supply batteries for the Chevrolet Volt, the electric car General Motors Corp. is developing.
A deal to supply Chrysler would give a boost to A123's business ahead of a planned initial public stock offering. It registered for the offering in August.
A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the company "has nothing to announce at this time" about suppliers for its electric car. An A123 spokesman declined to comment, noting the company is in a quiet period because of its registration for an IPO.
Chrysler has been keeping its work on electric cars under tight wraps. But in recent weeks, as GM's Volt drew heavy media attention, Chrysler management became concerned that the company was being left out of the increasing buzz about electric vehicles, people familiar with the matter said.
GM has poured millions of dollars into its Volt project and has hyped the car in television commercials, although it is still uncertain whether the batteries for the car will be available on time. The Volt is set for launch in late 2010.
Tuesday, Chrysler will also demonstrate the electric car in a presentation that will be broadcast to dealers across the country. The company is hoping to energize dealers who have been hit hard by the downturn in auto sales this year.
Chrysler, which was acquired a year ago by private-equity group Cerberus Capital Management LP, has been searching for partners to help it keep pace with GM and others in the race to launch high-tech cars that cut fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions.
The company had originally thought it might be able to have a working electric car by the spring, people familiar with the matter said. But with Chrysler burning cash and its sales falling, Cerberus has pushed the company to focus on cutting expenses, they said. The auto maker's sales have sagged this year as high gas prices spooked American consumers away from large vehicles like trucks and SUVs. Although Chief Executive Robert Nardelli has slashed costs and sold off assets, Chrysler is still on track to lose money this year.Chrysler LLC, in a rush to develop new, fuel-efficient vehicles, is in advanced talks about using batteries made by A123 Systems Inc. in an electric car due to be launched by 2011, people familiar with the matter said.
Chrysler, which now depends on trucks, sport-utility vehicles and minivans for 75% of its sales, is scheduled to demonstrate its battery-powered car for the first time in public Tuesday.
A123, Watertown, Mass., is a seven-year-old company vying to break into the nascent market for lithium-ion battery packs for automobiles. A123 is in the running to supply batteries for the Chevrolet Volt, the electric car General Motors Corp. is developing.
A deal to supply Chrysler would give a boost to A123's business ahead of a planned initial public stock offering. It registered for the offering in August.
A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the company "has nothing to announce at this time" about suppliers for its electric car. An A123 spokesman declined to comment, noting the company is in a quiet period because of its registration for an IPO.
Chrysler has been keeping its work on electric cars under tight wraps. But in recent weeks, as GM's Volt drew heavy media attention, Chrysler management became concerned that the company was being left out of the increasing buzz about electric vehicles, people familiar with the matter said.
GM has poured millions of dollars into its Volt project and has hyped the car in television commercials, although it is still uncertain whether the batteries for the car will be available on time. The Volt is set for launch in late 2010.
Tuesday, Chrysler will also demonstrate the electric car in a presentation that will be broadcast to dealers across the country. The company is hoping to energize dealers who have been hit hard by the downturn in auto sales this year.
Chrysler, which was acquired a year ago by private-equity group Cerberus Capital Management LP, has been searching for partners to help it keep pace with GM and others in the race to launch high-tech cars that cut fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions.
The company had originally thought it might be able to have a working electric car by the spring, people familiar with the matter said. But with Chrysler burning cash and its sales falling, Cerberus has pushed the company to focus on cutting expenses, they said. The auto maker's sales have sagged this year as high gas prices spooked American consumers away from large vehicles like trucks and SUVs. Although Chief Executive Robert Nardelli has slashed costs and sold off assets, Chrysler is still on track to lose money this year.
Chrysler LLC, in a rush to develop new, fuel-efficient vehicles, is in advanced talks about using batteries made by A123 Systems Inc. in an electric car due to be launched by 2011, people familiar with the matter said.
Chrysler, which now depends on trucks, sport-utility vehicles and minivans for 75% of its sales, is scheduled to demonstrate its battery-powered car for the first time in public Tuesday.
A123, Watertown, Mass., is a seven-year-old company vying to break into the nascent market for lithium-ion battery packs for automobiles. A123 is in the running to supply batteries for the Chevrolet Volt, the electric car General Motors Corp. is developing.
A deal to supply Chrysler would give a boost to A123's business ahead of a planned initial public stock offering. It registered for the offering in August.
A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the company "has nothing to announce at this time" about suppliers for its electric car. An A123 spokesman declined to comment, noting the company is in a quiet period because of its registration for an IPO.
Chrysler has been keeping its work on electric cars under tight wraps. But in recent weeks, as GM's Volt drew heavy media attention, Chrysler management became concerned that the company was being left out of the increasing buzz about electric vehicles, people familiar with the matter said.
GM has poured millions of dollars into its Volt project and has hyped the car in television commercials, although it is still uncertain whether the batteries for the car will be available on time. The Volt is set for launch in late 2010.
Tuesday, Chrysler will also demonstrate the electric car in a presentation that will be broadcast to dealers across the country. The company is hoping to energize dealers who have been hit hard by the downturn in auto sales this year.
Chrysler, which was acquired a year ago by private-equity group Cerberus Capital Management LP, has been searching for partners to help it keep pace with GM and others in the race to launch high-tech cars that cut fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions.
The company had originally thought it might be able to have a working electric car by the spring, people familiar with the matter said. But with Chrysler burning cash and its sales falling, Cerberus has pushed the company to focus on cutting expenses, they said. The auto maker's sales have sagged this year as high gas prices spooked American consumers away from large vehicles like trucks and SUVs. Although Chief Executive Robert Nardelli has slashed costs and sold off assets, Chrysler is still on track to lose money this year.
Chrysler'f in the company in August 2007, people familiar with the matter said.
Chrysler's
Chrysler has worked with A123Systems, both directly and through USCAR, for more than three years to improve the technology for automotive applications, said Lou Rhodes, Vice President-Advanced Vehicle Engineering and President of ENVI.
So the partnership isn't new, but this takes it to a whole new level... If Chrysler survives and finds the cash to keep developing its EVs.
Of course, part of the point of this partnership might be for Chrysler to be able to tell the US government: "See, we have a plan!"
But Will Chrysler Survive Long Enough to Make Electric Cars?
Chrysler and A123 Systems have signed an agreement: Chrysler will use "Nanophosphate lithium-ion prismatic cell" batteries from A123 in its ENVI Range-extended Electric Vehicles and battery-only Electric Vehicles (the three EV concepts are a Jeep, a minivan and a sports car).
But even if that works, how long will it take for those cars to come to market? In the short-term, bringing over smaller fuel-efficient cars from Fiat seems more promising. But who knows, maybe in ±5-10 years Chrysler will have re-invented itself and will be making great electric cars, and A123 seems like a perfect partner to help them do that (if the rest of the car is competitive, of course).
Chrysler to source next-gen EV batteries from A123 Systems
Chrysler may be lagging behind its cross-town rivals on hybrid vehicle technology, but the Michigan automaker has no plans to be left behind when it comes to electric and plug-in vehicles. As such, Chrysler announced on Monday that A123 Systems will be providing the next-generation lithium-ion batteries for its forthcoming electric vehicles.
A123’s batteries are based on the ‘lithium iron phosphate’ chemistry, which promises a number of significant advantages over traditional lithium batteries. For one, the batteries are able to endure 2000 deep cycles, which is double the capability of ‘lithium cobalt oxide’ batteries, which are common to consumer electronics and used in the Tesla Roadster. Moreover, the batteries can withstand rapid charging without damage, which means an electric car’s battery could be filled in as little as 10 minutes if a high-output plug is available.
A123 is also working on a version of its battery that could last for 8,000 deep cycles, which could equate to a useful lifespan of 1.6 million miles for an EV with a 200-mile battery pack. It’s worth pointing out that the lifespan is defined as the period of time battery is able to hold at least 80 percent of its original advertised capacity. So after 2,000 or 8,000 deep cycles the batter would not be garbage — it simply would hold 20 percent less energy than when it was new.
As part of the alliance, A123 will establish a new facility in Michigan for battery production. Earlier this year General Motors announced a similar deal with LG Chem to produce batteries for its upcoming Chevrolet Volt, making Michigan a hotbed for lithium-ion battery production. A123 also worked on GM’s Volt project.
“The most significant challenge to electric vehicles is battery technology,” said Frank Klegon,vice president of Chrysler’s product development. “The diligent selection of strategic partners like A123 Systems helps Chrysler achieve its leadership in electric-drive systems and vehicles.”
Officially dubbed Nanophosphate Lithium ion prismatic battery cells, Chrysler has yet to announce what vehicle the A123 batteries will debut in, but Chrysler hopes to have an electric vehicle in showrooms by 2010. Chrysler’s first EV will likely be based on the Dodge Circuit, but range-extending electric vehicles, such as the Chrysler 200C EV concept, likely won’t be far behind.
Tuesday, 07 April 2009
Back in January, A123 was disappointed when GM chose its rival, LG Chemicals, to manufacture lithium-ion batteries for the Chevy Volt. But this week they announced a deal with Chrysler, which means that they will finally get to make batteries for EVs and not just power tools (not that I’ve got anything against greener power tools).
That is, of course, as long as Chrysler survives long enough. Chrysler is kind of like the last kid to get picked for dodgeball right now – they are in deep financial trouble. Last week President Obama wagged a finger in their direction and suggested they seek a merger with Fiat to save them from fading away entirely.
But if they do manage to pull through, Chrysler will be a great partner for A123. Chrysler is planning a number of electric vehicles, such as the Dodge Circuit and the 200C – all electric EVs – as well as plug-in hybrid versions of the Jeep Wrangler and the Town & Country minivan.
A123, if you recall, makes batteries that are flat, rather than cylindrical like many of their competitors. This allows the batteries to fit under the car, taking up less space, but it also reduces the energy density that they can hold. In other words, A123’s batteries might allow a car to look sleeker, but they would need to prove themselves in the performance category.
A123 also wants to build a huge battery factor in Michigan – big enough to make millions of plug in hybrids over the next few years. They have applied for grants, since about $25 billion of stimulus money has been set aside for electric vehicle research and development.
The previous eco-geek article you linked to is about A123 not getting picked because they made cylindrical batteries versus LG's flat batteries; as such, "A123, if you recall, makes batteries that are flat, rather than cylindrical" is wrong.
Also, I believe you meant "batteries" not "cars:" "which means that they will finally get to make cars for EVs."
What’s kind of interesting about this story is that it seems to be more about A123 than Chrysler. Electric vehicles are and will be all about the batteries inside of them, so this is A123’s chance to show the world whether its unconventional batteries are as good as they claim, or just a f
fuck Andrew. This blog has little credibility, it is litte more than an advertisement farm. This blog does the green movement a disservice.
Chrysler said A123 will supply the lithium-ion batteries for the company’s ENVI unit developing extended-range, gas-electric cars and its all-electric cars.
A123Systems, a spinout of research from MIT, said it would produce the batteries at a new facility in Michigan. In January, the company applied for $1.84 billion from the Department of Energy to build the factory.
S. Navy has burned Somalia into the West's consciousness as a base for lawlessness and terror, but the hostage crisis illuminates a potentially dangerous picture confronting a far greater area.
Much of the Horn of Africa, which is made up of six countries covering roughly half the area of the United States, is beset by a rare set of disadvantages that makes it ripe for chaos. Poverty, hunger, corruption and lawlessness has made the region a haven not only for pirates, but for arms smugglers and Islamic insurgents.
"The situation in the Horn is the most explosive on the continent," said Francois Grignon, head of the Africa program for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group think tank.
A123 was in the running for a battery contract for General Motors’ Chevrolet Volt, but GM picked LG Chem of South Korea.
No direct ties between pirates, terror groups
U.S. officials have found no direct ties between East African pirates and terrorist groups. But piracy is believed to be backed by an international network that runs from the Horn of Africa to as far as North America. It is made up primarily of Somali expatriates who offer funds, equipment and information in exchange for a cut of the ransoms, according to researchers, officials and members of the racket. With help from the network, Somali pirates brought in at least $80 million last year.
Ethnic Somalis are the common denominator in the Horn of Africa, and their large presence in neighboring countries has long been a source of conflict. In the mid-1970s, then Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre advocated expanding the country's borders to unite all Somali-speaking people in Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti.
Despite Somalia's disastrous and short-lived invasion of Ethiopia in 1977 and political anarchy since 1992, Somali nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists still advocate this Greater Somalia. An ethnic-Somali insurgency continues in eastern Ethiopia. And many Somalis were angered when Ethiopia sent troops at the request of Somalia's weak transitional government to oust Islamists who controlled the capital at the end of 2006 and were expanding their influence.
The Islamists' ascent was marked by a dramatic decline in piracy. The Ethiopians withdrew in January as part of an intricate U.N.-mediated peace deal.
Analysts are warning that the increasingly brazen piracy and its toll on shipping companies is going to lead to higher prices for commodities headed to the West. In addition, more than 10 percent of the world's petroleum supply is shipped past Somalia and into Gulf of Aden, the shortest route between Asia and Europe.
Pottengal Mukundan, director of the International Maritime Bureau in London, said piracy is now becoming a global issue because the pirates are targeting foreign ships farther afield from Somalia, in part to avoid international naval forces stationed in the Gulf of Aden
The 2009 Detroit Auto Show gave EV-Motoring.com its first look at BYD's Fe, or Ferrous battery technology (also called lithium ion-iron phosphate). The three vehicles BYD showed in Detroit were all fitted with Fe battery arrays. BYD has shown several of the company's eight models at other major motor shows, including Beijing and Geneva. The F3DM and F6DM are conventional single-mode hybrids that utilize a hybrid system similar in concept to that used in a Ford Escape Hybrid or Toyota Prius. However, these models also incorporate plug-in recharging capabilities.
China's BYD is among the largest producers of batteries in the world. They produce cells for laptops, phones... the works. It stands to reason that this 130,000-employee entity knows something about batteries. The company has a technology research center that employees 11,000, many of whom are engineers focused on the future of battery development and manufacturing.
BYD Chairman and President Wang Chuanfu stressed the quick-charge nature of their Fe batteries. When zapped with their special charging unit, batteries can gain a 50-percent charge in only ten minutes, and a full charge in just one hour. Overnight charging to 100-percent capacity using 110-volts requires 7.5 hours.
BYD also claimed that their new Fe batteries were capable of 2000 charge cycles, and had excellent durability. Batteries create voltage based on internal chemistry, and knowledge of this particular iron mix has been around for years. Sometimes called the Super-Iron battery, the chemistry is related to other lithium cells. The benefits of the BYD Fe design is that the materials it can use for its cells cost less and are more readily recyclable than competitive batteries using materials such as cobalt.
According to BYD, the cells are also safe in regards to crash testing and extreme heat loads. Both of these characteristics are important for battery electric vehicles (BEV) and hybrids because these vehicles carry hundreds of individual cells packed together in multi-cell arrays.
BYD just started selling the F3DM plug-in for approximately $22,000 in China. The compact sedan is based on the F3, a gas-only powered car BYD has had on the market in China for several years. To our eyes, the display example looked like a Toyota Corolla from 15 years ago built by a disgruntled union work force from Detroit. (Panel gaps were inconsistent and the overall level of finish was well behind the current curve.) None of BYD's products are currently for sale, or even certified for sale in the U.S.
BYD began selling cars in its home market in 2003, and has 3,000 engineers devoted to their automotive development team. If the e6 is any indication, expect BYD's design acumen and level of finish to improve rapidly.
The e6 was easily the company's best looking model at their Detroit stand. It is a pure electric crossover. BYD estimates a range of 249 miles and has a claimed top speed of 100 mph. In terms of style, the small wagon/van reminded us of the original Honda Odyssey or of the tall wagons of the late 1980s.
Detailed specifications were not available from the BYD stand during the Detroit show, and the language barrier made it difficult to learn more about the number of Fe cells or the motors used to create the e6's claimed 268 horsepower. Considering that the vehicle's overall length is just 179.3 inches, about the length of a Chevy Cobalt, the e6's curb weight of 4453 lbs. indicates that there are lots of individual batteries stored under the sheet metal.
Among many other hurdles, BYD will need to overcome American's general fear and mistrust of Chinese products given the recent episodes of lead-laced paint on children's toys and poisoned toothpaste. However, BYD's efforts at Detroit demand respect and attention. This is a powerhouse of a company with great potential. While they're not selling in the U.S. yet, it won't be long before they are.
One of the main reasons for investors to understand this possible development is to put future oil prices in perspective. I have said that the price of oil could be $300 in 2012, which is a surprise to some people. Well, that’s only three times the current price. If we can get cars in 2012 that will go 4 - 6 times as far on the same gallon of gas, what is the big deal about gas costing possibly $6 per gallon? Here is the story as reported in USA Today.
The prototype Escape plug-in has the smoothest hybrid drivetrain of any yet reveiwed in Test Drive. Ford says drivers could go about 30 miles on a fully charged battery without using any gas or emitting any exhaust.
Ford Motor via Wieck
30 MILES FOR JUST $1.04
Electricity for residential use averages 10.4 cents a kilowatt-hour across the USA, according to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Gasoline averages about $3 a gallon, according to travel organization AAA.
The battery pack in the Escape PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle) holds 10 kilowatt-hours. So it’s $1.04 to recharge a depleted battery (hypothetically, because the vehicle won’t let the battery completely run down). Ford says you could go 30 in-town miles with a full battery and a light foot.
A gasoline car able to eke out 30 mpg in town would cost its driver $3 to go that far.
Thus: a buck of electricity vs. three bucks of petroleum for the same distance.
The price of electricity varies widely, averaging from about 5 cents to about 21 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending on where you live, EIA says. Even at 21 cents, the fuel costs still favor the plug-in: $2.10 for electricity vs. $3 for gasoline.
Once a PHEV depletes its charge and needs its gasoline engine to supply power, the energy cost balance begins to change. If you were to routinely drive the Toyota Prius PHEV prototype well beyond its 7-mile battery range, or the Ford Escape PHEV prototype beyond its 30-mile battery range, your relative savings and the vehicle’s fuel economy diminish.
And if electricity prices soar, or gasoline prices tumble, the cost formula changes.
Automakers are moving fast to determine whether plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can be put onto the market affordably.
PHEVs can up to triple fuel mileage in short trips, and recharging costs less than gas to go the same distance. It appears that plug-ins cut tailpipe emissions more than enough to make up for any pollution caused by the plants that generate the electricity to charge them.
Win-win-win.
"I’ll take two," you say. Hold on, sport. Plug-ins require costly additional battery capacity and plug-in rechargers. Regular gas-electric hybrids can’t be plugged in and don’t have capacity to run battery-only.
Automakers are uncertain how much costlier plug-in hybrids would be over normal hybrids, which, in turn, cost at least $2,000 more than gasoline vehicles.
Still, it’s intriguing enough and possible enough to take plug-ins seriously and to drive ‘em if you got ‘em.
Test Drive examined a prototype Toyota (TM) Prius plug-in hybrid last Friday. This time we’ll look at a prototype version of Ford Motor’s (F) Escape SUV plug-in hybrid.
The Escape plug-in hybrid, on display at the auto show in Washington, D.C., this week, is rolling into service at Southern California Edison, where some will go to individuals to measure results in ordinary driving.
Before delivering it to the show, Ford engineers gave USA TODAY wheel time in the front-drive prototype.
Short take: excellent mileage, extraordinarily smooth integration of gasoline and electric powerplants. Escape’s aging design hobbles the package overall, but it’s likely to be redesigned by the time a plug-in hybrid version would be available.
Ford, Toyota, General Motors (GM) and others developing plug-ins won’t yet vouch for the reliability of the lithium-ion batteries probably needed for practical PHEVs. They hope furious development brings long-life, low-cost lithium batteries soon — 2010 or so.
The idea of PHEVs is to run on battery power as long as possible before hailing the gasoline engine for help, with no gas use or tailpipe emissions for that time.
Here’s what you probably want to know first about the Escape PHEV: 55 miles per gallon, according to Ford engineers’ on-board computer.
That was in 23 miles of snowy suburban driving that included rolling hills, hard acceleration and slick-street wheel spin just for the fun of it. And here’s a nugget: Escape’s traction control actually allows some wheel spin, which is good on many surfaces. Too often today’s traction systems in nanny vehicles don’t.
Ford’s Greg Frenette, chief engineer for plug-in and fuel-cell vehicles, says up to 120 mpg in town is reasonable in flatter, moderate driving. He forecasts 70 to 80 mpg on the highway, where the gas engine works more, and 30 miles of light driving up to 40 mph on a charged battery alone.
The prototype Toyota Prius PHEV reviewed last Friday showed 71.3 mpg on its trip computer in a downtown Detroit loop and a freeway spurt. It has twice the battery of a normal Prius, but it uses some to boost power, so it goes about 7 battery-only miles.
Escape PHEV has five times the battery and uses it all for extended range, which is how it hits 30 miles.
In search of real-world results, no special restraint was exercised driving, so results were worse than the automakers’ theoretical maximums. Ford, notably, seems to have nearly erased the shudder common in hybrids when the gasoline engine joins the party. "Our engineers worked very hard on that," Frenette says.
The transition among electric-only, electric-and-gas and gas-only modes was undetectable in the test — up there with the $105,000 Lexus LS 600h L hybrid.
The Escape PHEV’s battery is bigger and weighs more than the current Escape hybrid battery. Thus, there’s slower acceleration.
Frenette says the goal is a production PHEV with the same capacity and capability as the regular hybrid.
Otherwise, the Escape PHEV was pretty much an Escape hybrid. And the hybrid seems the smoothest and most pleasant of the entire Escape line.
The prototype’s brakes didn’t have the feel of an anchor tossed overboard that you get from most hybrids’ regenerative braking systems, which recharge the batteries as the vehicle slows. Its signature on most hybrids is a sudden scrubbing of speed when you release the throttle and more when you press the brake.
The Escape interior’s been redone for 2008, an upgrade only partly successful. Some controls operate more smoothly, and the ‘08 is quieter. But the rear seats don’t slide, as they do in rivals Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4. The dash tries too hard to be dressy.
Upholstery is made of recycled plastic that looks and feels better than you’d think.
The exterior got cosmetic tweaks it didn’t need and you don’t want, such as a garish, faux-chrome grille.
Based on drives in the Prius and Escape prototypes, PHEVs should attract plenty of buyers if they actually make it into production — and are affordable. Cautions Frenette: "These big batteries are expensive."
ABOUT THE FORD ESCAPE PLUG-IN HYBRID
•What is it? Plug-in version of the Escape compact SUV gasoline-electric hybrid. Has five times as much battery capacity and hardware as the current Escape hybrid to recharge the battery from a standard household outlet.
•What’s the point? Minimize fuel consumption by using battery-only power as long as possible before the gasoline engine kicks in.
•How soon? It’s a prototype. If tests are positive, it could be on the market in five years.
•How much? It’s unclear how much the bigger battery and charging hardware would boost the price. Today’s normal Escape hybrid starts at $27,170.
•What’s the drivetrain? Same as a non-plug-in Escape hybrid, but with a 10-kilowatt-hour battery vs. 2-kilowatt-hour battery. Has 2.3-liter gasoline engine rated 133 horsepower at 6,000 rpm, 124 pounds-feet of torque at 4,250 rpm, mated to an electric motor rated 94 hp, driving through continuously variable automatic transmission.
•What’s the rest? Features, furnishings are similar to normal Escape hybrid, which can be found at forddirect.com.
•How big? Typical small SUV: 174.7 inches long, 71.1 inches wide (81.3 inches including mirrors), 67.7 inches tall on a 103.1-inch wheelbase. Weight is listed as 3,900 pounds, about 260 more than non-plug-in Escape hybrid. Ford expects to cut that by 45 pounds.
Prototype has slightly less cargo space than the production hybrid because the battery is bigger, but Ford says the production plug-in would have the same cargo and passenger space as a non-plug-in. Turning circle diameter is listed as 36.7 feet, curb-to-curb.
•How thirsty? Ford claims up to 120 miles per gallon in city driving, 70 to 80 mpg on the highway.
Ford says that careful drivers could stay on battery-only power up to 40 mph for the first 30 miles, using no gasoline. After that, the vehicle becomes a conventional gasoline-electric hybrid.
2008 Escape hybrid is rated 34 mpg in town, 30 mpg on the highway, 32 in combined driving (front-wheel drive) and 29/27/28 (all-wheel drive); 2009 models get a different engine, but Ford hasn’t forecast mileage ratings.
The experimental trip computer was faulty in the FWD prototype test vehicle. Ford says a separate computer in the vehicle showed 55 mpg for the test — 23 brisk, suburban miles on snow-slick, wheel-spin-inviting streets.
•Overall: Smoothest hybrid drivetrain yet tested; excellent mileage. Can Ford bring it to market at the right price
More on this topic (What's this?)
Crude Oil Prices Stabilizing as Dollar Relationship becomes More Solid (Forex Trading Blog, 4/3/09)
Oil Rebounds (Contrarian Profits, 4/1/09)
“The Great Red Oil War” (Kurdistan and African Oil) — Crisis Trader (Stock Gumshoe, 4/1/09)
Read more on Gasoline Prices, Oil Prices at Wikinvest
Tags: energy investments
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm and is filed under electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Print This Post
1 RESPONSE SO FAR ↓
1 Hybrid Ninja // Jun 6, 2008 at 11:06 am
I would be curious to see if Ford makes a kit to retrofit the previous models with the PHEV technology. That is IF it goes into production.
LEAVE A COMMENT
Two weeks ago while attending The Road to Sustainability conference sponsored by the Ford Motor Company at the North Carolina State University in Raleigh, I test drove the all new Ford Fusion Hybrid. Also making an appearance was a special Ford Escape PHEV (Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle) with my local energy company’s logo (among others) painted on it.
Ford Partners With Energy Companies To Test PHEV Technology
This special version of the Escape Hybrid was developed by Ford and its partners to begin testing the technology which should take the Escape to the next level by providing improved fuel economy exceeding 100 mpg. Ford recently partnered with several energy companies including Progress Energy to introduce PHEV technology to the public, hence the Escape PHEV.
Naturally, I shared my interest in the customized Escape with Rob Caldwell, Vice President of Efficiency and Innovative Technology for Progress Energy, who drove the Escape PHEV to the event. Scott Sutton, Senior Communications Specialist for the company followed up with me last week, arranging to have Mike Waters, Product Developer Efficiency & Innovative Technology, meet me in front of the new Raleigh Convention Center to take the PHEV for a spin.
Larger Battery Pack Than Standard Escape Hybrid
Before we set out, Mike showed me the lithium-ion battery pack which sits in the rear tire storage area of the PHEV. It is larger than the current pack found in the standard Escape Hybrid, allowing the PHEV to fully recharge in 5-10 hours when plugged into a standard electrical outlet. Under the hood, is the Escape’s 2.5 L I4 DOHC 16-valve Atkinson cycle engine, electric motor and power electronics box, the same arrangement you’d fine in the standard Escape Hybrid.
Just like any hybrid, the Escape PHEV started without a whisper. Before engaging the transmission, we reviewed the now lit dashboard gauges and what Ford calls the Hybrid Energy Flow Display, the latter offering vital information for your trip including overall miles to the gallon. That screen can easily become an obsession especially if you’re trying to squeeze out more miles to the gallon via electric only power. In many cases the engine will not kick on for as long as you stay below 40 mpg, meaning you’ll get closer to the 100 mpg threshold that drivers seek.
Gas Engine Gives Way To Electric Solitude
Heading out, we did a lengthy loop which took us out toward I-40 and back around to Peace College before returning to the convention center. Almost immediately the engine kicked in as we ascended a small bridge and as I all too naturally wanted more power than what the battery could produce. Staying above 40 mph for a few minutes, we finished our trip in slower, congested traffic, which meant that we quietly moved around on electric only power.
While driving, I casually stole a few glances at the flow display every now and then, pleased to see that our mpg was increasing steadily. When we pulled up at the convention center the verdict was in: we achieved 94.2 mpg for our twenty minute jaunt around downtown Raleigh!
What’s Coming Down The Pike
The Ford Escape PHEV is an excellent representation of emerging technology, just the type of vehicle that many automotive manufacturers will be producing in the coming years with a big push taking place beginning in 2010. Ford, Nissan, General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai among others have each committed to building PHEV and/or pure electric vehicles, and if China’s BYD Automotive can figure out how to build crashworthy cars, then it may introduce its fleet of all-electric vehicles to the United States as early as next year.
By the way, if you already own a Ford Escape Hybrid there are aftermarket kits available to help you convert to an Escape PHEV now. One company that does conversions for the Ford F-150 is featured in the section which follows.
Related Reading:
Ford Pushing Its PHEV Via Electric Companies
41 MPG Claim For F-150 Hybrid!
Photo Credit: Ford Motor Company
Special Thanks: Progress Energy
Share and Enjoy:
1 vote
Buzz up!
Tags: Ford, Ford Escape, Ford Escape PHEV, Ford Motor Company, Ford PHEV, Honda FCX Clarity, hybrid conversion, Hybrid Energy Flow Display, NC State, North Carolina State University, PHEV, Plugin Electric Hybrid Vehicle, Progress Energy, pure electric vehicles, Raleigh, Raleigh Convention Center
Comments
6 Comments on First Drive: Ford Escape PHEV
Sports Car Advisors on Wed, 8th Apr 2009 8:48 am
Great coverage of this emerging technology. I always wonder though if plug-in electric cars will actually reduce carbon emissions given that they still draw energy off the electric grid which at some point is produced by a power plant. I have yet to find an authoritative source that explains the savings in carbon footprint from electric cars.
This Ford though seems to be a pretty cool concept and I look forward to seeing more hybrid and electrics on the road - if nothing else b/c they are a bit more quiet.
Sports Car Advisorss last blog post..BMW Art Cars in New York City
MattK on Wed, 8th Apr 2009 8:54 am
Thanks, Sports Cars.
There will always be some sort of emissions derived from hybrids and even pure electric vehicles as they get their power from the grid. Because the grid uses coal, oil and other energy sources, then it is at that point in the process when there will be some emissions released.
Definitely, the Escape PHEV was quiet as it silently moved around Raleigh. Even when the four cylinder engine kicked in, sound deadening materials minimized that noise, making for a pleasant drive all around.
Trackbacks
The Auto Writer - MyBlogLog
Your page is now on StumbleUpon!
First Drive: Ford Escape PHEV - Mixx
keegan.matt's Friends on Faves
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Name (required)
Email Address (required)
Comments for this post will be closed on 6 August 2009.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
The Ford Escape Hybrid uses a Series-Parallel powertrain similar to the Toyota Prius. Canadian company Hymotion intends to offer PHEV conversion kits for the Prius and Escape Hybrids, initially to fleets.
WikiPedia:Ford Escape Hybrid
groups.yahoo.com/group...
groups.yahoo.com/group...
groups.yahoo.com/group...
Net Power 93 hp 71 hp 110 hp 98 hp
Engine Type aluminum double overhead cam (DOHC) 16-valve Atkinson cycle inline 4-cylinder
Engine Power 133 hp @ 6000 rpm
Engine Torque 129 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Motor Type Permanent magnet AC synchronous motor
Motor Power 94 hp (70kW) @ 3000 - 5000 rpm
Engine/Motor Combined Power 155 hp
Net Torque 105 lb.-ft 89 lb.-ft NA NA
Motor Torque 87 lb.-ft 295 lb.-ft. 258 lb.-ft.
Electric Motor Voltage 330 V
Gasoline Engine Displacement 2.3 L 4cyl CVT
Battery Pack 330v (250 cells in 50 modules with 5 cylindrical cells each).
[edit] News
2006.06.12 - Ecological Reserve Benefits from Hybrid SUV
2006.06.09 - Ford at Bibendum Challenge
2006.06.08 - Hybrid Taxi National Tour Kicks Off in Chicago
2006.06.05 - Ford Escape Hybrid Presentation to City of Chicago
As a PHEV, this Escape can accelerate up to 40 mph solely on electric power at a fairly aggressive rate without need for the internal combustion engine. Hold a steady 40 mph and the electric drive is more than happy to maintain this momentum on its own. Above 40 mph or during hard acceleration, the Escape's Atkinson cycle four-cylinder engine kicks in to provide extra power as needed. Even then, the PHEV Escape uses very little gasoline because it has also been modified to be a flex-fuel vehicle with the ability to operate on E85 ethanol. fhf ahd
For a 30 mile trip in average driving conditions, Ford says the Escape PHEV will deliver the equivalent of 120 mpg. The longer you drive before recharging, the lower the mpg number will be, but thanks to the Escape Hybrid's 15 gallon fuel tank the vehicle isn't range-limited for cross-country travel. If your daily commute falls within that 30 mile range, 120 mpg will cut your fuel bill drastically. And since electric power is far less expensive than gasoline for low speed travel, overall energy costs will be a fraction of what you would normally pay.
The Escape PHEV's center LCD communications screen clearly illustrates the difference. On the trip computer screen, a driver can enter the current price of gasoline and the going rate for a kilowatt hour (kW/hrs) of electricity. The system then keeps a running tab of your total energy consumption and the savings achieved by the use of electric power. It also provides current average fuel economy, the previous average, and previous best economy.
Ford is using an advanced technology Li-ion HV battery with a capacity of 10 kW/hrs. The standard Escape Hybrid utilizes a 2 kW/hr nickel-metal-hydride battery pack. The Li-ion battery technology is too expensive for prime time consumer automotive applications at this stage of development, but breakthroughs in design and chemistry - along with higher volume applications - should bring costs down in the future. To recharge the Li-ion battery, a standard electrical cord is simply plugged into the port on the driver's side front fender. It's pretty cool, too, surrounded by a ring of blue LED lights with a flip-open billet aluminum door. A full charge will take six to eight hours at 110 volts. The percentage of charge shows up on a blue LED readout mounted behind the inside rearview mirror so it can be easily checked from the front of the vehicle
Ford has a unique two year partnership with Southern California Edison that will eventually field a total of 20 Escape PHEVs in a study and demonstration fleet. The utility company will aid in a study on the electrification of automobile powertrains and how they impact the electric grid and power infrastructure. SCE and Ford will test the vehicles in typical consumer settings and real world applications jointly.
Will plug-ins make it to consumers' driveways in the next few years? Only time will tell. Battery breakthroughs are definitely needed to reduce costs, although new federal incentives should help defray those extra costs. Several automakers are also committing to plug-in hybrids in specific time frames to gain a market advantage, a move that will spur competition among automakers and certainly work toward speeding these vehicles to the showroom.
Technology Review that discusses the technical reasons for the A123 - Chrysler alliance. It's a worthwhile read for anyone that wants to better understand the industry dynamics and the technical advantages of Li-FePO4 chemistry.
technologyreview.c.../ Apr 10 05:11 AM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
Advill58 CommentsFollow
In my point of view is like cold fusion if real will change the world and forget batteries any kind of, if not game as usual.
Eestor and Maxwell and a couple of Science folks are officially in the game, It seems the Navy, Lockheed, and Darpa are developing a rail gun where this devices are a most,
Regards.
murph3637, supercapacitors are wonderful for storing big jolts of
> power and delivering it almost instantaneously, but they typically
> have no staying power and are discharged within a couple seconds.
> They're also very expensive in terms of cost per unit of stored energy.
> Overall, I've not seen a lot of automotive applications where it
> looks like supercapacitors will have a lot of utility, but there
> are a lot of smart folks who read these articles and perhaps one
> of them can contribute something more useful on this issue. Apr 10 01:34 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
You're right., Regarding the SUV that Raser is supplying the drivetrain for. They are talking about 40 mile a day commuting on the battery. The 100 mpg is a clever way of stating that it gets 40 miles in electric mode.
My previous comment attempted to explain this,
but should have been worded differently.
"Note: the 100 mpg is for local driving, with overall higway mileage in the high 20s"
At least those who buy a large SUV, and then mosly use it for commuting and shopping, will be doing so in electric mode.
Apr 10 01:37 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
John Petersen646 CommentsInstablog
Website
Follow
frflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cells
I am currently working in a small startup company and see no future at all. I also know folks at Boston-Power and get some info about A123. The CEOs of both companies have managed well despite the heavy influence of VCs, but unfortunately, that is NOT enough. In the case of Boston-Power, they can't make money from laptop batteries and business unsustainable, as for A123, they risk losing Dewalt and they are bleeding money heavily.
I visited Doug Korthof in Dec, 2007 and this gentleman is really fascinated by NiMH battery, unfortunately EV is NOT realistic in mid-term future, whether NiMH or Li-ion.
With two BEVs and a PHEV in the pipeline over the next three years, Ford is partnering up with utility companies in multiple states to expedite development of an operational charging grid.
Ford, who has already formed a three-year partnership with Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in development of its PHEV program, is currently performing real-world testing on the Escape PHEV. EPRI will provide financial and logistical support for studies related to the advanced PHEV technology, while it was recently announced that Johnson Controls-Saft will develop and produce the advanced lithium-ion battery used in the new vehicle. The batteries will be produced in France and assembled in the United States with a target annual production of 5,000 units starting in 2012. Ford said that the Escape PHEV will be chargeable from a standard household electrical outlet (120 volts) and will fully charge in six to eight hours. On a full charge, the Escape PHEV will attain the equivalent of 120 miles per gallon over the first 30 miles of traveling.
In addition to the PHEV program, Ford has previously announced that it will introduce its first BEV in the United States in 2010 in the form of a commercial-use only vehicle, most likely the Ford Transit Connect van. Everyday consumers will have to wait until the following year to get behind the wheel of a what will likely be the EV version of the 2011 Ford Focus. Ford is also conducting real-world tests to measure regional differences (most likely for temperature variances, atmospheric changes, etc.) and the impact on both the electrical grids and the vehicles.
The future EVs and PHEVs that Ford plans to introduce will only solidify the company as a leader in advanced hybrid and electric technologies following the success of the hybrid versions of Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner, as well as the current introduction of the 41-mpg Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan hybrids. Ford still understands that it must work with battery suppliers, utility companies and the government to create an affordable and viable technology that is safer to the environment and less dependent on fossil fuels.
The U.S. Department of Energy has just made Ford's efforts to expand, develop and demonstrate its Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle expertise a bit easier by anteing-up a $10 million grant. That newfound support will cover roughly half of FoMoCo's projected out-of-pocket cost for this undertaking. Currently, the automaker is evaluating a test fleet of 20 Escape PHEVs in California, Michigan and Washington D.C. in conjunction with Southern California Edison, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), DTE Energy Services and Johnson Controls/Saft.
Several key elements set the Escape PHEV apart from a production Escape Hybrid. While both are fitted with a 2.3-liter/133-horsepower four-cylinder gasoline engine, the PHEV uses a much larger 10 kilowatt-hour/280-volt lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery in place of the normal Hybrid's two kilowatt-hour/300-volt nickel-metal hydride (Ni-MH) unit to power its 94-horsepower motor. This change gives the PHEV an electric-only range of up to 30 miles when speeds are held below 40 mph. The latest v
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A tornado killed a woman and her 9-week-old infant and also injured dozens Friday in central Tennessee as a line of storms lifted homes, ripped off roofs and dumped hail in the Southeast.
Elsewhere, a tornado touched down in southwestern Kentucky, injuring two people and destroying homes. A possible tornado was reported in northeast Alabama. And large hail began falling in several North Carolina counties.
At least 41 people were hurt in Rutherford County, Tenn., four of them critically, in the aftermath of a storm system that killed three in western Arkansas a day earlier.
Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here
"I think we're right in the middle of tornado alley these days," said Dan Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department.
Dispatchers at the Rutherford County Emergency Management Agency said the area was "heavily impacted" after several eyewitness reports of a tornado on the ground around 12:30 p.m.
In Murfreesboro, 30 miles southeast of Nashville, at least three dozen homes were destroyed.
Baby was in a car seat
Kori Bryant, in her mid-20s, and 9-week-old Olivia Bryant were identified as the dead. They apparently were trying to get in a car — both were found outside, and the infant was in a car seat, rescue official Randy White said.
"They were found outside of the residence," rescue official Randy White said. "It looked like they were trying to get to the car. The infant was in a car seat."
Amy Jones, 32, was at work at State Farm Insurance when she heard that her house had been leveled. She was stunned when she got to the scene and saw that the 1,800-square-foot home with a garage was lifted completely off the foundation and dropped on her neighbor's home.
"My house is on top of someone else's house. It's surreal," Jones said.
Joe Spencer, 23, a student at Middle Tennessee State University, said he had only moments to react but survived a direct hit on his house.
"I was going to open the door to see what was going on and I looked straight at a tornado," Spencer said.
CLICK FOR RELATED CONTENT
FirstPerson: At the scene? Help us report
He yelled at his brother to take shelter in one of the home's bathrooms and then ran to the other, jumping into the bathtub while holding his dog, LLoyd.
"The bathtub started shaking, and I just tried to grab ahold to anything I could. I grabbed the nozzle and turned on the water," Spencer said. Hours later, he was still wet up to his knees.
Spencer, his brother and dog were shaken but uninjured. Outside, the storm's power was apparent. The roof over the living room of the house was gone and the rest of the roof was caved in.
Video
Tornado-proof house
April 10: Builders in Greensburg, Kan., dropped a car 65 feet onto a newly designed storm-proof home to demonstrate its durability. KSNW's Aja Vickers reports.
NBC News Channel
Friday afternoon, search teams fanned out across Murfreesboro, a city of about 100,500, looking for anyone trapped in homes. Clyde Atkinson, spokesman for the Murfreesboro Police Department, said he believes there were three to five touchdowns mostly in the northern and western parts of the city.
A grocery store evacuated customers into a cooler until the storm passed.
Roofs were ripped away from at least a dozen homes, and some trees were blown down. A bulldozer was clearing tree limbs and other debris from streets.
Several homes were emblazoned with a spray-painted "c," indicating emergency crews had checked them.
Thousands of utility customers lost power. Gov. Phil Bredesen, Deputy Gov. John Morgan, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., and other officials are scheduled to tour the affected areas Saturday in Rutherford County by helicopter and on the ground.
Kentucky twister
In Kentucky, State Trooper Stu Recke said one person suffered a broken hip and leg while the other suffered a broken ankle. Both were taken to a hospital for treatment, Recke said.MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A tornado killed a woman and her 9-week-old infant and also injured dozens Friday in central Tennessee as a line of storms lifted homes, ripped off roofs and dumped hail in the Southeast.
Elsewhere, a tornado touched down in southwestern Kentucky, injuring two people and destroying homes. A possible tornado was reported in northeast Alabama. And large hail began falling in several North Carolina counties.
At least 41 people were hurt in Rutherford County, Tenn., four of them critically, in the aftermath of a storm system that killed three in western Arkansas a day earlier.
Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here
"I think we're right in the middle of tornado alley these days," said Dan Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department.
Dispatchers at the Rutherford County Emergency Management Agency said the area was "heavily impacted" after several eyewitness reports of a tornado on the ground around 12:30 p.m.
In Murfreesboro, 30 miles southeast of Nashville, at least three dozen homes were destroyed.
Baby was in a car seat
Kori Bryant, in her mid-20s, and 9-week-old Olivia Bryant were identified as the dead. They apparently were trying to get in a car — both were found outside, and the infant was in a car seat, rescue official Randy White said.
"They were found outside of the residence," rescue official Randy White said. "It looked like they were trying to get to the car. The infant was in a car seat."
Amy Jones, 32, was at work at State Farm Insurance when she heard that her house had been leveled. She was stunned when she got to the scene and saw that the 1,800-square-foot home with a garage was lifted completely off the foundation and dropped on her neighbor's home.
"My house is on top of someone else's house. It's surreal," Jones said.
Joe Spencer, 23, a student at Middle Tennessee State University, said he had only moments to react but survived a direct hit on his house.
"I was going to open the door to see what was going on and I looked straight at a tornado," Spencer said.
CLICK FOR RELATED CONTENT
FirstPerson: At the scene? Help us report
He yelled at his brother to take shelter in one of the home's bathrooms and then ran to the other, jumping into the bathtub while holding his dog, LLoyd.
"The bathtub started shaking, and I just tried to grab ahold to anything I could. I grabbed the nozzle and turned on the water," Spencer said. Hours later, he was still wet up to his knees.
Spencer, his brother and dog were shaken but uninjured. Outside, the storm's power was apparent. The roof over the living room of the house was gone and the rest of the roof was caved in.
Video
Tornado-proof house
April 10: Builders in Greensburg, Kan., dropped a car 65 feet onto a newly designed storm-proof home to demonstrate its durability. KSNW's Aja Vickers reports.
NBC News Channel
Friday afternoon, search teams fanned out across Murfreesboro, a city of about 100,500, looking for anyone trapped in homes. Clyde Atkinson, spokesman for the Murfreesboro Police Department, said he believes there were three to five touchdowns mostly in the northern and western parts of the city.
A grocery store evacuated customers into a cooler until the storm passed.
Roofs were ripped away from at least a dozen homes, and some trees were blown down. A bulldozer was clearing tree limbs and other debris from streets.
Several homes were emblazoned with a spray-painted "c," indicating emergency crews had checked them.
Thousands of utility customers lost power. Gov. Phil Bredesen, Deputy Gov. John Morgan, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., and other officials are scheduled to tour the affected areas Saturday in Rutherford County by helicopter and on the ground.
Kentucky twister
In Kentucky, State Trooper Stu Recke said one person suffered a broken hip and leg while the other suffered a broken ankle. Both were taken to a hospital for treatment, Recke said.MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A tornado killed a woman and her 9-week-old infant and also injured dozens Friday in central Tennessee as a line of storms lifted homes, ripped off roofs and dumped hail in the Southeast.
Elsewhere, a tornado touched down in southwestern Kentucky, injuring two people and destroying homes. A possible tornado was reported in northeast Alabama. And large hail began falling in several North Carolina counties.
At least 41 people were hurt in Rutherford County, Tenn., four of them critically, in the aftermath of a storm system that killed three in western Arkansas a day earlier.
Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here
"I think we're right in the middle of tornado alley these days," said Dan Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department.
Dispatchers at the Rutherford County Emergency Management Agency said the area was "heavily impacted" after several eyewitness reports of a tornado on the ground around 12:30 p.m.
In Murfreesboro, 30 miles southeast of Nashville, at least three dozen homes were destroyed.
Baby was in a car seat
Kori Bryant, in her mid-20s, and 9-week-old Olivia Bryant were identified as the dead. They apparently were trying to get in a car — both were found outside, and the infant was in a car seat, rescue official Randy White said.
"They were found outside of the residence," rescue official Randy White said. "It looked like they were trying to get to the car. The infant was in a car seat."
Amy Jones, 32, was at work at State Farm Insurance when she heard that her house had been leveled. She was stunned when she got to the scene and saw that the 1,800-square-foot home with a garage was lifted completely off the foundation and dropped on her neighbor's home.
"My house is on top of someone else's house. It's surreal," Jones said.
Joe Spencer, 23, a student at Middle Tennessee State University, said he had only moments to react but survived a direct hit on his house.
"I was going to open the door to see what was going on and I looked straight at a tornado," Spencer said.
CLICK FOR RELATED CONTENT
FirstPerson: At the scene? Help us report
He yelled at his brother to take shelter in one of the home's bathrooms and then ran to the other, jumping into the bathtub while holding his dog, LLoyd.
"The bathtub started shaking, and I just tried to grab ahold to anything I could. I grabbed the nozzle and turned on the water," Spencer said. Hours later, he was still wet up to his knees.
Spencer, his brother and dog were shaken but uninjured. Outside, the storm's power was apparent. The roof over the living room of the house was gone and the rest of the roof was caved in.
Video
Tornado-proof house
April 10: Builders in Greensburg, Kan., dropped a car 65 feet onto a newly designed storm-proof home to demonstrate its durability. KSNW's Aja Vickers reports.
NBC News Channel
Friday afternoon, search teams fanned out across Murfreesboro, a city of about 100,500, looking for anyone trapped in homes. Clyde Atkinson, spokesman for the Murfreesboro Police Department, said he believes there were three to five touchdowns mostly in the northern and western parts of the city.
A grocery store evacuated customers into a cooler until the storm passed.
Roofs were ripped away from at least a dozen homes, and some trees were blown down. A bulldozer was clearing tree limbs and other debris from streets.
Several homes were emblazoned with a spray-painted "c," indicating emergency crews had checked them.
Thousands of utility customers lost power. Gov. Phil Bredesen, Deputy Gov. John Morgan, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., and other officials are scheduled to tour the affected areas Saturday in Rutherford County by helicopter and on the ground.
Kentucky twister
In Kentucky, State Trooper Stu Recke said one person suffered a broken hip and leg while the other suffered a broken ankle. Both were taken to a hospital for treatment, Recke said.MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A tornado killed a woman and her 9-week-old infant and also injured dozens Friday in central Tennessee as a line of storms lifted homes, ripped off roofs and dumped hail in the Southeast.
Elsewhere, a tornado touched down in southwestern Kentucky, injuring two people and destroying homes. A possible tornado was reported in northeast Alabama. And large hail began falling in several North Carolina counties.
At least 41 people were hurt in Rutherford County, Tenn., four of them critically, in the aftermath of a storm system that killed three in western Arkansas a day earlier.
Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here
"I think we're right in the middle of tornado alley these days," said Dan Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department.
Dispatchers at the Rutherford County Emergency Management Agency said the area was "heavily impacted" after several eyewitness reports of a tornado on the ground around 12:30 p.m.
In Murfreesboro, 30 miles southeast of Nashville, at least three dozen homes were destroyed.
Baby was in a car seat
Kori Bryant, in her mid-20s, and 9-week-old Olivia Bryant were identified as the dead. They apparently were trying to get in a car — both were found outside, and the infant was in a car seat, rescue official Randy White said.
"They were found outside of the residence," rescue official Randy White said. "It looked like they were trying to get to the car. The infant was in a car seat."
Amy Jones, 32, was at work at State Farm Insurance when she heard that her house had been leveled. She was stunned when she got to the scene and saw that the 1,800-square-foot home with a garage was lifted completely off the foundation and dropped on her neighbor's home.
"My house is on top of someone else's house. It's surreal," Jones said.
Joe Spencer, 23, a student at Middle Tennessee State University, said he had only moments to react but survived a direct hit on his house.
"I was going to open the door to see what was going on and I looked straight at a tornado," Spencer said.
CLICK FOR RELATED CONTENT
FirstPerson: At the scene? Help us report
He yelled at his brother to take shelter in one of the home's bathrooms and then ran to the other, jumping into the bathtub while holding his dog, LLoyd.
"The bathtub started shaking, and I just tried to grab ahold to anything I could. I grabbed the nozzle and turned on the water," Spencer said. Hours later, he was still wet up to his knees.
Spencer, his brother and dog were shaken but uninjured. Outside, the storm's power was apparent. The roof over the living room of the house was gone and the rest of the roof was caved in.
Video
Tornado-proof house
April 10: Builders in Greensburg, Kan., dropped a car 65 feet onto a newly designed storm-proof home to demonstrate its durability. KSNW's Aja Vickers reports.
NBC News Channel
Friday afternoon, search teams fanned out across Murfreesboro, a city of about 100,500, looking for anyone trapped in homes. Clyde Atkinson, spokesman for the Murfreesboro Police Department, said he believes there were three to five touchdowns mostly in the northern and western parts of the city.
A grocery store evacuated customers into a cooler until the storm passed.
Roofs were ripped away from at least a dozen homes, and some trees were blown down. A bulldozer was clearing tree limbs and other debris from streets.
Several homes were emblazoned with a spray-painted "c," indicating emergency crews had checked them.
Thousands of utility customers lost power. Gov. Phil Bredesen, Deputy Gov. John Morgan, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., and other officials are scheduled to tour the affected areas Saturday in Rutherford County by helicopter and on the ground.
Kentucky twister
In Kentucky, State Trooper Stu Recke said one person suffered a broken hip and leg while the other suffered a broken ankle. Both were taken to a hospital for treatment, Recke said.ersions of the Escape PHEV are E85-capable and Ford estimates that they use only about 20 percent as much fuel and reduce CO2 emissions by 60 percent compared to a conventional gasoline-only counterpart, a figure that would drop by 90 percent if the PHEV was run on cellulosic ethanol. Nancy Gioia, director of Ford's Sustainable Mobility Technologies and Hybrid Vehicle Programs, sees the plug-in hybrid/flex fuel nexus as being a vital link in America's transportation future. "Our ultimate goal is to create plug-in vehicles that can be mass produced and meaningfully contribute to our nation's energy security," she said.
Like other automakers that have signed on with the EPRI alliance, Ford is also exploring the potential impact Escape PHEV and any other of its future plug-ins will have on the electrical infrastructure. Teaming with Southern California Edison, it's looking at a range of possibilities to optimize not only the basic recharging process -- which will be done using normal 110V current -- but at ways to minimize strain on the system, right down to recycling spare on-board energy from the battery pack back into the grid if electrical demands become particularly acute.
By: Jeffrey N. Ross, Autotropolis Editor
Two weeks ago while attending The Road to Sustainability conference sponsored by the Ford Motor Company at the North Carolina State University in Raleigh, I test drove the all new Ford Fusion Hybrid. Also making an appearance was a special Ford Escape PHEV (Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle) with my local energy company’s logo (among others) painted on it.
Ford Partners With Energy Companies To Test PHEV Technology
This special version of the Escape Hybrid was developed by Ford and its partners to begin testing the technology which should take the Escape to the next level by providing improved fuel economy exceeding 100 mpg. Ford recently partnered with several energy companies including Progress Energy to introduce PHEV technology to the public, hence the Escape PHEV.
Naturally, I shared my interest in the customized Escape with Rob Caldwell, Vice President of Efficiency and Innovative Technology for Progress Energy, who drove the Escape PHEV to the event. Scott Sutton, Senior Communications Specialist for the company followed up with me last week, arranging to have Mike Waters, Product Developer Efficiency & Innovative Technology, meet me in front of the new Raleigh Convention Center to take the PHEV for a spin.
Larger Battery Pack Than Standard Escape Hybrid
Before we set out, Mike showed me the lithium-ion battery pack which sits in the rear tire storage area of the PHEV. It is larger than the current pack found in the standard Escape Hybrid, allowing the PHEV to fully recharge in 5-10 hours when plugged into a standard electrical outlet. Under the hood, is the Escape’s 2.5 L I4 DOHC 16-valve Atkinson cycle engine, electric motor and power electronics box, the same arrangement you’d fine in the standard Escape Hybrid.
Just like any hybrid, the Escape PHEV started without a whisper. Before engaging the transmission, we reviewed the now lit dashboard gauges and what Ford calls the Hybrid Energy Flow Display, the latter offering vital information for your trip including overall miles to the gallon. That screen can easily become an obsession especially if you’re trying to squeeze out more miles to the gallon via electric only power. In many cases the engine will not kick on for as long as you stay below 40 mpg, meaning you’ll get closer to the 100 mpg threshold that drivers seek.
Gas Engine Gives Way To Electric Solitude
Heading out, we did a lengthy loop which took us out toward I-40 and back around to Peace College before returning to the convention center. Almost immediately the engine kicked in as we ascended a small bridge and as I all too naturally wanted more power than what the battery could produce. Staying above 40 mph for a few minutes, we finished our trip in slower, congested traffic, which meant that we quietly moved around on electric only power.
While driving, I casually stole a few glances at the flow display every now and then, pleased to see that our mpg was increasing steadily. When we pulled up at the convention center the verdict was in: we achieved 94.2 mpg for our twenty minute jaunt around downtown Raleigh!
What’s Coming Down The Pike
The Ford Escape PHEV is an excellent representation of emerging technology, just the type of vehicle that many automotive manufacturers will be producing in the coming years with a big push taking place beginning in 2010. Ford, Nissan, General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai among others have each committed to building PHEV and/or pure electric vehicles, and if China’s BYD Automotive can figure out how to build crashworthy cars, then it may introduce its fleet of all-electric vehicles to the United States as early as next year.
By the way, if you already own a Ford Escape Hybrid there are aftermarket kits available to help you convert to an Escape PHEV now. One company that does conversions for the Ford F-150 is featured in the section which follows.
Related Reading:
rflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cells
Ford Pushing Its PHEV Via Electric Companies
41 MPG Claim For F-150 Hybrid!
Photo Credit: Ford Motor Company
Special Thanks: Progress Energy
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls has any chance of being successful. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Startup companies do not have mass manufacturing capability, and it takes years to ramp up the production and improve the quality.
2). Startup companies get pushed too much by VCs, so they are NOT focused (working with BAE, next day GE, then Think!, then GM, then Chrysler, blah blah, do you notice that the Japanese are working in a one-to-one relation?) and do not have a long-term relation with any major auto companies (Chrysler-A123 seems to be a scheme get $ from Obama)
3). Japanese are way ahead of the game and already lock up many important aspects of the business, such as separator supplier, electrolyte and most important Li deposit.
4). Most of them are focused on EV/PHEV battery, let me tell you this: They are too expensive, and one major step in manufacturing is labor intensive (formation cycle) and inefficient, also sorting good ones from the bad will dramatically increase cost due to disqualification of many cellsrflyer, one of my favorite pet projects at Axion is their system to convert pick-ups, SUVs and vans from gas guzzlers to EV-50s for something in the $10,000 range. It's a low-profile project right now while they work out the details and develop government support, but it makes a world of sense and meshes well with the plan Andy Grove laid out last year in McKinsey Quarterly:
mckinseyquarterly.... Apr 10 03:26 PM|Report abuse|Link|Reply00
musik19925 CommentsFollow
In my humble opinion, no America based company other than Johnson Controls h