Why Advanced Lead-Acid Batteries Will Dominate HEV Markets 112 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
My last article, "The Obama Fast Track for HEVs" graphically highlighted some critical cost issues that I've been writing about for several months and was surprisingly popular with readers. After responding to numerous comments and considering the gaps in that article, I believe a follow-on article is appropriate to provide additional color, put a finer point on the differences between advanced lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries and try to relate those differences to the rapidly evolving HEV markets.
As I explained last week and in a November 2008 article titled "Alternative Energy Storage; Lithium, Lead or Both?" micro hybrid, mild hybrid and full hybrid vehicles [HEVs] are classified as "power applications." They use relatively small battery packs to:
- Stop and start the internal combustion engine [ICE] when the vehicle stops and starts;
- Provide moderate amounts of power to launch the vehicle from a stop and improve acceleration;
- Recover all or part of the energy that is normally lost in braking to recharge the batteries; and
- Power accessories like heat and air conditioning while the ICE is off.
Micro, mild and full hybrids need a battery pack that can accept a fast charge over a brief braking interval, deliver that stored electricity over a brief acceleration interval and repeat the process hundreds of thousands of times over the life of the vehicle.
In comparison, plug-in hybrids [PHEVs] are classified as "energy applications." They use much larger battery packs to:
- Power the vehicle in electric-only mode for a distance of 10 to 40 miles before starting the ICE;
- Recover all or part of the energy that is normally lost in braking to recharge the batteries;
- Stop and start the ICE when the vehicle stops and starts; and
- Power accessories like heat and air conditioning while the ICE is off.
Since power is rarely an issue in larger battery packs, the critical requirement for PHEVs is a battery pack that can deliver substantially all of its stored energy over the time required to drive 10 to 40 miles and repeat that process once or twice a day for the life of the vehicle.
Weight and Volume
Most people find that battery comparisons based on energy densities are confusing because they use metric measurement terms and do not provide a meaningful context for the raw numbers. The following table is my effort to re-state the most common energy density values in familiar weight and volume terms. My goal is to show what energy density actually means to the owner of an HEV. For purposes of the table, I used energy densities of 30 Wh/kg and 50 Wh/l for advanced lead-acid batteries and 100 Wh/kg and 150 Wh/l for lithium-ion batteries as my starting point. I then did the necessary conversions and calculated the weight and volume advantage of lithium-ion batteries for each of the principal HEV configurations.
| Fuel | Battery | Li-ion Weight | Li-ion Volume | |
| Savings | Capacity | Advantage | Advantage | |
| Micro Hybrid | 10% | 0.50 kWh | 26 Pounds | 0.2 Cubic Feet |
| Mild Hybrid | 20% | 1.00 kWh | 51 Pounds | 0.5 Cubic Feet |
| Full Hybrid | 40% | 1.50 kWh | 77 Pounds | 0.7 Cubic Feet |
| PHEV-10 | 55% | 5.00 kWh | 257 Pounds | 2.4 Cubic Feet |
| PHEV-40 | 100% | 16.00 kWh | 821 Pounds | 7.5 Cubic Feet |
For reference, a subcompact will typically weigh 3,000 pounds and have 10 to 12 cubic feet of trunk space.
Battery Cost
In a July 2008 report on its Solar Energy Grid Integration Systems – Energy Storage (SEGIS-ES) program, Sandia National Laboratories estimated the current cost of advanced lead-acid batteries at $500 per kWh and the current cost of lithium-ion batteries at $1,333 per kWh. I'm aware of PR claims and forward looking statements that suggest lithium-ion battery costs may be lower, but I've not been able to confirm lower prices based on published price lists from first tier manufacturers or quantify the meaning of terms like significant and substantial. So while I'm not entirely comfortable that the Sandia values are right, I've not been able to find other numbers that I think are better. The following table compares the estimated cost of using advanced lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries in each of the principal HEV configurations.
| Battery | Li-ion | Advanced | Federal | Advanced | |
| Capacity | Battery | Lead-acid Battery | Tax | Lead-acid Battery | |
| (kWh) | Cost | Cost | Credits | Cost Advantage | |
| Micro Hybrid | 0.50 | $667 | $250 | $417 | |
| Mild Hybrid | 1.00 | $1,333 | $500 | $833 | |
| Full Hybrid | 1.50 | $2,000 | $750 | $1,250 | |
| PHEV-10 | 5.00 | $6,665 | $2,500 | ($2,500) | $4,165 |
| PHEV-40 | 16.00 | $21,328 | $8,000 | ($7,500) | $13,328 |
Total Vehicle Cost
For most American consumers, I believe the most important number will be the incremental cost of an HEV over a comparable car with an ICE powertrain. The following table compares the estimated cost premium for each of the principal HEV configurations using advanced lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries.
| Fuel Savings | Basic ICE Vehicle Cost | HEV Premium Using Advanced Lead-acid Batteries | HEV Premium Using Li-ion Batteries | |
| Micro-Hybrid | 10% | $18,000 | $750 | $1,167 |
| Mild-Hybrid | 20% | $18,000 | $1,500 | $2,333 |
| Full-Hybrid | 40% | $18,000 | $2,250 | $3,500 |
| PHEV-10 | 55% | $18,000 | $2,000 | $6,165 |
| PHEV-40 | 100% | $18,000 | $2,500 | $15,828 |
The following graph summarizes the same basic information in a slightly different format.
(click to enlarge)
Market Forecast
Global market forecasts for HEVs vary widely and are evolving rapidly in response to new laws and regulations. In an October 2008 AW Briefing on "The Global Oil Paradox: Transforming the Automotive Industry," Anil Valsan of Frost & Sullivan presented a slideshow that included two highly informative graphs.
The first graph showed three growth scenarios for the global HEV market. At the time, the biggest unknown was the automobile industry’s response to EU legislation that requires manufacturers to reduce average CO2 emissions from the current level of 160 g/km to 120 g/km by 2012. Eight months later, it’s clear that the industry response has been a concerted effort to standardize micro and mild hybrid technologies throughout Europe. As I noted last week, the Obama administration has recently decided to accelerate CAFE standards by five years. That change can only serve to increase the rate of standardization for micro and mild hybrid technologies. Under current conditions, it looks like Frost & Sullivan’s “optimistic” view from last October will probably fall well short of the emerging reality.
(click to enlarge)
The second graph showed Frost & Sullivan's forecast of HEV sales through 2015 and confirmed my oft repeated argument that cars with plugs will not be a material segment of the HEV market for the foreseeable future and the major business opportunity is in micro, mild and full HEVs.
(click to enlarge)
In combination, the regulatory changes from Brussels and Washington DC have fundamentally altered market dynamics in the HEV sector and increased the critical importance of five facts.
- 1.Aggressive CO2 emission standards will increase the rate of HEV standardization in the EU;
2.Acceleration of CAFE standards will increase the rate of HEV standardization in the US;
3.The EU standards will be implemented before most proposed lithium-ion battery plants can be built;
4. Since adequate supplies of lithium-ion batteries will not be available during the 2009 to 2012 EU phase-in window, most major automobile manufacturers will turn to advanced lead-acid batteries for a substantial portion of their micro, mild and full hybrid product lines; and
5. Once advanced lead-acid batteries earn the first mover advantage in Europe, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for lithium-ion batteries to overcome an entrenched and cheaper alternative.
I have consistently argued that budget conscious consumers would prefer cheap lead-acid batteries to smaller, lighter and more expensive lithium-ion batteries, particularly for HEV applications. The timing of the new EU regulations has put automakers in a position where they can’t afford to wait for “the battery of tomorrow.” Instead they have to go to work immediately and meet the CO2 emission standards with batteries they can buy today from established manufacturers. Under those circumstances, I’m convinced that advanced lead-acid batteries will dominate the HEV markets until a clearly superior battery technology is developed.
The market dynamic may change over the long-term if PHEVs become a dominant hybrid configuration. It may also be impacted by future changes in the relative price advantage of advanced lead-acid batteries. For the foreseeable future, however, I believe the lion's share of the revenue gains from the HEV revolution will flow to companies like Johnson Controls (JCI), Enersys (ENS), Exide (XIDE) and C&D Technologies (CHP) that have substantial existing manufacturing capacity in both Europe and the US, and from technology driven newcomers like Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) that can rapidly and inexpensively expand their production capacity to satisfy soaring demand from the HEV market.
DISCLOSURE: Author is a former director and executive officer of Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and holds a large long position in its stock. He also holds small long positions in Exide (XIDE) and Enersys (ENS).
Related Articles
|
This article has 112 comments:
The time you put into these articles is most appreciated.
I feel that the public will not embrace the new technology until it hurts so bad (financially) or until all of their friends have taken the leap. At that time they might feel that they have no choice.
There is an ironic twist to alternate energy that your articles always illuminate: Those who argue that human economic activity, in energy production and use, must be subordinated to their idea of a perfect sustainable energy world ignore the fact that the exact activity that would be required to bring about their ideal will necessarily be a (temporary) increase in the reviled activities. To produce the critical metals and materials for batteries of any type, and wind generators of any type, and the obviously necessary nuclear power plants, of any type, to wean the world from burning fossil fuels will require, in our time, a large increase in the burning of fossil fuels to get the energy necessary to build the technologies to supplant the burning of fossil fuels for energy.
I don't think that the average person comprehends just how close in time we are from the changeover from burning wood for energy to burning coal for energy. The next step for the production of the massive increase of demand for energy already under way in the twenty-first century is obviously nuclear-there is no other way in the short term to satisfy the huge increase in demand for the production of electricity by the conversion of heat energy.
I think that politicians may be the most practical of men and women today. They simply lie while undertaking the necessary at the same time as paying lip service to what is nice.
There is no question but that you are correct that the next big step in the electrification of motor vehilces will be through the use of lead-acid battery technology, becasue the politicians, perhaps seeing a danger in waiting, have decided not to give western industry any time to breakout from the economic deadend they have reached in "advanced" battery development.
I still believe that the majority of the electrification will be done with lead-acid battery technology and that nickel-metal hydride batteries will be used for a small but significant number of vehicles with increased performance, the numbers of which are strictly limited by the rate of production of the rare earth metals, and that lithium-ion technologies will be relegated to niche markets by their price not just by the limited rate of production of lithium.
The numbers don't lie; it is the proponents of simple solutions through non-existent technologies, who are ignoing the limitations both economic and material, of technology, who are lieing to themselves and to us.
I wanted to also make a comment about the advancement of Advanced Lead-acid batteries and would appreciate any insight you might wish to share. Clearly there is a kind of competition between Advanced Lead-acid batteries and Li-ion batteries, but only in certain applications since I believe we can accept the premise that there are certain applications where there is little dispute over which battery type is most suitable. Many comments to your articles mention the potential for a decrease in production costs for the Li-ion battery, though proof of this remains to be seen. Very possible, but not yet realized in a very substantial way. However, in the meantime during the last couple of years or so Lead-acid battery makers have gotten off their static behinds and have started breathing life back into their R&D departments, thus, the modifier "Advanced" in Advanced Lead-acid batteries, for example.
As you have pointed out, the real competition is for the HEV industry where you make the argument that Advanced Lead-acid batteries have the advantage primarily through cost savings. I only wish to add that this competition has just begun and I agree with you that Advanced Lead-acid batteries are already in a more favorable position. That position may be insurmountable given the continued advancements in the Lead-acid battery, not to mention working in conjunction with other technology. Can you mention a little about what advancements have taken place with Lead-acid batteries and what may be in the works for the near future?
Finally, though it might be impossible to do at this time, do you envision writing an article examining the grant proposals submitted by the major battery makers in conjunction with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 once they have been made public? I think that would fascinating.
Thanks in advance and I apologize for being so long winded.
1) A standard lead-acid battery takes up to eight hours to fully charge. Axion's battery can be charged in 20 percent of that time, it says. My math would put that @ between 1.5 & 2 hours just to be fair.
Advanced Lithium-ion batteries have demonstrated rapid charging in less than 10 minutes - 20 minutes (to be fair) with the right charging equipment.
2) Axion lab prototypes have withstood more than 1,000 charge and deep discharge cycles, it claims. By comparison, most lead-acid batteries can only survive 300 to 500 deep discharge cycles.
Advanced Lithium - ion lab prototypes have withstood more than 2,500 charge and deep cycles and have been tested by govt. labs.
3) Axion claims building batteries with longer lifespans should translate into lower total lifecycle costs, which is how the company rationalizes the 1.7 to 1.8 x premium it plans to charge over similar batteries.
Advanced Lithium-ion already has priced into it's technology a life cycle 2.5 x that of Axion's "claims". You can do the math here and see whether Axion is truly a less expensive alternative when you have to replace it two (or three times)? Remember when the Axion batteries die they are dead. When Advanced Lithium-ion reaches the end of its usefull life cycles for an EV it still has 80% of its original power left inside! Recycling is the ONLY option for the Axion battery while "Re-Purposing" is still available for the Advanced Lithium-ion battery.
I am not sophisticated enough with charts and graphs to know how to factor these equations into John's comparison charts - but maybe he or someone else here could take a stab at it and these could be re-posted either here or in a future article?
Source for research: cleantech.com/news/142...
Thanks,
Don Harmon
On May 31 12:47 PM Jack Lifton wrote:
The numbers don't lie; it is the proponents of simple solutions through non-existent technologies, who are ignoing the limitations both economic and material, of technology, who are lieing to themselves and to us.
Jack - If this statement refers to Advanced Lithium-ion technolgy as being "non-existent" then your hypocrisy knows no bounds! For the sake of humanity I will assume that you were excluding Lithium-ion and perhaps referring to some other form of power supply like Eestor maybe?
Regards,
Don Harmon
For a typical 15,000 mile/yr driver using $2.50/gal gas getting 40 mpg with readily available technology and using 5% cost of money, each 5 mpg improvement has to cost less than $2300 and that's with no additional fuel costs like $0.11/kWhr elec. charging. So the jump from a 40 mpg Corolla at $16,000 to a $21,000 Prius getting 50 mpg is really break even.
I see the suburban garage of the near future having an HEV Prius with hitch, small 300 lbs utility (1500 lbs capacity) trailer for weekend runs to the home improvement center, and a PEV scooter for in town commuting. Kind of a 1.5 vehicle household with the partial flexibility of an SUV.
You calculations on size are off too, as I showed in a previous post that a 19 kWh Lithium Iron Phosphate could fit under the back sear of most passenger cars.
It surprises me the amount of work and hours you invest (and share with us) we can be for or against some ideas but the effort is highly appreciatted. now......
"....The timing of the new EU regulations has put automakers in a position where they can’t afford to wait for “the battery of tomorrow.” Instead they have to go to work immediately and meet the CO2 emission standards with batteries they can buy today from established manufacturers".......
In the short and sismic moment car industry is living in US it seems probable that:
1. They will choose the cheapiest alternative
2. They will do whatever Obama says, independently they agree or not.
3.There is no money for R/D in the next 5 years
4. It is probable that a couple of new companies can get a breathing hole in HEV in the future ..wil they be american?.
Said that the cheapest option right now is diesel, just changing the mix in SUV and big sedans they will into the new CAFE limits.
I was thinking about HEV and EV in a different way 3 months ago, to many changes, big problems and uncertain future for american car industry, now i think Obama is for a european mix of fuels not the breakthrough tech they were thinking just a few months ago.
Regards.
This article totally ignores the fact that most existing hybrids are using something other than lead-acid batteries. That would be Toyota, Honda, Ford and GM.
"I’m convinced that advanced lead-acid batteries will dominate the HEV markets" Since they aren't now, good luck with that.
I normally drive a Passat TDI, which gets 27-30 mpg on that particular commute. Riding 3 days in 7 pushes my fuel economy right over 50 miles/gallon. On weeks where I don't work weekends, riding 2 days in 5 does about the same. In addition, the ride is totally envigorating for both work, as well as the evening after returning home, without being a major imposition on either time or personal energy, not to mention the health benefits of some aerobic excercise. I read that China sold 25 million e-bikes last year, a drop in the bucket in relation to the number of commuters they have. Electric assist changes bike riding from a chore to a pure joy, but adds back an element of excercise. It changes my ride from 8-9 mile/hour to 14-20 mile/hour with very little additional effort up the hills.
You can get a really nice e-bike for under $2000, less than 10 percent the price of the Prius.
I'm all for driving forward to developing a clean fleet and using energy storage in the fleet to assist the grid in accomodating intermittant sources of energy such as solar and wind. However, many persons can IMMEDIATELY have the same impact as buying that hybird by simply parking the car and using an alternative form of transportation for a fraction of their usual driving.
I like to follow these articles and comments from folks far more erudite and intelligent than I. My principal selfish interest comes from the standpoint of an automotive service provider who gets his livelihood from maintaining and servicing automobiles and light trucks. Just some of the questions have occurred to me after reading these posts:
Hybrids have three systems--an ICE engine, a storage battery system, and an electric motor propulsion system, coupled with a regenerative braking system. With Li-Ion batteries, there is an additional layer of complexity from the sophisticated control/monitoring system for the batteries alone. This will mean that technicians will have to undergo a great deal of training, and the costs of repair will rise accordingly. If the car mfgrs stick to current practice, they will require dedicated tools that are vehicle specific to diagnose problems. They will also restrict, as much as possible, the flow of information about diagnosis and repair.
Another concern is the ICE hybrid. What about the catalytic converter on these engines? Cat converters have a warmup period which is designed to eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons from the exhaust when the engine is cold. If these ICE engines have to stop and start many times in the course of a day, especially in cold weather, how effective and long lived will these very expensive units be? Any ICE engine functions best and most efficiently when operated at a constant RPM. The starters on these hybrids better be much more durable than the ones on conventional vehicles, since the number of use cycles will be far greater.
From a purely selfish standpoint, the income from parts replacement on conventional cars will be greatly reduced. The need for ignition parts, fuel delivery parts, and cooling system maintenance, and oil and filter changes and belt and hose replacement will be gone. Brake pad replacement should be much less, but the steering, tire and wheel systems will probably be unaffected. I am speaking of pure electric cars, not hybrids.
Personally, I would be happy to see the elimination of these huge diameter ultra-low profile tires and wheels currently in vogue. They are wasteful of resources since they do not last as long, are prone to injury from rough roads, require more energy to rotate and more braking effort to stop. In addition, in wet weather, they will hydroplane much faster than conventional tires.
There are two engines that could be used right now that will reduce fuel consumption--the new hi-tech diesels and CNG vehicles. They are largely overlooked in the transportation equation, just as improvements in insulation to increase energy conservation in buildings. A VW diesel will easily meet Obama's new rules.
Just a few musings from a 78 year old tire dealer with 66 years of experience.
Just choose the descriptor, "practical and economical," as necessary for a technology to be considered for mass production rather than diffuse terms such as "advanced" or "prototype" and you will see how you must rate a technology as immature rather than advanced. Just calling me a hypocrit or the other guy a genius doesn't make either description correct.
Jack Lifton
I don't see the engine of a full hybrid constantly being started the stopped. It's not needed with a large battery (like 20kWh and up which will be the future). The engine will be started when the battery drops to a certain level, and shut off when it rises to another level. There could be multiple selections for these 2 levels. Let’s imagine 3 selections and assume some turn-on and shut-off points: economy, normal, and power. In economy mode, the engine starts charging at 20% battery capacity and turns off at 40% battery capacity. This way you get the most out of overnight home charges and charging stations. In normal mode, the engine starts at 40% and turns off at 60%. In power mode, the engine starts at 65% and turns off at 80%.
You would use power mode in situations where high power for longer periods is needed, like pulling a boat in an SUV with the whole family through the mountains. Anyone that’s driven out West knows that there are long stretches (30 miles plus) with a constant 6% upgrade. You don’t want to be limited to driving 30 mph in the right lane for many miles because the battery is dead and engine only produces that much power. It’s a good thing that the engine in hybrids will be much smaller, and run at the optimum speed, than in a regular engine/transmission vehicle in order to be more economical. But you don’t want it to become a limitation, and it doesn’t need to be. Us Americans demand a lot from our vehicles and being underpowered can easily be a purchase killer. Sorry, I’m not a flaming liberal that wants to shove small or underpowered vehicles down peoples throats. I want economical vehicles to rise to our standards, and they can.
Don Harmon
On May 31 09:07 PM Jack Lifton wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> Just choose the descriptor, "practical and economical," as necessary
> for a technology to be considered for mass production rather than
> diffuse terms such as "advanced" or "prototype" and you will see
> how you must rate a technology as immature rather than advanced.
> Just calling me a hypocrit or the other guy a genius doesn't make
> either description correct.
>
> Jack Lifton
On May 31 11:21 PM speculawyer wrote:
> www.mrdowling.com/imag...
I worked first on the molten alkali salt battery for OEM automotive propulsion in the mid-1960s. The contract was sponsored by Lithium Corporation of America and was to study lithium salt systems as storage devices, so its not 30 years its 50 years.
The statement about the technology's immaturity was made by Honda's chairman last Spring in detailing why Honda is not going with li-ion technology "as of yet." he meant, of course, for automotive use.
Advanced means something that "works" better than exisitng technologies made for the same purpose. Laboratory prototypes do not count as successes in the world of mass produced components. They are trials and errors until they are fit enough and economical enough to go into mass production for consumer products.
Hybrids combine all the worst aspects of both ICE and pure electric vehicles, cost and complexity. As you point out, they save gas using regenerative braking, electric motor for acceleration assist and the ability to optimize the ICE size and running conditions to minimize fuel consumption (BSFC) .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A plug-in hybrid becomes a regular hybrid as soon as the batteries run down. For highway cruising, the hybrid has no real MPG advantage over a car of similar engine size since it runs only on the ICE. The complexity and cost of all the systems make the car a maintenance nightmare (or bonanza) when it gets older.
Plug-in hybrids with big batteries (20KWh+) are designed for commuting in electric mode only, but with the ability to cruise long distances on the ICE. Personally, I'd rather go for the simplicity, economy and lower purchase price of a pure electric for daily commuting rather than own a plug-in or regular hybrid.
Surprisingly, there are many developments in ICE technology these days that are MPG oriented that may reduce the need for electric drive trains and still meet CAFE. An interesting one is the hybrid air Scuderi split cycle engine.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On Jun 01 01:43 AM TinyTim wrote:
> Tireman- Finally someone who knows about cars!
> Hybrids combine all the worst aspects of both ICE and pure electric
> vehicles, cost and complexity. As you point out, they save gas using
> regenerative braking, electric motor for acceleration assist and
> the ability to optimize the ICE size and running conditions to minimize
> fuel consumption (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) .
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>
> A plug-in hybrid becomes a regular hybrid as soon as the batteries
> run down. For highway cruising, the hybrid has no real MPG advantage
> over a car of similar engine size since it runs only on the ICE.
> The complexity and cost of all the systems make the car a maintenance
> nightmare (or bonanza) when it gets older.
>
> Plug-in hybrids with big batteries (20KWh+) are designed for commuting
> in electric mode only, but with the ability to cruise long distances
> on the ICE. Personally, I'd rather go for the simplicity, economy
> and lower purchase price of a pure electric for daily commuting rather
> than own a plug-in or regular hybrid.
>
> Surprisingly, there are many developments in ICE technology these
> days that are MPG oriented that may reduce the need for electric
> drive trains and still meet CAFE. An interesting one is the hybrid
> air Scuderi split cycle engine.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Diesel will increase 30% de mileage mix WITHOUT INVESTMENTS, Ford is fevershly adapting their engine factories for that, at this moment (and i have $$$ in the batteries stocks) lithium will be use for special purpose vehicles (buses,delivery trucks in restricted downtowns etc.)
There is not grid enough energy to supply EV in this moment (big numbers) and the political moments is after inmediate results, batteries is a 5-10 years bet.
Regards.
SustainGreenPower, I'm firmly convinced that the energy storage sector will be a booming investment field for the next decade if not the next half century. We need far better solutions than we have right now, but with enough time, effort and money, the long-term potential is immense for both existing technologies and things that haven't been invented yet.
La Marque, change always comes slowly when consumer choice is the driving factor. When the EU parliament tells the auto industry "you will reduce C02 emissions by 25% by 2012" consumers are no longer the driving factor. Micro and mild hybrid technology will become standard equipment on a fleet-wide basis over the next three years because the auto-makers and consumers have no choice. The EU has adopted an HEV mandate. The US is not far behind.
Steve Pulvia and Thomas Brennan, thanks for the kind words. This is a major issue for me and I think it's worth the effort.
Zaidane, I sold 150,000 Axion shares in early 2006 so that I could pay the $500,000 exercise price of options that were close to expiring. Because of a typographical error on my Form 4, it got tagged as a 2009 event. The offending filing is here:
www.sec.gov/Archives/e...
In late 2006 I made another major personal investment in Axion so If you want to follow my example, you'll need a deep check book.
unclej0, I've written extensively on the cost-effectiveness of long-range electric vehicles. See:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
The fundamental problem with EVs is the notion that you can power a few hundred pounds of passengers and a couple thousand pounds of vehicle with batteries. The economics fail because of battery cost. The only EVs that will ever be cost effective are EVs where the passenger weight to vehicle weight ratio is very low, like you have in an electric scooter or perhaps the Segway-GM Puma.
Jack, I think a big part of the problem is that we've always lived our lives in a society where supply has never been an issue. Prices might rise, but the idea that something might not be available at any price is something most Americans have never had to deal with. The problem is complicated by basic human nature that assumes things will always be as they are now. My message challenges experiences, deflates expectations and keeps pounding on the issue that there is no source of supply that can make gee whiz stuff for more than a miniscule segment of the population who can afford to pay exorbitant prices.
ginchinchili, the EU directive is extraordinary. Unlike CAFE standards that can be fudged and massaged, the EU is telling manufacturers that they must cut C02 tailpipe emissions per Km by 25% in three years. The only way that can possibly happen is if micro and mild hybrid technology becomes standard equipment across the entire product line. Micro and mild hybrids don't need a lot of storage per car (about 1 kWh) but if you talk about putting that much storage in every car that's manufactured, the numbers are astronomical. If you look at my first table, li-ion is always lighter and smaller than lead-acid. But saving 77 pounds of battery weight or getting an additional cubic foot of trunk space makes it really hard to justify Li-ion for anything that does not have a plug. I'm happy to assume that the li-ion producers will dominate the market for PHEV-10 and PHEV-40 where the weight and volume savings are substantial. But they can't compete in the micro, mild and full hybrid sectors that can be well served by a far cheaper technology.
1) recharge time is only an issue in the PHEV markets where you want as complete a discharge as possible to maximize electric only range. The micro, mild and fully hybrid vehicles typically deal with a depth of discharge in the 5% range and the only charging issue is can they take the big power bursts from recuperative braking.
2) the Sandia chart I referenced in my article on lead-carbon being a game changer for energy storage tested the Ultrabattery at a 10% depth of discharge through 17,000 cycles. See:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
So in fairness, I think you'll have to admit that Li-ion has no proven cycle life superiority over lead-carbon if we use the best available Sandia data instead of relying on July 2007 story.
3) there are no li-ion plants that have the capacity to make batteries for millions of cars per year and even if everybody who wants funding gets it, the necessary plants will not exist before the EU directive is fully implemented. The same holds true for NiMH. The only technology that stands a snowball's chance in hell of delivering the necessary product is advanced lead-acid.
On May 31 11:25 PM speculawyer wrote:
> >>>For purposes of the table, I used energy densities of 30 Wh/kg
> and 50 Wh/l for advanced lead-acid batteries and 100 Wh/kg and 150
> Wh/l for lithium-ion batteries as my starting point.<<<
>
> So why did you not put the lead-acid results in your table? Oh that's
> right . . . they are FAR too embarassing, so you completely left
> them out.
>
> Once again, you get part way through your article and then have to
> revise it because you realize how embarassing it is for the 'technology'
> you are touting. LOL. Good luck.
I would love to have an electric vehicle for short trips - commuting or whatever. However, I would retain an ICE vehicle for trips beyond the EV's range. At some point, as the ICE ages or the economics of adding additional battery storage to the EV improves, I would ditch the ICE in favor of ICE rentals for long trips, as you suggest.
On May 31 12:46 PM unclej0 wrote:
> I have no data to support any choice of battery types. However, I
> suspect that the author is underestimating the potential of full
> electric vehicles. Most people drive less than 50 miles on the vast
> majority of days and can rent a car once or twice a year. This is
> not a market prediction but it warrants some consideration.
Road Runner, you misread the chart. The first chart shows the amount of weight and the amount of space that using li-ion batteries would save in a typical HEV configuration. So I wasn't saying that li-ion would weigh 813 pounds in a PHEV-40, I was saying it would save 813 pounds. In my judgment, the weight and volumetric advantages of li-ion become important as soon as you add a plug. But for cars without plugs it will be very hard to justify the cost of li-ion on any rational basis.
Advil, the hidden hook in the CAFE acceleration was the elimination of fleet-wide averaging. By 2016, each class of vehicles will have to meet the new fuel economy standards. It gets pretty easy if micro, mild and full hybrid technologies become standard equipment across the entire vehicle fleet, but improving fuel economy by 30% without HEV technology will be darned nigh impossible. The Frost & Sullivan presentation I linked in the article is really fascinating. It's well worth spending some time on if you want to get a better feel for where the global auto industry is going.
TinyTim, currently most hybrids use NiMH batteries and the factories that make those batteries are running at full tilt. As Jack Lifton has described in several articles, there are major resource supply problems with Lanthanum. Increasing NiMH production to accommodate several million new HEVs per year will take years of battery plant construction if reliable resource supply chains can be built. So both classes of advanced chemistry are in the same boat, the productive capacity does not exist and it can't be built in time for the technology to be part of the solution.
Nathan Kemalyan, thank you so much for your response! You are already taking the sensible steps that most of us will be required to take as the future unfolds. Li-ion batteries are wonderful for electric boost bicycles. Diesel is far more efficient than gasoline. You're making your transportation decisions based on needs rather than wants and I have to applaud you for it. Please keep reading and keep commenting because I think you are a shining example of a responsible consumer of both petroleum and battery technology.
RoadRunner, you're expectations about the future of batteries are not reasonable and they won't be until battery prices collapse (which is no good for stockholders of battery companies) or gas prices are a good way north of $5 to $6 per gallon. It's also unreasonable to assume that an EV will ever mimic the performance of an ICE without technical advances that nobody has even dreamed of as of today. The really sad news is that we are going to have to lower our expectations, reduce our wasteful behavior and recognize that some pigs are not more equal than others.
Don Harmon, why is it that you can call LiFePO4 immature when I'm skeptical about the potential for future economies of scale but it's offensive if Jack calls the technology immature?
Speculawyer, I did put the lead-acid results in the table. In fact the table shows exactly how much weight and how much volume you can save by using li-ion batteries instead of lead-acid for each category of HEV. For anything less than a PHEV-10, the weight and volume savings are insignificant. Once you add a plug, the weight and volume savings are substantial.
Advil, you'll really be singing my song when you start talking about a full-hybrid with a diesel engine.
rbtbob, NiMH has done a fabulous job in the Toyota and Honda HEV's but the plants that make the batteries are already running at capacity. Moreover, Jack Lifton has written several articles on critical resource constraints (lanthanum) that limit the potential for expansion of NiMH production. Even if there were no resource constraints, the existing NiMH plants cannot make batteries for millions of cars per year and they can't build new plants by the EUs 2012 deadline. So the only technology that exists and has adequate manufacturing capacity wins! That technology is advanced lead acid.
For anybody who missed my earlier response, Nathan Kemalyan is my new hero.
On Jun 01 03:42 AM Advill wrote:
> For the guy that is rating minus anything that is different of his
> own idea....
Don Harmon, why is it that you can call LiFePO4 immature when I'm skeptical about the potential for future economies of scale but it's offensive if Jack calls the technology immature?
John, I believe if you re-read my posts you will see it was Jack who refererred to Lithium-ion as a "non-existent" technology and further rated it as "immature" rather than advanced ?
So, I have no basis to answer your question. Jack later admits that Lithium- ion chemistry is not 30 years - but 50 years "non-existent"....go figure.
Don Harmon
On Jun 01 10:56 AM battman wrote:
> Hey Advill, how do you know it's a "he"?
I do see LiFePO4 battery prices eventually collapsing to around $100/kWh, but it will be 10 to 15 years from now. You said in a post many months ago that the majority of the cost of a battery is the raw materials. The only potentially expensive material in a Lithium Iron Phosphate battery is the Lithium, and it is only about 1% of battery price at current prices around $1000/kWh. There will probably be short term bottlenecks in world wide mining production, but the long run looks good because the ocean is full of the stuff and it can be extracted today, though at about 3x the current price.
And, I do see gasoline at around $5 a gallon in 10 to 15 years. There is plenty of oil in the world, but it is no longer cheap. And, the emerging markets of India, China, Indonesia, etc. are increasing their use of oil at a fast pace. Also, in 10 to 15 it will be obvious that the planet is warming giving the Liberals more power to raise taxes on gasoline, like in Europe. Many of the old conservative cult zombies will be dead diminishing their power to resist.
I posted before that I see an opportunity for Lead-Carbon technology in the energy storage thirsty world of alternate energy. But, in passenger vehicles where safety, reliability, operating temperature extremes, long-life, space, and weight are very significant, I just can’t see Lead-Carbon beating out Lithium Iron Phosphate. The proof is the current stampede of auto manufacturers going to Lithium. Volkswagen is now linking up with BYD. I’m waiting for a mid-sized, luxury, performance, plug-in hybrid-electric Audi to hit the market.
Peugeot and the diesel hybrid, this is the kind of car we will see but no before 2012, so meantime politicians has to move to keep american car companies "doing something" relevant with Obama promises and CAFE, sorry guys..(and ladies), there in no other alternative than common rail diesels with particle filters and urea deposits, batteries will be use in grids (hey John $$$$!!) and special vehicles.
Toyota is not expanding Prius factories and they have 10 years lead inthe field, Honda is moving with 3 models and less than 400,000 units/year, so, in my opinion Average Joe even Mr. Flint in Forbes will have to change chip about diesel as regular engine for SUV and small turbocharge gasoline engines (as Fiat will show in US very soon), this is the kind of mix Europe has in this moment and this allow a gas level of over $3 per gallon without problem for the next decade.
We are not for revolution in car market yet ....expect "evolution".
Regards
www.autoblog.com/tag/p.../
John, I totally agree with this statement below. We have known about the EU mandate for over a year and have always factored our share of the EV market for a 5 year down the road market when PHEV really does come on stream. In the interim we are finding a good market exists or is already ramping up for delivery vehicles, mail & postal vans, hybrid-electric busses, etc. This should prove very doable because it matches our plans to ramp-up our advanced large format Lithium-ion battery mfg. capability. Since we will be focused on limited production new vehicles our throughput should be sufficient to meet the needs of this immediate new (but small) market.
Thanks,
Don Harmon
On Jun 01 12:15 PM John Petersen wrote:
> Many thanks Don. If it's all the same to you, I'll avoid the arguments
> over choice of words and restate my opinion that (a) if cars with
> plugs become mainstream they will probably be equipped with li-ion
> batteries because by the time you need more than about 5 kWh of storage,
> you need the weight and volume advantages (b) regardless of how we
> want to classify li-ion battery technology, there are no facilities
> that can make batteries for millions of cars to help satisfy the
> EU mandate, and (c) once the auto industry engineers lead acid solutions
> for Europe, they are not likely to throw all their hard work out
> the window so that they can implement a more expensive technology
> in the US.
Why is Axion Power International not on a major exchange? It holds the stock back in my opinion.
Loving my Fusion Hybrid btw.
On Jun 01 03:42 AM Advill wrote:
> For the guy that is rating minus anything that is different of his
> own idea....wait and see, DIESEL is the inmediate solution to CAFE
> and is something GM, Ford and Chrysler have in hand (they already
> are selling diesels in Europe with environmental standards).
> Diesel will increase 30% de mileage mix WITHOUT INVESTMENTS, Ford
> is fevershly adapting their engine factories for that, at this moment
> (and i have $$$ in the batteries stocks) lithium will be use for
> special purpose vehicles (buses,delivery trucks in restricted downtowns
> etc.)
>
> There is not grid enough energy to supply EV in this moment (big
> numbers) and the political moments is after inmediate results, batteries
> is a 5-10 years bet.
> Regards.
On Jun 01 11:59 AM Don Harmon wrote:
> John Petersen wrote:
>
> Don Harmon, why is it that you can call LiFePO4 immature when I'm
> skeptical about the potential for future economies of scale but it's
> offensive if Jack calls the technology immature?
>
> John, I believe if you re-read my posts you will see it was Jack
> who refererred to Lithium-ion as a "non-existent" technology and
> further rated it as "immature" rather than advanced ?
>
> So, I have no basis to answer your question. Jack later admits that
> Lithium- ion chemistry is not 30 years - but 50 years "non-existent"....go
> figure.
>
> Don Harmon
I won't go into the data - it's abundantly available by Googling the topic.
Don Harmon
On Jun 01 02:28 PM Osterix wrote:
> Don: You seem to miss the main point. Chemists call Lithium a rare
> earth element because it is "rare". This subtle concept escapes you
> for some reason. It is irrelevent whether Li battery technology is
> wonderful or horrible. There is not enough Lithium on the planet
> earth to supply batteries for millions of hybrid and all-ellectric
> vehicles that are anticipated in the years to come.
>
> On Jun 01 11:59 AM Don Harmon wrote:
On Jun 01 02:55 PM Don Harmon wrote:
> Osterix - There are volumes written about this so-called Lithium
> shortage and nobody has convinced me yet that this is even worth
> debating further. If you do your homework you will soon realize there
> are no definitive studies that prove one way or the other that this
> fear is rational.
>
> I won't go into the data - it's abundantly available by Googling
> the topic.
>
> Don Harmon
1- Cost
2- Reliable supplies to satisfy eventual worldwide vehicle demand. Some have claimed not enough lithium in world. I know that Chile has a large supply. I consider Bolivia's lithium a be a "dream" that will not happen. I read there is no currently known method to separate the lithium from brine and other minerals. Bolivia's politicians currently have unreasonable demands that may kill any deals with foreign companies; Bolivia does that a lot.
I have heard that zinc batteries could also be an economical alternative to lead.
Although I like the idea of electric only, the range and MPG of hybrids like Aptera are really impressive. If Aptera is successful over the next couple of years, I believe that the future of innovations and advances with electrics/hybrids is coming from smaller companies- not the major automakers.
In fact, we may not ever enter the mainstream automotive market unless and until we can manufacture a suitable Lithium-ion battery pack that can be made & sold @ the right price to meet the price that the advanced carbon batteries are offered at?
This does not bother me because after all business is about making a great product and a decent profit return on your investors money. If that means targeting different markets than what the rest of the herd is targeting and really being successful - so be it. A small piece of quality pie is better than a whole pie that ultimately breaks your back and leaves you still hungry.
There are so many interesting applications out there right now that the "consumer" vehicle market really is not even on our radar right now.
Don Harmon
I believe that you have said that the design of the GM Volt power train makes sense to you. Remember the Volt uses a small ICE running at optimum speed to charge its batteries, has no transmission or drive shaft, and uses only the electric motor to move. That makes your suggested weight and size comparison between Advanced Lead-acid and Lithium Batteries meaningless in the case of the Volt.
The Volt uses the space where the transmission and drive shaft for other vehicles reside to house its large battery pack. The Lithium Battery it is going to use is about twice as large as needed to go its advertised 40 mile battery range because Lithium batteries do not last long when discharged over 50%. Therefore an Advanced Lead-Acid battery would only need to have half the capacity of its proposed Lithium battery. There would also be less heavy shielding needed to protect passengers from potential Lithium battery explosions.
I also doubt that your 821 pound advantage for lithium over advanced lead could be true considering the current claims of Firefly, news.cnet.com/8301-107... . That weight advantage would only make sense when comparing it to the old batteries I have in my pickup trucks.
One Article after another.
There is no shortage of lithium, which by the way is not a "rare earth metal" but a rare metal-see my explanation of the difference at "Jack Lifton's Corner" at www.kaiserbottomfish.c...
There is not enough demand for lithium today to use what is currently being produced, about 2300 mt/month measured as lithium metal contained. If we use the figure of 1 kg of lithium carbonate per kWh of battery, and we acknowledge that a Volt will use a 16 kWh battery then to replace the ICEs projected to produced in 2020 for private passenger car direct power train use with Volt size systems will take 125,000,000 x 16 kg = 2,050,000,000 kg of lithium carbonate = 2,000,000 mt, which is roughly 100 tims the 2009 production. The producers say that they can with funding ramp up to about 5% of this, or 5 times current production, so the number of Volts that could be built would be around 5,000,000 in 2020 or 3.75% of the projected total.
The world reserve of decent economical to produce lithium is now estimated at around 20,000,000 mt. THERE IS NO MATERIAL SHORTAGE.
Stop saying this nonsense already.
THE SHORTAGE IS OF PRODUCTION CAPACITY, AND IT IS MONUMENTAL AND CANNOT BE SOLVED WITHOUT AN INTERNATIONAL COMMITTMENT TO DIVERT MONEY, MEN, AND MACHINES TO THE PROJECT. BUT, IF THAT WERE DONE, OTHER, MORE CRITICAL NATURAL RESOURCE PRODUCTION COULD SUFFER.
LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES EVEN IF THEY WORK WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN PRIVATE PASSENGER CAR PRODUCTION FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER GENERATION.
ANY OTHER CONCLUSION IS SOPHISTRY AND ILLUSION AS I HAVE SAID HERE BEFORE.
THE BEST BET FOR VEHICLE ELECTRIFICATION IS LEAD-ACID, OR ITS LEAD-CARBON-ACID VARIANT. NICKEL METAL HYDRIDE BATTERY PRODUCTION WILL MAX OUT DURING THE NEXT DECADE AT 5,000,000 PRIUS SIZED UNITS PER YEAR, SO THAT TECHNOLOGY CANNOT REPLACE ICE'S EITHER.
Don, I've always liked your plan at LiFeBatt because you are trying to bite off reasonable chunks of discrete high-margin low volume markets. The guys that are going to have problems are the ones focusing on first tier automobile manufacturers who need capacities that nobody except the first tier lead-acid manufacturers can provide.
Zenfar, exchange listing requirements are quite complex and typically include both financial statement and stock price metrics. The only thing standing in Axion's way right now is stock price. So the choices are (a) do a reverse split and suffer the shareholder backlash that always accompanies that kind of action, or (b) let the stock price recover to historical levels on its own. In a market like this one there is no clear-cut "best" answer."
Osterix, I'll throw in a new wrinkle for you. It does appear that there will be adequate supplies of lithium at some price. The critical questions seems to be "how much is the market willing to pay" and "will that be enough to justify the costs of mining and processing resource deposits that are not currently economic." I've given up arguing the in place resource issues. The cost issues would still be a concern to me if lithium was an important part of my future.
Chancer, you made a good point about creative products like Aptera. The real problem with any EV solution (the battery chemistry makes no difference for this analysis) is the ratio between vehicle weight and passenger weight. Ratios of one and two like you see in electric two wheel vehicles (E2W) almost always make sense. Ratios of ten like you see in the current PHEV proposals never make sense. Somewhere in the middle is a cross-over point. As gas prices increase, so will the cross-over point. My sense is that something like the Aptera with a ratio of about five is as far as we can reasonably push it, but it's not worth the effort for me to carry the analysis much further.
John Adam, I've never said the Volt makes sense because I don't believe any car with a plug makes sense. There were a number of things GM did to minimize the cost of the Volt, but it will still never pay for itself and will never be more than an ego statement.
harammph, people who have no interest in questioning their own assumptions can never see the differences. The conclusions keep coming out the same, but the analytical paths are always different. Since you obviously won't be happy until I find a way to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, you'd probably be happier putting me on your authors to ignore list.
John-
I think your thesis was summed up well in the following:
" there are no facilities that can make batteries for millions of cars to help satisfy the EU mandate, and (c) once the auto industry engineers lead acid solutions for Europe, they are not likely to throw all their hard work out the window so that they can implement a more expensive technology in the US. "
"the factories that make those NiMH batteries are running at full tilt."
Combined with Jack L. comment:
"THE SHORTAGE IS OF (lithium) PRODUCTION CAPACITY"
The presumption is the EU mandate can only be solved with electric hybrids, as opposed to other ICE technologies or even smaller ICE engines. As you probably know, the Europeans are very adverse to lead, initiating the leadless solder movement for electronics some years ago. I will be surprised if they start importing lead batteries in vast quantities.
This sounds more like a crisis of the timing of production, rather than technology. Without knowing the details on the severity of the mandate, or the time frame, I suspect the short term fix will be more and advanced ICE technologies.
I don't think you realize how easily substitutable battery technologies are for each other, especially going smaller and lighter, once the drivetrain is engineered. Electrons are electrons.
I predict the Chevy Volt will flop because of its $50K+ purchase price and guaranteed poor MPG performance as a highway cruiser. It will not be for naught because the next step will be to pull the ICE-generator to reduce cost.
No problem, I don't see anything current vehicle technology can't solve. Put a small(er) forced induction gas or diesel ICE on a CV transmission to keep it in its MPG sweet spot. Combine with better aerodynamics and reduced rolling resistance tires, plus the stopped engine turn-off from a Prius or Insight. The only thing lost from a full hybrid is regenerative braking, which only amounts to 1.3 KWh from 60mph and 300 Wh from 30mph.
I won't feel like a regular car, but that's what happens with EU or CAFE mandates. Actually, it will feel more like a full hybrid.
John- If passenger/vehicle weight ratios make such a difference in EV's, why are the top applications today in delivery vehicles? Like Don's LifeBatt lithiums.
< RoadRunner, you're (sic) expectations about the future of batteries are not reasonable and they won't be until battery prices collapse (which is no good for stockholders of battery companies) or gas prices are a good way north of $5 to $6 per gallon. >
It should be noted that the current gas prices in Europe are in the $7 per gallon range and, under reasonable assumptions, the break-even point would be less than $5 per gallon for a pure EV if one included maintenance savings, e.g., infrequent brake jobs and no oil changes.
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/i...
Your comment continues.
< ... It's also unreasonable to assume that an EV will ever mimic the performance of an ICE without technical advances that nobody has even dreamed of as of today. >
The only technical area where pure EVs suffer in comparison to ICEs is in range. Today's technology can provide EVs that have good acceleration and reliability, a low center of gravity and a robust drive train. Maintenance costs consist of changing wiper blades and tires. Yes, after ten years, the batteries will need to be replaced but with improved batteries, at a lower cost than the original batteries, that improves on the EV's original performance.
Don Harmon
TinyTim, as a long term resident of the greenest country in the world (Switzerland) I've found that most American's visions of Europe are seriously distorted. We're not averse to lead, we're averse to the problems that occur if potentially hazardous products are not properly recycled. That's why our recycling rates for lead-acid batteries are comparable to the 99% recycling rate in the states. We're also tremendously averse to wasteful ICE, which is why diesels are far more prevalent. The EU's CO2 goals have a three-year fuse, not five years. We already drive cars that most Americans would consider tiny. We already rely heavily efficient ICE technologies like TDI diesel. The only way to squeeze out an additional 25% in three years will be to standardize start-stop technology or drastically reduce weight. If lead-acid batteries can do that job more cheaply, we'll use lead-acid batteries and ensure proper recycling. If a technology like Axion's PbC delivers better performance while using less lead, we'll favor the lower lead alternative.
I didn't respond promptly to comments this week because I was spending the weekend in Zermatt, an ICE free zone that relies on EVs for everything. Everybody is testing li-ion to see whether a lower weight solution can do the job and justify the premium price. But for now over 90% of delivery EVs use lead-acid because it works well if you don't abuse it and is 100% recyclable. There is an immense difference between testing and commercial roll-out. The li-ion crowd can point to lots of testing activities for delivery fleets, but very few commercialization decisions.
NorthernPiker, you're right about gas prices being miserable over here, but I've been paying $6+ for so long that I don't even flinch when I pay $100 to fill my gas tank. If the argument about gas prices had real legs, however, the roads would be packed with HEVs and EVs. The fact is they're not. People who care about fuel costs pay a couple thousand dollar premium and buy a diesel. We also walk a lot more and at least consider public transportation when travel distance exceeds a 50 km round-trip. Right now people are fixated on range, which together with weight is the big inhibiting factor for EVs. Battery powered solutions are most efficient when the vehicle is light and all of the battery power is used every day. Having an unused battery reserve of 40 or 20 or even 10 miles kills the economics.
If Dallas had more CNG stations (closest one to me is 20 miles away), I would bet it would be more economical, ecological, and less complex to buy a CNG vehicle than something with ~600 pounds of lead.
For me, living in this city, an electric or hybrid doesn't make financial or ecological sense , even at 50 mpg.
Perhaps this explains why I was told in a recent personal conversation by the head of a PHEV (long term) testing center that LiFePo4 based modules are getting "dragged down" by the failure of individual cells in the module. Perhaps the battery cell management system is misjudging the SOC and discharging some cells too far, thereby killing the whole module.
This is not a problem for Li titanate cells which can handle 100% DOD cycles and maintain a long life -- Alti's 11Ah cell is rated over 12,000 cycles at 100% DOD.
Sorry, your guy is giving you mis-information. No Lithium-ion batteries can be 100% drained without cell damage. The key to making any Lithium-ion battery pack live up to it's cycle life potential is keeping all the cells in the pack "balanced" and having a LVC - low voltage cutoff on discharging and an OVP - over voltage protection on charging.
Don Harmon
Of course they need a BMS, but the question is what the BMS needs to do. Here is a quote from a paper presented at the recent EVS metting:
"For some cell chemistries, the battery may also be inhibited from receiving regenerative braking at a high rate until the vehicle has been driven for a few kilometers after a full charge because the battery would be damaged by high voltage resulting from a high charge rate at over 90% SOC. There is also a safety concern in charging the battery at a high voltage, which may cause
deposition of metallic lithium. However, the restriction of a low charging rate for the battery at high SOC may not be functionally important because all PHEVs must have essentially the same mechanical braking system as standard vehicles and the superimposed regenerative braking is only for energy saving. Nevertheless, the first few kilometers from a house generally
use braking more frequently, so differences in energy savings across chemistries at high SOC deserve consideration.
In particular, battery packs with lithium titanate negative electrodes (LMO-TiO) would not be restricted from receiving regenerative braking at high SOC. Such battery packs could receive very high charge rates after the first acceleration of the vehicle, because the battery is not damaged by regenerative-braking charges at voltages well above the cutoff charging voltage, nor would lithium be deposited at charging voltages as much as 1.5 volts above the cut-off charging voltage."
I think the technical aspects are better served by other forums. If you want to have a further discussion I can put you in touch with our Engineer ?
Don Harmon
This study done by Sandia is the only scientific study done and there is one car that has been running this battery as a test that has been documented.
The real interesting thing about all this is you never hear mentioned ANY major automotive manufacturer even discussing the advanced PbC technology! That IS rather strange to me? You only hear discussions on a few blogs - but NO major car company has touted this new Lead Acid as their choice of battery pack for any future EV of any kind that I know of.
Maybe John or Jack can list a few here for our enlightenment?
Don Harmon
Not a single Advanced PbC battery company was included !
Don Harmon
On Jun 01 10:17 AM John Petersen wrote:
> tireman63, you know far more about automotive technology than I do,
> but until somebody figures a way to make really cheap batteries that
> can form the basis for a cost-effective EV fleet, I suspect there
> will be plenty of work for automotive service professionals.
>
> RoadRunner, you're expectations about the future of batteries are
> not reasonable and they won't be until battery prices collapse (which
> is no good for stockholders of battery companies) or gas prices are
> a good way north of $5 to $6 per gallon. It's also unreasonable to
> assume that an EV will ever mimic the performance of an ICE without
> technical advances that nobody has even dreamed of as of today. The
> really sad news is that we are going to have to lower our expectations,
> reduce our wasteful behavior and recognize that some pigs are not
> more equal than others.
>
> Don Harmon, why is it that you can call LiFePO4 immature when I'm
> skeptical about the potential for future economies of scale but it's
> offensive if Jack calls the technology immature?
>
> Speculawyer, I did put the lead-acid results in the table. In fact
> the table shows exactly how much weight and how much volume you can
> save by using li-ion batteries instead of lead-acid for each category
> of HEV. For anything less than a PHEV-10, the weight and volume savings
> are insignificant. Once you add a plug, the weight and volume savings
> are substantial.
>
> Advil, you'll really be singing my song when you start talking about
> a full-hybrid with a diesel engine.
>
> rbtbob, NiMH has done a fabulous job in the Toyota and Honda HEV's
> but the plants that make the batteries are already running at capacity.
> Moreover, Jack Lifton has written several articles on critical resource
> constraints (lanthanum) that limit the potential for expansion of
> NiMH production. Even if there were no resource constraints, the
> existing NiMH plants cannot make batteries for millions of cars per
> year and they can't build new plants by the EUs 2012 deadline. So
> the only technology that exists and has adequate manufacturing capacity
> wins! That technology is advanced lead acid.
I thought Kokam was going into Mich also -- and maybe Missouri too.
There is a an article soon to appear in J of Power Sources called "Unsupported claims of ultrafast charging of LiFePO4 Li-ion batteries" by Goodenough -- I am not kidding! Excellent timing considering Alti's customer Proterra that has just announced their 10-minute fast charge transit bus project is L.A. county -- 3 transit buses on a tortuous bus route that will be using Alti's fast charge batteries. Will fast-charge Li titanate beat the higher energy density LiFePO4? Stay tuned! A recent conference paper has some very interesting comparisons.
Maybe we should talk about Silicon Carbide -- that's apparently what the "smart money" is looking at.
Don Harmon
marketquant, you're confusing sizzle with steak. When two small companies decide to do something the first thing they do is call in their PR people to try and create a story that somebody will care enough to read. When a small company enters into a substantive transaction with a major manufacturer the first thing the bigger company does is gag the small one because they don't want to telegraph strategic moves to competitors. Selling batteries for 15 experimental busses is not a business, it's an experiment by companies that hope to create a business.
Advanced lead-acid will dominate the HEV market because it's the only technology that can deliver product for hundreds of thousands of new vehicles in a timely manner at a reasonable cost. It's also the only technology that can demonstrate years of successful use in all possible climate and operating conditions. The development projects between major automotive companies and major lead-acid battery producers are legion, but they are also ordinary course of business transactions between well-established companies who neither need nor want press releases.
Axion has a five year old strategic alliance with East Penn, which is one of the three largest lead-acid battery manufacturers in North America. It also has a newly formed strategic alliance with Exide, which is only slightly larger than East Penn. By transitivity, it has access to the existing marketing, distribution and customer support organizations of both companies. The ultimate proof will be in the form of reported revenues and hopefully operating profits. Press releases will have very little to do with the process unless there are specific contracts signed that require disclosure under SEC rules.
Sounds a lot like what John is saying about Axion. Now, how does anyone of us know any of this is true? I doubt we will until it happens, but the whole Li-ion thing is (I know I sound like a broken record but) a rehash of the "Ballard power will be the world dominator plan". Great intentions, great hope, greater hype, great engineers, great investments from government, partnerships and investments from car companies, etc. but as much as everyone wanted it to happen, reality set in. Li-ion will have its place, but it could never have the domination some people believe it will.
On Jun 02 08:22 PM Don Harmon wrote:
> marketquant- love to see the article. Doubt Goodenough is quoted
> in it? But I can tell you our new formulas for LiFePO4 can also accept
> a similar fast charge profile to Alti's. :-) And they accept a deeper
> discharge cycle than our first generations cells did. That's how
> fast this chemistry is improving - but the public knows nothing of
> these things.
>
> Don Harmon
> confusing sizzle with steak
If you want "sizzle" check out Dennis Berube's dragster built with Alti batteries that set the world record for electric drag racing.
www.autobloggreen.com/.../
> two small companies
Two? I count 9 separate Alti commercial or pre-commercial products in literal physical existence (in vehicles, in military weapons, and attached to the grid), 5 companies that surely have Alti batteries because they occasionally disclose this in presentations at conferences or to potential customers (a pseudo-"gag" like you said), and 1 medium-size vehicle company who was testing a Li titanate pack, but had not named the supplier -- (the testing began before anyone else had produced a Li titanate pack of commercial size).
Alti does have 2 battery manufacturing relationships and 2 battery consortium relationships, but the issue is end-use product development, and your post listed not a single one -- the OEMs bring lots of Li concepts to the auto shows, but not one Pb concept, and we are to believe that Pb "domination" will follow?!?!
Don,
Goodenough is one of the authors, the title is probably purposefully misleading.
I know that every Toyota, Honda, and Ford mass produced hybrid car today utilizes a lead-acid SLI-type battery for its ICE.
Do the designs for the li-ion hybrids, and PHEVs using lithium also utilize a lead-acid battery for SLI purposes for any ICE aboard?
Also, does the lead-acid battery, where it is utilized, also power the car's lights and other accessories so as to give the illusion that the li-ion battery can do more than it really can?
I don't know the answers to the above questions. I would like to.
Is the goal to have a lithium-ion battery powered EV or to have an EV now to reduce reliance on imported oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Is it a beauty contest or an attempt to make a better healthier world???
In an EV there is no need for mixing battery types, i.e. you can go pure NiMH, Lithium Ion, or all Lead Acid depending on your particular requirements for range, top speed, weight, and life cycles expected. Each of these chemistries offers advantages & disadvantages based on the way they move ions inside their formulative structure. Lithium-ion will top the list in all categories and at the moment will appear at the bottom of the list in cost and availability - but this is not unusual in a nascent market for a break-through technology. Commercialization of this new technology will follow a steep curve once the market for EV's matures and the capital investment in automated manufacturing plants in infused.
I would say the idea is to reduce greenhouse gasses and move as far away from fossil fuel dependency as possible. Some may look at this as a "beauty contest" but that is a bit short-sighted and uninformed IMO.
Battman - The public knows little or nothing of advancements in Lead Acid either so what's your point?
John - I don't quite buy your argument that because Lead Acid makers work (have worked) for years with car companies that any new developments would be taken as business as usual? If the car companies truly believed in the advanced PbC battery solution they would be touting it as the "holy grail" to consumers because it would make their new cars even MORE affordable!
I haven't seen any evidence yet that the major car companies are embracing PbC other than a few stray blogs - but you see these anytime someone wants to flog a new technology.
Best,
Don Harmon
You have made me think about GM. Rick Wagoner missed the boat on EVs when GM had a chance to follow and learn from the mass production and engineering of EVs beginning with the EV1. His reasoning at the time was that the future of EVs was ultimately and only with the fuel cell, so he ordered that technology followed and even built what was to be a 500 man center near Harrison Radiator in upstate NY to engineer fuel cell equipped cars. GM came to lithium-ion late and hastily, and it shows with their off-the-wall approach to the engineering problems. They no longer have the market clout to watch and learn from the introduction of an overpriced limited production technology tester loike the Volt. If there is to be a mass produced lithium-ion technology car it will be made by Toyota or Honda, and, in fact, they are testing such designs now.
I cannot overemphasize that Toyota and Honda are both today committed to NiMH battery full hybrids. You can say that its a vested interest on their part, but neither of them sees a near term switch to lithium as commercially advantageous to them. You may say that NiMH batteries are as costly as the proposed lithium-ion ones, but the NiMH is the battery that the most successful makers of EVs have, and it's the one they're going with at the moment and for the near term.
True- it seems that the Japanese have the corner on the NiMH market and they have made a significant investment in that chemistry and also in large manufacturing plants. Of couse they will leverage that as long as possible until the Lithium-ion makers can get ramped up. This only makes sense.
Now, what many don't understand is that the Taiwanese have the corner on the advanced Lithium-ion market because that technology grew out of the electronics fiels rather than the automotive and the Taiwanese rule that market as far as high tech manufacturing of laptops, I-pods, Blackberries, etc.
So, while the Japanese flog their proven and paid for technology for NiMh, the Taiwanese will do the same for Lithium-ion. The Chinese are just the world's greatest copy - cats and the world's biggest factory for cheap labor, so while stuff may be made in China the intellectual property resides in other countries largely.
Lastly, you state that IF there is to be a mass produced Lithium-ion technology car it will be made by Toyota or Honda. That doesn't bode well for the U.S. automotive industry does it?
Don Harmon
####
Knowing both you and some of your readers enjoy learning about new energy technologies...check this company out!
Another really cool technology I have discovered is New Energy Technologies (NENE). This company has developed a micro solar concept that can be put on office building windows, as well as residential. And get this: They also have another concept that can create electricity from the friction vehicles cause while moving down the road. Great stuff!
Great article and comments this week!
That makes me think about Wally Rippel who helped design the EV1, which reminds me of Aerovironment which has a patent on a system that can be used for "re-purposing" Li batteries after they come out of vehicle -- it charges vehicles, can use stationary batteries, can operate at power levels above the input level, can integrate renewables, and could do grid "ancillary services" -- the swiss-army knife of power systems. Check it out:
Patent number: 7256516
www.google.com/patents...
www.autobloggreen.com/.../
This is precisely what John and Jack are talking about when they characterize the "Lithium Princes" and cite the amount of hype that surrounds this very important new technology. My point is you have to seperate the wheat from the chaffe. If you look at the few legitimate companies that have demonstrated a commercially viable Lithium - ion batery solution you can quickly see there are some real advances being made and there are real markets out there already adopting Lithium-ion as an advanced battery solution.
The companies I would include in the latter category would be Valence, A123, Altairnano, LiFeBATT, EnerDel, Johnson Controls/ Saft, Compact Power/LG Chem, Kokam, and LTC.
The other stuff you read about is basically R&D and lab rat tests that hope to be scaled up and actually developed into some kind of product some day, which is all fine - except they are probably 7-10 years away from being realized if they ever are?
The classic example right now is Eestor, which has been around for about 12 years now and seems in a permanent round of funding with legitimate partners but hasn't yet delivered a working production device that can be mass-manufactured and implemented.
Cheers!
Don Harmon
Don Harmon
> Battman - The public knows little or nothing of advancements in Lead
> Acid either so what's your point?
>
My point is simple. You come off making an implication that adv lead batteries can't be legit because as far as you know there are no car companies working with it right now. Then you go on to make claims that your company has reinvented the wheel, but "no one knows yet", I find that rather hypocritical that you tout your own "unknown" development, but then want to deride another "unknown" development.
From your previous post:
The real interesting thing about all this is you never hear mentioned ANY major automotive manufacturer even discussing the advanced PbC technology! That IS rather strange to me? You only hear discussions on a few blogs - but NO major car company has touted this new Lead Acid as their choice of battery pack for any future EV of any kind that I know of.
Maybe John or Jack can list a few here for our enlightenment?
And you also said:
That's how fast this chemistry is improving - but the public knows nothing of these things.
And finally:
Michigan, by the way, is poised to become an international lithium-ion battery leader. On April 14, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm announced that the state had inked deals providing tax incentives to four battery companies: A123 (a partner with Chrysler), KD Advanced Battery Group, LG Chem (the Volt supplier) and Advanced Power Solutions. The four projects are worth $1.7 billion in new plant construction.
Not a single Advanced PbC battery company was included !
Sorry, to burst your bubble but Michigan is desperate for anything right now so I wouldn't put to much weight in that. But, to be fair, good luck to them because at the end of the day, we all benefit from these technologies.
A lot of "badump" cheap comedy could go on here:
Maybe they're using their leftover coffee filters as fuel cells!
"Stop in, we'll make your spent battery percolate!"
Do clematis vines grow quicker up your Superlattice?
Thanks again.
Battman - FYI, I made NO such claims that advanced carbon or PbC wasn't legit. Let's not start twisting meanings here, please. Of course it is legit. Sandia would not have included it in their testing if it was not legit. My other comments simply pointed out that regardless of why PbC isn't more well known amongst the heaving masses is simply curious to me?
Secondly, I never claimed our company "re-invented the wheel" as you so lamely put it. I merely was responding to Marketquant's reporting of Altairnano's titanate specs. and that was that.
Lastly, if Michigan is so desperate for anything right now then they could have tried to lure an advanced Lead Acid battery maker to locate there just as easily as they wooed the Lithium crowd. :-)
You are not bursting my bubble Battman - rather you are making yourself look a bit "trollish" in posting your comments about me to an otherwise very civil discourse here.
Cheers!
Don Harmon
if only Michigan's governor had the sense to woo an advanced lead-acid battery maker. Unforthunately she was busy trying to figure out if she could come indoors during a rainstorm, and the lead-acid battery makers were busy trying to avoid closed shop states.
Don
Just as I read your comment to be sarcastic about Michigan only doing its deal with Li-ion and not adv lead.
Again, I do appreciate your comments and insight. I think the problem might be in the way I read them. Next time I'll read them with a smile on my face and see if that changes the perceived tone.
Don
Here's an "axiom": Knowledege of energy storage devices that can vibrate turns lonely women on.
Nowadays, I can't even figure how many things around the house that use batteries. It's been an exponential growth. I expect this trend to continue. And that just may be the coolest and most significant aspect about what you write about.
For those 500 million people you keep yacking about, life ain't life without batteries. Classic instance of this occurred last night. Lightning knocked the power out. I lit my lighter--could not figure out where I had put my flashlight. So, I think, ah ha! Bring the battery powered I-phone out of my pocket and use the "flashlight" app to find my flashlight.
Perhaps the most important battery in my life, my family's life, is the one that sustains my mother's heart.
thanks
Recent UC Davis ITS modelling showed the estimated electric range of a Prius PHEV running in "charge depleting" or CD mode with a 120kg/264lb pack of:
(1) typical "baseline" Li cells, 71 mile range -- safety and life cycle issues ignored
(2) LiFePO4 cells, 62 mile range
(3) Li titanate cells, 48 mile range
(4) NiMH, 35 mile range
All of these would have a similar mpg in the subsequent "charge sustaining" mode of around 70 mpg.
These results mean to me that LiFePO4 and Li titanate are expected to be comparable in mpg/range performance, but I suspect that many folks (especially commercial) will be interested in the Li titanate advantages of extremely long life (twice or more) and 10-minute "fast charge" capability available in no other battery type.
The LiFePO4 counter argument will likely be the greater range at lower cost, while customers can over-night charge most of the time anyway.
PbC was not modeled.
Don Harmon
On Jun 05 08:56 AM tireman63 wrote:
> Could Mr. Harmon provide any updates on the extended performance
> of the Chevy S-10 trucks equipped with Ovonics batteries in 1997
> mentioned in his quoted article?
As far as Cost is concerned, LiFePO4 will whip Titanate any day because Titanium is more pricey than Iron Phosphate. So you have to watch as things unfold.
Don Harmon
On Jun 05 12:18 PM marketquant wrote:
> A little more "on topic" info before this thread completely winds
> down.
>
> Recent UC Davis ITS modelling showed the estimated electric range
> of a Prius PHEV running in "charge depleting" or CD mode with a 120kg/264lb
> pack of:
>
> (1) typical "baseline" Li cells, 71 mile range -- safety and life
> cycle issues ignored
> (2) LiFePO4 cells, 62 mile range
> (3) Li titanate cells, 48 mile range
> (4) NiMH, 35 mile range
>
> All of these would have a similar mpg in the subsequent "charge sustaining"
> mode of around 70 mpg.
>
> These results mean to me that LiFePO4 and Li titanate are expected
> to be comparable in mpg/range performance, but I suspect that many
> folks (especially commercial) will be interested in the Li titanate
> advantages of extremely long life (twice or more) and 10-minute "fast
> charge" capability available in no other battery type.
>
> The LiFePO4 counter argument will likely be the greater range at
> lower cost, while customers can over-night charge most of the time
> anyway.
>
> PbC was not modeled.
A recent Argonne National Labs/DOE paper estimates that Li titanate packs will be about 7.5% *cheaper* than LiFePO4 for HEV packs and only 25% more expensive for PHEV packs (both estimates for same range packs). So leave your "whip" at home.