Li-ion Battery Technologies: Understanding Their Development Path 210 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Last Tuesday, a reader who works as a consultant in the energy storage and hybrid electric vehicles industries and sent me an unpublished "pre-decisional draft" of a DOE report titled National Battery Collaborative (NBC) Roadmap, December 9, 2009, a high-level policy analysis that discusses the merits, risks and expected costs of an aggressive eight-year initiative to foster the development and facilitate the commercialization of Li-ion batteries.
The draft roadmap was written during the last days of the Bush administration, has since been partially implemented in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 and has never been officially released by the DOE. It does not necessarily reflect the policy goals of the Obama administration. While I don't generally feel comfortable writing about documents that have not been publicly released, I've discussed most of the basic issues and challenges in other articles and believe the conceptual framework, industry assessment, development goals and timelines discussed in the draft roadmap can help energy storage investors make better decisions. So I've decided to take a deep breath, begin with a couple of important quotes, summarize the broad investment themes that can be extracted from the draft roadmap and try to tie it all back to a likely future for the energy storage sector. This is complex stuff so I encourage readers to offer comments and ask questions.
The introductory paragraph of the draft roadmap says:
Advanced batteries will play a significant role in the energy and economic security of the United States; therefore, ensuring a domestic supply of this technology is critical. Advanced batteries are essential for the development of electric drive, high-efficiency, light-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles. They are also seen as a critical enabling technology for the large scale deployment of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. In addition, other applications, such as those in the defense and intelligence industries, would benefit from the use of advanced batteries. Current batteries for these applications are beginning to approach performance targets, but their price, size, and abuse tolerance do not yet meet market standards. In addition, nearly all high-volume advanced battery manufacturers are located in Asia. In contrast, the United States has limited manufacturing capability and a small number of trained battery engineers, scientists, and line workers. To be a global leader in the production and sale of advanced batteries, the U.S. must rapidly develop improved technology and establish a U.S.-based battery manufacturing capability.
While the frank message of the introductory paragraph is stunning, the follow-up discussion of the principal barriers to the development and commercialization of Li-ion batteries is an even bigger eye opener.
PHEV Battery Barriers: PHEV batteries face many of the same challenges associated with HEV batteries (uncertain calendar life, cost, abuse tolerance) plus additional challenges with energy density and specific energy. There is also concern that the deep cycling required of a PHEV battery all-electric range operation will be more difficult than the shallow HEV cycling. The Vehicle Technologies Program Office does not believe that NiMH systems will be able to meet the weight and volume targets of a PHEV battery with greater than a 10- or 20-mile range. ... Although Li-ion batteries can provide the energy and power for a 10-mile system, 20- to 40-mile goals are very difficult even for them. The major challenges to developing and commercializing batteries for PHEVs are as follows:
Cost – The current cost of Li-based batteries is approximately a factor of three to five times too high on a kWh basis. The main cost drivers are the high cost of raw materials and materials processing, the cost of cell and module packaging, and manufacturing costs.
Performance – Much higher energy densities are needed (for the 40-mile or greater system) to both meet the volume and weight targets and to reduce the number of cells needed for an entire battery, thus reducing the system’s cost. In addition, durability and reliability of current batteries needs to be assessed and possibly improved for use in passenger vehicles.
Abuse Tolerance – Many Li batteries are not intrinsically tolerant to abusive conditions such as short circuits (including internal short circuits), overcharge, over discharge, crush, or exposure to fire and other high-temperature environments. The use of Li chemistries in these larger (energy) batteries increases the urgency with which these issues must be addressed.
Life – Hybrid systems with conventional engines have a life target of 10 to 15 years, and battery life goals have been set to meet these targets. The goals of 300,000 HEV cycles and 5,000 deep discharge cycles are either unproven or are anticipated to be difficult. Specifically, the impact of combined EV/HEV cycling on battery life is unknown, and extended time at high state of charge (SOC) is predicted to limit battery life.
EV Battery Barriers: For EV batteries, the challenges are similar to those for PHEVs (weight, volume, calendar life, cost, and abuse tolerance), but the challenges are more difficult. Batteries can be developed to meet these targets, but they will be a generation beyond the current state of the art. In general, the research to meet the challenges associated with EV batteries will build on work done on PHEV batteries, just as research for PHEVs will build on the battery technology used in HEVs.
Renewable Energy Storage Barriers: DOE is also considering the role of electrochemical energy storage systems for optimizing the use of renewable energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Affordable energy storage could enable increased market penetration for many renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. The targets of this application are different than those for transportation, and alternative electrochemical energy storage technologies need to be considered. In this application, energy density is less important than for PHEV and EV applications. Of paramount importance are (a) low cost, (b) long cycle and calendar life, (c) high system reliability, (d) low maintenance, (e) low self-discharge rates, and (f) high system efficiency.
I've read the draft roadmap several times and think the DOE's development plan for Li-ion batteries has a reasonable chance of success from a governmental policy perspective. Nevertheless, I believe the plan will expose energy storage investors to a high level of business, competitive and technical risk that will take the better part of a decade to resolve. The simple summary for those who do not have the time to study the draft roadmap in detail is:
- Battery manufacturing is a national security issue and America cannot rely on imports for this fundamental need;
- Catching up with Asia is not enough and America must become the global leader in energy storage technology;
- The best available Li-ion battery chemistries are not robust or stable enough to power America's energy future;
- The best available battery manufacturing technologies are too expensive for a mass-market product;
- Current material supply chains are not reliable enough to protect America's national security interests;
- Li-ion batteries cannot become commercially viable without a massive government funded effort to advance the state of the art in battery manufacturing and Li-ion chemistry through two generations over the next decade;
- The activity we've seen over the last few years is a good start, but only a start on the work that must be done;
- The major expected reductions in Li-ion battery costs will arise from generational improvements in manufacturing processes and battery chemistry, rather than simple economies of scale associated with scaling-up current technology;
- Substantially all of the recently announced plans to build limited numbers of PHEVs and EVs for sale into "entry markets" like specialty vehicles, state fleets, city busses, utility fleets, USPS vehicles, private delivery fleets and the military are essential steps in the R&D process that allow manufacturers to validate the technical potential of their products prior to full scale commercial roll-out; and
- Commercialization of Li-ion batteries for the mass markets cannot occur unless and until all essential R&D work is successfully completed.
While I'm reluctant to compare the development plan for Li-ion batteries with the Manhattan Project, which cost $24 billion (in CPI adjusted dollars) and employed 130,000 scientists, engineers and technicians, the combined governmental and private sector investments could easily be in the same price range by the time the dust settles.
We are entering the age of cleantech, the sixth industrial revolution. We are also witnessing the birth of massive new consumer markets in South America, India and Asia that will put unimaginable strain on global supplies of water, food, energy and every commodity you can name. In combination, these mega-trends guarantee 10 to 20 years of gut wrenching change and economic dislocation.
I have enough oil and gas experience to know that the oil industry will not be able to increase production to levels that satisfy the future demand projected by McKinsey and other macro-economic analysts. I have enough experience in energy storage to believe that by 2020 Li-ion battery manufacturing technology and chemistry will probably advance to a point where PHEVs and EVs are cost effective. But given my age, experience and financial responsibilities, I'm unwilling to put my portfolio at risk by trying to pick the winners of a business marathon that will take a decade or more to run and be subject to the unpredictable and highly variable winds of political and economic change.
I recently reviewed a slideshow presentation from a September 2008 clean air conference that described the auto industry as a serial victim of technology du jour syndrome and offered the following table to prove the point.
| 25 years ago | Methanol |
| 15 years ago | Electric vehicles |
| 10 years ago | HEVs and Electric vehicles |
| 5 years ago | Hydrogen Fuel Cells |
| 2 years ago | Ethanol |
| Today | PHEVs and Electric vehicles |
| 2011 | What’s next? |
It's enough to make you go Hmmm.
Every analytical report I've seen concludes that global demand for energy storage devices will grow at extraordinary rates for several decades. Over the next few years, the substantial bulk of the revenue growth will go to existing producers of lead-acid batteries that can deliver proven products from existing factories. As cost-effective Li-ion battery manufacturing technologies and chemistries are developed, tested, validated and commercialized, they will rapidly become the preferred choice for extreme performance applications like PHEVs and EVs. As these technologies mature, Li-ion batteries may even make inroads into less demanding applications that have traditionally been the province of lead-acid batteries. Over the longer term a new equilibrium will develop where lead-acid batteries are used for certain applications and Li-ion batteries are used for others. Unless the market forecasts I've seen are seriously misguided, manufacturers of all classes of energy storage devices will have a hard time keeping up with expected demand.
We don't live in a black or white world and it is patently absurd to think that the future of energy storage will be black or white. The reality is far more likely to be a richly mottled canvas dominated by various shades of green. The simple fact is that we need every energy storage technology that's ever been invented, and more.
I believe Li-ion batteries, lead-acid batteries, lead-carbon batteries, flow batteries, pumped hydro, compressed air, thermal solar and flywheels will all make important contributions to the energy storage solution. So I believe a balanced portfolio of energy storage stocks is the only sensible approach for investors who don’t have the time, inclination or ability to do their own detailed research. Articles like this one can provide food for thought, but they should not be relied on as investment advice because every author (including me) has his own agenda, preferences, predilections and prejudices.
As an investor, my goal is to buy low and sell high. Based on five years of work in the energy storage sector, I’m convinced that near-term revenue growth in the Li-ion group will be slower than most people expect, while near-term revenue growth in the lead-acid group will be faster than most people expect. If my basic thesis about future rates of technological development and revenue growth is correct, the companies in the lead-acid group are likely to perform far better over the next few years than the companies in the Li-ion group.
Readers that want to develop a deeper understanding of the issues and opportunities in the energy storage sector may want to join me in San Diego for Infocast's Storage Week on the 13th through 16th of July. The speaker's list includes more than 80 thought leaders from the battery industry, the government, the utility and automotive industries and the research and development sector. I'll be participating in three panel discussions and hope to return home with new investable insights that I can share with readers in future articles.
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 Active Power (ACPW), Exide (XIDE), Enersys (ENS) and ZBB Energy (ZBB).
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 210 comments:
Now.... sorry but this time i have to say that reality is not coming in the way you say, the few automakers that are taking the risk of manufacturing hybrids (not even EV), in "big numbers" (less than 5% of their production) all of them decided for NiMH, Pegeout, Toyota, Ford, Renault, etc.
That implies for example that Ford Fusion or new french hybrids will be in the NiMH batts for the next 10 years (Toyota and Honda are in the same train for many more years), so burocrats can produce whatever papers they want, carmakers already had their choice.
What is clear for me is that carmakers will not invest and bet in new technologies, they will deliver solutions that fits the new "confort level" for economy in the next 2 decades (oil in a 80 -100 USD in real terms) and that seems will be obtain with better engines , more diesel, common rail engines,turbos, lighter cars, etc. there will be a EV or PHEV market but only as a category not a main segment.
Keeping 32-35 MPG average (I know what you says of new CAFE but still it can be achieved with smart diesel engines) will sustain the confort level for the first world economies the next decades.
Lithium and other technologies are for smart grid, specialty vehicles, military etc. not now for main stream transportation, sorry to say it (i m investor in 3 batts companies) but is the way i see it.
Regards
www.kitcometals.com/ch...
whereas lead is 0.75 a pound
www.kitcometals.com/ch...
nearly a factor of ten difference
and that is excluding REE supply reliability issues (ie China controlling 95% of REE production) which affect NiMH.
Both Ni and Pb are actively mined and well known openly traded primary metals.
If you want better than Pb then look at Zinc Bromide, but it not yet scaled.
For a good primer on Pb C battery application in HEV (Honda Insight)
www.furukawadenchi.co....
www.furukawadenchi.co....
www.furukawadenchi.co....
to me it obvious that it is sufficient to blast NiMH out of contention as a battery for vehicles.
Now to lithium ion batterys
a talking head from union carbide once predicted that a $10billion factory was needed for a lithium ion battery to be competitive with oil. he also pointed out that as there are say a dozen different way to do Li Ion, it is very difficult for government to provide funding or leadership to get it to happen
now to china
green.chinacartimes.co.../
these are nearly all pure EV, from a country not known for producing products not destined for the market. This is Excluding PHEVs, and HEVs like BYD f3dm. look at the price of the Zoyte EV, you can't even source Li Ion batterys for the price they are offering the car with batteries for!
also one other thought about lithium ion
if lithium resource is common, but lithium processing is rare, then where will it be scaled up. yes china, by the time I do an Environmental Impact Statement in Australia, I could have and plant up and running in China.
I have not included Li price in this as it is not that relevant to LiFeP04 battery (mineral triphylite) as it is the Lithium Ion we need, not Lithium metal (ie comparing Sodium in salt to Sodium in metal form)
What you're describing as the current state of affairs is exactly what the roadmap predicts and I've been preaching for almost a year now. We'll see a period of six to eight years where the auto makers get every improvement they can in ICEs, diesel and start - stop micro Hybrids. During this learning period Li-ion will be sold into specialty fleets of increasingly larger size (1,000 to 10,000 vehicles per year), which will then be properly tested by normal users under all operating conditions. When enough test data is in hand (and assuming that the hoped for cost reductions and performance improvements are achieved) Li-ion sales will start to ramp up and PHEVs will begin to go mainstream in six digit vehicle numbers. By 2020, we may see annual totals approaching seven digits. In the interim the challenge will be distinguishing between one-off contracts for validation fleets (which do not make for a sustainable business) and recurring sales of commercial products in mass volume that will make for a sustainable business. So for the next few years, the revenue growth is going to be concentrated in the cheap sector and as the cool sector begins producing cheap products the equilibrium will change.
A decade is a long-time and Li-ion still faces some major technical hurdles, but I'm willing to bet that I won't be able to criticize them in ten years like I can today.
With regard to energy storage technologies to support wind and solar, the more I read about thermal storage (liquid salt) the more sense it makes. The energy density is huge, deep discharge is not a problem, it can store energy from any electrical source, the round-trip efficiency is excellent and it is relatively inexpensive.
I would appreciate your perspective.
Thanks
When I pointed out that the far East seems to be doing better in reducing cost, you responded that you were primarily interested in American investments.
I now have more data on Chinese prices, courtesy of this article:
www.autobloggreen.com/.../
Mr Rickard, in the video at the bottom, indicates that he paid $9 for the 21kwh of batteries in his conversion, using Thunder Sky batteries.
That comes to around $430/kwh, not the $1,000 you were using as a cost base to compare the technology to lead acid.
Whether the US can compete at this price is a separate issue, as the market is international and the success of the two technologies will be determined by it's lowest cost producers, even if the US produces none of them.
I also do not follow your statements about the high material costs of lithium batteries, as the amount of lithium involved is tiny and the cost of it negligible.
Some writers indicate reliability problems with Thunder Sky batteries, but this is a not uncommon issue with Chinese manufacturing and will no doubt improve.
Since the batteries have a weight of around a third of lead-acid of equivalent output, and the cost is less than half of that you use in your analysis, it would seem that the future of lithium batteries vs lead acid may be brighter than you have indicated.
I would be interested in your evaluation of this data.
I have not read the roadmap, personally it seems to me that if a government can not even get its own procurement department to go natural gas or LPG on ALL new petrol cars (not diesel) it normally gets during the CURRENT year then it is not even willing to get to first base for fiscal responsibility, energy security or greenhouse gas reduction or air pollution reduction (hey taxis can do it)
From my background I can't see the west (europe, US, Japan) scaling up fast enough in Li Ion, there has been a round of near 1 billion size announcements out Japan and Korea, so they are off to a good start, but I'll take it at face value that $10 billion size announcements are needed. (the talking head was a CEO/director type from Union Carbide - he should know batteries)
I see that chinese car companies are producing more cars off all types. However I do notice that many Chinese car brands (not the Joint Ventures) seem to choose Li Ion (perhaps with a cheap Pb option) electric vehicles which are getting close to sale. These will be for very cost conscious consumers who could not car less for Prius.
Finally, what happens if Beijing edicts a car sale tax regime similar to Israel or Denmark. Even if they don't, could China Inc procurement department get it right in terms of energy security. A better chance than most I would say.
Last year, China produced 24 million electric two wheelers and more than 80% of production was consumed in China. An E2W uses about 1/20th of the battery we talk about for a PHEV. As Asian growth continues, their ability to export a critical commodity like batteries will decline rather than increase. Given a choice between making 20 million E2Ws for the home population or 1 million battery packs for American PHEVs, which do you think the Chinese will pick?
Batteries are going to be a national security issue for the foreseeable future and we can't afford to make long-term planning decisions with the certain knowledge that things will change remarkably as the workers in Asia spend increasingly large percentages of their income on things other than food and shelter.
It seems to me that you are confounding that which you feel to be a desirable outcome with what is likely.
As you point out, cheap lead-acid batteries were allowed to crush domestic production.
What has changed that a similar result is not probable in lithium ion batteries?
At the moment, many items like batteries are traded internationally, and consequently the lowest cost producer wins. How can you demonstrate that this will not continue?
You say:
'As Asian growth continues, their ability to export a critical commodity like batteries will decline rather than increase.'
!!!
Why? You present this without any supporting argument at all, when in fact it is far from a given, and is against all trends established for many years in production.
Maybe we are at an inflection point, but it is up to those who feel this to provide very substantial reasons, and even then it is a dubious call.
If the concern is with lithium supplies, the cost contribution of the lithium is in fact trivial, and at a cost of around 4 times present prices can if needs be be got from seawater, and still not materially affect battery prices.
For transport lithium is on the menu of virtually all companies, so it takes some backing to show why they are all wrong.
The government is telling us that domestic supply is a critical national security issue. I'm merely agreeing with them.
Cheap imports are wonderful for as long as they're available. A great example is the $3 oil and $0.25 gasoline we had when I got my first driver's license. But cheap imports rarely stay cheap over the long haul. Cheap lead acid imports crushed domestic prices a decade ago and they are longer available because of domestic demand growth in producing countries. Believing Li-ion batteries will defy basic laws of supply and demand is foolhardy, particularly when the population of the producing countries is measure in numbers with 9 zeros. In any event, the cheapest Li-ion imports are still twice as expensive as the FreedomCAR goals for PHEVs.
The world is changing and there are 6 billion people who want the lifestyle you and I already have. They are going to get their piece of the pie and it will likely come out of your hide and mine.
There will be lots of decisions to make small volumes of specialty vehicles over the next decade. Those decisions will undoubtedly generate significant revenue for the battery producers. But until we have lots of experience from on-the-road validation testing, no major manufacturer is going to put a PHEV or EV into full scale production. In the pharmaceutical industry, we are at the beginning of clinical trials. It confirms the possibility of a cure, but does not prove the existence of a cure.
Doubtless similar analysis's of the unwisdom of relying on petrol imports could have been made at many points in the past - and nor would I disagree.
However, when we try to peer into the course of likely future events, the position is different.
The US as a debtor would be in a very weak position to restrict Chinese imports, and the lead the far East has established in advanced battery technology is formidable, as is the expertise of players like Toyota in the systems integration for hybrids.
I would quite agree that we are in early days for the production of either various hybrids or EV cars, and ramping up will not be easy.
Just the same the present costs of lithium batteries is very different from a practical point of view to those you have used in your comparisons, and with no immediate prospects of either import restrictions or difficulty for the Chinese in producing enough to export they are surely the relevant figures to use in such comparisons.
IOW lithium batteries may be slow to power many cars, but for transport at least lead acid's prospects do not look bright, save in cheap versions of scooters etc for the Southern Asia market.
I think that most people are focused on personal transportation so that we can drive more miles per person than now, rather than modify our lifestyles. It will take at least 2 generations of battery innovation to be practical and economic for the masses.
As a worker in the telecom industry, I see the value of lead-acid batteries as rectifiers and storage; something that the wind industry and smart grid designers are going to have to account to balance of supply, demand and loads. I think that General Electric Co (not a pure play) is an important cog in the national energy discussion of wind as a vital source with their announcement of building a factory for (I think) sodium-phosphate batteries to address these specific needs.
Regards.
If you read and understand the roadmap, then you understand that all existing Li-ion battery technologies are at least two generations away from cost-effectiveness. The change will not come from a Thundersky that makes cheap batteries today. It will come from a research scientist who creates two generations of battery technology that do not yet exist.
Buying a few kWh of batteries of unknown quality at bargain prices is never a problem. Buying hundreds of thousands of kWh of top quality batteries at bargain prices is not going to happen. For planning purposes, I think studies from the DOE and Japan's NEDO are far more reliable than the clearance prices one can find on an Internet website.
Analyzing the storage industry from the perspective of extreme performance examples ignores the critical reality that most applications are far more mundane, far less demanding and far more price sensitive. I accept your right to believe that the future of lead-acid is limited. One of us will eventually be proven wrong.
LaMarque, if my personal history was different I wouldn't be looking for a single pure play company. I'd be building a diversified portfolio of companies that are objectively cheap from a market capitalization perspective and have products with broad potential application. Right now, the Li-ion group (except ABAT) is trading at levels that will not be supported by business fundamentals for years, which implies tremendous downside risk. Conversely, the lead-acid group is still trading at distressed levels, which implies good upside potential. As of Friday, the non-Axion investments I've made since last December are up 242% and I expect a lot more.
When are you, Charles and Tom K. going to put together an index that an ETF can be based on- that would be an Energy ST & E. That would stand for Energy Storage, Transmission and Efficiency. I'm thinking a one stop shop for the likes of American Superconductor, Itron, Exide, Echelon, SQM, Quanta, Johnson Controls, etc (and yes even some Axion). Sign me up.
And yes, that inactive tool for energy you referenced on Leebs article is very suprising.
Thanks, Isaac
You said, "Unless the market forecasts I've seen are seriously misguided, manufacturers of all classes of energy storage devices will have a hard time keeping up with expected demand.". I whole-heartedly agree. We are entering a new revolutionary era – the alternate energy revolution. This revolution depends heavily on energy storage for smoothing out production fluctuations from wind and solar, and for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.
You said, “I’m convinced that near-term revenue growth in the Li-ion group will be slower than most people expect, while near-term revenue growth in the lead-acid group will be faster than most people expect.”. This may be true. As revolutionary as the LiFePO4 battery is, it will still take years to get it into mass use. I believe that GM did not go with A123 batteries because they didn’t believe A123 could produce the batteries in scale. It takes a lot of time and capital to build out the manufacturing infrastructure for any new technology. John made an interesting point several posts back in saying that the lead-acid companies have an advantage in that they already have the manufacturing infrastructure in place to ramp up quickly if the lead-carbon battery proves itself.
One caveat on the above point. Keep an eye on the Chinese Lithium Iron Phosphate battery manufacture BYD (1211.HK and BYDDF.PK). They are an extremely aggressive company. They take a low-tech, high-labor approach to making batteries that may be able to ramp up scale quickly without expensive capital expenditures. This approach may lead to quality issues, like with Thundersky batteries, so keep an eye on that. Because BYD is more interested in market share than in profits, it may keep a downward pressure on LiFePO4 battery prices hurting domestic LiFePO4 battery manufacturers like Valence. So watch out there. But, as John alluded to in this article, BYD may be too busy keeping up with the Asia market to hurt the US manufactures (my first point above).
BYD was a good value when Buffett bought it at $1.12. I'm not as sanguine now that it's trading at about 4x the price Warren paid. Given the level of litigation that already exists among the lithium-phosphate crowd, I'm not entirely sure that BYD will want to dive into the U.S. market till the IP smoke clears a bit.
In stationary storage, for instance, they have potential, although flow batteries may be better.
For automotive use though, you recently compared cost for a range of uses, from light battery augmentation to full EV.
You then compared the costs, and tried to show that the lead acid in early, relatively light examples could do a good job.
For light augmentation up to hybrids as in the Prius batteries are certainly up to the job.
I would argue that the costs you used for lithium were too high, but that aside AFAIK NMiH and Lithium batteries are the ones being used, not lead acid - Toyota went for NMiH, not lead acid, for the Prius, at a time when lead acid technology would have had a better price lead than now, with the further development of other technologies.
With a comparatively small difference in price for the lighter hybrids, what are manufacturers going to do?
Install lead-acid, with considerably more weight, or lithium or NMiH and build up their expertise for heavier hybrids and plug-ins as the technology improves?
For image reasons apart from anything else car makers seem unlikely to go the lead-acid route, and indeed they are not.
Motor manufacturers have pretty much already voted with their feet, and moved to lithium, with some sticking with NMiH.
They are not going the lead-acid route.
The key point I would agree with here is that there are way more applications for Lithium-ion (LiFePO4) already out there for the taking than for us to placing our bets on the HEV / PHEV market. One huge market that will soon become evident (and is investable) is going to be wind power. Wind never sleeps. It doesn't disappear at night. The latest "advanced" wind tubine technology will blow some minds out there very soon.
Don Harmon
over the next 3 or 4 years if OEMs want to meet the the EU's C02 rules and the US's CAFE rules.
Since it takes a minimum of 3 years to build and equip a factory for either NiMH or Li-ion and the existing laws won't wait, the only choice the OEMs have for the new micro and mild hybrids will be lead-acid. They may not brag about it on TV (because the experimental stuff is much more fun) but they will build it by the millions.
In the past, full hybrids were the primary offering with a few mild varieties. There is plenty of NiMH supply to fill that demand for a few hundred thousand vehicles per year. The number of micro hybrids has been minimal so far but is expected to increase into the 8 million level before anyone can build a new battery plant. Whether you choose to believe me or not, that business will go to advanced lead-acid and once it does, Li-ion is going to have a hell of a time unseating a cheaper entrenched competitor.
After last week's chart I'm amazed that you would raise the issue of weight and volume advantages. In anything that doesn't have a plug, the maximum savings is 75 pounds and about one cubic foot.
Auto manufacturers have not voted for anything. They have announced plans to build test fleets of 500 to 2,000 Li-ion powered cars to see whether Li-ion works in the real world. These are validation tests and no OEM is going to make a full scale commercialization decision without years of hard test data. They're certainly not going to decide to commercialize a battery technology that can't buy in sufficient quantities to fill their demands.
ART- We are doing a Lithium-ion Battery system right now for a new Tug Boat project.
Yet another thought provoking article! Thank you for taking the time to pursue this topic.
I have converted an old VW to electric and am currently using very inexpensive (yeah, cheap) flooded lead acid batteries during the test phase. Once our testing is completed I will be looking at a replacement for the current set of batteries. Thunder Sky LiFEPO4 look like a good choice for my application in that they weigh half as much as the lead acid and will most likely give more range to the vehicle. But I am not about to spend the $10,000USD for a 144VDC battery pack (Battery Management System included) for that luxury.
Your arguments for the lead carbon are well taken but it would be nice to know what one would be getting for the money. I read Axion’s blurb that they had done 90% depth of discharge 1,600 cycles without failure. What they do not say is how would a comparable PbC battery fare against current lead acid. What I need to see is a comparison of some current lead acid products with the PbC alternative. For example, a Trojan Group 24 Gel has a 20 hour Amp Hour rate of 77Ah, weighs 52 lbs (24Kg), and has dimensions of 10 7/8 x 6 3/4 x 9 5/16. Could one expect that a PbC would hold more energy, weigh less, and have a smaller footprint?
I understand that some battery companies are already testing PbC components but I have been unable to acquire any PbC batteries for my vehicle. This raises the question as to when these advanced batteries will be available.
Tom Brennan
You said:
'Whether you choose to believe me or not, that business will go to advanced lead-acid'
This is on the level of ex-cathedra pronouncement, rather than debate.
If you have data to support your contentions, I would welcome it.
Your argument that there will not be sufficient supplies of Lithium or NMiH batteries to provide power for micro-hybrids is somewhat at odds with your contention that batteries are nowhere near ready for EV and plug-in hybrids.
If you are correct in this, then some additional supplies should be available for micro-hybrids, and the batteries for one EV would power a heck of a lot of micro-hybrids.
My argument that car manufacturers are likely to favour lithium or NMiH did not, of course, rely on the lower weight primarily, but addressed the likelihood that manufacturers are likely to wish to develop their expertise in newer battery technologies ready for the stage when more electrically reliant hybrids are practical rather than tooling up for what is likely to be, in automative terms, essentially a dead end.
Whether there is not sufficient capacity to allow the speedy production of micro hybrids in quantity I don't know, and would be grateful if you would share the data you have for the various manufacturers in several countries if you have it.
I presume it won't be published for 6 mos & 2 days
I was concerned with an aspect of this report that is summed up in this paragraph:
"Much of the work in this program will be sensitive to intellectual property (IP) concerns. To balance the need to engage industry while protecting each company’s IP positions, several
management and organization approaches will be used. U.S.-based developers and material suppliers will be invited to join R&D teams that will attempt to address concerns common to all
consortia members. The research in these areas will be cost-shared by members, who would then have preferential access to the results of the work. Also, contracts with industry will be pursued
for those research areas that are specific to one company’s material or manufacturing process."
One can get the impression from reading the whole report that the government (DOE / EERE) is going to get into the Battery business like they already have in the Car business. I don't know how everyone here feels - but it sounds terribly cost ineffective and a bit socialistic for the government to be essentially controlling any private enterprise directives. For one thing the new Lithium-ion existing companies and private R&D labs are going to be reluctant to "share" their hard earned IP with a bunch of their competitors even if the motives sound lofty and the funding tempting?
I think Isaac was suggesting that you construct an index (perhaps in consultation with Charles and Tom). It could be the basis for one of the ETF sponsoring companies to start a new broad based ETF.
I think that is a great suggestion. You should look into it.
Tom Brennan Jun 07 02:55 PM |Report abuse| Link | Reply 00
Good point, Tom. If you ever do get any information like pricing and specs. for advanced PbC batts for your vehicle can you please share them with us? I haven't been able to find any information on this new "product" either and I am "in the industry" ?
I just found this
Axion CEO Thomas Granville , “The only [noticeable] difference is the feel.” He said Axion’s PbC batteries weigh half as much as traditional lead-acid batteries, while offering just slightly less storage capacity
see
earth2tech.com/2009/01.../
I will write to Axion CEO Thomas Granville and see if I can get any more info. I sent Axion a proposal for them to test their batteries (I would even have paid for the batteries) in my EV but got a "thanks, but no thanks" reply.
Tom Brennan
On Jun 07 04:15 PM Don Harmon wrote:
> I understand that some battery companies are already testing PbC
> components but I have been unable to acquire any PbC batteries for
> my vehicle. This raises the question as to when these advanced batteries
> will be available.
>
> Tom Brennan Jun 07 02:55 PM |Report abuse| Link | Reply 00
>
> Good point, Tom. If you ever do get any information like pricing
> and specs. for advanced PbC batts for your vehicle can you please
> share them with us? I haven't been able to find any information
> on this new "product" either and I am "in the industry" ?
I certainly am willing to bet they have all they say the have but find it a bit "Eestorish" on their part not to actually have real product on the market by now? The fact that these "advanced carbon " batteries depend on a marriage with capacitor technology leads me to think they haven't solved the complete puzzle yet.
I don't think the game is over until the fat lady starts singing...lol!
Thomas Brennan, I'm not sure when the PbC batteries will be available at the individual level. Axion has started production at modest levels for validation testing, but I wouldn't expect to see anything get past the major potential customers for the next 6 to 9 months. Their need are just too pressing. Mercifully it should not take terribly long to get to a "way better than conventional lead acid" conclusion.
I'm still not willing to suggest that PbC will be a good choice for plug-ins because I don't know how they're doing on the volumetric energy density issue. Since I'd rather appear uninformed than be wrong, it's better for me to say nothing about specifications beyond outstanding cycle life.
Davewmart, the business of making batteries for micro and mild hybrids has to go to companies that can produce and deliver a product. The existing NiMH and Li-ion plants are already running full tilt for cellphones, laptops, ipods and a dozen other high value consumer products. They cannot possibly double or triple production over the short term to handle another 8 million kWh of battery demand for micro and mild hybrids. Even if they could, the mines for the raw materials can't ramp up that quickly.
The issue of whether Li-ion batteries are ready for commercial use in micro and mild hybrids (which I believe they are not) is only important if an OEM is choosing between competing technologies that can be delivered with equal ease. Since nobody can make enough NiMH and Li-ion, it really doesn't matter whether they might work or not.
I've better things to do than try to prove that the necessary manufacturing capacity doesn't exist. All you need to do is look at the reports of companies that actually make and sell NiMH and Li-ion products to see that their current facilities are at or near full capacity and they're building or planning new plants to keep up with demand.
Tiny Tim and Don Harmon, the date was 2008, not 2009. This draft was a remnant of the Bush administration not a creation of the Obama administration. The backstory rumor I got was that a bunch of dedicated DOE staffers prepared it after the election so there would be some legacy of their tenure.
John, I think it's a great idea too but have no idea how we might go about constructing the index and then selling the idea. I will, however, raise the question with Tom and Charles and see if either of them has any ideas.
Do you think that this would be a fair assessment, John?
Tiny Tim and Don Harmon, the date was 2008, not 2009. This draft was a remnant of the Bush administration not a creation of the Obama administration. The backstory rumor I got was that a bunch of dedicated DOE staffers prepared it after the election so there would be some legacy of their tenure.
Now it all falls into place for me. This tract is almost a carbon copy of NAATBatt - the National Alliance for Advanced Transportation Battery Cell Manufacture, who just applied for an ARRA grant - naatbatt.org/ In fact I believe the lawyer who formed this so called "alliance", Mr. James J. Greenberger is from Chicago which would be helpful to their cause I'm sure. More on him - www.reedsmith.com/our_...
Amazing how the two charters are basically the same in philosophy?
Thanks for another energy intensive article with lots of good info, comments and links.
One has to wonder about a govt report that never got published. They obviously spent some time on it & it probably eventually will see the light of day as Don mentions.
On the other hand, I read it twice and a lot of it seems either obvious, or like socialism, or like a few kids who want to start their own Manhattan Project. Reagon & my father both warned about when the govt shows up and says they want to help.
Bottom line is there's a lot of work to be done to get economically feasible batteries for car power, at any level or scale.
Based on the spectrum of battery technologies and applications, I agree with you that there's a niche for everyone and the niche is constantly changing as the situation evolves.
For applications like Infocast's Storage Week, you can't beat VRLA. I've been in a lot of server farms, telecom installations and nukes and they all have large (car and bus sized) VRLA batteries. These stationary applications include storage for alternative energy generation. I don't know who makes them, but I think the growth potential, economics and timing are there.
When it comes to transportation like hybrid trains and storage energy for boats / ships, I think the economics are still in favor of lead. It would be interesting to know why GE is looking for something different for their locomotives. Plus there are specialized applications like yachts where the charge rate has the biggest impact (tnx ART) because generation cost is so high.
For cars & trucks, energy density is the major factor. Less so in todays hybrids, but primary for anything with a plug. If you look at the ThunderSky webpage milestones, they're building a lithium factory a year. And they have plenty of competition in their own backyard. The idea that once China's internal demand catches up they will ignore our market is absurd. Especially in the unlikely event that we're a captive audience and they're sole source. I really don't buy the national security argument either, unless the Taliban gets into the biz. China has nuclear weapons, what are we going to do? So I really don't think lead has a future in cars, short or long term.
Anyway, considering investment scenarios for pure play advanced technology battery companies at this point is like playing Russian roulette if you're basing demand on the car market. There's too many variables and unknowns. The established and growing demand for lead batteries may not be glamorous, but at least it's less risky.
you should go to furukawadenchi pages i linked to earlier.
furukawadenchi.co....
furukawadenchi.co....
furukawadenchi.co....
they describe a Pb C battery, they are sufficient to displace NiMH from a user's perspective.
Thanks for that, QA a bit short on my part...
The links work in my first post at the top of this article
When I cut and paste, they didn't work.
This battery may be vapourware, but the developer is science arm of the Australian government, CSIRO is famous in my country for its science not for its commercialization. It definitely is not Eestor.
links again
www.furukawadenchi.co....
www.furukawadenchi.co....
www.furukawadenchi.co....
On Jun 07 08:17 PM Don Harmon wrote:
> I can't open any of the furawawa links? Let's see an actual product
> demonstration to the public on these wonder PbC batteries? I for
> one am tired of hearing how "secret" they are. Vaporware is rampant
> in this industry - anyone heard of Eestor?
It looks grand, its written by smart people, it proposes objectives in an unrealistically short timeframe, and it seems to be underfunded. (see my prior comment regarding $10 billion factory needed)
it also sets physical goals way too high, it reminds me of california killing the electric car due to not allowing range extenders, or now killing the electric car by having overly stringent 10 year capacity of battery requirements....
in short a i prefer better place's logistics based solution, use today's technology, not tomorrow's science.
In the section above "PHEV Battery Barriers", there is a paragraph entitled "Life". The 3rd sentence reads "Specifically, the impact of combined EV/HEV cycling on battery life is unknown, and extended time at high stage of charge SOC is predicted to limit battery life". I always thought that a fully charged state (neither overcharge or discharged) was the ideal situation for best battery life, along with ambient temperatures around 70F and a vibration-free setting. Could they have meant a high charging rate? I am referring primarily to conventional lead-types used in current use.
Regarding your $10 Billion figure for a battery factory - I just have no idea where you get this number from or what it is based on? We can build an advanced Lithium-ion factory right now for a fraction of that figure and I mean a tiny fraction.
CSIRO has agreements with Furukawa. and with East Penn, that HEV test was in the UK, I don't know why.
It is still very early days, the Li Ion are publicly available, where as I have yet to get a quote on advanced lead batteries. Pb C batteries are not made or available in Australia. A quick glance at the CSIRO battery would indicate that its primary advantage is that it solves lead batteries longevity issues in partial state of charge environments.
the advanced lead batteries work by making a battery work as both a battery and as a capacitor, perhaps that is further step for Li Ion available there also.
I can't find the link to the on line video to the talking head i was referring to earlier, it was definitely a union carbide executive, and the comment about a $10billion factory was just a passing comment. I would take it in the context of 'if a big multinational were gear up their supply chain and factory to make electric batteries competitive with gasoline based cars, the size of announcement made would be about a $10 billion dollar expense.'
so I'm not so much referring to a factory, but a supply chain with an aggressive cost focus
They are the same kind of people who are responsible for the demise of a great national treasure like GM. The have squandered their best resources and gambled on their own egos and simply failed at their basic mission.
The transition from flooded lead-acid (1930 to 1970) to valve regulated lead-acid (1971 to 2009) to advanced lead-acid and lead-carbon (2010 to ?) is a natural progression of established industrial technology and supplier relationships.
Axion has had a strategic alliance with East Penn since 2004. It documented its strategic alliance with Exide earlier this year. Axion's platform technology business model is based on the concept of making electrode assemblies and then selling those electrodes to Exide and East Penn who will then make co-branded finished batteries and sell them to their existing clients.
This won't be Axion going to the OEM's and saying "use our batteries instead." It will be East Penn and Exide going to existing customers and saying "we have a new advancement that will serve your needs better than our current product."
I've just noticed that East Penn seems to be covering their bases with both Axion and Ultrabattery!
The gist of the article would be a secret meeting somewhere between Pennsysvania and Nevada - how about Virgina ? where we have a kind of "G8" meeting and Mr. Granville puts his battery on the table and we put our battery on the same table. Roughly same specs. for both batteries.
We then have an independent lab take those same batteries and put them to a test which is out of our control. Do you think Axion will accept our challenge?
Far too many people expect a disruptive overnight change from cars with gas tanks to cars with plugs. Major industries and major consumer markets do not behave that way. The more likely approach will be a series of incremental evolutionary steps. For the next few years, micro and mild hybrids that don't do a whole lot more than provide start-stop fuel savings and a little power boost will likely be the rule. For those advances the industry will rely on advanced lead-acid products from existing suppliers. As Li-ion batteries and electric drive technologies improve, they will both be implemented at the high end of the cost spectrum and eventually work their way down. I personally expect lithium to be the enabling technology for plug-ins, but I don't see them becoming mainstream products for several years.
I was far more sanguine about the national security issues until a couple years ago when a project gave me an opportunity to spend a cumulative total of 3 to 4 months in Vietnam. If the intelligence, energy, education, openness and work ethic I saw there are prevalent throughout Asia, my kids are going to have a very tough time competing because the Asians only want a little improvement in their relatively simple lives and are willing to work very hard to get it. My generation was the most disruptive market force in history but we pale in comparison to the newly emerging consumer class in Asia, India and South America.
My murky crystal ball shows incredible growth rates throughout the storage sector for decades to come. I talk about demand going from $30 to $100 billion per year. I've seen estimates as high as $600 billion per year and the Merrill Lynch cleantech report is saying that cleantech could be two orders of magnitude bigger than IT. It's mind-boggling. For the next few years the only companies that can fill the demand will be the companies that have existing factories, e.g. the lead-acid producers. As the sector matures, newer technologies will take a successively larger share of the growth but the sector will be growing fast enough that nobody will care. For now, I think the lead-acid group has a lot more short-term upside potential than the Li-ion group because the lithium stocks have been high flyers while lead-acid has been beaten down. If I can buy Enersys at an enterprise value of $918 million or Exide at an enterprise value of $435 million, why would I ever consider Ener1 at an enterprise value of $775 million?
www.greencarcongress.c...
While CSIRO has been a lot more public about what they're doing, Axion has been working on the lead-carbon hybrid longer and where CSIRO has one patent application pending, Axion has a half-dozen issued patents and nine applications pending. They both have longstanding relationships with East Penn. As I noted last week, the first thing that happens when a tiny company enters into a real relationship with a big one is that the big one puts a cork in the tiny company's public relations.
Tireman63, all battery chemistries have a charge-discharge-standby profile that they like best. That being said, I don't have enough expertise in Li-ion chemistry to intelligently discuss the specifics. Maybe Don could weigh in on this one.
Renim and Don, my guess is that the $10 billion figure was an estimate of the costs of building and equipping enough factories to get the ball rolling. The draft roadmap talks about Federal funding of $4.5 billion with private matching funds for a like amount, which takes us to $9 billion for physical plant. By the time you double the physical plant number to allow for inventories and accounts receivable, you're talking real money.
I just don't see any future for Lead Acid period. It's not because I represent Lithium-ion either. It's my gut feeling that "Lead is Dead" in the minds of American consumers which after all is who will really make the final decision in this whole debate.
We should know very quickly whether Axion's platform technology business model will work as planned. All things being equal, I would much rather sell components to companies like Exide and East Penn that already have factories and marketing organizations and service organizations and customers, than go it alone and build a battery organization from the ground up.
Seeking Alpha is always looking for authors. See:
seekingalpha.com/page/...
“No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
did we ever discuss this company:
www.gs-yuasa.com/us/pr...
I found an article in a german magazine last week where they claim that they are 2 years ahead of other LiIon companies.
They plan a trial together with Mitsubishi with 2000 electric vehicles starting this year. There will be 88 LiIon batteries in the car.
The range should be ~160km (Next generation will have 300km). Cost of the battery only is ~15000 Euro.
'I've better things to do than try to prove that the necessary manufacturing capacity doesn't exist.'
It seems a pity that you are either unable or unwilling to provide data to back up your thesis, as in it's absence your view is entirely unsupported.
Of course, present demand for Lithium batteries is straining production capacities, but for your thesis that it will not be available at the required rates to power micro and light hybrids one has to know a number of things, amongst them how much capacity is due to come on line - some factories are likely at advanced stages of pre-pro - and how fast the take up of micro and mild hybrids will be.
I would agree with another of your contentions that take-up of pure EV's and plug-in hybrids is likely to be slow due to high cost, but that should mean that more resources are available for light hybrids, and one EV foregone powers a lot of micro-hybrids.
Furthermore, in China it would seem likely that many of the micro and mild hybrids will indeed be lead-acid powered, as they do the same thing with scooters, powering some versions with lead acid and more expensive ones with alternatives.
It should be borne in mind that this would free more Chinese lithium battery production for export, and that designs in China for vehicles are relatively crude - the sophisticated Western cars might find it more difficult to shoe-horn in different battery types.
In the West the drive is towards more sophisticated battery types even for basic auxiliary power, and in Europe space and weight constraints are important.
Since as far as I know most of the present interest from European and American car manufacturers is in more advanced batteries, in the absence of any real data from yourself regarding what scenarios you are using, with the ramp up of micro and hybrid cars, and projected capacity increases in NMiH and Lithium batteries your contention that lead acid will be the main battery source for these vehicles must be regarded as unsubstantiated.
You are right in asserting that there is a great deal of interest from automakers that want to do small fleet validation testing for Li-ion powered vehicles. None of those vehicles will be on the street before 2010 or 2011 and each fleet will require several years of operations in the hands of a large number of users before the operational data is statistically valid. These are decisions to test: not decisions to commercialize.
A Google search will take you to lots of stories like this one that pegs current global production capacity in the $7 billion range (about 20% of global battery sales) and predicts growth to $13 billion by 2012 FOR ALL APPLICATIONS.
www.greencarcongress.c...
The chart in last week's article had the market for micro hybrids growing from a small number of current vehicles to almost 8 million in the conservative case and over 13 million in the optimistic case.
That demand alone would be enough to absorb more than 100% of the forecasted growth in li-ion battery production.
The suggestion that a willingness to test in a few thousand cars equates to a willingness to commercialize in a few million cars is utter nonsense.
You can either believe me or try to prove me wrong, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove a negative to somebody who does not want to believe or understand.
berc.lbl.gov/venkat/Ma...
Thanks for the link that demonstrates where Li-ion is close to meeting the FreedomCAR goals and where there is still significant work to be done. For the sale of clarity, I would point out that the title of the price chart on slide 3 is:
Cost of Consumer Electronics Batteries
The analysis of Li-ion against HEV goals is on slide 10 and shows they fall way short on operating temperature range, and price.
The analysis against PHEV goals on slide 15 shows deficiencies in cycle-life, calendar life production price and operating temperature.
The analysis against EV goals on slide 18 shows deficiencies in specific energy, energy density, calendar life, production price and operating temperature.
You are incorrect in your assumption that I have a pre-conceived opposition to that which you are arguing.
I am unsure if lead acid batteries will be used for the weak hybrids and micro-hybrids, I just do not feel that you have demonstrated your case.
For those vehicles lead acid would seem to be the most cost-effective solution, but for the reasons I have already given such as the wish to ensure continuity in their battery technology choices it seems to me questionable that that is the route which will be chosen in the West.
It would also appear that you are willing to give considerable credence to, for instance, Axion technology, which AFAIK has not demonstrated it's output, whilst comparatively ignoring Firefly, for instance, which has.
I would not necessarily differ from your conclusions, that lead acid will be the primary technology for weak hybrids and micro hybrids for the immediate future, but your supporting framework for your argument seems weak, and you have not laid out the assumptions which underpin it.
Some of the notions that you advance, such as that in the immediate future, which is that which we are debating, Chinese imports will be relatively restricted seem to be downright fanciful.
If you dislike this:
'The suggestion that a willingness to test in a few thousand cars equates to a willingness to commercialize in a few million cars is utter nonsense.'
would appear to have equal validity in the use of lead acid batteries for anything other than basic auxiliary functions - and is particularly apropos in respect to Axion technology.
If you have a case to make - and I repeat, your basic argument does not appear to me to be unreasonable, please be prepared to defend/substantiate it without getting huffy.
Doubting Thomas was regarded as an asset by the main man!
Well, here's your problem:
"Goals developed in cooperation with ...a cooperative of major automotive manufactures."
Why would you put a group of folks hugely invested in keeping the status quo in charge of measuring something different that they have no retail experience in?
Wake me when the large existing vehicle manufacturers are part of the solution rather than part of the problem. In the meantime, electric vehicle startups are starting to eat their lunches.
It's interesting that much of the information in a March, 2008 report is already largely obsolete. For example, my lithium based power pack is already beyond 700 cycles with no absolutely loss of real world on the road performance and no noticeable degradation in real world range. Expect that obsolescence be also true of the forthcoming December, 2009 report.
Last, it's telling that my current electric vehicle (motorcycle) uses a well established, robust, non-toxic, safe (relative to laptops) lithium chemistry, which major vehicle makers apparently deemed incapable of meeting goals for electric vehicles, at a total up front retail price less than the similar (but worse performing) gasser vehicle and with lower at vehicle lifetime costs (due to much lower operating and maintenance costs). Does my electric vehicle maker lose out from those lower consumer costs? Not at all, as I can now buy plug and play performance upgrades or my next new vehicle from them that much faster.
The reviews also fail to note that electric drive, regardless of the energy carrier, offers superiority in off the line torque, at speed acceleration response, smooth and seamless accleration and luxury unmuffled quiet operation, all of which command a premium in real world vehicle markets, a premium which can offset up front high energy carrier prices as market penetration improves and production scales up.
"Advanced" lithium cells perform better on a variety of those measures.
You keep overlooking one thing. Lead-acid has been the dominant battery in the automotive market for 75 years and every automotive electrical system in the world is designed to run on that technology. Building a better lead-acid battery for start-stop hybrid applications is an easy job. Redesigning the entire electrical system of every car on the road to accommodate new and largely untested battery systems is not. The continuity race clearly goes to lead-acid.
I've never argued that Chinese imports will be restricted in the short term. I've said they are not a reliable source of long term supply because home country demands in China will take priority over automotive demands in North America. Moreover, if the Chinese are anything like the Japanese they are going to push toward exporting complete value added products (cars and laptops) rather than commodity batteries that somebody else will use to manufacture value added products.
My ultimate conclusion is that there is not enough Li-ion battery manufacturing capacity in the world to accommodate the short term needs of the micro and mild hybrid markets that must develop before adequate manufacturing capacity can be built. So unless you are willing to assume that OEM auto manufacturers will voluntarily cut their production or the EU and the US are going to abandon their C02 emission rules and CAFE standards, there is only one possible market result.
You said:
'Building a better lead-acid battery for start-stop hybrid applications is an easy job. Redesigning the entire electrical system of every car on the road to accommodate new and largely untested battery systems is not. '
Redesigning for lead acid batteries to undertake totally new tasks is not trivial either, and if car makers feel that it will not last long, then they may choose to go straight to lithium batteries - as Mercedes did with the new S400, for instance:
www.popularmechanics.c...
This is a premium car, but the decision of whether to redesign for lead-acid or lithium for weak hybrids where the cost difference for the actual batteries is not huge should be similar for different manufacturers at other cost levels.
For Mercedes, it might seem likely that they will standardise on lithium batteries once they have developed the control technology rather than diversifying into lead-acid for functions other than the traditional.
You also say:
'My ultimate conclusion is that there is not enough Li-ion battery manufacturing capacity in the world to accommodate the short term needs of the micro and mild hybrid markets that must develop before adequate manufacturing capacity can be built. '
You may be right.
Absent information on rates of increase in the production of these cars, and rates of increase in battery production, it is really impossible to judge.
If the rate of build of production facilities for batteries is slow, and the rate of increase of weak hybrid cars is fast, then you will be correct.
If the converse is true you are likely to be wrong.
Certainly in the EU there is more emphasis on increasing mileage by other means than the production of hybrids.
What I am requesting is the assumptions behind your statements.
There is more than one possible market result.
www.wired.com/culture/...
The link I provided to the full F&S slide presentation which goes into considerably more detail than I can include in a blog is:
awbriefing.com/present...
If the F&S projections are anywhere close to right (and as I said they seem to tie to all of the other forecasts I've seen on the same subject matter) we have a big problem looming and there isn't a chance that anybody will be able to fill the demand other than the major lead-acid battery manufacturers, and it will be a big stretch for them.
I've been keeping an eye on the Mercedes S400 because my Audi is getting a bit long in the tooth. For now, anyway, I plan to hold off because my dream car is a diesel hybrid in that class and I try to wait for a year or two after the introduction of any new technology simply to let them work out the major bugs.
Don, as always, you provide an interesting counterpoint.
www.zoomilife.com/2009.../
Thanks for the link to the F & S study.
That is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, and gives an idea of where you are coming from.
I'd see a big future for advanced lead acid too, but interestingly an even more convinced of it in China! - they have a heck of a lot of electric bikes and scooters which the owners would love to upgrade, without paying out for a lithium battery.
Due to supply shortages, it is pretty difficult to distinguish price from costs at the moment - for advanced batteries, you might as well get what the market will bear, even if you can build them more cheaply.
Here's my dream car, based on the Michelin in-wheel motor! - Not really, but it is a very cool video!
www.gizmag.com/micheli.../
My Renault 5 handled just like that!
seekingalpha.com/artic...
I don't know if you've seen it or not, but UC Davis has a recent paper on E2Ws in China. The download link is:
pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/d...
I know the Michelin in-wheel motor well because it was developed within a few miles of my home in Canton Fribourg, which is also incidentally home to Maxwell's European operations.
> The continuity race clearly goes to lead-acid.
Huh? Wha?
NiMH is the hybrid leader, not lead-acid. Don't most parallel hybrids use NiMH?
And the most work on series hybrid development has been done using fuel cells -- and those folks are shifting to lithium ion.
For years? I'll quote a wise phrase for you: "the mere fact that you've not seen something does not mean nothing has been done". :-)
www.bloomberg.com/apps...
I had read informative article and comments on micro-hybrids etc you reference, but had not chosen to comment at the time.
Overall I am pretty much in Don Harmon's camp - I just don't know how badly shortages of some sorts of batteries will affect us in the short run, but can quite see that to meet legislation car manufacturers may beef up their led acid batteries a bit, certainly to cope with stop- start at traffic lights, and maybe as far as some sort of micro-hybrid.
In common with other commentators, I am not aware of many moves by car manufacturers to go for lead acid hybrids, although your argument that they would not announce it as it does not sound sexy may have validity - I have no way of knowing.
Anyway, interesting article and discussion - I think I will be glued to the TTGX on 12th!
Thanks for the running commentary. Here's some quotes from your comments where we disagree.
"For the next few years, micro and mild hybrids that don't do a whole lot more than provide start-stop fuel savings and a little power boost will likely be the rule. For those advances the industry will rely on advanced lead-acid products from existing suppliers. "
The industry is using non-lead batteries for these apps now. I realize you are relying on the F&S demand projections and regulatory mandates and foresee a supply squeeze. There's too many substitute technologies to make a clear call that advanced lead will dominate in the short run.
"Building a better lead-acid battery for start-stop hybrid applications is an easy job. Redesigning the entire electrical system of every car on the road to accommodate new and largely untested battery systems is not. The continuity race clearly goes to lead-acid."
Any hybrid is a major design and engineering challenge for auto manufacturers, which is why they aren't bothering with anything but full hybrids. Once you've designed a hybrid drive train, any batteries will drop in. Electrons are electrons.
"OEM auto manufacturers will voluntarily cut their production or the EU and the US are going to abandon their C02 emission rules and CAFE standards, there is only one possible market result. "
I believe the short term market result will be advanced ICE and smaller engines. Non-lead hybrids will fill a niche in smaller quantities commensurate with battery supply and higher cost.
We will have to wait & see how this plays out.
I wouldn't bet on this photo finish.
Please root for our two sponsorsed bikes, Kingston and Brunel!
I have chatted quite a lot in the past to the great guys at Zero, and they recently held a endurance race to prove their technology:
www.motorcycle-usa.com...
I have just spotted the typo I made, instead of referring to the TTXGP!
Here is a site giving a rundown of the bikes for the TT:
www.motorcycle-usa.com...
I can't see the Kingston machine there, but the Brunel is represented.
Have you got a link for your site on the XPS cell?
Here is a bit more information for anyone who might be interested in the TTXGP Race this Friday:
TTXGP website: www.ttxgp.com/
More on the LiFeBATT sponsored Kingston College Bike: www.evmotorcycle.org/h...
More on the new LiFeBATT XP Cells: www.youtube.com/watch?...
As of yesterday - so far the infamous "KillaCycle" is a No Show. Were they afraid to race us in a real 37 mile course or just a glitch in their busy schedule??? For those of you who don't know the KillaCycle is A123's sponsored drag race bike: www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wish us Luck!
Davewmart, it's impossible to predict the future to a certainty and the only choice an investor has is to carefully weight the possible outcomes and appropriately hedge his positions. My experience as a lawyer tells me that when faced with unwanted, intrusive and burdensome regulation, businesses invariably choose the easiest route to comply and get the government off their backs. It could be different this time. The auto industry could get swept up in the spirit of the new regulations and decide to do the regulators one better. I'll not be holding my breath.
Tiny Tim, if one starts from the perspective that "anything can happen" then the wise investor needs to assign probabilities to the possible outcomes and use those probabilities to hedge his porfolio. I'm usually in favor of wide-eyed optimism, but not when it comes to money. I wish you luck.
Don, I hope your battery packs perform well in the race.
> Price chart of Lithium, NiMH, and NiCD batteries from LBL (see page
> 3).
>
> berc.lbl.gov/venkat/Ma...
The article is relevant for Tesla, but no one else (except possibly Toyota) would do Li Cobalt batteries for cars, so while it is a decent primer it generally ignores the manganese and the iron phosphate side of the Li family
As a consumer, I could care less what was in my car (or computer or cell phone for that matter), I just want it to work. Think about it, do I want a mild hybrid, or do I want a mild hybrid if it ONLY has li-ion?
On Jun 08 01:40 AM Don Harmon wrote:
> John, I guess it's all relative as automakers (as we have known them)
> no longer exist (except for Ford). The "new automakers" will make
> whatever deals they will make with whatever vendor they want to because
> they have wiped the slate clean of previous debts they owe to previous
> battery makers - most of which are the old line Lead Acid makers.
>
>
> I just don't see any future for Lead Acid period. It's not because
> I represent Lithium-ion either. It's my gut feeling that "Lead is
> Dead" in the minds of American consumers which after all is who will
> really make the final decision in this whole debate.
>
renim,
The document is relevant to the discussion that has gone on here about the cost of lithium "batteries". Our author here has used the phrase "the current cost of lithium-ion batteries at $1,333 per kWh" which may confuse some followers that this is the cost of the "cells", rather than the cost of an entire energy storage "system". Further, that particular $1,333/kWh cost was for a stationary solar PV application, not for autos, and it was a proposal to study the concept, not the results from such a study.
The document also shows that there are many attributes that are needed in auto applications -- power density, pulse power, energy density, cycle life, calendar life, low self-discharge, price, operating temperature range, safety -- which makes the issue of battery type choice *much* more difficult than the common comparison usually involving only energy density and price.
> it generally ignores the manganese and the iron phosphate
Advances in manganese need to be particularly watched. :-)
The DOE has consistently said that Li-ion batteries are a factor of three to five times too expensive for use in PHEVs and EVs. The mere fact that you don't like the conclusions does not justify efforts to distort or confuse the conclusions.
My first suggestion in this article was download the draft roadmap and read it. Don't let me or anybody else interpret it for you. If this sector is important enough to merit your investment it's important enough to merit serious study.
I am going to take a wild guess that your XPS battery is prismatic, reducing volumes.
Is around 80wh/kg a hard and fast limit to this technology? That appears to be it's only limit.
John rightly, in my view, draws our attention to the limited advantages of putting lithium batteries into a micro-hybrid, but for meatier machines the cost per kilogram comparison is heavily weighted by the charge/discharge characteristics of lithium - with it's 10C rate you are not going to need capacitors, and it is (I understand) much more resilient in the face of almost full discharge - please correct me if I am wrong.
This should mean that the weight you need is anywhere up to half that of lead acid batteries for equivalent performance, and this factor is further enhanced by the much reduced weight that you need to carry.
Taken together with it's much longer lifetime, then for any but the mildest hybrids the advantages would appear conclusive, and appropriate cost comparisons much closer than just comparing costs kilogram to kilogram.
Even the very mild Honda Insight uses a NMiH not lead acid.
The thing that bothers me most about technical performance claims is that they are never tied back to the technical performance requirements of a specific application. So the immediate but inaccurate assumption is that every application needs (or can somehow benefit from) those wonderful performance specifications.
Ultimately it's going to boil down to meeting all the specifications for a particular application in the most cost effective manner. We may all be wonderful people but we don't all have exceptional needs. Most battery applications are mundane and the batteries selected to serve those applications will likewise be mundane.
I ran through the list of European major manufacturers and found that almost all were developing lithium or NMiH batteries:
GM (Opel) Magna- Steyr and lithium
Ford (Europe) also Magna
BMW - also Magna
Volkswagen - lithium BYD
Renault/Nissan - manganese lithium-ion
Mercedes - lithium & NMiH
Toyota - NMiH - lithium test on plug-ins
Honda - NMiH
Fiat - no known plans
This is a pretty heavy level of commitment, and if they had any plans to introduce lead-acid, surely we would have had something, a prototype or whatever, from someone?
Now they may come unstuck, with new regs coming in, if they can't get new batteries together quickly, but in Europe it is fleet averages that count, and if push came to shove then they could turn out more of their smaller models to up the average, or even pay the fine for a couple of years if they had to.
The luxury car brands who would anyway find it tougher to meet emission requirements would then be able to pay a premium for what supplies remained.
In the US, Government run entities are , strangely, rather outside of the ability of Governments to control.
For GM and Chrysler, any fines for missing targets would go from one pocket of the taxpayer to the other.
What it boils down to is that I feel that the FS report likely overstates how many micro-hybrids will come out in the immediate future, partly due to low vehicle sales in the recession, and further out there is more time to build the needed factories for other technologies which it appears the car-makers are universally concentrating on.
If they were going to produce lead-acid based micro-hybrids anytime soon, surely we would have heard something by now?
Hope I haven't bored you too much - just a couple of thoughts/questions.
FWIW I would agree that lead acid is a perfectly acceptable technology for micro and mild hybrids.
I just can't see any signs that it is actually being adopted other than in China.
The typical battery pack for a micro, mild or full hybrid only uses 5% of the available energy during a typical discharge cycle, which is why the battery in your car can last for several years when it wouldn't last 6 months if you looked at the test rack statistics. Making lead acid batteries a little more durable and a little more powerful is far less challenging than redesigning entire electric systems to accommodate a different technology. Going with a new and improved version of what you already use is never news. Testing something radically different is, even if you have no confidence that the technology will work or the public will buy.
To what document are you referring? Ya lost me.
EV Goals (page 18) cycle life is 100% of goal
PHEV Goals (page 25) cycle life is "unknown".
Is this what you are referring to?
berc.lbl.gov/venkat/Ma...
And here is a quote from the footnote on page 10:
"USABC goal for available energy of a PHEV-40 is 11.6 kWh. Assuming a 70% range, this means that the total battery size
would be 16.5 kWh. Assuming a cost of $1000/kWh for a PHEV cell, this would mean a total cost of $16,500 for the battery
pack. While not well understood, the life of this battery could be 10-15 years. One could perform an alternate calculation:
Assuming that one uses a consumer electronic battery with the same characteristics as the battery for a Tesla Roadster, a 40 mile
PHEV would cost $5,000 (1/5th the cost of the Tesla battery of total energy 11.2 kWh). Assuming, optimistically, that this battery
lasts 5 years, this means a yearly cost of $1000 for the battery pack. Assuming that the battery is cycled 300 times in a year (for a
total of 12,000 miles pure EV driving), the cost of electricity would be $270 at $0.08 per kWh. In other words, one would need
$1270 per year to pay for the battery and the electricity per year. Assuming a 3 year battery life (arguably more realistic)
increases this cost to $1935 per year. To drive the same miles in a gasoline car with 30 mpg mileage would require $1800 per
year, assuming gasoline costs at $4.5 per gallon (costs in the San Francisco Bay Area as of June 2008). Both calculations allude
to the need for creative financing options (e.g., battery leasing) to offset the initial investment needed to buy a PHEV."
***
So $1935 per year to use the PHEV and $1800 per year to use gasoline. This isn't failing miserably -- it simply requires "creative financing" -- which is the strong suit for American banks.
page 18 - operating temperature, production price, calendar life volumetric energy density and specific energy are 20% to 70% short of goals.
page 25 - operating temperature production price calendar life and cycle life are either 30% to 40% short of goals or complete unknowns.
In any event there are not enough factories in the world to satisfy demand. I saw an interesting article today that they used about 210 Mwh of li-ion batteries in the 40 million iPhones that have been made to date. That number is several times the storage capacity that has been used in all vehicle applications combined.
Li-ion advocates really need to get a sense of scale before debating the possibility that Li-ion manufacturers could possibly respond to anticipated needs over the next three or four years. They also need to understand that OEMs are not going to put an untested technology into vehicles that will expose them to unknown and unknowable potential warranty liabilities. Five years from now, there may be some real life commercialization decisions. Everything else is experimentation to stay within the confines of laws like California's that require them to either do it or stay out.
www.bloomberg.com/apps...
Wrong guess: Our XPS cells are cylindrical (not prismatic). We stack them in a compact manner however.
Cell Weight 465±10 g
Energy Density
Gravimetric >105Wh/Kg
Power Density(100% SOC,18s peak)
Gravimetric >850W/Kg
Maximum Discharge Current(continuous) 150A
Maximum Charge Current 75A
Cycle Life(minimum) 1,500 cycles 1C 100% DOD
2,000 cycles 1C 80% DOD
On Jun 09 10:55 AM Davewmart wrote:
> Don, enjoyed reading through the great specs of your LifeBatt - it
> ticks all the boxes.
> I am going to take a wild guess that your XPS battery is prismatic,
> reducing volumes.
> Is around 80wh/kg a hard and fast limit to this technology? That
> appears to be it's only limit.
> John rightly, in my view, draws our attention to the limited advantages
> of putting lithium batteries into a micro-hybrid, but for meatier
> machines the cost per kilogram comparison is heavily weighted by
> the charge/discharge characteristics of lithium - with it's 10C rate
> you are not going to need capacitors, and it is (I understand) much
> more resilient in the face of almost full discharge - please correct
> me if I am wrong.
> This should mean that the weight you need is anywhere up to half
> that of lead acid batteries for equivalent performance, and this
> factor is further enhanced by the much reduced weight that you need
> to carry.
> Taken together with it's much longer lifetime, then for any but the
> mildest hybrids the advantages would appear conclusive, and appropriate
> cost comparisons much closer than just comparing costs kilogram to
> kilogram.
> Even the very mild Honda Insight uses a NMiH not lead acid.
'Davewmart, you've listed a series of trials the OEMs plan to start next year, or perhaps the year after. There is an immense difference between deciding to give a technology a try to see whether it might work and a corporate decision to implement it across a wide swath of their product fleet without any advance testing or experience.'
It is not the trials of lithium/NMiH batteries that I am pointing to in the above lists, although the Toyota and Honda NMiH batteries are a great deal more than tests, it is the complete lack of any trials of Acid-Lead batteries in hybrids.
Regardless of the battery technology, the whole system would need extensive trialling before going to production, so in the same 3 or 4 year time span you refer to I can see no sign that there will be a move to lead-acid hybrids.
Of course, one could always argue that the trials are being carried out, but in deadly secrecy, but I can see not reason for that, and can't see it happening from all the manufacturers without any leaks.
Although the use of lithium batteries may be at an early stage, although NMiH is a long way on, there appears to be no sign at all of any desire to make lead acid hybrids.
There is every sign of massive world wide interest in lithium batteries, and capacity extensions or new factories are being built apace.
If you find the absence of a highly publicized PR campaign sufficient proof to outweigh the simple fact that no other battery chemistry can be supplied in sufficient volume do the job, then all I can do is wish you the best of luck with your investments.
This debate is over.
Increasing energy density from 80Wh/Kg to 105 is not trivial.
Is that about it for energy density, or is there further potential for increased density by tweaking the chemistry?
Without giving too much away, that is!
One stat I did not see on your site was the recharge time, but going by other info on Lithium Iron Phosphate we might be looking at around 15 minutes for an 80% charge.
Any cost projections? ;-)
You might be interested in this Plan for London in respect of EV's:
www.london.gov.uk/mayo...
I repeat that I like the technology of lead acid batteries for micro and mild hybrids, and would like to see it introduced.
There is simply no evidence though that it is by any of the major manufacturers.
If you choose to believe that what you regard as the best technology is going to be taken up in the absence of any indication that anyone at all is doing so, that is up to you.
However, in without a single example or any testing from any manufacturer your somewhat absolutest predictions on the future prospects for lead acid would appear to be without firm basis.
Of course, if you want to redefine micro-hybrid to include assisted stop start, as for instance here:
www.greencarcongress.c...
then lead acid will indeed contribute.
Variants of this sort of technology should bring emission standards within reach, and reduce the hurry in ramping up other battery technologies.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Micro hybid is only stop-start with no acceleration boost and usually no recuperative braking. Mild hybrid has a little bit of recuperative braking and a little bit of acceleration assist, but no power to move the vehicle in electric-only mode. Full hybrid is the Prius type which uses stop-start, recuperative braking and offers electric launch.
Full hybrid is a very sophisticated engineering problem, as is anything with a plug. Micro and mild are relatively simple low cost solutions that go a long way toward meeting the C02 limits and CAFE standards.
The Volvos you linked to will definitely be lead-acid powered, as will the upcoming mild hybrids from all the other European manufacturers.
LiFeBATT doesn't sell raw cells or components. We make complete battery pack modules which include battery management, on-board battery diagnostics, battery protection, and built-in monitoring capability. Since our products offer a lot of value added features - we tend to stay away from giving $$/kWh estimates.
We leave that for the other guys to do. People who shop by that criteria are usually not our customers!
It seems we are on the same page or very similar, since it takes a lot of work to produce any new car, let alone a hybrid, however mild.
I am still unaware of any moves by large manufacturers to go beyond stop-start with lead-acid, but I agree that it would be quite possible.
Looks like you should make a very good living from battery management - witness Tesla's recent deal with Daimler!
This is a great example of a debate that's plagued me for a long time. People fixate on the idea that a single technology will serve all needs and there can be only one success. The fact is there will be many successes with each technology doing what it is best suited for based on rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
One of the biggest drivers for advanced lead acid may be the extreme reluctance of Japanese and European makers to sacrifice any space at all, so in the stop-start configurations etc. which are now de rigeur they are likely to move to more advanced lead acid if it gives a higher energy density so as to cope with the larger drain without loosing space.
I was trying to find out what the VW Bluemotion11 is using - the SUV they are using is switching to NMiH in the mild hybrid configuration.
One of the biggest sales demands for lead-acid batteries in my view will be if times get really tough and oil goes through the roof.
I can see a roaring trade in batteries to get a few miles a day out of a conversion, a la West Bank taxis.
I spent a large part of my engineering career working on synthetic fuels. If development had gone forward, we'd be a lot less dependant on imported energy. It's hard to know how and when things will settle out, but John's evaluation appears more probable to me. Meanwhile, I hope development efforts continue on all sides.
Maybe there's room for all...and thanks to all for your ongoing contributions.
Davewmart, the lead-carbon chemistries that I wrote about in December are a hybrid between a lead-acid battery and a supercapacitor, which gets you beyond many of the charge rate and cycle life issues, albeit at the cost of some volumetric energy density. For more detail see:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Until I see published numbers on both the Axion PbC and the Furukawa Ultrabattery, anything more would probably fall into the same cheerleading category I try to discourage in others.
safariman, there is room for everybody and a whole lot of geniuses who are currently working in garages everywhere.
www.youtube.com/watch?...
Of course not, but given that by the end of 2009 a major OEM will be doing plug-in lithium hybrid field trials (a hundred vehicles or so), it implies that they have been doing some testing already.
I can't really see the point of having to warm the battery up and put in super-capacitors to get decent power output when the energy density is no better than for Lithium Iron Phosphate.
Still, that Pininfarina Bo is a sweet little car - it remains to be seen what it will cost!
Yes, it had a miserable quarter. How could anybody think (XIDE) would not have a lousy report? But, obscured in the 85 cents loss per share is all but 3 cents per share was due to a one time charge. The slowed worldwide demand and the drop in lead prices created furhter havoc in Exide having to reduce pricing of unit costs by 20%.
Then, some analyst I've never heard of comes along and piles on with a downgrade from a "buy" to a "hold." That didn't not mean "Sell" folks! Down 38% in three days?
The CEO of Government Motors is about to dole out $2 billion to the battery makers of America; Exide should be close to the front of the line when he does. Then, and this is speculative I'll admit, the likelyhood that the same CEO will soon be announcing a "Cash for Clunkers" campaign, there's is no doubt in my mind that Exide will double by years end.
But there's more. Obama has said he will create hundreds of thousands of jobs this summer. Certainly, some will go toward GM, but a great many more jobs will created to improve the Grid using alternative energy sources. The beginning of this has already happened, and will take years to complete. Advanced lead acid batteries will be part of this.
So, analyst Merriman! This dude who has followed the battery story a hell of a lot closer than you have for the last year and a half, predicts that not only will Exide double by the end of this year, but it will move up another 50 to 100% by the end of 2010.
By then, Exide will only be up to full production.
(I should never write a comment while watching my Pens play in June. That third to last paragragh was a little loose! Hope you're rooting for the Pens, John!)
Computer test racks always use products properly and in strict accordance with manufacturer's guidance. Human beings rarely do and the systems have to work with humans behind the wheel.
I don't know what the engineers will pick as an appropriate sample size or an appropriate length of time to test the longevity of 15 year system, but I can't imagine a testing cycle that is less than 1/3 to 1/2 of the anticipated use cycle. At the end of the day, OEM manufacturers have to provide written warranties for years, total mileage or both. The replacement parts component of warranty service or product recalls is usually a minor factor in the total cost. It will take a lot of testing and a lot of time before any manufacturer will be in a position to calculate its potential warranty exposure or have enough data to make performance claims that it won't get sued over.
Mayascribe, even with the recent retrenchment, I'd have a hard time complaining about the $4.82 Exide share that I bought for an average price of $2.15 within the last 6 months;-) There are way too many market participants that want to trade quarterly results for lunch money and don't take the time to analyze the long term fundamentals. With it's current price running at less than 1/3 of the 12 month high and the changes that I see coming down the pike over the next 12 to 18 months (particularly the rapid implementation of micro and mild hybrid technology in Europe) I think Exide is still a gift from the gods at these prices.
I'm still celebrating both the Pens win and that somehow last Friday I got in front of (SQNM)'s 60% gain today. This thread is pretty much burned out by now, so between you and me I can say, Woooow!
One more wow! This comment is your 140th!!!!!!! (I hate the overuse of exclamation points, sooo Tom Wolfe...but, DAMN!!!!!)
But I agree that time's a wastin on that book of yours because if I remember correctly, the calendar has a 2012 expiration date.
The story goes a long way toward describing the validation testing that GM thinks it will need to complete before it can roll out PHEVs in substantial numbers. Interestingly, the GM battery testing and development plan closely tracks the three generations of development concept described in this article and adds substantial support to my contention that while li-ion batteries are likely to become a key player in five to seven years, the short term growth will go to the lead-acid sector.
beta.technologyreview..../
On June 3, 2009 Toyota announced the leasing of a total of 500 lithium-ion vehicles globally -- 150 in the US, more than 150 vehicles in Europe, and 200 in Japan. I doubt that Toyota would risk its reputation on something that they had not already tested fairly well -- headline writers being who they are. Oh what a feeling!
www.theautochannel.com...
Advanced lithium batteries are far closer to meeting the goals than implied by that DOE *policy* paper -- it's not surprising that the DOE finds that they need an expanded program and more money to ensure national goals are achieved. Has there ever been an agency that found no need to expand or receive more money?
"Encouragement of niche markets for domestically produced batteries: DOE EERE will also work with other federal and state agencies and commercial concerns to identify an “entry market” for advanced batteries. Understandably, large auto manufacturers will be reluctant to purchase a battery that has not been tested over a significant number of vehicle miles. A number of federal, state, and private organizations could serve as starter markets. Among those are state fleets, city buses, utility fleets, USPS vehicles, FedEx, UPS, and other private fleets, and the U.S. military. An initial order of 1,000 to 10,000 batteries per year for several years could serve to establish the viability of a new battery, or of a new domestic facility producing an existing technology."
Anyhow, if Toyota is testing lithium, then they probably think that it is the most viable for commercialization, and since they are a "leader" it may make alternative technologies seem non-viable.
www.bloomberg.com/apps...
Quotes like the following do nothing to give a normal reader confidence that Toyota is ready to rock and roll with lithium:
"Toyota has said U.S. demand for plug-ins may be much smaller than advocates suggest. Bill Reinert, Toyota’s U.S. national manager for advanced technology, told a National Academy of Sciences panel in Washington May 18 that a market for such vehicles may be 50,000 units a year at most and as few as 3,500."
People challenge my assumptions on a regular basis and I always give them the courtesy of looking at the reasons and support they point to. Then, if I disagree, I explain why. I really wish you would extend the same courtesy instead of ignoring facts that you don't like. I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm saying it won't happen fast.
“Toyota’s wariness on demand in the U.S. for plug-in vehicles stems from its experience selling battery-powered RAV4 sport-utility vehicles in California in the early 2000s, Reinert said.
While the company spent 15 times as much per vehicle to advertise and promote the all-electric SUVs as it did for its first-generation Prius, it managed to sell only about 300 a year, he said.
‘These marketing efforts were successful in generating high awareness, as shown in our Web site traffic data, but sales remained low and did not increase over time,’ Reinert said.”
***
My response:
Dear Mr. Reinert, the price of oil in the "early 2000s" was about $25 per barrel, occasionally dipping below $20 per barrel. It is currently over $71 per barrel. If you think about this really hard, you might come to a different conclusion about consumers willingness to save on gas.
"When the data change, I change my mind. What do you do?" -- Keynes
MItsubishi et al seem to be on the right lines - if you go for a full EV, then you can loose more than 300lbs of unsightly flab in the ICE engine, gearbox etc, and seriously save on maintenance.
Most drivers only do less than 50 or so miles a day, and on the rare occasions when they need to do more it makes sense to hire an ICE.
It all depends on the price of oil, and if like me you think that the oil to run ICE cars is going to be in seriously short supply as well as expensive, you want to move on.
Particulates in cities seem to cause more problems than was thought:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sc...
And in Australia at least they are getting serious about providing infrastructure to recharge cars:
www.iol.co.za/index.ph...
Let's see, Toyota discourages hype about plug-ins because
(1) a CMU study says that owners that get PHEVs "with large battery packs (40 miles or more) will never allow the owner to recoup the initial price premium." -- Of course CMU must have made assumptions about (at least) oil prices and battery prices. If CMU knows where oil prices are heading maybe they should go into NYMEX futures trading! What if a left wing lunatic took over Venezuela bent on destroying their national oil company? Or if the output from Mexico's Cantarrel oil field would head into steep decline? Well, CMU concluded that a PHEV with a 7 mile range battery would actually be the best choice, so it's all a trade-off apparently, and not doomed I guess.
(2) the Duke study says that gas prices would need to go to $6 to make plug-in effective although they admit "gasoline prices could
conceivably rise to $6 per gallon in the not-so-distant future". BTW, how much is gas in Europe?
If Toyota isn't tempted to retain their lead in PHEVs, then Nissan seems interested in giving it a shot, but since the big OEMs aren't necessarily the leaders in (1) electric drive train, (2) batteries, (3) electric motors, but only in "the rest of the car" maybe they feel threatened by all this? Fascinating!
Actually, I am writing a little bit. Right now, a co-protaganoist named Water Lily Moon, is visiting a distant cacao orchard, learning all the phases of how to pick the ripened cacao pods, separate out the slimey nibs and then let them ferment for a few days in covered clay pots. Then comes the roasting and stirring in the sun that leads to the final stages of rolling them out on a metate and into a paste that is formed into a disk, which when you combine with heated water turns into a fabulous cup of chocolate drink, sweetened with honey and dusted with a peppery blaze, of course! Mystical and future queen of Copan, Water Lily Moon leaves the orchard, and during the journey over mountains and through the jungle, there is a raid. The masked bandits are led by her future husband, who witnesses Water Lily Moon's first mense during this frightening (and manipulated) moment; for both....
But when any of my stocks goes down 38% in three days, I gotta investigate!
Warren Buffet advocates investing in companies you understand, companies that that sell products and services you know, trust and use. Unfortunately, that methodology is almost impossible in cleantech because most of the players are new, few can point to a long and successful operating history and the principal disclosures investors rely on are forward-looking statements from people that are trying to promote an agenda or build a company; people who are by nature optimists. Any time you put an optimist's forward-looking perspective into the hands of an optimistic reader, the only possible result is optimism squared and that's a very dangerous equation for investors.
That story stinks! I'll "scat-daddle" now. But before I go...
One could conclude from your second paragraph that all we sheeple of yours should sell all of our lead acid battery stocks right now.
One smaller company has seen 6 international auto companies and 8 entrepreneurial companies make the pilgrimage to their headquarters out West to get supply agreements. What motivates the big guys with "substantial business history" to do this I wonder? I suppose it's that all "smaller companies" are not alike.
The key I believe to tracking, or stategizing this market over the summer is the strength of the dollar combined with understanding market sentiment. It's somewhere between staggering and frightening to know that last Friday Goldman Saks was responsible for 33.7% of all trades made on the New York Stock Exchange. I've been tracking them for some time, and they pretty much are at least making 25% of the trades everyday (since they recieved 10 billion in TARP dollars). That same day, last Friday, GS stated that they believe that oil is going to $85/barrel by the end of the year. What I can't track, though, is how much $$$ did GS put into oil stocks? Before their announcement? The conclusion is that GS had a huge hand in trading up this market, so much so that they can now pay back their TARP $$$ in spades, all thanks to the American taxpayer, and their brilliant trading strategies.
Going up against these investing titans is a tough go for us peon investors. Your idea of making bets on great companies and their past track records is definitely less stressful. But ignoring the volatility of todays market lessens the chance to gain capital into which, when things settle, you can plow into the slower growth monsters like GE.
Two ways to play it, I guess. One thing I know, is that it will be a long, long, time before I sell any GE that I've been accumulating.
Right now, it appears that the big boys, the hedgeys, are plowing money into inflationary type stocks, even though I'm sure they believe inflation is possibly years away. You know I've been big on, "Banks, Batteries, and Bullion," since last year. I'll add in oil, and my favorite pick is ATP Oil and Gas (ATPG). They have a hell of a potential cash flow story going, and even a fresh strike yesterday.
There is as rising sentiment in my belly (or third eye) that the right now the sky seems all clear, but back side of the hurricane just might be approaching. Things have gone up way too fast.
There are still a lot of troubling problems that the market has yet to address. Oddly, it just might be peak hurricane season when this occurs. I'm real careful right now, because it could just be that Wall Street might be playing us peons again (and China might be playing Wall Street, and the dollar).
By the way, another great article with great comments this week.
I don't put your favorite western company in that class because it no longer has an exorbitant market capitalization and seems to be following some pretty sensible paths with respect to applications that make sense. As you work your way east through the gulf coast and swerve north to the midwest, my outlook changes.
My clearest picture right now is that in an hour I'll be heading down the road to have a draft, and play my weekly poker game.
My other favorite lessor heard of stock is Jaguar Mining (JAG). This Brazillian gold miner increased its production quarter over quarter by over 50%. They expect to continue increasing production for the next seven quarters. By 2014 JAG expects production to be up a whopping 600%. They have just had an offering giving them the cash to continue increasing production as well as safety. The only risks are that they only have (I think) 63 million outstanding shares, so if some bigwig pulls out, look out. But with their production future, I see that as an acceptable risk. The other risk is nationalization. From the bazillions of articles I've read about JAG, I have not even read even an intimation of nationalization occurring. Oh, and there's always the chance of further dillution. It's that way with junior miners. Figures that Mayascribe would own Jaguar Mining, my best performing stock I've owned since I started this experimental e-trading account last July. I expect It will continue that way.
Cheers!
I must 'fess up (because I'm snarky sometimes, but not malevolent) that the small western company to which I was referring is *NOT* a battery company -- yet, it has garnered widespread, but clandestine, attention from all sorts of wanna-need-ta-be hybrid/electric OEMs.
This just gets back to my point -- surprising non-linear things seem to be happening in this arena due to the technology shifts. There may be a distinct "first mover" advantage here. To further pontificate on wild-card scenarios, what if Tata took Jaguar into the high-end PHEV space and nabbed the (to your point) limited supply of available Li cells in such a way as to "rook" the competition of Lexus/BMW/Mercedes into the same land as analog cell phones? And then eventually leveraged that into down-market with a suitable partner?
What that Toyota guy is missing is that buying a PHEV is like owning a series of slightly out-of-the-money call options on gasoline futures.
Don! I do indeed enjoy very much reading your comments and supportive links. But you "follow" yourself! That's scary.
marketquant: I looked at your comment stream, too. Good stuff. But, you should expand your horizons. John's columns are fabulous, but there is so much more out there beyond his small slice of the investment pie.
All kidding aside, I do enjoy the research that both of you provide. The more debate there is in this energy storage sector, the more all of us can make informed investment decisions.
I'm actually far more open to truly disruptive change than most realize. In general I believe PHEVs are a terrible idea because they combine the worst of ICE with the worst of EV and end up with a chimera that will have an extraordinarily hard time paying for itself on a human timescale. If the EV crowd find the stones to develop truly revolutionary EVs rather than reasonable facsimiles of ICEs, it could very well take the debate to a new level.
I rail against the waste of using batteries to move 300 pounds of passengers and 3,000 pounds of vehicle at highway speed, but the bigger waste is wrapping 3,000 pounds of vehicle around 300 pounds of passenger in the first place.
Something needs to truly fire the public's imagination. So far all we've seen as proposals are "more of the same with substandard performance." I don't know what that change is, but I hope I'll have the openness to see it when it arrives.
In the meantime, I'll focus on companies with direct and relatively barrier free short-term paths to $500 million or more in annual revenues because it doesn't make sense to carry the cost of being public for less.
If a PHEV or EV has ten-minute fast charge then this is the possible disruptive change that "fires the public's imagination". No need to plug-in at home, just pop into the "electron station" owned by your utility co. Of course, these fast charge vehicles will first show up in commercial vehicles where the ROI can be ascertained.
The small company is UQM, maker of "power dense" electric motor, controllers, and power electronics that are *mature* products in this area. Somebody has paid them to prepare for producing 5000 motors assemblies per year (per shift).
Side note: PHEV is a poor term because it does not distinguish between parallel or series hybrid -- like the difference between a VCR and a DVR, they both record and playback video, but the innards and performance are wildly different. John, which type of PHEV is a "terrible" idea, one?, both?
There is no such thing as a battery that can propel a PHEV for more than 40 minutes at highway speed. Unless you believe the hearsay press releases from Zenn and EEstore (the guys with the black box full of blue smoke) nobody is even talking about a storage device that can propel a PHEV for more than 40 miles.
I'm sure that producing 15,000 units per year is huge business for UQM. But when you think about the 45,000 vehicles per day that the global auto industry manufactures, it's like comparing a fart to a gas well blowout.
www.bloomberg.com/apps...
They also indicate that they think that total production will be around 4-4.5million, although they do not indicate what level of hybridisation they are thinking of.
Of course, there estimates may be in error either up or down, but at least for their own production Japanese companies have a pretty good record of meeting their targets, so it may be in the right ball-park.
Are you advocating a short position in these companies?
Belaboring a little here, so do you agree or disagree with CMU's conclusion that a 7-mile PHEV "would be a robust choice for minimizing gasoline consumption"? (note: they chose to model the Prius style PHEV, not series hybrid in their paper).
> no such thing.. 40 minutes at highway speed
Quote from Fisker website: "A fully-charged Karma burns no fuel for the first 50 miles."
> UQM
The reference to UQM was more about how the large OEMs don't have what they need from themselves or their Tier 1 suppliers -- not about this years production numbers. That being said, one major OEM entreated them to produce an detailed plan for scaling to 250k motors per year.
Assumptions like a 12-year life (when the average buyer thinks in terms of 3 to 5 years) and a 5% discount rate on the initial investment (when the average purchaser pays a much higher interest rate) make for a great academic paper, but do nothing to prove the fundamental economics.
It takes us back to the old adage that figures don't lie but liars figure.
I'm impressed that Fisker can pack all that range into a $75,000 car, but the percentage of the population that buys $75,000 cars is meaningless.
I've been practicing law long enough to recognize when somebody is trying to set up an ambush. I think we're done here.
You can wish that lithium will go away, and that engineers will stop the plethora of PHEV studies, Li-ion concept cars and buses, Li-ion vehicle field trials, and entrepreneurial Li-ion product launches, but you should search your feelings, you know it to be true. If once you start down the lithium path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will. My apologies to Vader and Yoda. :-)
Shifting gears back to (this thread of) lithium batteries, not vehicles per se, I've run across an interesting quote from J of Power Sources regarding the technology:
"The lithium manganese spinel LiMn2O4 has been considered for over a decade the ideal replacement for LiCoO2 currently used in mass produced Li-ion battery cathodes. The driving forces for this are (i) lower cost, about ten times lower than LiCoO2, (ii) safer operation due to its steep end of charge signal, (iii) abuse tolerance due to its higher decomposition and oxygen release temperature than LiCoO2 and green attributes (easy disposal) due to its low toxicity. The above qualities make LiMn2O4 an ideal material for large scale production batteries that would power EV or HEV automobiles. However, such promising attributes have been plagued by an insufficient cycle-life, retarding its implementation in commercial products."
***
Two thoughts:
(1) Most people don't understand that saying "lithium battery" is like saying "fruit" -- there are lots of types at all sorts of prices, but for instance only one makes wine easily.
(2) I suspect that "my favorite company" has solved a piece of the problem described in the above quote -- if so, big "IF", then I will not be disappointed. One of my earliest comments was regarding the secretive nature of that company and its relationships -- so success is far from known or guaranteed. Time will tell.
'Davewmart, I always get a kick out of PR numbers. Believe them if you want to. '
Hmm..you seem to have missed the information in the links I gave and in other readily available information to the several hundred millions of dollars being invested right now in new factories in a time of financial stringency by all the major players.
Perhaps you know something that Toyota, Panasonic, LG, Sanyo and BYD and Warren Buffet do not, but I prefer to bet on past masters of production, rather than a few hopefuls with advanced lead acid technologies, whom most of the major car manufacturers appear to be taking little notice of.
Of course, they may power a lot of weak hybrids, as they are fine for stop-start and such, but the financial facts speak for lithium and NMiH being the chosen technology for hybrids beyond the most basic.
'Davewmart, the more important question is "assuming for the sake of discussion that Sanyo is right and that Panasonic, Sony, BYD, LG and JCI/Saft are in the picture somewhere, how could the result be anything other than catastrophic for Ener1, Altair and Valence?
Are you advocating a short position in these companies?'
First, for clarity's sake I nowhere stated that the result would be catastrophic for Valence et al - that is your gloss.
Sanyo were projecting their own production to rise to around 1.8 million, with 10 million cells produced, out of a total of 4.5 million.
That seems to leave quite a bit of space for others - and obviously the numbers are not hard and fast, particularly the total market, as Sanyo will be in a much better position to predict and budget for how many it can produce than what it's competitors will do.
Far Eastern companies seem likely to be in a far better position than American ones though, for several reasons, amongst them existing expertise, cheap Chinese labour, stronger national finances and a car market in China which is growing rapidly.
Don Harmon, congratulations, I hope you do very well in the final.
1. Claiming three years on a test rack without fully describing the charge-discharge parameters, voltage, amperage and principal environmental factors does not provide much guidance;
2. Three years on a test rack does not necessarily prove a 10 to 15 year life;
3. Test racks can only provide a rough approximation of the actual strains a specific application will place on an integrated system and the only way to nail that down is through validation testing; and
4. Battery users are never as predictable in their behavior as computerized test racks and without extensive real world validation testing by end users in a specific application for a reasonable period of time the rack, the best you can provide is an estimate.
I have been checking on mild hybrids.
Ford are going for NMiH in the Mercury:
reviews.cnet.com/sedan...
GM is going for Lithium from Hitachi as the power for it's next generation mild hybrids:
www.greencarcongress.c...
If we accept that Toyota and Honda are unlikely to change to lead acid for it's mild hybrids, just who is going to build all the lead acid mild hybrids in the US?
It is already plain from the engineering effort which is going into designing weak hybrids which all seem to be based on other than lead-acid technology and the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on factories to produce lithium and NMiH batteries, together with the complete absence of any plans at all to use lead acid for this, that regardless of the possible technical merits of lead-acid for weak hybrids it just is not going to happen, save possibly with moderately beefed up batteries to enable stop start at the lights.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
So if you're already using lead-acid starter systems in 97% to 99% of the market and you start beefing up start-stop capacity in 80% of the market the results fabulous for lead-acid while the other technologies fight over who is going to provide boost power for a small segment of the market.
A goal of battery electricity storage that would enable a car to travel the same distance as that provided by a tank of gas seems to be a benchmark that is still decades out yet, and it may never be accomplished practically unless an unknown technology is introduced. It may come to be that the best answer will be self-generation and storage combined in order to gain that desired benchmark. We have made much more progress in generation than in storage, so maybe nature is telling us something to which we should be listening more closely.
On Jun 11 03:59 PM John Petersen wrote:
> Don, I presume you would agree (or at least not disagree too intensely)
> with the following statements:
>
> 1. Claiming three years on a test rack without fully describing the
> charge-discharge parameters, voltage, amperage and principal environmental
> factors does not provide much guidance;
>
> 2. Three years on a test rack does not necessarily prove a 10 to
> 15 year life;
>
> 3. Test racks can only provide a rough approximation of the actual
> strains a specific application will place on an integrated system
> and the only way to nail that down is through validation testing;
> and
>
> 4. Battery users are never as predictable in their behavior as computerized
> test racks and without extensive real world validation testing by
> end users in a specific application for a reasonable period of time
> the rack, the best you can provide is an estimate.
All the hybrids as defined by the manufacturers so far have used NiMH batteries, and they are all staying with this or going to Lithium for the next generation.
They use lead acid to power the ancilliaries, and have no plans to change this.
They may bump up the power of the lead-acid a wee bit to take care of stop-start, but all the plans that the manufacturers have issued for their own definition of hybrids use a NiMH or lithium battery, just sticking with lead acid to help out.
You also feel that the, as far as I can determine, universal practise of car makers in using NiMH or now, lithium even in weak hybrids is going to cease - see for instance the Ford Mercury, which only got another 2 mpg on the non-hybrid version, but still used a NiMH battery for this, or the new Mercedes, which has a system which they plainly intend to be the basis of their future weak hybrid plans as they will hardly carry out a complete redesign to accommodate more lead acid for other models:
www.greencarcongress.c...
Lead-acid hanging on for ancilliary functions or being modestly boosted to provide some help with stop-start - although most seem to be going for other chemistries for this - is hardly evidence of a robust boom in lead-acid technology.
The future looks brighter for stationary applications.
Davewmart, rather than continue a complex discussion in this comment section, I'm working to wrap up a new article that takes a lot of the issues we've discussed and puts them into a more reader friendly format. It should be published on Sunday morning, or Monday at the latest.
As a Lithium - ion executive and producer it can be very frustrating in these rocky times trying to please these skeptics. One thing we can't do is provide 40 years of "clean data" on a new "fast developing" battery chemistry. It's not our fault. It's just a reality. In my position I find that the best thing we can do is to ignore these skeptics and not even attempt to provide them with ANY of the existing studies and data that we do have right now.
If you try to accomodate them, you end up with the same arguments that you put forth in all your articles so eloquently. Why bother trying? The new advanced Lithium-ion developers and manufacturers will be better served marching to the beat of their own drums right now. Continue to push the envelope of what you already have accomplished and develop the best damn battery products that we can at the moment. Forget all the squirrely PR about revolutionary new chemistries - and concentrate on the evolutionary path toward building a successful product and making a decent profit on it using what you have developed already.
I for one will not "go there" in the future endlessly debating the virtues and shorcomings of all the various battery chemistries out there. We need to stick to our knitting now and those who can't or won't be a customer right now may change their minds down the road? If not I won't miss their business, belive me, because there will be so many others who will gladly be our customers.
There comes a point where you do have draw a line in the sand and just do it.
While you may be getting a lot of heat from engineers who think NiMH is a wonderful thing, they will eventually understand that wonderful is irrelevant if NiMH battery manufacturers can't get enough lanthanum to significantly increase production.
I believe your can-do attitude is exactly what the industry needs to advance Li-ion technology from where it is to where it can be. You don't make unreasonable promises or create unreasonable expectations about the time the job will take, and you clearly want your business to grow organically. While our contact outside this forum has been limited, I truly admire what you're doing and think that you have a better chance of success than many of the public supermodels (they know who they are).
If I can ever be of any help to you or LiFeBATT, please call.
Like you I was very impressed with the potential for advanced lead acid to provide a lot of benefit at modest cost, but I am concerned to find out that there appears to be little commitment by major players to developing it.
Perhaps they are fixated by what you describe as the glamour of other technologies, but in any case they seem to be focussing on NiMH and lithium for uses where it would appear that lead acid might offer better cost/benefit ratios.
The oxygen from air applications is one of them, the theoretical kwh/kg of this is 10X to 40X today products, same applies to carbon cathodes ( they can work also in other materials not only in lead/acid) and this are not hearsay data, they have name and project.
What i want to say is that perhaps new techs will not reduce price...it will deliver 10X ....40X... at that is another story.
...And EEstor is still there, new data are coming from this company, perhaps it will be smoke, but if they real all our investments in batt tech will be smoke.
Regards.
www.newscientist.com/a...
nextbigfuture.com/2009...
Frankly we need every storage technology we have and a bunch that haven't been invented yet.
My sense is that when the dust clears and the validation testing is done we'll find that lead-carbon and lithium both have important and complimentary places in the industry. There will even be room for an EEstor (if they have anything). It's all going to boil down to finding the right device for the job at the best price. I'm convinced there is no single "best" answer (not even EEstor) and it's always going to be a matter of balancing price and performance.
By the way, can you believe this article drew 205 comments?
It seems to me that many VC investors and R/D in the field follows it..
Regards
People often ask where my ideas come from and the honest answer is "the comments" because issues that are heavily discussed in comments generally deserve a deeper analysis.
Thanks for being one of those smart readers. My latest should be up within the next couple of hours.
seekingalpha.com/artic...