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a reader who works as a consultant in the energy storage and hybrid electric vehicles industries and sent me an unpublished "pre-decisional draft" of a DOE report titled National Battery Collaborative (NBC) Roadmap, December 9, 2009, a high-level policy analysis that discusses the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
|
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. :-)