How Short Term Supply Constraints Will Impact Booming HEV Markets

For several weeks I've been writing about robust demand in Europe for a new class of HEVs that are usually referred to as "stop-start" or "micro hybrids." According to the EPA's website:

"Stop/Start hybrids are not true hybrids since electricity from the battery is not used to propel the vehicle. However, the Stop/Start feature is an important, energy-saving building block used in hybrid vehicles.

Stop/Start technology conserves energy by shutting off the gasoline engine when the vehicle is at rest, such as at a traffic light, and automatically re-starting it when the driver pushes the gas pedal to go forward."

The concept is simple and so is the technology. Adding micro hybrid capabilities at the factory typically costs less than $1,000 per vehicle and improves fuel efficiency by an estimated 5% to 8%. It's a baby step, but as my first table in The Obama Fast Track for HEVs shows, it's more cost-effective than any other class of HEV technology. The main reason micro hybrids are so affordable is that they use advanced lead-acid batteries instead of more expensive alternatives.

Since the booming European micro hybrid phenomenon has not reached the U.S., a couple skeptical readers challenged me to show them press releases from major European OEMs announcing plans to produce HEVs that didn't use NiMH or Li-ion batteries. They were not satisfied with my initial response that micro hybrids are being adopted as standard equipment without major fanfare. Yesterday I found an October 2008 "Power Solutions Backgrounder" from Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) that proves the point nicely:

"We sold 400,000 advanced batteries for start/stop micro hybrid vehicles in Europe in 2007 and 800,000 in 2008, with the expectation of doubling that number again in 2009 to approximately 1.5 million batteries. These vehicles achieve a 5 percent to 8 percent fuel savings compared to conventional gas vehicles."

I then found www.hybridcars.com, a rich source of data that describes itself as the Internet’s premier website dedicated to hybrid gas-electric vehicles. By combining the micro hybrid battery sales data from JCI with additional data from hybridcars.com, I was able to cobble together the following graph that shows the growth of the global HEV market over the last 10 years. Since I don't have access to comprehensive data on the European micro hybrid market, I assumed that JCI was the only competitor. As a result, the graph understates European micro hybrid sales by a couple of percentage points, but in this case shape is far more important than numerical precision.

Click to enlarge


With historical data to provide context, the following graph from a 2008 Frost & Sullivan presentation that summarizes their forecast of future growth in global HEV sales makes a good deal more sense than it may have in earlier articles.

Click to enlarge


As I explained in How Growing HEV Markets Will Impact Battery Manufacturing Revenues, the Frost & Sullivan forecast was based solely on European CO2 tailpipe emission standards that take effect in 2012 and did not account for President Obama's subsequent acceleration of CAFE standards. That recent change will have the effect of pushing growth that would normally have occurred in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe into earlier years and could easily double the growth rates that were expected last fall. While I'm happy to leave the work of updating growth forecasts to experts like Frost & Sullivan, it seems safe to conclude that the next few years will be a challenging time for the battery industry.

Under the growth scenario presented in the Frost & Sullivan graph, the bulk of the unit growth in the HEV markets will go to lead-acid battery manufacturers who will not need to make larger numbers of batteries, but will need to make higher quality batteries that are better suited to the performance requirements of micro hybrids. This changing product mix will reduce production volumes for low cost VRLA batteries and increase production volumes for advanced lead-acid batteries, and should lead to rapid and sustained revenue growth for all lead-acid battery producers.

As we move away from the micro hybrid market and focus on the higher value markets for mild, full and plug-in hybrids, the challenges become more daunting. Jack Lifton has written several articles on global production constraints for the rare earth metal lanthanum; the "M" in NiMH batteries. His basic concerns are that substantially all of the world's supply of rare earth metals comes from China; their current production of roughly 33,000 tons of lanthanum per year can only provide raw materials for about a million HEV battery packs; and their domestic demand for rare earth metals is growing at an extraordinary rate that will limit future exports. Since it usually takes several years to increase production from an existing mine and even longer to bring a new mine into production, Jack expects the battery industry to encounter substantial short- to medium-term bottlenecks in the lanthanum supply chain. If he's right, automakers will be forced to make a Hobson's choice for an increasing percentage of their HEV battery needs:

• Use Li-ion batteries despite the performance, cost, abuse tolerance and cycle life concerns; or
• Use advanced lead-acid batteries despite the weight and volume concerns.

On its face this seems to be good news for Li-ion battery developers like Ener1 (HEV), Valence Technology (VLNC) and Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) who consistently argue that their proposed products are best choice to fill the gap between surging HEV demand and constrained NiMH battery supply. While many find those arguments persuasive if not compelling, I remain skeptical for several reasons.

First, Li-ion batteries have a checkered history in portable electronics that are used indoors. We know almost nothing about their long-term performance when exposed to the extreme heat, cold, moisture, vibration, driving habits, user neglect and physical stress that automobiles have to endure on a daily basis. The only way to develop that knowledge base will be to get Li-ion batteries out of the laboratory and into test fleets. While many automakers have announced plans to begin limited production of HEVs and PHEVs that use Li-ion traction batteries over the next two years, I can't help but wonder whether the Li-ion battery sector isn't in exactly the same position that the NiMH battery sector was in 10 years ago.

My next graph comes from the May 2009 Dashboard at hybridcars.com and shows the 10 -year U.S. sales history for HEVs with NiMH batteries. Call me a Ludditeluddite, but I have a hard time accepting the idea that HEVs with Li-ion batteries will follow a development path that goes from zero vehicles per year to a million vehicles hundreds of thousands of per year over the course of four or five years. From all of the numerical forecasts I’ve seen, the DOE and all major automakers share those reservations.

Click to enlarge
Second, the world's productive capacity for the large-format Li-ion batteries that are needed for automotive applications is very limited. There have been numerous announcements about plans to build new factories, but the bulk of those planned facilities will not be operational until 2011 or 2012. Since most existing Li-ion battery plants are already running at full capacity to make batteries for the high value portable electronics markets, I don't believe Li-ion batteries will be able to make a meaningful contribution to the auto industry's drive to meet European CO2
emission standards by 2012.

Third, I remain concerned that global rates of lithium production will not be able to keep pace with rapidly increasing demand for Li-ion batteries. According to USGS publications , approximately 25% of global lithium production is used for Li-ion batteries. While global lithium production has grown at an annual rate of roughly 6% over the last couple of years to a 2008 total of 27,400 tons, the production process for lithium from brines involves an 18-month evaporation cycle before the alkali salts contained in the brine are ready for separation, refining, processing and use.

Moreover lithium mining is subject to the same expansion constraints as other extractive industries. I'm no longer worried about the long-term adequacy of global lithium resources and I know that production capacity can be expanded over time, but production capacity cannot be expanded quickly and there are certain to be substantial short- to medium-term production bottlenecks.

Finally, I remain concerned about the current development status of large-format Li-ion batteries for automotive use. In a February article titled DOE Reports That Lithium-on Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time, I summarized the conclusions of the DOE's 2008 Annual Progress Report for the Energy Storage Research and Development Vehicle Technologies Program that basically said Li-ion batteries would not be suitable for use in mass market HEV and PHEV applications until technical barriers relating to cost, performance, abuse tolerance and cycle life were overcome.

I expanded on that theme in Understanding the Development Path for Li-ion Battery Technologies after a reader sent me sent me an unpublished "pre-decisional draft" of a DOE report titled National Battery Collaborative (NBC) Roadmap, December 9, 2008, 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. While the draft roadmap went a long way toward easing my concerns over the long-term future of large format Li-ion batteries, it merely reinforced my conviction that Li-ion batteries are not currently ready for the big show.

Automakers are a conservative lot and they are intensely sensitive to price, performance and supply chain issues. They understand that NiMH and Li-ion battery supplies are constrained by limited global production of lanthanum and lithium, and that large format Li-ion battery supplies will be further constrained for several years by inadequate manufacturing capacity. They also have substantial reservations about the long-term performance of Li-ion batteries under the extreme heat, cold, humidity and vibration conditions that automobiles have to endure on a daily basis. Notwithstanding these known and very real business constraints, the automakers are under strict regulatory edicts to reduce fleet average CO2 emissions to 130 grams per kilometer in Europe by 2012 and improve fuel economy by roughly 35% in the U.S. by 2016. These are very brief timeframes for changes of this magnitude.

The end result is an untenable situation where proven NiMH batteries won't be available in adequate volumes during the regulatory compliance period and even unproven Li-ion batteries will be subject to daunting supply constraints. In a nutshell, supply constraints will leave the booming HEV markets in a critical state of flux for several years. While nothing can be predicted with certainty, I believe the likely responses from automakers will fit in three distinct categories:

1. Automakers will continue to use proven NiMH batteries as their preferred HEV battery technology until limited lanthanum supplies restrict the ability to manufacture NiMH batteries;
2. Automakers will accelerate their efforts to build demonstration fleets of high value products using unproven Li-ion batteries, but production volumes will remain small until they gather enough hard performance data to justify the widespread commercialization of Li-ion batteriesthe technology; and
3. Automakers will significantly increase their use of advanced lead-acid batteries in high volume budget priced product lines, including mild and full hybrids that can tolerate the hundredseventy-five pound weight gain and one cubic foot space loss that will typically arise from using advanced lead-acid batteries instead of NiMH or Li-ion.

This is a sub-optimal environment for all parties because automakers do not have the flexibility to develop new product lines on a multi-year schedule. They have to go to work immediately with the tools at their disposal and bring their product lines into regulatory compliance in a little over five years. The end result will be an accelerated timeline for Li-ion batteries and increased use of advanced lead-acid batteries in product lines that might have been introduced with NiMH batteries under more normal conditions. As automakers develop experience with using both advanced lead-acid and Li-ion batteries in roughly equivalent applications, the unanswered technical and cost-benefit questions about which technology is best for automotive applications will be conclusively answered. In other words, we're going to have a horse race after all.

DISCLOSURE: Author does not own any of the stocks mentioned in this article because all of his personal investments are in pure-play lead-acid battery manufacturers.

Comments

[Javaharv]

What about advance diesel technologies? And diesel emission technology? They claim 50 mpg. It would seem to me to be the answer to reducing emissions.
Who does JCI get their lead acid batteries form? AXPW? We wish!

2009 Jun 21 08:34 AM

[John Petersen]

Javaharv, advanced diesel has been monster big in Europe for as long as I've lived her (going on 12 years) and just keeps gaining popularity. The big push for stop-start comes from an across the board reduction of CO2 tailpipe emissions that has to happen by 2012. The Frost & Sullivan presentation showed a current fleet average of 160 g/km and a 2012 target of 120 g/km. If you start with a 160 g/km vehicle and use start-stop, you immediately get a 13 g/km improvement without changing anything.

JCI is one of the top three automotive lead-acid battery manufacturers in the world. The other two have strategic relationships with AXPW. In my world, two out of three's not bad.

2009 Jun 21 08:46 AM

[John Petersen]

CLARIFICATION: I just found a high level clarification of what the European standards require:

"Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted yesterday to formally approve a reduction in the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of all new passenger cars sold in the European Union (EU), starting from 2012. As per the deal that was struck between EU governments and MEPs at the start of this month, carmakers must reduce their fleet average CO2 emissions to 130 g/km by 2015, with a further 10 g/km emission savings to come from supplementary measures such as biofuels and tyre pressure monitoring systems.

* * *

Under the phase-in, 65% of Europe's new car fleet must meet the target in 2012; 75% in 2013, 80% in 2014 and 100% from the beginning of 2015. There will be a sliding scale whereby each carmaker is given an individual target based on the average weight of their cars. Fiat, which makes the lightest cars in Europe, is at the bottom of this scale and will have to reduce its fleet average CO2 emissions to 122 g/km. BMW and Daimler, which make the heaviest cars are thus at the top of the scale, will have to reduce their average emissions to 137 g/km."

www.globalinsight.com/...

2009 Jun 21 08:59 AM

[john s. gordon]

i sense a problem with use of micro hybrid in the u.s.a since there must be a time delay in getting the engine started & then up to some useful rpm where some torque is being produced,
maybe european drivers are more patient but here if you don't peel out the instant the green goes on you are likely to be rammed in the tail by some dude driving a big heavy thing. ouch.
i have used a sort of 'micro hybrid' in the past, when waiting in a line of cars in summer & want to avold overheating. just turn the key off & restart manually when needed. just don't be @ the head of the line.
> jack

2009 Jun 21 10:08 AM

[Caveat M. Tor]

You note: "Adding micro hybrid capabilities at the factory typically costs less than $1,000 per vehicle and improves fuel efficiency by an estimated 5% to 8%."

This is not a cost-effective add-on for vehicles which are already relatively fuel-efficient. If a car gets 35 mpg and is driven 15,000 miles per year, at $4.00 per gallon, it will take a good 10 years to make up the cost of the add-on, not including the time value of money. Most consumers would rather have $1,000 in their pocket now, rather than get a payout of less than $100 per year.

2009 Jun 21 11:35 AM

[John Petersen]

john s. gordon, you've identified the big issue that carmakers are grappling with right now. A Mercedes executive was recently quoted as saying:

""Fitting the system to any engine and gearbox is not a problem, we can get reliability quite easily," said Spengel. "Achieving the smoothness of the start is the real problem. Engaging the starter takes a little time, and then firing the engine takes a little time, and it is important that our system does not disturb the driver."

With lots of people working on the issue, I'm confident that we'll see rapid improvement.

Caveat M Tor, the economics for drivers is invariably poor on HEV technologies for the reasons you identify, which has always been my main criticism of plug-ins. What we're seeing on the micro hybrid issue is government rules that require the fuel savings regardless of whether the consumer thinks they offer sound economics. On the bright side, micro hybrids get the biggest gas savings for every dollar invested. On the dimmer side, the payback periods are still too long and in the final analysis cheap will beat cool every time.

2009 Jun 21 11:47 AM

[Jack Lifton]

John,

As it happens this weekend I have spoken at length with Dudley Kingsnorth in Perth Australia., and corresponded by email and phone with David Kennerdy in Birkenhead (Liverpoole) UK. Respectively they are the world's leading authority on the market fundamental of rare earths and the only man in the west who engineers and produces rare earth magnet alloy powder (rare earth magnets are made by sintering alloy powders either of samarium-cobalt or of neodymium-iron-boron). Both of these gentlemen are scheduled to be on a panel with me (Mr. end-use of rare earth metals "expert") in Washington, DC, in October.

In any case we all agree that NiMH battery production is severely resource production rate limited. I googled ""lanthanum production" and 2008" just to see what info is out there and lo and behold I got an article on the new "Chinese Rare Earths Society" web site that is almost word for word constructed of quotes from me! My articles are also featured on their site. I'm one of their key sources of the production levels of the rare earths. Dudley and David are of course my most reliable sources, but they don't write as much as I do, publicly.

The point of this immodest rant is this: Reasonable men can disagree on the total of accessible resources (known and measured) and reserves (implied and extrapolated) of the rare earths, but no one disagrees that any increase in output rate of metals and minerals is a market issue. No one is arbitrarily making the massive and long term payout type of investment required to increase the output of a mine and to increase the refining capacity for the mine's product and the manufacturing capacity for the end use of the mine's refined product just based on newspaper stories or market hype. This is as true for lithium as it is for rare earths.

Note well that the use of lanthanum to make fluid cracking catalysts to process increasingly lower grades of petroleum resources may be the largest use today of lanthanum. If this is so then the availability of lanthanum for NiMH batteries may only be half of what we think. I was at Molycorp's Mountain Pass mine two weeks ago, and they told me that all of their current lanthanum production, only 4 tons a day at the moment, goes to FCC production. They plan to ultimately ramp up to 32 tons/day, but their FCC customer is interested in all of that. Note that Toyota has just announced the addition of hybrid lift-trucks to their line. Those NiMH batteries are big ones. Toyota is a marketing genius. Instead of having one lift truck working and one or two charging you can have a hybrid running all the time. If the cost increase and the reliability and durability and maintenance are equal to the ICE powered lift truck and the cost per unit is less than double it's a great deal.

I think that the shortages and their causes -market dynamics-cannot be hidden much longer. Choices have to be made. As you say in the near term there is no choice but lead-acid technology for widespread application in transportation.

Best regards,

Jack

2009 Jun 21 11:50 AM

[ECD Fan]

I don't get it. What is the difference between GM's mild hybrids (namely, Vue, Aura, and Malibu) and the "micro hybrids?" As you know from the data at hybridcars.com, GM's milds are a total failure. Less than 6,000 milds sold in 2008, combined. And now they are being discontinued.

2009 Jun 21 11:56 AM

[John Petersen]

Jack, as usual you comments and insights are truly appreciated. The clarity that you've added over the last few months on the difference between "resources" that might be put into production at some future date and "proved developed producing reserves" that can be used to solve our problems over the next five years is a breath of fresh air.

ECD Fan, micro hybrids are stop-start only and the electric motor does not augment the ICE during acceleration. Mild hybrids use slightly bigger batteries to provide another 20 hp of boost during acceleration. Full hybrids use the electric motor to launch from a stop and don't start the ICE until it's needed. For more detail see:

seekingalpha.com/artic...

2009 Jun 21 12:02 PM

[Michael Boyter]

Battery technology will continue to develop, it's natural evolution. The part your all missing is the charging ability of the power source. How about a mobile power source that can charge 40% faster than any conventional charger? We have that in a U/L -CE approved unit today. The XPX C-1000 DC Charge Controller., (as tested in documented test results from the U S Military) This works best when powered by Solar, or any other unstable energy source. When XPX Technology is widely introduced it will change the whole landscape for the automotive and the solar industry also. In addition to Charging batteries faster, it also extracts a minimum of 15% under optimal to in excess of 100% more electrical energy under very low light conditions, from any PV or Thin Film solar system. If your interested in finding out more visit our web site at heliospowersolutions.com

2009 Jun 21 12:28 PM

[John Lounsbury]

John - - -

You and your commenting readership are doing a great job keeping the rest of us informed about developments in the storgae arena. I know I have thanked you before, but I feel I am not thanking you enough.

2009 Jun 21 01:04 PM

[NorthernPiker]

John, you only specified one weight gain for mild and full hybrid batteries - “the hundred seventy-five pound (80 kg) weight gain … that will typically arise from using advanced lead-acid batteries instead of NiMH or Li-ion.” There is no mention of the weight gain for a micro HEV battery.

You may want to specify the weight (and mileage) gain of a micro, mild and full HEV since your article states that a micro HEV only “improves fuel efficiency (and CO2 emissions) by an estimated 5% to 8%” – an improvement that would be effectively canceled by a 80 kg weight gain.

An 80 kg weight gain would translate to a fuel penalty of 0.30 liters per 100km and an increase of 8g of CO2 per km, based on interpolation of numbers published in a European Aluminium Association (EAA) newsletter:

“Using 1 kg of aluminium replaces 2kg of standard steel, secondary weight savings included, and by saving 100kg of weight in a car, 0.38 litres per 100km of fuel are saved…. By using 100kg of aluminium the car’s emissions are reduced by 10g of CO2 per km, …”

www.eaa.net/upl/4/defa...

2009 Jun 21 01:05 PM

[NorthernPiker]

This 2005 paper on the impact of NiMH batteries and HEV electric motors on the minor metals market may help in the discussions, although its main focus is on the cobalt market.

It also defines a micro hybrid a bit differently than John in that there is no electric motor.

"Soft- or Micro-hybrids
These are constructed like conventional vehicles but have an engine programmed to shut down when the car is in stationary traffic, thus saving fuel. Soft-hybrids have zero impact on cobalt consumption and are not included in the forecasts made later"

www.formcap.com/i/pdf/...

2009 Jun 21 01:16 PM

[Don Harmon]

John, what is the average number of advanced carbon (Lead Acid) batteries that go into a micro-hybrid vehicle?

2009 Jun 21 01:26 PM

[ginchinchili]

John, you present a very convincing argument, particularly in this piece. However, something that has struck me as I read about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is that it actually mentions the government's intentions to place a lot of emphasis (I assume that translates into $dollars$) on the development of advanced lithium ion batteries. Isn't it implicit in your position that this money would be better spent elsewhere? Is this just another example of our government not thoroughly weighing all sides on an issue and are placing their bets on a horse that can't win? Do you think they're position on where best to invest the advanced battery grants is better informed and developed now that they've been analyzing the battery companies' grant proposals?

2009 Jun 21 01:38 PM

[mkreisel]

European min-hybrids are great for making human hamburgers on American freeways.

Just for the safety of my family, I would rather cough several thousands more for gasoline each year than to have them hit by the average American SUVs/truchs/vans.

2009 Jun 21 01:55 PM

[John Petersen]

John, coming from someone who is as widely followed and read as you are, I take any kind words as high praise. This is the hardest work I've ever done to have the time of my life.

Northernpiker, the weight gain at the micro hybrid level is insignificant because it only uses a single battery. The replacement is the same size, just higher quality.

The 100,000 mile road-test that the Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium sponsored using the lead-carbon Ultrabattery in a retrofitted Honda Insight (a mild hybrid) ended up with a 2.8% reduction in fuel economy in return for a $2,000 saving on production costs.

www.autobloggreen.com/.../

I'm using the same definition for micro hybrids. A micro does stop-start only with no boost to the traction system. A mild hybrid adds a low level of traction boost and a full hybrid can do electric only launch.

Don, it's just a single battery because it's only function is powering the starter motor. Since the starter motor gets used a lot more frequently, it has to be a good deal stronger than what we've traditionally seen used for OEM starter batteries.

ginchinchili, advanced lead-acid is very important for the short- to medium-term because it will work well as a bridging technology in micro, mild and probably full hybrids. If the ultimate goal is a PHEV or EV future, Li-ion is a critical development project. $2 billion is an immense amount of money, particularly if it's spread over short- medium- and long-term solutions. There is precious little data to analyze on the grant proposals because that information isn't publicly available. Given the number and variety of ARRA grant applications that were filed, I would love to see the DOE do 2 or 3 major grants ($100 to $150 million) and a dozen or more smaller grants ($30 to $50 million) instead of following their original plan that called for 7 or 8 major grants totaling $1.2 billion.

mkreisel, under the accelerated CAFE standards, each class of vehicle on the road will have to cut fuel consumption by roughly 35% by 2016.. The same rules will apply equally to both Smart Cars and Hummers. So if you really want to drive a gas guzzler, you might think about buying several and warehousing them for future use.

2009 Jun 21 02:37 PM

[Advill]

Yes, but here the approach is REDUCING CO not the payback of certain feature, so is not a matter of putting something in a car that gets a cost-effective gagdet, when you have a cost -AFFECTIVE one (double turbocharge for example) you assume that is not a cost effective but affective, in this case reducing CO2 is a mandatory law, has having airbags or belts in cars

Regards


On Jun 21 11:35 AM Caveat M. Tor wrote:

> You note: "Adding micro hybrid capabilities at the factory typically
> costs less than $1,000 per vehicle and improves fuel efficiency by
> an estimated 5% to 8%."
>
> This is not a cost-effective add-on for vehicles which are already
> relatively fuel-efficient. If a car gets 35 mpg and is driven 15,000
> miles per year, at $4.00 per gallon, it will take a good 10 years
> to make up the cost of the add-on, not including the time value of
> money. Most consumers would rather have $1,000 in their pocket now,
> rather than get a payout of less than $100 per year.

2009 Jun 21 02:40 PM

[jerrydd]

As a builder and driver of custom EV's and member of EV groups who actually use the techs politics and Corporate inertia are the only problems here.

NiMh is not and never will be a good battery because it's materials cost too much and Chevron who bought the patents has refused to allow more than 10amphr batteries to be made so EV's couldn't use them. But that doesn't matter anymore as Li is easily a far better battery.

There are multiple Li battery types that are ready for hybrid and EV use now. The only thing holding them back is orders. Until they get orders there is no reason to build plants though many are anyway. The facts are car companies have never liked EV's and don't want to produce them. Baker Electric built 110 mile range EV's back in 1911 and Jay Leno's still has some of the original Edison/NiFe batteries. Why can't we do the same 100 yrs later?

EV people, mostly hobbyist because no one will build them for us so we have to build our own, now buy Li batteries at prices, $.30/wthr that is less than sealed lead batteries in 10 EV lots.

As for micro hybrids there is no reason they have to cost more than present starter/alt/flywheel/ they need need anyway. By putting these into the flywheel saves much weight, belts, ect easily enough to pay any control costs needed. As for restarting speed there is no reason for it not to be instant, faster than a regular throttle response due to no gears, ect.

As for Li supply we have plenty and there are millions of underground salt dome/brines including many in already drilled oil/NG fields that have Li for the pumping. Facts are we have just started looking for it. Test all these wells and I'm sure many will be a Lithium source.

Then for more used, commercial vehicles Sodium batteries like the Zebra are excellent and long lasting. I own many flooded Ni-cad batteries that are over 35 yrs old and still put out more than rated power in my small EV's.

What we need for cost effective EV's are light, aero vehicles to put them in. With such a glider even lead batteries can do 100 mile range in a cost effective manor. I'm building a Lovin's Hypercar style EV that uses medium tech composites instead of carbon fiber to make a crash resistant body/chassis stronger than steel at 1/2 the weight with a CD of .22. It's a 2 seat sportswagon that if produced could be for under $12k. With an option generator it would have unlimited range for another $1k. This uses 30-100 yr old tech so nothing needed to be invented, just produced. My prototype got 300mpg cost equivalent for fuel.

As I said before, the only things holding plug in Hybrids and EV's is politics, oil and car companies.

BTW unless Valence has developed new tech their Li batteries suck. Ones I know are good are A123 and Kokam. Others are still being tested.

2009 Jun 21 02:43 PM

[Advill]

Again we are here reducing the battery world to lead-acid and Li-io, there are many technologies that are emerging , to start with NIMH is not a static product, is is having improvements as new Prius and some others are having NIMH 2.0 and the same porous carbon technology being applied in AXPW can be use in other types.

There are a new generation of batteries using air as reactive instead liquids, acids etc. Zinc-air, and others will come in very short time, sooner perhaps that Axion product which is moving slowly into the market.

Other point, from my point of view CO2 is independent of what is driven US and Europe in relation with cars, what the goverments are after is reduce oil exposure with all the consecuences...which is in this moment fortunately in the same trend with reducing CO2, but if they have to choose between....be sure they will decide reduce oil exposure as much as they can, so there are many "micro hybrids" solutions that compete with batteries.

Regards

2009 Jun 21 02:54 PM