Debunking PHEV Mythology 108 comments
August 23, 2009
| about: USO
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Last week was fascinating because of three articles that found their way to my computer.
The first was a thematic piece in McKinsey Quarterly titled "Profiting from the low-carbon economy" that included a carbon abatement cost graph which showed full hybrid automobiles (HEVs) offered CO2 abatement savings of roughly $50 per ton while plug-in hybrid automobiles (PHEVs) imposed CO2 abatement costs of roughly $20 per ton, or slightly more than a nuclear power plant.
The second was GM's widely publicized announcement that the Volt would get 230 miles per gallon.
The third was a special report from CNNMoney.com titled "Volt vs. Prius: What's the better deal?"
After reading and thinking about these articles for a few days, I went to work on an Excel spreadsheet to analyze the differences between HEV and PHEV options and reduce them to a simple customer oriented financial analysis. The summary results I share in this article demonstrate once again that the glittering promise of PHEVs is nothing more than post-modern mythology that does not stand up to even basic economic analysis. For readers that take issue with my assumptions and want to test their own theories, a copy of my Excel spreadsheet is available here. The server copy is write protected but you can save it to your system using a different name and check my work at your leisure.
Gas Price Assumptions
Since 1999, the average annual increase in the price of crude oil has been roughly 17.5%. Based on the following graph that I've used in other articles, I believe oil prices will stabilize around $80 per barrel later this year and continue to move upward within the price channel until we hit the next inflection point. (click to enlarge)
The following table shows potential future gasoline prices over the next 10 years based on three scenarios: a 17.5% annual rate of increase like we've had for the last decade; a 25% annual rate of increase and a 32.5% annual rate of increase. Any way you look at it, the numbers are incredibly ugly. We cry and complain that gas prices peaked at $4.50 last year. Can you imagine the pain and economic dislocation arising from $12.50 gas prices 10 years out?
Calendar17.5%Annual25.0% Annual32.5% Annual YearGas Price IncreaseGas Price IncreaseGas Price Increase 2010$2.94$3.13$3.31 2011$3.45$3.91$4.39 2012$4.06$4.88$5.82 2013$4.77$6.10$7.71 2014$5.60$7.63$10.21 2015$6.58$9.54$13.53 2016$7.73$11.92$17.92 2017$9.08$14.90$23.75 2018$10.67$18.63$31.47 2019$12.54$23.28$41.70
Since the goal of this article is to debunk prevailing PHEV mythology, I'll assume that oil price increases over the next decade will mirror the 17.5% rate we experienced in the last decade.
Other Key Assumptions
In a recent Instablog titled "Lies, Damned Lies and MPG Claims for the Volt" I criticized GM for claiming 230 mpg for the Volt because any attempt to combine electric vehicle "EV" range with internal combustion engine "ICE" range is meaningless. I also speculated that the easiest way to get to a 230 mpg figure for the Volt was to assume a 46 mile daily commute, a 40 mile EV range, and 30 mpg fuel economy for ICE powered driving. While I found the numbers arbitrary for a public fuel efficiency announcement, they didn't strike me as inherently unreasonable. So I've decided to follow GM's lead and use the same basic assumptions for this article:
Daily driving distance | 46 miles |
Annual driving days | 250 days |
Annual vacation trips | 1,000 miles |
Total annual mileage | 12,500 miles |
Basic ICE fuel economy | 30 mpg |
Baseline electricity cost | $0.115 kWh |
Inflation rate for electricity | 4.0% |
Discount Rate for | |
present value calculations | 7.5% |
Minimum car ownership period | 5 years |
Maximum car ownership period | 10 years |
My Baseline Scenario
As a baseline scenario I started with a $20,000 new car equipped with a standard ICE that would get 30 mpg and use 417 gallons of gasoline per year. A consumer who bought the car for cash, used 417 gallons of gas per year, and sold the car after five years for 35% of his initial purchase price would have an undiscounted total cost of ownership of $21,671 for the five year period. Stretching the ownership period out to 10 years and reducing the resale value to 10% of the purchase price results in an undiscounted total cost of ownership of $46,090. To keep things as simple as possible, I ignored maintenance and assumed all batteries would last for the entire service life.
The HEV Alternatives
I then used the same basic assumptions to calculate the total cost of ownership five and ten year periods for:
- A $21,000 micro hybrid that would improve fuel economy by 8%;
- A $23,000 mild hybrid that would improve fuel economy by 20%;
- A $26,000 full hybrid that would improve fuel economy by 40%; and
- A $32,500 PHEV (after tax credits) that would offer 40 miles of EV range and 30 mpg fuel economy from its ICE.
The five and ten year total cost of ownership values are summarized in the following table.
Purchase | 5 Year | Resale | Undiscounted | |
Price | Fuel Cost | Value | Cost of Ownership | |
Pure ICE | $20,000 | $8,671 | ($7,000) | $21,671 |
Micro Hybrid | $21,000 | $7,977 | ($7,350) | $21,627 |
Mild Hybrid | $23,000 | $6,936 | ($8,050) | $21,886 |
Full Hybrid | $26,000 | $5,202 | ($9,100) | $22,102 |
PHEV 40 | $32,500 | $2,598 | ($11,375) | $23,723 |
Purchase | 10 Year | Resale | Undiscounted | |
Price | Fuel Cost | Value | Cost of Ownership | |
Pure ICE | $20,000 | $28,090 | ($2,000) | $46,090 |
Micro Hybrid | $21,000 | $25,843 | ($2,100) | $44,743 |
Mild Hybrid | $23,000 | $22,472 | ($2,300) | $43,172 |
Full Hybrid | $26,000 | $16,854 | ($2,600) | $40,254 |
PHEV 40 | $32,500 | $6,823 | ($3,250) | $36,07 |
This table is a very simplistic presentation that assumes a buyer will pay cash for his vehicle and doesn't worry about details like the time value of money. Nevertheless, it shows that a PHEV will represent a 9.5% up-charge for customers who buy with a 5-year ownership horizon and a maximum savings of 21.7% if they buy with a 10 year ownership horizon.
To take the level of sophistication up a notch, the following table calculates the discounted present values of the five and ten-year total cost of ownership using an imputed interest rate of 7.5% per year. While it's easy to argue that a 7.5% discount rate is far too low for an individual's financial transactions, the table makes it clear that a PHEV will represent a 21.3% up-charge for customers who buy with a 5 year ownership horizon and a 3.4% savings for customers who buy with a 10 year ownership horizon.
Purchase | 5 Year | Resale | Net Present Value | |
Price | Fuel Cost | Value | Cost of Ownership | |
Pure ICE | $20,000 | $6,855 | ($4,876) | $21,979 |
Micro Hybrid | $21,000 | $6,307 | ($5,120) | $22,187 |
Mild Hybrid | $23,000 | $5,484 | ($5,607) | $22,877 |
Full Hybrid | $26,000 | $4,113 | ($6,339) | $23,774 |
PHEV 40 | $32,500 | $2,076 | ($7,923) | $26,652 |
Purchase | 10 Year | Resale | Net Present Value | |
Price | Fuel Cost | Value | Cost of Ownership | |
Pure ICE | $20,000 | $17,550 | ($970) | $36,579 |
Micro Hybrid | $21,000 | $16,146 | ($1,019) | $36,127 |
Mild Hybrid | $23,000 | $14,040 | ($1,116) | $35,924 |
Full Hybrid | $26,000 | $10,530 | ($1,262) | $35,268 |
PHEV 40 | $32,500 | $4,421 | ($1,577) | $35,344 |
Sensitivity Factors
The most critical sensitivity factor for the total cost of ownership calculations is expected future gasoline prices. In general, ultra-rapid escalation of gasoline prices makes PHEVs increasingly attractive on a net present value basis, but only at the cost of imposing a crushing burden on the global economy.
The second major sensitivity factor is the imputed interest rate used for the present value calculations. As the discount rate approaches credit card rates of 15%, PHEVs become less attractive.
The third major sensitivity factor is battery cost. The current Federal tax credit for electric drive vehicles is the rough equivalent of a $500 per kWh discount on the purchase price of the batteries. For PHEVs to become truly cost-competitive with micro, mild and full hybrid vehicles, the industry will need to shave another 50% off current heavily subsidized price levels. Unless the government decides that it wants to subsidize PHEV battery costs in perpetuity, battery prices will eventually have to fall from $1,000 per kWh to roughly $250 per kWh, which may indeed be possible given another decade of battery chemistry research and manufacturing technology development. Unless and until we see massive reductions in battery costs, however, PHEVs will be little more than vanity purchases for the green elite who can pay big premiums for status symbols.
We've all heard the mythology that PHEVs will save users buckets of money by using cheap electricity instead of expensive gasoline. The hard reality is that none of the HEV or PHEV options is a money saver for the consumer. To make matters worse, all of the planned PHEVs will be considerably less convenient and reliable than their less glamorous cousins. While I grew up with the family car and have a difficult time imagining life without one, it may be time for the industrialized world to consider a paradigm shift of the type proposed by Seeking Alpha contributor Bill James in his recent article "Personal Rapid Transit: Preempting the Need for Oil in Urban Transport." The days of using any kind of energy to move 3,000 pounds of steel and 200 or 300 pounds of passengers at highway speed are over! We've just been avoiding that particular reality because it's unpleasant.
In a world where 6 billion people are working overtime to earn a small piece of the lifestyle 500 million of us take for granted, the idea that we can continue to waste any natural resources, including water, food, oil and battery materials, must be crushed. Personal rapid transit may not have all the comfort and convenience we've come to expect from a car, but it beats the heck out of forcing huge segments of America's working population to rely on electric bicycles and scooters.
Author's Update: On August 21, 2009, Economist.com published a new tech view article titled "Sticker shock - Ignore the 230 miles-per-gallon claims being touted for GM's plug-in hybrid." This article does a good job of explaining the calculation methodology GM used to get to the 230 mpg figure and confirms my belief that the number is basically meaningless.
Author's Update: On August 21, 2009, Economist.com published a new tech view article titled "Sticker shock - Ignore the 230 miles-per-gallon claims being touted for GM's plug-in hybrid." This article does a good job of explaining the calculation methodology GM used to get to the 230 mpg figure and confirms my belief that the number is basically meaningless.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 108 comments:
Please, please keep whacking the drums and nuggling US policy about the senseless flaws surfacing in your niche.
Again, I'm honored.
You've created another gem in the above article.
Glen Mercer, I picked the general across the board averages for the US auto industry because the only car with a meaningful track record is the Prius. The rest of the hybrid and PHEV configurations are just going into production, or going into production in a year or two. I'm willing to stretch a bit on predicting resale value for vaporware, but I won't stretch very far. Ultimately that's the reason I included a link to my spreadsheet so that folks who don't like my assumptions can test their own.
Personally I like the Volt in concept, but unless it can be sold at an honest profit under real-world conditions, it is just a corporate PR symbol.
I beleive if you ignore problems with lead, lead paints will be cheaper.
So are clothes made of child labor.
We need to perpetuate electric cars to stop excess CO2. It is going up every year and the signs of warming suggest that we must not be penny pinching in the ways of solving the climate (and post oil) problems.Though I can't afford an EV, others who care, well. Just as the entertainment industry went from 8-tracks to little postage sized chips that contain hundreds of songs, eco-glamor will be needed to shrink the size and costs of the all important battery.
I don't think there is any limit that this great Earth has for the manufacture of batteries and concentrating solar thermal power built across the deserts (just one option needed for clean juice). The Author's point on limited resources must reflect upon platinum needed for fuel cells.
The real change needed is the ability to overcome the old doom and gloom visions of the past that state everything is limited. No! there is enough silicon, aluminum, steel, carbon and others to build vast 3 dimensional cities with "freeway" ramps to all of tens or hundreds of levels. Almost a quarter trillion (yes trillion) people could be supported on this planet alone (all with "yards" and views)! All powered by placing mirrors and heat reservoirs on just about 40% of the worlds deserts! Of course, there are the real limiting factors, environmentalists, lawyers, politicians and monopoly.
I know this sounds quite a bit far out but so does the thought that humanity has to go backwards from this point on!
I like the author's mention of "personal" rapid transit though as that concept will be needed to connect the huge 3 dimensional cities... (which in this case are simple round buildings with spiraling access ramps within). Infact, the "e-pods" (or whatever) should be capable of climbing straight up buildings (on proper cable routs) as well as "traditional" cable transport and of course, on wheels for direct access to the front door.
Richard K, the pivot point really seems to be battery costs. If they can be driven down enough over the next decade, PHEVs may make sense and pure EVs probably will. But there are a lot of hoops the battery developers will have to jump through to get there.
EVNow, all wastes of resources are morally wrong. But once you get past that universally acceptable statement of principle, you enter the realm of religion where individuals are and must be free to believe whatever they want. If security costs concern you, cheap domestic natural gas is the best immediate alternative, which incidentally will give nascent technologies adequate time to mature naturally instead of hitting the market as a grand experiment. Once we get past economic security issues, I'm more than a bit of an agnostic and disinclined to accept any particular group's opinion of what the "environmental costs" are.
If CO2 is truly another embodiment of Satan, humanity has already lost the battle and we are all going straight to hell. Mercifully, I've seen far too many prophets of doom to believe the prophecies of imminent disaster from the Church of CO2. You can color me agnostic on that point.
Over the course of human history change has been slow, painful and certain. That paradigm will be with us always and the best any of us can do is take baby steps that will, over time, cover a great deal of ground. I too have great faith in what humanity can accomplish, but those accomplishments always spring from individuals who care enough to make a difference.
What a deal.......... for Toyota!
People will buy a car because G.M. tells them they can get "230 MPG" or there was a cool ad on Desperate Housewives, or they're a "Ford man" ("just like Dad always bought Fords"). The broad masses may select a particular car to buy for a lot of different reasons, but extrapolating the cost of ownership over 10 years in some rigorous manner is likely not high on the list.
If there is any significant number here, it's the huge front end sticker difference between say a micro-hybrid "$21,000" and PHEV-40 at "$32,500". Hopefully a resurrected Th!nk or Smart EV or some equivalent from China will provide an inexpensive electric alternative to the low end ICE engine models sooner than we might expect.
I wasn't trying to "take issue" with your numbers, as such. I just downloaded the spreadsheet, changed 1 number, and thought the difference was interesting. I just assumed that a "simple customer oriented financial analysis" would take into account the actual customers actual starting price for fuel -- which differs greatly around the world. No "vaporware" argument, no pejorative spin on your model, just plugging and chugging as quants are accustomed.
Ricardo has a very sophisticated model used by the DOE and automakers which shows present value savings of various generic PHEVs -- all are *positive* savings according to one summary ($3 or more gas price). We aren't likely to get a copy of Ricardo's TVFE for free though.
As usual American car companies will do all the heavy lifting required to convince consumers to switch to the new technology through slick advertising and marketing promotions. The Asians will stick to making the product affordable to the masses. And you know how it all turns out don't you?
Likely, these cars & trucks will be mostly foreign made vehicles with foreign made batteries, and contnuing the existing trend of foreign domination of American markets.
By the time the present government is out of office, we should be well along the path of conquering our addiction to foreign oil but still firmly addicted to foreign hybrid electric vehicles. Let's just hope China doesn't decide to "pull the plug" on America's dream of an oil-free future transportation system?
When will we wake-up and smell the ions?
Many people believe that GW is true. That alone is another reason to advance battery research at a cost beyond stupid wars!
We are barely seeing the effects of excess CO2, why then the capture by Satan himself? Ever since we created the wheel, we've been learning how to make brakes...
marketquant, all of my 10-year numbers show a *positive* NPV as you move up the battery power scale, but it's just barely positive. Particularly with customer ambivalence over range restrictions, my guess is that the numbers would have to be strikingly positive to motivate the masses.
I've actually spent some time wondering whether it wouldn't make sense for me to drive an EV because we almost never travel more than 40 miles a day. With $6 gasoline, the economics look pretty good. Moreover, I'm an inveterate early adopter. Even so, the total lack of an experience base with the coming EVs has me thinking "let's wait till they've had a few years in production and worked out the inevitable kinks."
Don, I worry that you're right about likely consumer behavior. There is a lot of merit to the argument that we've devoted far too little attention to making stuff since you and I were youngsters. I think a robust manufacturing base is the most important thing America can have because if history teaches anything, it's that relationships between countries ebb and flow over time and the fact that a country or region is friendly today does not mean it will always be friendly. Unless the trend is reversed, we may all find ourselves learning how to ask "do you want fries with that? in Chinese.
fireofenergy, the creativity and ingenuity of America has been the envy of the world for the last couple centuries. The biggest problem has been that we can easily grow complacent and it takes painful shocks like the ones we're living through to get that massive engine of creativity moving. I'm continually amazed when I consider the changes I've witnessed over the last 50 years and flabbergasted when I consider the probability that with increasing rates of change the progress over the next 10 years may well eclipse everything I've witnessed so far. These are exciting times where individuals can make a huge difference if government will just get out of the way. The biggest risk we face as a people is the stifling of some innovations because they don't fit some policy-maker's definition of "best."
it's not that basic lead carbonate (pigment) is cheaper.
it has greater hiding power than titanium dioxide (titania).
it can no longer be used for interior paints because of small children eating paint chips.
> jack
Anyway, what kind of solution is it to subsidize batteries??
A subsidy is just shifting costs elsewhere. We still have to pay!
Common sense say build a little car that gets 70 MPG or better and chug along at 45MPH.
It is my belief that all cars should be the same exterior size and shape year after year so that you could replace a bumper or engine or parts cheaply as they would be standardized year after year, (no complicated wasted inventory of thousands of parts). The cars would all be the same small size and the spirit of competition would mean fancier and safer interiors. Since all cars would be small, road traffic and parking would be easier.
On Aug 24 08:07 AM john s. gordon wrote:
> evnow -
> it's not that basic lead carbonate (pigment) is cheaper.
> it has greater hiding power than titanium dioxide (titania).
> it can no longer be used for interior paints because of small children
> eating paint chips.
Darn glad I got in hard last week.
Interestingly enough the most common small business-of the very few allowed to be private-was the Auto Parts shop. Romanians would go from one to anothetr haggling for whatever they needed such as a radiator or an engine mount. Hundreds of small shops were refurbishing such parts and the prices were always cheaper than those of "new Parts" from the parts factory called the Automotive Subassemblies Company.
The Dacia was a very crude car, but it could be repaired with a screwdriver and pliers-which were half of the tool kit supplied with the car!
Of all of the states of the former Soviet Empire that made their own cars I think the Romanians and the Poles were the most successful in the sense of mass production.
Note that the Dacia was intended to run until it disintegrated and even then its components, with any remaining life at all, would go into the organ donor program.
Dacia models only changed after the fall of communism, and the first replacement car was called the Dacia Nova.
The states of the former Soviet Empire have all anadoned the one unchanging model version of a universal car, but it is in fact worth another look. The free market car industry could build
On Aug 24 09:22 AM William Taylor wrote:
> And those expensive batteries will be punished by the necessity of
> heating cars in the winter.
> Anyway, what kind of solution is it to subsidize batteries??
> A subsidy is just shifting costs elsewhere. We still have to pay!
>
> Common sense say build a little car that gets 70 MPG or better and
> chug along at 45MPH.
> It is my belief that all cars should be the same exterior size and
> shape year after year so that you could replace a bumper or engine
> or parts cheaply as they would be standardized year after year, (no
> complicated wasted inventory of thousands of parts). The cars would
> all be the same small size and the spirit of competition would mean
> fancier and safer interiors. Since all cars would be small, road
> traffic and parking would be easier.
The Europeans have easily solved the problem of how to environmentally compare cars with different drives. Forget the mpg, you rate cars based on the grams of CO2 emitted per km traveled. In the case of full-electric cars you would use the CO2 emitted using the "average generating mix" of the US utilities to produce and transport that kWh that ends up in your battery (the fuel tank). So it would be easy to compare the Volt against any car, by considering the overall efficiency of an ICE vs. the overall efficiency of your utility generation/transmission grid plus your battery charge/discharge losses.
Further, as done in many places, the government could establish targets for the g/km of CO2 emitted for each "class" of car (based on weight for instance). Then, if your model exceeds that target you get a bonus proportional to how much better than the target you are, while if you are below the target you get a malus. The money for the bonus comes from the malus extracted from the below-average cars. In other words, you force the less efficient cars to subsidize a lower price for the more efficient cars. Accelerated darwinism, the companies that cannot innovate and up the fuel efficiency will end up paying the good companies to accelerate their R&D and get even better. Eventually the bad companies will go out of business, and those that can get the best numbers (lowest) of g/km of CO2 emitted will rule the land. Such system will really get the ideas flowing (and possibly break the logjam and allow smaller car companies with really innovative ideas to gain market share).
I think this bonus/malus scheme will also help consumers choose when their overriding consideration is not ownership cost, but environmental impact (many go with that).
-The free market car industry could build a universal small fuel efficient car easily, and it could even be profitable after an intial subsidy driven period, but its use would have to be mandated by taxes or restricitve laws on size and fuel consumption.
Such a movement-into cars like that-would not necessarily be a regressive move into socialism but could be seen as the only way to failry distribute resources. I think this will happen first in Asia, and i think it will happen by the middle of this century.
Thanks for letting me travel down memory lane.
On Aug 24 09:22 AM William Taylor wrote:
> And those expensive batteries will be punished by the necessity of
> heating cars in the winter.
> Anyway, what kind of solution is it to subsidize batteries??
> A subsidy is just shifting costs elsewhere. We still have to pay!
>
> Common sense say build a little car that gets 70 MPG or better and
> chug along at 45MPH.
> It is my belief that all cars should be the same exterior size and
> shape year after year so that you could replace a bumper or engine
> or parts cheaply as they would be standardized year after year, (no
> complicated wasted inventory of thousands of parts). The cars would
> all be the same small size and the spirit of competition would mean
> fancier and safer interiors. Since all cars would be small, road
> traffic and parking would be easier.
Mayascribe, I've been resisting the temptation to do another cheap is outperforming cool article because I don't want to pound that drum too hard. But running the numbers from the first of August (right before the battery grants) the group tally is as follows:
Cool Emerging - down 3.9%
Cool Sustainable - down 1.5%
Cheap Emerging - up 55.8%
Cheap Sustainable - up 19.6%
For those that have recently joined as readers, the article that does the group breakdown at the beginning of August is:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Sadly John has again missed multiple points.
Resale value will be far better with PHEV's I'd bet if you look at Prius' and as an example of EV's the RAV4EV's now sell for far more than new at 10 yrs old, $75k vs $45k new.
Another is the first hybrid in modern times, the Honda Insight that at 10 yrs old sells for 3/4 of it's new price. BTW these are hand made Alum units that are great investments and people I know get 80-90mpg from them on the freeway. Kind of kills the PHEV mileage lies on the Volt by some of those articles say John puts up.
Next John's oil price is low. It's going up about $1/yr for the next 8 yrs in a seesaw pattern and at which point, it will start going back down as it is replaced because of it's too high price.
He picks the Volt who's sale price is much higher than others shortly afterward will cost. In 5 yrs PHEV's will cost little more than ICE's.
Again he quotes battery prices that are far above those available at about $350kwhr/ $.30wthr we buy in EV sizes now. I now have 3 sources of these at these prices and is what GM said it was paying for LG batteries for the Volt.
But in 4-5 yrs EV's will replace many cars as it's far less expensive than an ICE then, both to buy and far less to run.
In about 2-3 yrs subcar EV's, light, aero probably in composites will start taking over many transport jobs selling for under $10k in 5 yrs. All money amounts in today's $.
The gasoline price goes up at a constant rate of 17% per year, a calculated value. If you don't like my rates, the spreadsheet lets you test your own assumptions. The likelihood that we will ever see the oil price fall off is somewhere between slim and none.
All future estimates of the price of PHEVs and EVs are based on optimistic claims from EV enthusiasts like you who want it to be so and therefore assume it will be so. I can only deal with published studies from reputable third-party sources.
The batteries you can buy over the internet from Chinese companies for $.30 per kWh are not and never will be suitable for use by a top tier automotive OEM. The cost of batteries from China is particularly irrelevant in the context of a governmental push to establish an American manufacturing base for valid national security reasons. The DOE has published its current and future price estimates and even the lithium-ion battery manufacturers that comment regularly on my articles say that $500 to $700 per kWh is an ambitious 5 year target that they may not be able to reach.
I truly hope you are right about where the prices will be in 3 to 5 years. But tell me please - why would any sane person even begin to consider buying a PHEV or EV today if he'll really be able to buy one a couple years from now for half the price with better technology?
I understand that you are a staunch EV advocate and hold your beliefs very dear. That is not an excuse for pejorative language and accusations of dishonesty. I don't like asking the Seeking Alpha comment police to intervene and have only done so a couple times, but you are getting very close to the limit of my patience.
Care to identify these 3 sources of batteries (and their respective chemistries) that you claim offer the pricing you state above?
On Aug 24 09:22 AM William Taylor wrote:
> And those expensive batteries will be punished by the necessity of
> heating cars in the winter.
As much as I appreciate your hardwork and analysis in this field I feel you are unjust in your attack on PHEV and their role in our future. ICE may be the cheaper car right now, but so were Beta-max compared to VHS back in the day ... and then VHS when compared to DVD. Now both technologies are no longer present. As too were the personal computer when they first came out the list goes on.
It is very important to put these technologies into perspective and realize that the prices of these vehicles will most certainly come down in the not too distant future. One can only hope that nay sayers, oil pundits and lobbysits, oil producers and other ICE enthusiasts don't stand it its way and restrict prices from reaching their fair market value.
I have used your raw data and computed an array of different outcomes with PHEV at different prices, and I can tell you things look A LOT better. Not to mention the environmental benefits of adopting a mode of transport that reduces CO2 emissions significantly!
Jeth
I don't see any problem with heating or air conditioning with regard to the batteries themselves. Engineers have worked around these issues quite effectively.
You are correct about the ambient temperatures of places like Las Vegas in the summer or Afghanistan. In extremely HOT environments there has to be some extra protection for the cells either using exaust fans or special liquid cooling systems depending on the cell chemistry one has chosen.
Melting of glaciers in Himalaya will bring biblical consequences, 8 rivers in the world provides for 1.5 billion people, some of them depeds of Himalaya, Nile, Mekong,Yellow rivers are in similar problems, using USA 30% of the available oil for moving 7000 pounds trucks for buying milk in Wal mart, having whole cities without a basic public trnasport system etc... is not a matter of economic viability.
A tax driven reform in public and private transport is necessary, USA has to move in the trend of Europe is not a matter (as GM said many time) of suppling "what the market wants", having diesel cars, having cars less than 3000 pounds, less than 150 gr/km of CO2 and over 30 MPG most be compulsory tax punishable actions.
Moving more in public transport is not a matter of "market preferences " anymore. Europe saw this 40 years ago, now USA has to move in that direction, is not a matter of choice is not a matter of military superiority, is a matter of responsibility.
Regards.
The Ricardo numbers are fairly high -- around $7k for a PHEV-10 using $3 gas, and bending upwards for higher electric range, but since we can't see the assumptions it's futile to go down that road.
The legacy auto companies will assuredly make these PHEV numbers *appear* attractive because if you cut maintenance costs too quickly then the dealer network will go apoplectic!
The nightmare for them is a pure EV maker selling over the internet and providing a tires/brakes service arrangement with one of those franchise service centers (i.e. Meineke or Pep Boys). A PHEV "vanity" buyer will eventually get the idea that cutting out oil changes and tune-ups saves time and inconvenience, aside from the absolute money difference. And if they don't have "fast charge" then the tipping point may come even earlier.
I truly hope you are right about PHEV and EV prices coming down significantly because so many people want that outcome. If you look at the last 20 years of lithium ion battery development, however, each successive generation has gotten safer, smarter, more durable and more expensive. In June I posted an unpublished draft of the DOE's development roadmap for lithium-ion batteries in my public folder at me.com. That roadmap foresees three generations of improvement in chemistry and two generations of improvement in manufacturing technology over a period of 8 years. The roadmap is ambitious, but may indeed be workable. You can download a copy here:
files.me.com/john.pete...
As an early adopter of each of the technologies you've mentioned and more, I firmly believe that we need to encourage research and development and liberate the minds of guys like MRTTF and Don Harmon who both work in the lithium-ion end of the industry. I also believe we need to do a much better job of expectations management so that investors don't price equities at levels that presume immediate success instead of discounting the potential for future success by the relevant risk premium.
For a more detailed discussion of my personal experience with 40 years as an early adopter see:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
"The ohmic resistance measurements and spectral impedance measurements before and after the PSOC
pulse cycling have indicated only a slight increase in ohmic resistance and a very slight drop in ESR for spectral impedance. The ohmic value increased from 3.6 to 4.2 milliohms, while the AC spectral impedance ESR value decreased from 4.01 to 3.74 mohms. This is a very minimal change, if any, and indicates no similar degradation as seen in the LiCoO2 materials where increases in all of the impedances measured occur, and in some cases another passive film can form.
Finally, the over charge/voltage abuse test indicated that the LiFeBatt cell can fail without fire, or damage to other external systems if those systems can handle the 160 °C max temperature and electrolyte venting.
For those who need a translation, 160 degrees C = 320 degrees F.
I believe that the best idea is to specify only the outcomes (in terms of emissions, energy use, etc) and let the market decide which technology (ies) will prevail.
Don, it's wonderful to have lithium-ion professionals like you and MRTTF participating in these discussions. I'm grateful for the counterbalance when you disagree with me and for the detailed knowledge of technical issues that I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.
leapingcat, I limit my writing to manufactured energy storage devices (including flywheels) made by U.S. public companies for two very specific reasons. First, the only sector where I have enough experience to write with a reasonable degree of confidence is manufactured devices. Second, the thrust of Seeking Alpha is helping investors find worthwhile stocks. This article, in fact, barely made the cut because it doesn't mention specific opportunities and is more than a little heavy on economic theory. If I wasn't a regular contributor with a solid and devoted following, it probably would have been rejected by the editorial staff.
I'm a big fan of many technologies that are under development or in various stages of testing, but for this particular venue I have to keep the focus more narrow than I might if I were just writing about technology for its own sake.
1) The future price of batteries. As John already stated above, if batteries drop to $250 per kWh or below, then plug-in vehicles may make economic sense. I believe this price is doable, though, there is no hard proof of this. What makes me optimistic is the potential of different battery technologies being developed, the huge amount of investment, and the industry knowledge that the future battery market will be huge from plug-in vehicles and electrical grid storage. I see battery development in the same way I’ve seen LCD screen development – since manufactures were guaranteed a large market, they put lots of resources into development, bringing down the prices from very high initial levels.
2) Consumer preferences. Many Americans are very conscience about what they drive. "You are what you drive" is true in the US. The more expensive and hip your vehicle, the more respect and attention you get from others, and the more you feel like part of the group. Why do so many city people drive big, expensive SUVs? As a practical guy, I hate to admit this. Thus, I believe that electric drive vehicles will become the new hip vehicle to own. They are fun to drive, they are quiet and smooth, and they're something new to show off to your friends. Just like the uncool “lumber jack wanabe” jeep of 30 years ago evolved into the soccer-mom power vehicle of today; the economical, supposedly environmentally-friendly hybrid of today will evolve into the hip, new, stylish vehicle to own even if it is thousands of dollars more expensive.
Without these 2 keys factors, I would not be so optimist about the future of plug-in vehicles. But, in my opinion, only time will tell the truth with these 2 keys factors. So, in the meantime I’ve made my investment bets and I’m “just along for the ride” to see where things go.
In summary, PHEV take time to pay themselves off, sticker sensitive consumers will avoid them, image conscious consumers will love them.
This could all change will say a Kia Forte LPI hybrid with a tail.
a optimal PHEV's generator probably will be modeled like a portable generator (very simple, optimized for 1 speed), and sized according to the battery (small battery, big generator vs Big battery with small generator)
As for the cost that GM is paying... GM could say that they are paying LG ~$0.01/Wh, but that doesn't translate directly into the battery cost. Battery assembly is the most labor intensive step, and as a result the most costly. That doesn't even begin to take into account the additional materials needed for a pack, i.e. tabs, wiring, housing, etc. or the QC, which is a nightmare at that level.
On Aug 24 11:00 AM Don Harmon wrote:
> jerrydd: "Again he quotes battery prices that are far above those
> available at about $350kwhr/ $.30wthr we buy in EV sizes now. I now
> have 3 sources of these at these prices and is what GM said it was
> paying for LG batteries for the Volt".
>
> Care to identify these 3 sources of batteries (and their respective
> chemistries) that you claim offer the pricing you state above?
It's like when you were a kid growing up and Mom would try to get you to eat your spinach. You knew Mom was probably right, but pizza was just so much "cooler" to eat and it probably wasn't as good for you plus was much more expensive!
I know people who think of Lead Acid, or what we are now calling PcB (Lead Carbon), in the same way. You can preach to them about the economic advantages until you are blue in the face and they will shrug their shoulders and choose Lithium anyway - even when you question all the claims of the "Lithium Princes".
Americans tend to "catch on" to advanced technologies in ways that investment pros and economists just don't fathom at all. If you were to invest your hard earned money based on what these "experts" recommend you probably have little chance of ever hitting the jackpot. You will no doubt do better than what a CD pays but few of these guys will ever admit that their take on the market is infallible!
I know John P. wouldn't ?
However, my point is still valid, at least as a tangent...
On Aug 24 11:53 AM Don Harmon wrote:
> MRTTF, I believe William was referring to heating of the car in the
> winter somehow draining the battery charge off rather than actually
> heating the cells themselves?
>
> I don't see any problem with heating or air conditioning with regard
> to the batteries themselves. Engineers have worked around these issues
> quite effectively.
>
> You are correct about the ambient temperatures of places like Las
> Vegas in the summer or Afghanistan. In extremely HOT environments
> there has to be some extra protection for the cells either using
> exaust fans or special liquid cooling systems depending on the cell
> chemistry one has chosen.
On Aug 24 01:18 PM 661murray wrote:
> A123 systems has several white papers reporting the results of their
> testing of various lithium battery chemisteries with respect to heat.
> My own experience follows their report exactly. I pull 40 amps from
> a very small (2000 mhA) battery. This shortens the life by a facter
> of a hundred or so. For heat life loss the majic number appears to
> be 140 degrees F. 141 makes for a pufffed battery delivering .1 amp
> (if you have the guts to try to recharge it {outside if you please}.
> I get my cells from the net for about 5 bucks. BUT ordering ten or
> thirty cells is a lot different than needing to order a half million
> delivered by next Tuesday. GM has such a nasty record especially
> for new themes, that I would be very hesitant to buy anything from
> "got money?" I believe some one, somewhere ,seems dead set against
> CNG.
Which is pretty much what the Prius or other HEV's are now.
Speculawyer: Though I don't necessarily agree with your short story's premise, the was some hilarious stuff. Very clever.
The present Lithium batteries EVers buy at $.30wthr, $350/kwhr are Sky Energy and Thundersky. They are LiFePo4 chemistry. These are good for long range packs as their peak power is not as high as we would like. But in 100 mile + packs they are doing well so far for 2 yrs. Only time will tell how well.
The other one asked me not to disclose their pricing and they sell their BMS, chargers at very reasonable prices.
These are 12vdc nom, 10-200amphr batteries, not cells. Nor do they need assembling other that normal connections like any lead battery pack. No, at these prices is there a BMS but I never said they had them. We have our own systems we use.
And a Finnish company is setting up a production line with better prices. And I'm sure there are others, these are just the ones we have experience with.
On battery temp control, that's not hard, just a part of any battery design, li, lead, Nicads, etc. Only an idiot would not think about heat and how to get rid of it or they would not be in business long. But that goes for cars, electronics and many other things that use or make energy.
On AC, heating an EV it generally rarely takes more than 10% range. And one can pre heat/cool while plugged in, a great comfort feature and reduces battery load. An EV has much lower cooling needs as it doesn't have a 100-350hp heater called an engine to overcome. If real hot the AC can be used to cool batteries.
Seriously though...I can't believe the weight tolerances on the cells! +/- 100g for a 1.5kg cell! That's nearly 7% either way. What is the quality of those cells? Besides, that doesn't address the cost associated with pack maufacture. Just because the cell-level cost is cheap per kWh does not mean that the pack-level cost is in the same ballpark.
On Aug 24 05:45 PM Don Harmon wrote:
> Speculawyer- those are Chinese raw cells, with no packs, nothing
> that would interest an OEM. What OEM's want and pay for are complete
> plug & play systems with all the "bells & whistles" that
> go along with it. These are hobbyist cells at best and even then
> have shady warranties or no warranties. Of course you can buy this
> stuff @ bargain basement prices!
Done properly Plug-ins would be charged with electric energy which is currently going to waste 24/7. This can only be done by requesting you electric utility permission to charge. I told you this before and now Ford Motor Company is saying the same thing. Read about it here.
www.treehugger.com/fil...
This may seem like a fine point but it changes everything. Using POWER LINE COMMUNICATIONS would allow the power company to SCHEDULE your battery charging to use power generated by COAL which is now being wasted 24/7. It could also enable you to use electricity being generated by WIND OR SOLAR.
However using OTHERWISE WASTED ENERGY has the same impact as using WIND OR SOLAR OR any other non green house gas emitting electric power generation method.
About 28% of the energy we use in the USA is from petroleum for transportation. Internal combustion engines are between 3 and 4 times less efficient than electric motors. That means that it would take between 7 to 9% of the energy we use in the form of electricity to do the same thing. We currently waste tremendous amounts of the electricity we generate. Computer monitoring and control could reduce that significantly. We do it everywhere else.
That is the meaning of the SMART GRID!!!
Agreed - debunking things that don't exist yet through projections and assumptions on many variables (mythology) is a waste of time.
The best reason I can give for electricity in transportation is;
100 miles at 30 mpg at $3.00 / gall = $10.00
100 miles at 25kWh at $0.06 / kWh (off peak) = $1.50
I believe the real winners will be the car companies that leap past the hybrids and go straight to BEV. The savings in losing the ICE and accessories makes a substantial contribution to the battery cost. Nissan just announced this with the Leaf.
Regarding the Volt, I also project 40mpg highway gas only mode. In this mode, a parallel hybrid like the Prius (50mpg) will always be more efficient than a series hybrid like the Volt because of chemical-electrical-me... conversions in a series hybrid.
A major advantage of the series hybrid is the mechanical simplicity compared to the parallel and consequent lower cost. Toyota has just announced a Yaris / Vitz hybrid. It would not be a surprise if this is a series hybrid based on the announced cost being close to the base gas model. A major departure from the Prius.
On Aug 24 05:45 PM Don Harmon wrote:
> Speculawyer- those are Chinese raw cells, with no packs, nothing
> that would interest an OEM.
Don your special interest is showing. These are delivered in 12vdc nom packs with restraints.
You point that OEM's don't want raw cells is not correct as that's exactly what GM ordered from LG and assembling the packs themselves.
What OEM's want and pay for are complete
> plug & play systems with all the "bells & whistles" that
> go along with it.
Not what GM wanted. They are building their own BMS, pack design and building a new plant just for that and later, making the cells from scratch.
These are hobbyist cells at best and even then
> have shady warranties or no warranties. Of course you can buy this
> stuff @ bargain basement prices!
They are far more than hobbyists, they are OEM suppliers. The cells are tested and any bad ones sent back for replacement.
Methinks you are not happy your pricing got badly beat. Of course you buy Chinese cells too don't you Don?
So how much are your battery packs Don? Say 120vdc nom at 100 and 200 amphrs?
Cost per wthr?
Your warranty?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I rant...
On Aug 23 12:50 PM Glenn Mercer wrote:
> As far as I can see you hold resale value percentages fixed for all
> types of car. I don't have a problem with using this leveling assumption,
> because these things are very hard to forecast, but I should note
> that a) resale value percentages DO vary a lot in the real world,
> and that b) probably in a fuller model one would adjust resale values
> as gas prices fluctuate, both on an absolute basis and on an options
> basis. That is, on the absolute basis: as gasoline prices rise so
> would resale values for more efficient vehicles, and perhaps quite
> sharply (since one still gets the same dollar savings on fuel with
> a used HEV (e.g.) but by buying a used car pays much less in capital
> outlay); and on an options basis: if I think oil prices will possibly
> spike, buying a Prius now to "cover" myself later has some (probably
> minimal) option value, given I might think if oil goes to $200 a
> barrel Toyota will sharply raise the price of a new Prius. So I
> am not criticizing the model per se, but pointing out that in the
> world of cars the resale-value loop is a key factor to take into
> account (some would argue most of Toyota's market share gain over
> the last 30 years has been due to the logic of "I pay more for it
> upfront but I claw it back on resale").
On Aug 24 06:28 PM jerrydd wrote:
>
> On Aug 24 05:45 PM Don Harmon wrote:
Even with a Smart Grid and Ford combined at work, I don't think they can defy the laws of physics
www.reuters.com/articl...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Speculawyer,
1) the average gas price in the US was $2.68 last week - the fact that I live in a country that taxes it up to $6.00 is irrelevant to readers. I have no idea what planet you live on.
2) pure EVs, if and when they come to market, will probably have far less maintenance. PHEVs, which is what the article is about are an entirely different story.
3) assumptions about the future resale value of products that do not yet exist are a stretch in the best of times, but assuming that something new will hold its value better is baseless.
4) your conversation was a lot of fun, but the dealer failed to mention the cost of $11,000 the battery pack replacement ($16,000 inflated at 4% per year and cut in half for assumed improvements in battery technology).
Richard Howlett, thank you so much for reminding us why Seeking Alpha is here - to help investors make better decisions. I keep writing from the perspective of a securities lawyer who's seen far too many clients stumble, fall and fail because they couldn't take a promising technology from the laboratory to a factory floor and produce a reliable affordable product. I'm certainly leery whenever a client starts his story with "I can't have a profitable business unless I can figure out how to cut my manufacturing costs by 75%." While there are a few that have to have the newest and coolest today regardless of the price. But I wouldn't even consider buying an EV today for $40,000 if I believed that I could save $5,000 or $10,000 by waiting for a year or two.
I'm also leery of business plans that focus on buyers like OEM automakers and electric utilities who, like WalMart, will gladly grind vendors for every penny. In "Catch 22" Milo Minderbinder spoke of buying eggs for a dime, selling them for a nickel and making it up on volume. I hear a lot of the same logic today.
currentenergy.lbl.gov/...
The idea that some huge percentage of the energy generated is wasted is absolutely false because the utilities bring generating assets on-line and take them off-line as needed to support actual use. The best estimates I've read for storage potential on the grid are on the order of 5% of total generating capacity.
The real problem of waste in the utility industry is available generating assets that only operate for a couple hours per day when demand is slack. There the numbers are immense because roughly half of the total capacity is turned on and off during the course of a typical high load day; which results in an overall capacity utilization that averages about 26%.
In general, when people write about BEV or EV, they're talking about a pure battery powered vehicle where a PHEV runs both an internal combustion power plant and an electric drive. The purists want to subdivide PHEVs into series and parallel but that's way too much detail for most of us.
On Aug 24 08:03 PM Don Harmon wrote:
> Jerry, when you get up to speed with the reality of "total plug &
> play" LiFePO4 please let know? At the moment, as I have already
> posted here, the best WE can do on large volume orders for complete
> plug & play LiFePO4 packs (with a CAN bus interface) and all
> diagnostic electronics on-board is $ 1.30 / Wh. Our warranty on all
> of our standard XPS Packs is 3 Years or 3.000 life cycles whichever
> comes first. This is a "non-pro-rated" warranty unlike Lead Acid
> makers usually offer.
Don, when you get over your self interest let me know. Just because you can't do better doesn't mean others can't.
On the $.30/wthr GM is paying it will be about $.50/wthr total pack cost, not your expensive $1.30wthr for which EV'ers can get a finished pack of A123's for with BMS, temp management, etc.. And they are far superior to your batts putting out 400hp from under 200lbs. Google Killacycle or EV racing for examples.
I do electric design, building and it is very inexpensive in mass production, under $.10/wthr easily for the BMS.
And as for John saying EV's are not around, you are wrong as millions of them are, just not many production cars. Probably 25K highway EV's are on the road today, either conversions or old production EV's from the 70-80's plus about 2.5k of more recent production ones, RAV4EV, Tesla's, etc in the US.
Not to mention 1k of plug in hybrids and that is growing. Mostly commercially converted Prius'..
EV's don't need new batteries, they need built as EV's units, light, aero thus need less battery as the EV-1 proved. Standard lead batteries in a well designed EV can get 100 mile range or more easily, a 40 mile battery range PHEV.
Had Chevron not bought the NiMh battery patents forced Toyota, other from making EV size NiMh, even better EV's could have been made like the RAV4EV which has a 130 mile range.
Even your touted LC batts if they make spec and if are ever built for sale would make a great EV.
Many communities here in Fla run NEV's so much homes even come with garages for them, golf carts. BTW we hotrod golf carts to do 45mph, some to 55mph. Did you know golf carts have 60-100 mile range on roads?
For the same materials, labor of an $8k NEV a 100 mile range, 80mph 2 seat sportwagon could be made using lead traction batteries that cost under $100/kwhr. Just big auto doesn't want such vehicles to compete with so they won't build them. Other are ramping up though, many in the 100mpg X Prize contest.
In 1911 Baker Electric made a 110 mile range EV and Jay Leno's still uses some of the original NiFE Edison batteries.
If the real price of oil was in oil, about $1.50/gal instead of in our income taxes, then EV's would be here.
There is too much research ongoing for what I see now to be the end game.
It's 1.5 kWh for a Prius and 16 kWh for a Volt. Which is the moral choice in your book?
It's critical to understanding the potential viability of the "PHEV" product -- because they are different like cats and dogs.
1) Parallel PHEVs (e.g. plug-in Prius) have a moderate size battery tied to a traditional drive train, normal size engine, and are chargable at home. The all-electric range of parallel PHEVs might be 15mi to 40mi -- which is 5 hours to 13 hours of charging time. A small percentage of people will dedicate themselves to this extra hassle.
2) Series PHEVs (e.g. Fisker Karma) have a large battery tied to a pure electric drive train, reduced size engine, and are ***NOT*** effectively chargable at home. This last item is very important -- why have a very large battery if you can't effectively utilize its full capacity? A very small percentage of people will buy these expensive cars, but I doubt they'll charge for 8 hours every 50 miles.
However, if a city gets 10-minute fast recharge stations installed then either category could greatly expand in market size -- as long as they contain the ultra fast charge lithium titanate batteries. Lithium titanate is the only battery chemistry that can withstand repeated fast charges without greatly affecting the lifespan of the battery pack.
Bottled water is expensive, but it's so convenient that people buy it anyway. Convenience is a pre-condition to widespread adoption of PHEV.
cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CE...
Jerry, for your information A123's chemistry is almost identical to ours and AFAIK they do not offer any "off-the-shelf" complete packs with BMS, On-board Battery Diagnostics, and CAN Bus interface like LiFeBATT does - so best to check your facts before throwing mud like you are doing!
Price-wise we are more competitive than A123 again as far as I am aware? AND, A123 does not sell in small quantities other than a few "developer cells".
>BTW we hotrod golf carts to do 45mph, some to 55mph. Did you know golf carts have 60-100 mile range on roads?
For the same materials, labor of an $8k NEV a 100 mile range, 80mph 2 seat sportwagon could be made using lead traction batteries that cost under $100/kwhr. Just big auto doesn't want such vehicles to compete with so they won't build them. Other are ramping up though, many in the 100mpg X Prize contest.
> I meant $1.50/gal oil subsidy added to present oil costs.
----------------------...
Wow, burnouts without the roar of an engine? I can hardly wait!
Y’all have come through again, reminding me of why I like SA so much. The give and take is awesome and makes me realize how the value really is in the struggle.
Just a couple of observations I see bantered about subsidies / cost of oil, etc. I don’t believe other countries high gas prices are entirely due to market conditions. Their prices are reflective of the market subsidizing government. Even here in the states, our prices wouldn’t be as high as they are if the government didn’t tack on their own market subsidy.
The fact remains, (much to the continued consternation of the peak oil / alt energy / global warming religions), from the cost of production to end user, btu/kwh/E=mc2, fossil fuels rule. It’s still the closest thing to the mustard seed we have for energy in / energy out, that’s why I think governments, (whether elected or supplanted – GM, et al), and nations will remain so heavily tied to its success.
Just helping Mr. Petersen in his future career.
Merlot, actually our high gas prices in Switzerland and most of Europe are due more to high taxes than anything else. I've been paying over $5 per gallon for so long that I didn't understand what folks were complaining about this time last year.
realist2, at my age it may be more appropriate to learn how to say:
歡迎光臨沃爾碼，我可以幫助您？
Welcome to WalMart, may I help you?
But I appreciate your willingness to help ;-)
Kia Forte
Gasoline Methanol LPG Natural Gas
Conventional Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid
on market not on on market not on
globally market in Korea market
C02 Emmission 190 100 100 70
Spot Price 190 150 120 35
Cost of Fuel
miles per gallon 30 40.5 40.5 40.5
gallons used per
100,000 miles 3,333 2,469 2,469 2,469
uel cost per $6,333 $3,704 $2,963 $864
100,000 miles
price premium 0 ?
I don't know the price difference between LPI hybrid and conventional Kia Forte, that is why I have a ? mark
I've included a mythical methanol version because coal/nat gas methanol is china's equivalent to USA's ethanol, I read chinese expectation of 70mtPA production of methanol by 2020, which is roughly equal energy wise to 50% of current Chinese gasoline use....
I also included a mythical CNG version as Kia's patents for hybrids were very explicit about CNG variations of their LPG hybrid. And chinese car manufactures are also pursuing CNG vehicles (ie Lifan 520)
all energy prices are large contract spot price, energy equiv. to gasoline. obviously natural gas is much more area dependent/variable than the others.
to put a tail on any of these hybrids might have marginal utility, but a tail and a PbC carbon battery would cost less than a Li Ion battery without tail, and provide significant benefits for short range city commuters.
Any comment or opinion on NMC cathodes?
While considerable progress has been made in identifying new cathodes that possess energy that exceeds those presently available, the enhanced capacity is only accessible at potentials that are outside the stability window of presently available electrolytes....A more stable cathode-electrolyte interface is crucial to achieve the capacities needed to bring PHEVs to the market.
Cobalt is highly unstable and thus the Lithium-ion battery makers have been moving away from it in droves, opting for LiFePO4 or other chemistries that will not blow up Brad Pitt or George Clooney in their new PHEV's.
Full article here:
www.greencarcongress.c...
Actually, the distinction applies equally to regular hybrid vehicles.
It a basic design feature, like front or rear wheel drive; or manual or automatic transmission.
A quick story. My golf cart died this week and sure enough the batteries are shot. (partially my fault but mostly the hot summers in Florida) I went to price new ones. About $150 per battery. Six are required. I researched all available batteries and guess what. I went with cheap over cool.
Axion has been substantially higher in price and volume. Do you think the existing warrants that were issued a couple of years ago will have an effect on kepping the price below $3.00 per share?
Definitely worth a watch. I started out thinking that this was another BS political documentary. But the further I got into it, the pieces came together to create a most frightening tale. You know how I despise conspiracy theories, dismiss them. This one, though, really has me thinking.
Highly recommended.
You can also link right to the video on SA. Just go to who I follow. Open up Mole, and open up his comments. Then open up his article titled "A Preview From Europe." Scroll down and open up the video. I was transfixed. Give it about 15 minutes. It was about that amount of time spent before I was convinced I had to watch the rest.
Why is there such a large distinction with you between PHEV and regular HEV??
I've never figured out what big diff the plug makes.
If I drained my Prius every day and charged the batteries in the garage every night, does this make me evil?
I get the argument about scarce battery resources and using them efficiently i.e 10 Prius vs 1 Volt. But this is really just an argument against developing new battery resources to take up the demand. Besides, I prefer to let the market dictate how the capital flows.
On Aug 24 06:05 PM jerrydd wrote:
>
> On battery temp control, that's not hard, just a part of any battery
> design, li, lead, Nicads, etc. Only an idiot would not think about
> heat and how to get rid of it or they would not be in business long.
> But that goes for cars, electronics and many other things that use
> or make energy.
1) You can talk about fast charging and the minimal impact on cycle life, but these are still controlled tests in most cases. While impressive, I want to know how these results will translate under daily use under a variety of conditions. This is the constant struggle that I face in R&D. We are constantly getting promising results from a controlled standpoint, but moving to the real worl can be a bear. This doesn't even begin to get into any cathoe problems that can occur.
2) There is an inherent safety risk when charging a cell or (even more so) a pack in 10 minutes.
On Aug 25 10:09 AM marketquant wrote:
> However, if a city gets 10-minute fast recharge stations installed
> then either category could greatly expand in market size -- as long
> as they contain the ultra fast charge lithium titanate batteries.
> Lithium titanate is the only battery chemistry that can withstand
> repeated fast charges without greatly affecting the lifespan of the
> battery pack.
>
> Bottled water is expensive, but it's so convenient that people buy
> it anyway. Convenience is a pre-condition to widespread adoption
> of PHEV.
Marketquant, I haven't missed your question. I am going to try and give you my thoughts today.
> You can talk about fast charging... 10 minutes
Alti *does* keep standing in front of rooms full of battery experts and saying things like 50C rate (1.2 minute), 80C rate (45 second charge/discharge with no restrictions on hot work), and even 120C rate (30 second) in one application -- which I believe could be Yardney having taken their anode and combined it with a different cathode. The faster cells have lower energy density. John, they've released no PRs or white papers on these cells. What I haven't grasped yet are the variety of parameters that control the charge/discharge rate.
> inherent safety risk when charging... a pack in 10 minutes.
The LMO/LTO combo seems to have incredibly wide safety parameters -- but with the disadvantage of some energy density and voltage. The Navy is testing the safety for use onboard destroyers to supply backup power -- and this application will provide 540kW for 10 minutes. This is the same cell being used in the 1MW/250kWh grid sized batteries. But if the cathode is changed to one with a higher potential (Alti stated in one venue that a new cell with changed cathode is coming soon) then I assume the safety range would decrease -- it would apparently have lower power, so my guess is that higher energy density is the point of the switch. John, no PR or white paper on that one either.
> daily use under a variety of conditions
The Army is testing Alti packs for their M119 artillery guns. They'd better work under a variety of conditions!
I apologize for the ambiguity in my personal terminology, but you illustrate my point exactly. Governments - (whether pseudo-corporate or outright tyrants), and nations will continue to ride on the shirt-tail of commerce fossil fuels provide the market precisely because it is the lowest cost btu/kwh/E=mc2 source on the planet.
Those that continue to dispute this have to do so by citing new paradigm shift definitions to the term "cost" that among other things, attempt to blur the destinction between infrastructure advancements for all and "corporate welfare".
The irony however is they continue to fail to see the massive contribution to the "cost" their own efforts, (policy restrictions, equity transfers, etc.) have encumbered on the masses.
On Aug 25 02:30 PM John Petersen wrote:
> Merlot, actually our high gas prices in Switzerland and most of Europe
> are due more to high taxes than anything else. I've been paying over
> $5 per gallon for so long that I didn't understand what folks were
> complaining about this time last year.
I don't get the sense that the integration and validation experts are having any trouble. I do get the sense that investors want to judge by "energy density" and $/Wh in relative isolation -- after all, these are just batteries right? In North Korea there is apparently just one word for "paper" -- if it were only that simple. If you look at the DOE/AVTA on-road testing results, the Alti based Prius is putting up mpg numbers better than other chemistries with higher energy density. This doesn't make sense to most people.
> throwing the switch
Google: "gas station explosions"
The Smart Grid does already exist. I am on a rural electric cooperative which has over 25,000 members with installed smart meters. My electric cooperative can turn off or on and read its meters using their computers. It also has computer systems that monitor power usage and availability on its grid.
You are discussing batteries and other storage methods to store potential and ACTUAL excess power generation. The problem is the expense to my rural cooperative and Big Utility companies like AEP associated with purchasing STORAGE CAPACITY. The solution is to use their customer's EV, PHEV, ect batteries to store excess power.
These customer batteries cost the electric utility companies nothing and become a source of profit. All the utilities need to do is modify their grid monitoring systems to ALLOW or SCHEDULE their charging when there is sufficient excess power to do so.
I worked for American Electric Power as a computer consultant and designed and developed a Distribution Outage Reporting System used by the Public Utility Systems of over a dozen states. What I am saying can be done.
You are correct that it will not happen overnight, but it would not take years to do the needed system MODIFICATIONS either. Adding the ability to SCHEDULE OPTIONAL POWER USAGE could then be rapidly added to the thousands of computes which now PARTIALLY control our ELECTRIC GRID.
SECURITY is the biggest consideration, but it can and should be done ASAP not 10 years from now when UNSCHEDULED charging of millions of large vehicle batteries using power from the electric grid could become a problem.
Have you looked at what Aptera (private) is doing; claim up to 300 mpg for 100-120 miles with $30K hybrid. Venture capital firm of Bill Gross put $20M in Aptera.
They began with aerodynamic design.
I believe small companies, like Aptera, will be the real innovators.
Thanks.
John Adam, I personally expect progress on the smart grid to be far faster than progress with battery chemistry and manufacturing technology because many of the principles have already been developed; there's really not much difference between moving electrons for information value and moving electrons for their own economic value. It will, however, still take some time and a pile of money to upgrade a grid that's been neglected for far too long.
Chancer, Aptera is showing the kind of original thinking that will eventually take us from an untenable oil import balance to one that might actually work.
Rumors were they use Valence, but I have never seen anything that confirms that. If anyone really knows please share that with us.
Popular Science did an article on the Aptera a few months ago. Here it is, ecotality.com/life/200.../ .
Recent studies point to the potential of ultracapacitors to augment conventional batteries.
www.technologyreview.c...
www.technologyreview.c... .
I think that NMC is probably one of the best "all-around" cathode active materials. It doesn't have the energy density of LiCoO2 or the safety or power of LFPO or the high temperature issues (or power) associated with LiMn2O4. It performs well in lots of metrics, but is often not the best at the same time (or the worst). Another possible advantage, at least from a politics standpoint is that 3M is one of the major players in NMC.
On Aug 25 04:06 PM marketquant wrote:
> MRTTF,
> Any comment or opinion on NMC cathodes?
www.chinamining.org/Po...
hi guys, it looks like China is planning to restrict REE exports ;)
will this affect Li Ion or PbC batteries, or just NiMh?
On Aug 27 10:04 AM marketquant wrote:
> MRTTF, thanks for that. Let me try to get something straight -- so
> the higher potential of NMC relative to Li/Li+ (vs LiCoO2) affects
> the rate rather than the energy?