Toyota Tests and Rejects Lithium-Ion Batteries for the Prius 72 comments
September 14, 2009
| about: TM
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Over the last couple of years, the mainstream media has been awash in reports of how automakers are lining up to build fleets of PHEVs and EVs using lithium-ion batteries as a principal power source. I've consistently argued that investing in objectively expensive lithium-ion battery company shares on the basis of testing decisions was dangerous. The reason for my caution is simple, a decision to test a new concept is very different from a decision to commercialize a proven concept and failures in the preliminary testing stages are far more common than successes. In other words, automakers frequently spend a huge amount of money to test a new technology before deciding, "this simply doesn't work for us."
Yesterday and this morning we learned that after secretly testing a fleet of 126 Prius Hatchbacks with lithium-ion battery packs for three years, Toyota Motors (TM) has decided to stick with its tried and true nickel metal hydride, or NiMH, battery technology for the foreseeable future.
The first report appeared yesterday on hybridcars.com, one of the most authoritative sites on the Internet for hybrid car news. The second report appeared today on Bloomberg.com, one of the most authoritative financial sites on the Internet. Commenting on the Toyota tests, Menahem Anderman, president of Advanced Automotive Batteries said. "We now know that a lithium-ion battery can work; that's not really the question," he said. "Cost is critical, and we still don't know enough about long-term durability."
In a February 2009 article titled "DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready For Prime Time" I noted that the DOE's 2008 Annual Progress Report for its Vehicle Technologies Program concluded that the technical barriers lithium-ion batteries would have to overcome before they'd be suitable for use in high-power applications like HEVs were:
- Cost – The current cost of Li-based batteries is approximately a factor of two too high on a kW basis. The main cost drivers being addressed are the high cost of raw materials and materials processing, the cost of cell and module packaging, and manufacturing costs.
- Performance – The barriers related to battery performance include a loss in discharge power at low temperatures and power fade over time and/or when cycled.
- Abuse Tolerance – Many high-power batteries are not intrinsically tolerant to abusive conditions such as short circuits (including internal short circuits), overcharge, over-discharge, crush, or exposure to fire and/or other high-temperature environment.
- Life – The calendar life target for hybrid systems (with conventional engines) is 15 years. Battery life goals were set to meet those targets. A cycle life goal of 300,000 cycles has been attained in laboratory tests. The 15-year calendar life is yet to be demonstrated. Although several mature electrochemistries have exhibited a 10-15 year life through accelerated aging, more accurate life prediction methods need to be developed.
My reading of Toyota's decision to stick with NiMH batteries for the Prius is that they were happy with the performance of the lithium-ion battery packs, unhappy with the battery pack cost and uncertain about the battery pack's long-term durability (e.g. abuse tolerance and life). I find it more than a bit telling that a 3-year, 126 unit test was not enough to satisfy Toyota that lithium-ion batteries would have a 10-year life.
Toyota's decision to stick with NiMH is not a death knell for lithium-ion batteries. Toyota still plans to build and test fleets of PHEVs and EVs using lithium-ion battery packs and most of the other automotive manufacturers will do exactly the same thing. It's all part of the normal product development cycle and entirely consistent with the process described in 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.
Toyota's decision does tell us, however, that it may be a long time before the major automakers have enough performance data to make a well-reasoned decision to commence large-scale commercialization of PHEVs and EVs. That day may indeed come, but it won't come without adequate testing. After all, automakers understand the meaning of the phrase "warranty repair costs" far better than most and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they'll assume warranty risks without adequate long-term testing.
I firmly believe that lithium-ion battery technology holds tremendous potential in the energy storage markets and that like most new technologies, the existence of new technical capabilities will give rise to new markets and new opportunities that we can't yet imagine. That being said, I think it's wasteful arrogance when the highest and best use people can imagine for a great technology like lithium-ion batteries is moving them and 3,000 pounds of steel to and from work.
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 72 comments:
www.oliverwyman.com/ow...
While the study concludes that electric vehicles will barely reach a 3% share of the global automotive market over the next 15 years, it also concludes that electric vehicles will be essential to the long-term future of the auto industry.
Lithium works well enough for Segway, Brammo and Smith Electric where customers will pay the higher cost for all electric.
Run gasoline up over $5 with oil doubling to $150/bbl and the economics of an all electric car might make sense to enough to make a major investment. Right now, auto companies are trying to cut costs by offering FEWER choices so this decision was not unexpected.
Also, someday the government might decide it is cheaper and cost fewer lives to subsidize electric cars like they do installing solar and energy efficient windows and appliances and use our natural gas supply to make electricity to power electric cars than to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most of us buy on cost and gasoline is still cheaper than even the regular Prius.
2008 Brammo Enertia Electric Motorcycle Overview
www.motorcyclistonline...
"The Enertia is powered by the combination of a Valance Lithium Iron Phosphate battery and a High Output Permanent Magnet Brushless DC Motor that produced 24-hp and 37 lb-ft of torque."
Brammo Enertia TTR on the cover of Motorycyclist magazine.
photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Thanks for not letting up.....
Without giving away too much info and/or my source, I can tell you that the biggest concern of Toyota is cost. They are of the opinion that safety, durability, and performance can all be had (albeit with time) through sound chemistry and engineering. What they don't believe in is the economies of scale bringing down the cost of Li-ion. For them, the cost of a pack is prohibitively expensive. They already were burned once in the fuel cell game and don't want it to happen again. Until the price of Li-ion falls, they will be happy to keep putting NiMH packs in their hybrids.
My point being $ 150.00 oil may not have the desired impact if lithium battery cost goes up 25% (just a number) because of that oil price rise.
On Sep 15 09:24 AM John Petersen wrote:
> Kirk, Dr. Anderman explained exactly what the issues were: cost and
> service life. There are a number of devices like the Segway and the
> Brammo cycles that offer short limited warranties the manufacturers
> feel comfortable with. When it comes to the automotive markets, the
> OEMs are being asked to offer 10-year warranties with no basis to
> believe the warranties reasonable. A few weeks ago I ran gasoline
> prices up to $12.50 over ten years and the discounted present values
> were still terrible.
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
I saw Jack's comment last night, but decided to wait for the actual article. Japanese companies don't make any move unless they know that it will be profitable for them over a long period of time. Couple that with nearly unparalleled quality, and I think you can understand why Toyota is leery of changing battey chemistries.
On Sep 15 09:54 AM John Petersen wrote:
> MRTTF, your information ties back to a comment Jack Lifton posted
> to this article when it went up as an Instablog. It's all about the
> money for Toyota because they know its all about the money for people
> who buy their products (as opposed to insisting that they make something
> else). I keep putting up the link for the draft DOE Roadmap because
> it's a great discussion of the R&D work that still needs to be
> done and how the commercialization process will unfold. A lot of
> people resist the roadmap because it will take time, but it's the
> best analysis I've seen so far.
On Sep 15 09:54 AM battman wrote:
> One other thing I think is overlooked (or maybe I'm just wrong).
> With the "imminent" rise in oil and gas prices, does this not also
> have an impact on the price of batteries (all of them)? Manufacturers
> of batteries need oil and gas as well for everything from cost of/shipping
> raw products to cost of/shipping competed products. While the impact
> may not be significant, it has to increase costs somewhat proportionately.
>
>
> My point being $ 150.00 oil may not have the desired impact if lithium
> battery cost goes up 25% (just a number) because of that oil price
> rise.
I am also interested to see how the Nissan / Renault business case works out as it gets closer to launch, as it takes the risk of cyclelife away from the customer and puts it back to the manufacturer.
If only EESTOR were not such a pipe dream we might have an answer. Perhaps the government should step up to the plate and start funding super capacitor research. We need a government that leads and is not at the beck and call of vested interests.
wot.motortrend.com/657...
---
With lithium-ion battery technology, the cars have an electric-only range of 12 miles and, Toyota claims, will be capable of reaching highway speeds in electric-only mode. The plug-in Prius features an EV mode button allowing the vehicle to be kept in electric-only mode, without activating the internal-combustion engine.
---
BatteryUser, the articles make it pretty clear that the go to technology for the plug-ins will almost certainly be lithium-ion because of the size and weight issues. I too am very interested in watching how the various proposals for swappable batteries and charging stations work in real life. The Oliver Wyman summary I referenced in the first comment to this article is not what I'd call optimistic about the next 15 years. What we really need, in the words of Monty Python is "something completely different." We need better choices than we currently have, and I'm confident that there's a genius in a garage somewhere who will eventually get us there. In the interim I like achievable baby steps.
'My reading of Toyota's decision to stick with NiMH batteries for the Prius is that they were happy with the performance of the lithium-ion battery packs, unhappy with the battery pack cost and uncertain about the battery pack's long-term durability (e.g. abuse tolerance and life). I find it more than a bit telling that a 3-year, 126 unit test was not enough to satisfy Toyota that lithium-ion batteries would have a 10-year life.'
That's a pretty strange gloss on the actual Toyota statement, given in the Bloomberg link he quotes:
'Lithium’s “durability, stability and safety are assured,” the Toyota City, Japan-based company’s tests showed, Tojima said. '
after:
'The tests appear to be among the most thorough done by companies planning to introduce the batteries' - Advanced Automative batteries, same link.
The headline to the piece is also inaccurate, although Seeking Alpha writes these, not the author, as Toyota is sticking to NiMH for the current Prius, and lithium for the coming plug in.
The technology that there is absolutely no evidence that either they or any other major car-maker is considering is lead carbon.
The author also argues:
'After all, automakers understand the meaning of the phrase "warranty repair costs" far better than most and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they'll assume warranty risks without adequate long-term testing.'
This is absolutely correct, and so it is very encouraging that Mercedes and others are introducing lithium batteries into production cars.
I mentioned that to you some months ago, as a matter of fact the testing was done before the new Prius model and it was a matter of discussion in the Toyota tech team, I think they (japanese as industry) felt that lithium supplies were not sure enough in price - disponibility (Bolivia etc...) and volume.
I think they will try in hte future a variant of Axion Power applied to NiMH batteries which will provide them with that technology with prices and supplies they already control.
The Prius 3.0 and perhaps some EV from Toyota will come with this features. In the meantime Hybrids and EV will be tactic not strategic for Toyota
Regards.
A combination of very high efficiency 2000 RPM stable rate diesel engine with cheap and light batteries is their choice.
Regards.
bpickard, there are more than enough automakers that plan to press forward with plans to build demonstration PHEV and EV fleets with lithium-ion batteries that I wouldn't expect a negative outcome for A123.
Advill, the performance specifications that Axion has issued so far are not up to the demands of a full hybrid like the Prius. They hope to get there but have not done so yet. The specifications are more than adequate for stop-start and mild hybrid applications, and that's more than enough to keep me smiling. For more detail, see the investor presentation on Axion's website.
It seems pretty hard to see anything other than plentiful supplies of lithium:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
For reference, the Nissan Leaf uses 4kg in it's 24kwh battery pack.
Around enough lithium for a car for every man, woman and child on the planet, at a cost of around $32 for a £10k battery, does not seem to portent insuperable supply difficulties.
Why should they, when they have some of the best NiMH batteries going? You don't alter a winning strategy.
What they were looking at is using lithium in a similar sized pack to make a plug-in with a 12.5 mile all electric range.
They never intended to introduce that immediately.
It is hardly nit-picking when your conclusions are directly opposite to the people who did the testing regarding reliability, Toyota.
Nor is it irrelevant as you have long argued for the use of lead carbon batteries in cars to point out that by the criteria you yourself suggest, that manufacturers test extensively for reliability before series production that Mercedes have in fact put lithium into their cars and so are satisfied on this score whilst lead carbon are not currently being used in any series produced car at all.
As for the would be patronising comments on understanding business dynamics, perhaps your own understanding of the issues involved would be enhanced if you concentrated on the arguments that you have sought to present and the fact that they don't hang together as you directly contradict your sources rather than reverting again to personalities.
I repeat, Toyota have said that the lithium batteries are fine for reliability, so why do you directly contradict the sources you yourself have cited?
I used to do R&D on 1300nm PIN diode design at HP labs in the building in Palo Alto that Tesla is moving to. Back when I started work on designing optical transceivers to do 200 MB/s at 1300nm in 1984 (WOW!), we paid about $1 per nm or $2600 for an LED and PIN diode to transmit data over fiber optics. To get the required operating life, we had to put the transceivers in hermetic packages. A working 200 mb/s module cost many thousands of dollars.
Today you can buy optical links that go 100 times faster at pennies on the dollar of 1984 prices.
My point is cost and reliability can and probably will come down with time as long as there is not a limitation due to physics and/or chemistry.
IF Lithium is ONLY half the cost now AND switching to it NOW means no more dead soldiers... sons and daughters of many in the US... then maybe we'll pay the price sooner rather than later.
I appreciate all you bring, but I don't want to discourage anyone from trying to bring costs down and reliability up by implying there is something wrong with the chemistry or physics of Lithium.
Until then, I'll buy what is cost effective... just bought a new E150 V8 gasoline van to haul my windsurfing gear as 3,000 miles a year doesn't justify an electric van...
Davewmart, I've grown weary of arguing with you. Please do not respond to comments from my readers and be aware that I will complain if you are unwilling to step back within the bounds of civility. I cleave strongly to a "life is too short rule" and you're beginning to violate it.
John, I too hope for new battery chemistries and I am following some interesting work in Sodium based batteries. However, as it has been 20 year since I delivered the first Lithium polymer battery pack to GM and know the development cycle very well, I don't see any alternatives for the upcoming generation of PHEV and EV's.
Regards,
If I had a single complaint it's that the lithium-ion producers are doing a terrible job of expectations management. There will be small fleets of demonstration vehicles made and tested for several years, and by the time the testing reaches a decision point, the battery technology may well be where it needs to be. But the relevant time frame is 2020 to 2025, not 2012.
The Oliver Wyman summary I mentioned above to does a great job of putting the Global PHEV and EV markets in perspective and comes from one of the most respected consulting outfits around.
www.oliverwyman.com/ow...
"My point is cost and reliability can and probably will come down with time as long as there is not a limitation due to physics and/or chemistry."
Clearly your background is such to differentiate what technology easily discounts and what it is likely not to discount but it could be misinterpreted by those used to thinking everything is destined to $9.99. An easier restriction to understand is lbs vs. physics/chemistry. When a cell phone starts out at $200 weighing 1 lb and then someday costs $9.99 weighing just under 1 lb, what technology has done is reduce the manufacturing cost but the $5/lb of materials is still limiting.
The widespread dream that relatively heavy things like batteries are destined to $9.99 is very misleading and a bit naive for typically younger people that have seen that curve happen to almost all their personal use items.
So technology can help increase charge density and thus reduce weight and reduce manufacturing cost per lb but if the vast majority of current battery costs are in $$/lb then unfortunately the basement cost is supported quite high.
Your reference to <0.1 lbs diodes is a poor analogy for 100s lbs batteries. Think about the price curve of flooded lead acid batteries over the last 20 years, relatively flat.
I'm glad there is input like yours in SA, I just wanted to address a misunderstanding I've heard from the "don't worry eventually everything gets much cheaper crowd."
This is John, an approach that you have not commented......the security of supplies in new technologies v.s. your all time favorite lead base batts.
Regards
On Sep 15 01:31 PM Davewmart wrote:
> Advil,
> It seems pretty hard to see anything other than plentiful supplies
> of lithium:
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
>
> For reference, the Nissan Leaf uses 4kg in it's 24kwh battery pack.
>
> Around enough lithium for a car for every man, woman and child on
> the planet, at a cost of around $32 for a £10k battery, does not
> seem to portent insuperable supply difficulties.
If you post on a public forum, then you will be questioned as to whether your posts make sense.
It is yourself who has chosen in this thread to not address the issues raised, but instead resort to personalities.
On Sep 15 01:25 PM John Petersen wrote:
> Davewmart, you can parse it any way you want but Toyota was not happy
> with the price and not convinced about cycle life. The fact that
> it is going to do another round of experimental vehicles says nothing
> more than they're not done testing and won't be for years. Lithium
> clearly lost the first round. The first mention of the term lead-carbon
> in this article is your comment. If you would read and think instead
> of looking for nits to pick, your understanding of the business dynamics
> might improve. In particular you should pay special attention to
> what Jack Lifton has to say on these issues because he's the one
> with the personal relationships at the top levels of Toyota and Ford.
>
>
> bpickard, there are more than enough automakers that plan to press
> forward with plans to build demonstration PHEV and EV fleets with
> lithium-ion batteries that I wouldn't expect a negative outcome for
> A123.
>
> Advill, the performance specifications that Axion has issued so far
> are not up to the demands of a full hybrid like the Prius. They hope
> to get there but have not done so yet. The specifications are more
> than adequate for stop-start and mild hybrid applications, and that's
> more than enough to keep me smiling. For more detail, see the investor
> presentation on Axion's website.
Thanks for cutting to the chase without all the superfluous propaganda.
Apparently the main and only issue with Li-Ion is cost.
An alternative lithium view from Merrill McHenry:
I believe any predictions of Li shortages in the near term are hyperbole. Many of the current larger projects have incremental capacity expansion possibilities. I believe the sector is, short term, ahead of itself.
On Sep 15 09:43 AM MRTTF wrote:
> Without giving away too much info and/or my source, I can tell you
> that the biggest concern of Toyota is cost. They are of the opinion
> that safety, durability, and performance can all be had (albeit with
> time) through sound chemistry and engineering. What they don't believe in is the economies of scale bringing down the cost of Li-ion. For them, the cost of a pack is prohibitively expensive. They already
> were burned once in the fuel cell game and don't want it to happen
> again. Until the price of Li-ion falls, they will be happy to keep
> putting NiMH packs in their hybrids.
I agree that Toyota and other, especially Japanese, manufacturers are always concerned to ensure supply.
Also, their costs may differ widely from those, in, say, China, where labour is so much cheaper.
Security of supply for most of the rare earths is also better fore the Chinese as they are major producers, a luxury the Japanese do not have.
Toyota also have far more experience than anyone else in using NiMH batteries in hybrids, and so are not likely to change over except where they have to.
John- Get over yourself and read the TOU again.
Your incessant whining about violating the bounds of civility when a commenter disagrees with you repeatedly and threats of complaints to SA editors over innocuous comments are getting old.
You always have the option not to reply. In fact, most SA authors don't.
BTW there is a little button named "reply" at the bottom of each comment.
On Sep 15 02:33 PM John Petersen wrote:
> Davewmart, I've grown weary of arguing with you. Please do not respond
> to comments from my readers and be aware that I will complain if
> you are unwilling to step back within the bounds of civility. I cleave
> strongly to a "life is too short rule" and you're beginning to violate
> it.
---
the plug-in Prius is another testing and demonstration project, just like their planned EV city cars.
---
Why try Li again after a 3 year study ?
Clearly Toyota is on a FUD trip. You are falling into a trap.
----
The thing most people do not understand is that every PHEV and EV on the drawing boards is an experimental vehicle.
----
Nissan Leaf is not an experimental vehicle. I suggest dropping the condescending tone and doing better home work.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Given everything I've heard and read about the fine performance of NiMH batteries I'm not sure that NiMH 3.0 will be needed. Also, I'm not entirely sure that the approach we took with lead-carbon would work as well in that chemistry.
None of the OEM automakers knows anything about what the market for PHEVs and EVs will be. EV advocates talk at length about what demand should be, but until the cars are sitting on a showroom floor and consumers make a choice between A and B, there is no way to know what demand will be. Every objective discussion from an automotive OEM is qualified by grave concerns about operating performance and price. The process of finding out is called test marketing.
I'm in the camp that believes an extremely small percentage of the American population will be willing or able to splash out $40,000 for the ultimate in eco-bling. Subsequent events may prove me wrong.
In my experience the world does not change overnight. Change comes in increments that are invariably too small for some and too large for others. The first step to standardized stop-start systems is a no-brainer because it's very cheap, very effective and an easy way to help automakers meet short-term CAFE requirements and emission restrictions. The second step to widespread use of mild and full hybrids is also predictable and likely to have a major impact in the next five to seven years. The big step to all electric transportation will take a minimum of 15 to 20 years before the technology is advanced enough to have an appreciable market impact. As an individual, I think it would be wonderful if we could magically convert 100 million gas guzzlers to solar powered EVs. As an investor I recognize that the mines, mills and factories to reach that goal do not exist and even if they did the consumer might not be willing to pay the price.
Seeking Alpha is about smart investing that makes you money over a reasonable time frame. For now, the big profit potential is in the baby steps.
IMHO, the cost gives Toyota extra incentive to NOT use Li-ion until the chemistry has been perfected from a durability/quality standpoint. They have definite concerns in that area, but they feel they are solvable. Cost, however, is not something solvable, and I don't want to hear about the economies of scale. In the short term, that is a fallacy in the Li-ion game. Prices are dropping, yes, but if the major players with the highest volume and quality, i.e. Sanyo, Panasonic/Matsushita, Sony could do it cheaper, they would.
On Sep 15 05:17 PM TinyTim wrote:
> MRTTF-
> Thanks for cutting to the chase without all the superfluous propaganda.
>
> Apparently the main and only issue with Li-Ion is cost.
>
> An alternative lithium view from Merrill McHenry:
> I believe any predictions of Li shortages in the near term are hyperbole.
> Many of the current larger projects have incremental capacity expansion
> possibilities. I believe the sector is, short term, ahead of itself.
>
>
> On Sep 15 09:43 AM MRTTF wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure about Lithium carbonate supply issues, Galaxy resources estimate for a lithium carbonate plant is $50m (mine and concentrator is about $70m), and at that price it'll probably only take a year to build. I've watched this stock go from 40cents to $2 over a few months, but will wait till after their next round of capital raising to invest. note that the mine/concentrator is in Oz, but the Li Carbonate plant is in China.
galaxyresources.com.au...
I did buy into Lynas resources however as it is into REE, I see significant supply constraints on REE and expect that PHEV and HEV will suffer from this upcoming rationing. Bikes require permanent magnet motors (hub motors - chinese love em), and cars that have both electric motors and internal combustion motors also require permanent magnet motors due to sizing flexibility. Electric only vehicles don't require permanent magnet motors as they have lots of spare engine area and can use standard copper wound AC motors like the rest of industry. And off course NiMH batteries needs REE also.
Toyota has always stuck me as the incremental, conservative, innovative company that likes to do small steps continuously. Nissan as the opposite, with big bump approach to change, so its natural that they attempt to leapfrog the entire hybrid approach and go electric (like leaf). with Toyota only doing 1 change at a time, but doing so continuously.
FYI a link to a better place post about the taxi trials in Tokyo, it gives clues that with only a few cars, electric cars can be very profitable for entities like better place as the natural market for EVs will be high usage vehicles, and the companies like better place get revenue by the km, not by the car...
blog.betterplace.com/2...
and finally, can Axion demo a GM volt fitted with PbC batteries, it would be a great demo. (and good product for GM to sell, thought it may confuse their marketers)
blog.betterplace.com/2...
You wrote:
"John
I wouldn't be so sure about Lithium carbonate supply issues, Galaxy resources estimate for a lithium carbonate plant is $50m (mine and concentrator is about $70m), and at that price it'll probably only take a year to build. I've watched this stock go from 40cents to $2 over a few months, but will wait till after their next round of capital raising to invest. note that the mine/concentrator is in Oz, but the Li Carbonate plant is in China.
galaxyresources.com.au...
For any mine, if regulatory, infrastructure, and logistics issues have been resolved it will then then, if it has the money, place firm orders for equipment and begin construction. Most such projects in industrialized countries take two to three years to "begin" producing. It is common to ship "concentrates" off site for "refining." When such a "refinery" is in another country the times both to establish the logistics of such shipping and to be taken in establishing the regualtory compliance in the country hosting the refinery are a critical and potential choke point. Also NO TWO ORE CONCENTRATES ARE THE SAME, SO AN OFF_SITE REFINERY MUST PROVE IN AN ORE IT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO PROCESS! This takes time in an experienced refinery.
China is not the easiest place to do business even for Chinese businessmen.
There is no shortage at all of lithium. In fact it is today most likely in substantial surplus. China is establishing its own supply chain for strategic materials. In this case I have to assume that the Chinese refinery will sell to Chinese customers.
This complicated situation will take many years to get underway.
The idea that it will cost "only 50-70 million" and "take about a year" is ridiculous. No financial institution would accept a due diligence report with such a conclusion as competent. The statements are stock market hype and hooey.
Lynas, by the way, is ready only to START constructing its mine and it has satisfied regulators that its metallurgy is proven well enough to start constructing its refinery. It is now, however, stopped dead by financial and regulatory issues, and each day of delay adds many days on the back end that cannot be made up. Lynas production with no financial or regulatory impediments in either Australia or Maylaysia is 2-3 years way.
When it comes to applications for the PbC, I don't see it as a likely fit for the Volt or any of the proposed PHEVs and EVs because of the weight and volume issues. Where I expect the PbC to be a stellar performer is the other end of the spectrum; simple stop-start systems and perhaps mild hybrids that don't need a lot of energy but need a huge amount of power. The per vehicle battery price will be measured in hundreds rather than thousands, but if you sell enough cars the laws of large numbers will always prevail.
I'll be watching the tests in Tokyo, Denmark, Israel and elsewhere with great interest because the world need a lot more information than it presently has before it can begin widespread implementation of alternative transportation technologies. I hope the tests are successful, but have enough experience to know that failures are common in the early stages. We need to do the tests and learn everything we can. Then we'll be able to predict with a level of confidence.
On Sep 15 04:27 PM ART005 wrote:
> Kirk, I think your post can lead to misunderstanding by people that think technology can solve everything and eventually everything is destined to $9.99 at the strip mall discount center.
>
> "My point is cost and reliability can and probably will come down
> with time as long as there is not a limitation due to physics and/or chemistry."
>
> Clearly your background is such to differentiate what technology
> easily discounts and what it is likely not to discount but it could
> be misinterpreted by those used to thinking everything is destined to $9.99. ...
> The widespread dream that relatively heavy things like batteries
> are destined to $9.99 is very misleading and a bit naive for typically younger people that have seen that curve happen to almost all their personal use items.
>
Nowhere did I say technology would bring $10,000 in batteries down to $9.99 nor did I imply it. I believe I tried to imply that given time we should get a 50% cost reduction which makes the technology. What I wanted to convey is it takes time, usually a lot of time, to get prices down after something is proven feasible and it starts to show up in products.... We are only starting to see Lithium ion batteries show up in niche products like the $109,000 Tesla, Segway scooter and Bramo motor cycle.
We might also decide to pay the current cost today if it means not losing sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, friends, spouses in wars to keep the flow of oil going.
www.detnews.com/articl...
Thx.
Of course what does that mean for the other car makers? I guess they have to use an alternative.
Don't believe me? Well . . . this is what your pal Jack Lifton said:
"Toyota has been so aggressive in sourcing the rare earth metals (lanthanum, in particular), ***no other car company in the world outside of Japan has an opportunity to go with the nickel metal hydride battery for use in a hybrid car.*** It’s not about how much there is—it’s about how much is produced. And the amount produced is now insufficient to satisfy the Chinese domestic market and Toyota alone. Japan’s demand for rare earths this year in the summer was projected to be 40,000 tons of total rare earths; however, China has allocated only 38,000 tons for the entire world this year. "
news.goldseek.com/Gold...
D'oh!
Yet another misleading piece of sophistry from John Peterson in his quest to endlessly bash Lithium-Ion, the technology that competes with his vested interest.
Now carry-on with your fertilizer spreading. LOL!
I trust you followed the link to the galaxy minerals roadshow slide, yes it a roadshow but it is worth it. I'm not in western australia any more but this is exuding serious rapid progress. As for the 1 year to build a refinery in China, I'm quite serious about that also. They have the funding required via a private Chinese businessman (not a comrade, or state owned company- easier for foreign approvals). The refinery is being made in China for this ore, ie Aussie ore, Chinese refinery - this is allows the whole system to be quick.
And yes, they expect to mostly sell to China with a bit on the side to Japan/Korea. Similar to Lynas which is Aussie ore / Malaysian refinery / Chinese market. China may be hard to do business, but this would be right up their alley.
If you think the statement about $50million and a year to build is internet market hype, I'll give you a statement I've never found on the internet.
In China, a 6mtpA steel mill (ie equivalent to Australia's port Kembla) takes approx. 18 months to approve/build/commission (once the money is down on the table) In australia we would produce a Enviomental Impact Statement for a 6mtpA in about 18 months. Maybe that is China make 48% of the world's steel.
On Sep 16 09:57 AM Jack Lifton wrote:
> Renim,
>
> You wrote:
>
> "John
> I wouldn't be so sure about Lithium carbonate supply issues, Galaxy
> resources estimate for a lithium carbonate plant is $50m (mine and
> concentrator is about $70m), and at that price it'll probably only
> take a year to build. I've watched this stock go from 40cents to
> $2 over a few months, but will wait till after their next round of
> capital raising to invest. note that the mine/concentrator is in
> Oz, but the Li Carbonate plant is in China.
> galaxyresources.com.au...
>
> For any mine, if regulatory, infrastructure, and logistics issues
> have been resolved it will then then, if it has the money, place
> firm orders for equipment and begin construction. Most such projects
> in industrialized countries take two to three years to "begin" producing.
> It is common to ship "concentrates" off site for "refining." When
> such a "refinery" is in another country the times both to establish
> the logistics of such shipping and to be taken in establishing the
> regualtory compliance in the country hosting the refinery are a critical
> and potential choke point. Also NO TWO ORE CONCENTRATES ARE THE SAME,
> SO AN OFF_SITE REFINERY MUST PROVE IN AN ORE IT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY
> DESIGNED TO PROCESS! This takes time in an experienced refinery.
>
>
> China is not the easiest place to do business even for Chinese businessmen.
>
>
> There is no shortage at all of lithium. In fact it is today most
> likely in substantial surplus. China is establishing its own supply
> chain for strategic materials. In this case I have to assume that
> the Chinese refinery will sell to Chinese customers.
>
> This complicated situation will take many years to get underway.
>
>
> The idea that it will cost "only 50-70 million" and "take about a
> year" is ridiculous. No financial institution would accept a due
> diligence report with such a conclusion as competent. The statements
> are stock market hype and hooey.
>
> Lynas, by the way, is ready only to START constructing its mine and
> it has satisfied regulators that its metallurgy is proven well enough
> to start constructing its refinery. It is now, however, stopped
> dead by financial and regulatory issues, and each day of delay adds
> many days on the back end that cannot be made up. Lynas production
> with no financial or regulatory impediments in either Australia or
> Maylaysia is 2-3 years way.
By the way, it has been two years now since Firefly Energy won the Wall St. Journal Invention prize for technological achievement.
What is going on now, do you know? The silence is deafening.
Last fall Firefly entered into a manufacturing relationship with C&D Technologies which has been building demonstration batteries that have begun testing. For more detail see:
fireflyenergy.com
Nissan/Renault (the most electrically pro-active of the majors) is following a leasing the battery model, which means the consumer does not assume responsibility for battery reliability. And in China it will be buyer beware anyway.
That said, equally it is not demonstrated that safe Lithium ion chemistries won't fail prematurely either, it is one thing to not bet on Li Ion, but if it is a defacto bet against Li Ion, then it is still risky. The Chinese do seem to be aggressively pursuing the LiFePO4 chemistry, and (in my humble opinion) the Chinese car companies are basically in a life and death game as serious as western car companies if only due to having about 40 car companies now, with a communist government wanting to rationalize it to about 5-6. (how is that for management motivation to make the winning decision as 'best practice' will only lead to the company losing independence anyway)
So the Chinese are focusing on the same basic chemistry as A123 which is confidence building from a technology perspective, but threatening from a competitor's perspective.
In one of his early articles, Jack Lifton theorized that the big reason for the push to lithium in the automotive sector has been resource constraints for NiMH and Toyota's domination of that chemistry. When the choice is "do or do not do," you follow the open path. I think Nissan's decision to sell the cars and lease the batteries makes a lot of sense because any battery problems it does have will not negatively impact the consumer. I'm still inclined to bet that they'll want a few years experience in limited production before upping the ante too far.
I don't have anywhere near the fear of Asian competition that many do. They're great at pouring manpower at manufacturing, but their culture is far more failure adverse than ours. When it comes to cutting edge research and development, you have to be willing to accept the high risks of failure to get the major successes.
I expect great things from the lithium-ion battery sector. I can't predict who the great innovators will be but I'm confident that they will come along and be richly rewarded. For investors the challenge is having a realistic time horizon for their investment and buying at a price point that has meaningful upside potential.
Immediately after it's IPO, it looks like A123 will have a market value equal to 2x or 2.5x its hard asset value. I don't think those are bad odds. In comparison, Ener1 has a current market value equal to about 40x its hard asset value. I don't like those odds anywhere near as well.
Just getting settled here in Virginia from the long move from Las Vegas and finally able to tap back into the forum. We had an interesting trip and stopped in Albuquerque, New Mexico to have dinner with Dr. Hund from Sandia laboratory whose primary mission now is abuse testing for new automotive batteries for The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership which is sponsored by the DOE.
www1.eere.energy.gov/v...
We currently have our new XPS 15 Ah Cell in his lab being tested and we are shipping him a complete line of new XPS Battery Packs with CAN Bus interface built-in for him to test under this program. Interestingly enough, he hasn't been able to get any product at all to test from A123 or Alairnano! I will leave it at that for your followers to ponder.
He wasn't too excited about Axion either and they have also been reluctant to furnish any samples for testing. Hmmmmm?
One last article I will submit simply because it seems to point to what we already know, that so far the automobile companies are chosing Lithium-ion for the mainstay of their electrification programs.
www.sae.org/mags/AEI/6863
If we could all drink the waters of Lethe and lose all our memories, and be placed back in the America of 1903, how many of us would buy Ford stock for the rest of our lives and retire very rich twenty five years later?
www.earlyamericanautom...
I agree NG is a better solution in the short run(10 yrs) until?
They are wise to focus on the cost issues - sure there will always be an 'early adopter' market for the Tesla, the $40k+ Volt, etc, but Toyota is playing in a much larger sandbox. If they cannot move 150 - 250k units Stateside 1MM+ globally, why bother? And adding a new and unproven technology to a franchise that is finally catching on with the mainstream while increasing the cost would be financial hari-kari in the current environment.
This is not all that noteworthy: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/bu...
seekingalpha.com/insta...
On Sep 15 01:31 PM Davewmart wrote:
> Advil,
> It seems pretty hard to see anything other than plentiful supplies
> of lithium:
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
>
> For reference, the Nissan Leaf uses 4kg in it's 24kwh battery pack.
>
> Around enough lithium for a car for every man, woman and child on
> the planet, at a cost of around $32 for a £10k battery, does not
> seem to portent insuperable supply difficulties.
All joking aside, Toyota is not going to push unproven, expensive technology aside for something with a 10+ year track record of performance. They are agressively pursuing and studying Li-ion, and will eventually go down that path, but not on the basis of PR of impressive lab testing of cells or "solving" the cost with cheap, low quality cells.
On Sep 16 02:23 PM GhostOfSpec wrote:
> Wow . . . The company that has invested huge amounts of money to
> secure near exclusive access to the materials to make NiMH batteries
> is sticking with NiMH batteries? I'M SHOCKED! Who would have ever
> guessed that?
>
> Of course what does that mean for the other car makers? I guess they
> have to use an alternative.
>
> Don't believe me? Well . . . this is what your pal Jack Lifton said:
>
> "Toyota has been so aggressive in sourcing the rare earth metals
> (lanthanum, in particular), ***no other car company in the world
> outside of Japan has an opportunity to go with the nickel metal hydride
> battery for use in a hybrid car.*** It’s not about how much there
> is—it’s about how much is produced. And the amount produced is now
> insufficient to satisfy the Chinese domestic market and Toyota alone.
> Japan’s demand for rare earths this year in the summer was projected
> to be 40,000 tons of total rare earths; however, China has allocated
> only 38,000 tons for the entire world this year. "
> news.goldseek.com/Gold...
>
> D'oh!
>
> Yet another misleading piece of sophistry from John Peterson in his
> quest to endlessly bash Lithium-Ion, the technology that competes
> with his vested interest.
>
> Now carry-on with your fertilizer spreading. LOL!
No fear, here, though. That stock is going through historic upward intensity.
As for recycling, I know that we take any cells that are no longer viable and have them sent for recycling. While, I don't know the feasibility of recovering active materials, I can speculate that the current collectors used (Cu, Al, etc) and, in the case of cylindrical and metal-cased prismatics, the can should be easily recovered, although they would have to be refined like any other recycled scrap metal. I would suspect that the positive active material should have some value from the transition metal ions, and maybe some of the Li. The negative material, separator and electrolyte is most likely useless.
That is why I was a little disappointed to see only a small piece of the stimulus go to battery recycling. Until that can be done effectively, even Li-ion batteries are no different from the ones used in the TV remote in the long run. You use them and throw them out. That is also part of the reason there is such a large push for longer cycle and calendar life. The longer you can use the batteries, the less often you have to throw them in the landfill.
John wrote--
MRTTF, I read your Instablog with a great deal of interest because one of my concerns is that there's a wide gulf between being able to recycle lithium-ion batteries and being able to recycle them into materials that are pure enough to use in other lithium-ion batteries. Do you have any experience with or opinions on that issue?
www.autoblog.com/2009/.../
VW is probably going to a leader in EV's of some sort, but my experience has put me squarely in the "believe it when I see it" and I'm mad enough that it had best be state of the art and competitively priced if & when it does arrive.