Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules 31 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The last month has been a lot of fun! I enjoy writing for Seeking Alpha because it’s an open forum where deathless prose is discouraged and key macro-economic concepts take priority over petty detail. While reader comments have made it clear that folks don’t like it when I challenge their assumptions and they like it even less when I criticize a favorite stock, the numerous comments pro and con have helped refine my thinking and clarify the core message.
My fundamental precept is very simple. I believe the energy storage sector is certain to be enormous and is likely to be the next major investment trend. To quote a recent staff report from the California Energy Commission:
Electricity storage technologies... have significant potential to resolve grid stability and operations issues related to higher penetrations of renewables. Energy storage can be applied as generation, on the transmission or distribution system, and even at the end-use customer’s location. Smaller energy storage systems can provide significant grid support whether they are connected at the distribution or end-use customer level, and aggregating these distributed systems can provide grid support when more renewables are introduced. Field demonstrations and pilot projects are needed to address the use of larger energy storage systems (greater than 5 megawatt [MW] ratings for at least four hours) that can be connected to the distribution or transmission system. Additional research should evaluate very large energy storage systems, such as compressed air energy storage [CAES] or pumped hydroelectric, for situations in which there is a need for storage systems that can store hundreds of MWs for several hours.
While I’m very bullish on the energy storage sector, I’ve spent almost five years learning that the battery industry plays by a different set of rules that investors can only ignore at their peril. In the end I’m supremely confident that we’ll find many energy storage solutions that work and equally certain that there is no holy grail.
Over the last 30 years, investors have seen massive changes in technology-driven industries and the rate of change usually accelerates as new industries sprout, grow and flourish. Over time, the oft-repeated experiences have given rise to fatally flawed assumptions that (1) technological progress will always be fast and furious, and (2) better products will always cost less next year. The reality is that investors and consumers who expect big performance gains and sharp price reductions from the energy storage sector will almost certainly be disappointed because:
- Battery technologies are based on known chemical reactions that have already been developed to a level that approaches peak efficiency; so future performance gains are likely to be rare and modest.
- Batteries are material intensive products where up to 75% of manufacturing costs go for raw materials that cannot be reduced without proportionally reducing capacity.
- Battery materials are basic commodities that respond to the law of supply and demand, so new chemistries based on exotic materials will always encounter substantial availability and cost risks.
- When it comes to recycling, the key question is not whether an old battery can be recycled, but whether it can be recycled into materials that are pure enough to use in a new battery.
I’m an unrepentant critic of lithium-ion batteries because I believe the technology is hideously expensive overkill for most proposed storage applications. Existing and proposed Li-ion products are high performance miracles that offer energy densities of 150 to 200 Wh/kg and deep discharge battery lives of 8,000 to 10,000 cycles. But a fifth grader with a pencil can figure out that 8,000 to 10,000 cycles at 50 to 120 miles per cycle is 400,000 to 1.2 million miles; a 30 to 95 year bet that the current energy density champ will still hold the crown when we’re long dead and buried.
Extreme energy density begins to lose some of its allure when a presumptive industry leader like A123 Systems reports manufacturing costs in the $1,500 per kWh range; 75% of those costs are attributable to raw materials and experts are predicting lithium carbonate shortages. Likewise, a 30 to 95 year battery life can never make economic sense unless you think long-term mortgages for batteries are a good idea. To make matters worse, nobody has been able to figure out how to recycle Li-ion batteries and use the recycled material for new batteries. With these overwhelming handicaps, I can’t see how Li-ion batteries will ever generate strong end-user demand. Nobody can buy eggs for a dime, sell them for a nickel and make it up on volume. So until the fundamental economics of Li-ion batteries change, I think they’ll remain the Ferraris, supermodels and centerfolds of the battery industry; the magical seeds of male fantasy but beyond the grasp of mere mortals.
I’m a staunch supporter of lead-acid batteries because there was a 30 to 40 year R&D gap when the industry’s focus shifted away from starting, lighting, ignition and backup power applications and turned to portable devices. The fact that R&D was curtailed 30 or 40 years ago does not prove that everything that could be improved had already been improved. It merely proves that the batteries of the era did everything they needed to do and additional R&D was not cost effective.
Renewed interest in lead-acid batteries has already resulted in important advances like Enersys’ (ENS) thin pure plate lead and Firefly’s composite foam electrodes. More importantly, disruptive new technologies like Axion Power’s lead-acid-carbon [PbC] battery-supercapacitor hybrid promise to slash recharge times by 80% and extend deep discharge battery lives into the 1,500- to 2,000-cycle range. Since advanced lead-acid technology is cheap, over 98% of lead-acid batteries end up in recycling centers and old lead-acid batteries are invariably recycled into material for new batteries, I believe we are on the verge of a technical renaissance that will make advanced lead-acid batteries the product of choice for years to come, even if they are heavier and bulkier than their insanely expensive cousins. After all, automotive designs are flexible and a huge trunk has little value if you can’t afford to fill it with groceries.
I’m neutral on most energy storage technologies because I don’t know enough to form a well-reasoned opinion. NiMH batteries apparently perform well in HEVs even though the technology is still a bit too expensive for most consumers. Flow batteries, flywheels and supercapacitors all seem to have significant potential in emerging utility markets. Wal-Mart (WMT) shoppers who vote with their wallets will choose the real winners and losers. Since I believe the entire sector is entering a period of spectacular growth I wouldn’t discount the potential of any active player.
Last week I floated the idea of creating a short-list of pure play energy storage companies that we could follow over time to track the trend. My initial list probably has some holes but I find it more than a little interesting that the combined market valuations of the leading storage companies is only a fraction of valuations the leading solar companies carry. I smell opportunity!
click to enlarge
The table excludes grey-market companies like NGK Insulators (NGKIF.PK); fuel cell companies that are truly a sector unto themselves; and diversified companies like Dresser-Rand (DRC) and Johnson Controls (JCI) even though they are likely to benefit from growth in the storage sector. It also reserves space for three privately held storage companies that look to be laying foundations for IPOs in the foreseeable future. Since any oversights are inadvertent, I’ll be happy to add any pure-play energy storage companies that I’ve missed.
Disclosure: Author holds a long position in AXPW.OB and is a former director of that company.
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 31 comments:
User 244880, I think you have valid points but your emotionalism tends to make you look more like a fanatic than a rational investor. More facts, less sensationalism and tell us what you own.
Reprocessing lithium batteries is indeed at an early stage, but companies such as Toxco are able to deal with them, and recycling requirements in the EU will ensure that the technology will be further developed.
The main cost of lithium batteries is not in the raw materials, but in the processing, largely due to the high temperatures needed.
Many efforts are underway to reduce these costs.
Since the basic facts are not well represented here, analysis based on it is not likely to be valuable.
Further, this is all about stocks and how to make money. For instance...my position on Ener1 (HEV) is up a whopping 41.01 % since I started e-trading on July 1, 2008. Ener1 was the first stock purchase I made.
Last, and this is the part that DID make my laugh, is that you wrote about how there would be no room in the trunk for groceries. Well, then, walk around to the other side of that future car and open the bonnet. What, no engine in this car? Just for you own knowledge, that 600 pound battery in the trunk, is the engine!
Congratulations on your success as the comments above range from positive to nasty.
Have you used any of the new tools that have Lithium batteries? I have a new Skill "2336 ixo Lithium Ion Cordless screwdriver." I like the small size, light weight and ability to hold a charge far better than NiCad. I really don't care that it cost $40 compared to maybe $20 for a cheap tool.
Have you considered that many thought the cost of seat belts, air bags and smog equipment were all good reasons to not put them in cars? Now they are expected and nobody seems to complain about the higher cost.
Many here in California don't care as much about the lowest cost but they do care about performance and "green" solutions. There is a waiting list to pay over $100,000 for an electric sports car that runs on thousands of Lithium batteries. Others have paid an extra $10,000 to get a hybrid sticker so they can drive in the car pool lanes. Saving gas was not as expensive as saving time.
Many are patriots and will do anything they can to help sending money to the Middle East.
Have you read my article here called "Valence Technology: Green Stock with Potential to Bloom?"
seekingalpha.com/artic...
I made a great deal of money selling some shares into strength and the shares I have left are up over 50% since I penned that Feb 2008 article.
Automotive is a prime example. Everything I've read talks about how you need a 50 kWh battery for an EV. Using Li-ion that's a $75,000 battery for a $100,000 sports car (after tax credits). The percentage of the U.S. population that can afford a $100,000 car is miniscule. The percentage that will pay that much for a glorified toy is even smaller.
Since energy storage ultimately boils down to a comparison between the cost of storage and the cost of waste, the market will not buy a battery that can handle 8 cycles per day if the application only needs 1 or 2 cycles and a more cost effective alternative is available.
In a pure EV, everybody talks about either a single cycle per day or perhaps two if you can plug in at work. At two hundred working days per year, somebody who wants a 5-year solution is going to be shopping for a 1,500 to 3,000 cycle battery, not a 10,000 cycle battery.
It's easy for investors to fall in love with cool technologies that have immense capabilities. But when it comes to spending money, the WalMart shoppers have a good deal more sense than many investors. Likewise, utilities that cater to WalMart shoppers have rooms full of engineers and accountants to do the cost-benefit computations that they will ultimately need to justify to a public utilities commission.
If a storage application can take full advantage of the cycling power of Li-ion over a reasonable useful life, that's probably the way to go. Try as I may, I can't make the Li-ion numbers work in the real world for most large-scale applications.
I keep saying that I like the entire sector. I'm not suggesting that Li-ion will fail. I'm only suggesting that it will underperform the less expensive alternatives when the WalMart shoppers start voting.
Thanks for the article. I enjoyed it.
You forgot one of my favorite pure plays. GS Yuasa. You should add that to your list even though it's traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Anyone with a Schwab account can buy it through the international desk.
Also, what about Compact Power, LG Chem, Continental AG, Enova, Electrovaya, Quantum Fuel System Technologies, and Bollore? Do they not meet the "pure play" criteria or is it because perhaps they're private, foreign companies? I think these are worth watching too.
Agree but.... I believe I read the Tesla, manufactured very close to my home, uses 3,000 Li cells. Of course that is going to be expensive. Have you checked out the Bramo motorcycle? It uses about 6 Valence batteries that look to be the same size as lead acid cells. Segway and several commercial vehicles are starting to use the batteries too.
Obviously the battery in low volume in the infant stage is expensive just as the 8080 microprocessor was expensive on a per bit basis when Intel released its first uP. Have you looked into what Valence is doing to try and reduce costs for their batteries? They must have something right as Tanfield (sp) is going to use the batteries in commercial vans that I hear Ford will sell with the Ford label.
It's important to distinguish among application sectors. On the low end, in terms of battery size, is the mobile electronics market. That sector still has room for growth, but it's relatively mature. Lithium is unchallenged there, and it's only a question of which company has the best specific technology and best prospects for lower manufacturing costs.
Next up is the market for cordless tools. That market has been dominated by NiCad, with some penetration by NiMH. It's also been largely constrained by the capabilities of those technologies. I think lithium will slowly take over there. More to the point, the capability of some of the newer lithium technologies for high specific power and fast recharging will redefine the market. Premium tools powered by lithium battery packs are already very popular on home construction sites. Some of them are as powerful and as light weight as corded tools, and the freedom from dragging power cords is a big plus. In the near future, look to see commercial-grade cordless chain saws, hedge trimmers, shop-vacs, and other tools making their appearance.
Next is the nearly virgin market for devices in the "personal mobility" class: Segways and electric scooters of varying flavors, along with ride-on lawn mowers, garden cultivators, and such. For that market, the current cost of lithium batteries is somewhat prohibitive. Weight is not so important, but calendar lifetime and low self-discharge are crucial. I don't see a clear winner there.
Now we come to the nascent EV and plug-in HEV market. That's a challenge for any technology: cost, specific power, specific energy, and lifetime are all important. Lithium makes it on all counts except cost, where it's out of the ballpark for the mainstream market. It's not clear (to me) whether its cost can be brought down sufficiently in the near term to enable that market. But it's also not clear that any other technology can meet the other requirements. For me, that's a "wait and see".
Finally, there's the utility power long-term storage market. ("Long term" meaning hours of supply, as opposed to seconds or minutes.) Without a dramatic cost breakthrough, lithium is not a competitor there. The competition is between advanced lead-acid (e.g., Firefly), sodium-sulfer, one or more flow battery technologies, or various non-battery technologies (flywheels or compressed air, for example).
That's actually multiple markets, depending on scale. For backup power to a single home, for example, I think the best bet is advanced lead-acid. For backup to a distribution subnet, compressed air might be a better bet. But the competition is pretty wide open. The only thing I'm sure of is that it will become increasingly important, as solar and wind increase their share of the power market.
Th!nk City Vehicle (the one I wrote about that weighs 600lbs.) will cost around $17.000. The end cost of the city vehicle is estimated to be in the mid-to-high 30's range. In the USA a terrific percentage of people CAN afford this price, and a terrific percentage of people DO drive under 112 miles/day.
Note: A123 is also in the mix to have their battery put into the Th!nk vehicle. But their battery (I do not know the weight) only goes about 74 miles before needing a recharge (I also do not know the cost of this battery, nor do I know if this is the same battery that GM is putting into the Chevy Volt that has a range of 40 miles before gas needs to kick in).
But that's not the only battery Ener1 is making. They are also in the nascent stages of producing a battery that will dramatically outperform and cost much less that the current Prius battery. I've read that this battery will be in the range of $1500 to $1750, as opposed to the current Prius battery costing $7500 to 8k. Perhaps this is why the Prius will have a lith battery in their 2010 car...to reduce costs? In commenting about one of your previous articles I wrote how this battery outperformed the Prius battery (49 mlies/gallon, as opposed to 72.4 miles/gallon). This battery weighs 40 pounds.
During this internet conference call the CEO of Ener1, Carl Gassenheimer, stated that there are 100 major auto manufacturers in the world and ALL OF THEM ARE FAST TRACKING development of cars and "fleet-type" trucks that will use some form of hybrid technology. "In the works," near years end, Ener1 will be announcing more agreements with at least two of the 23 auto manufacturers they are currently engaging a contract, and they'll have a plant in Indianapolis that will be ready to knock out $450 million dollars worth of Lith batteries during 2009.
Surely lithium technology is not the end-all answer. But it is a viable option, one that I will continue to take risk with my money.
Note: I also have shares in China Bak (CBAK). But the rising inflation and growing costs and uncertainty of their labor force is making me very wary of that stock, even with the knowlege that the "insiders" are all over the Internet predicting that CBAK is a stock that will double witin the next year.
Cheers!
My guess is that this smaller battery is the one Ener1 is in (mysterious) negotiations with (some) auto maker. But then again, how far does and UPS truck drive in a year 2014 day, when oil just might be well over 200 bucks a barrel?
Thanks for the article. Great topic, and a good start at a list. One that is a pure play that is not listed is Lithium Technology Corp. (LTHU.PK). They make large size Lithium Ion batteries which allow safer operation, since fewer cells are needed, and have high capacity and current draw rates. They entered the Nurburgring 24 hour race with the Apollo supercar hybrid. The car finished on electric power alone; as a mechanical problem put the gas engine out of commission, but demonstrated very high potential for hybrid racing applications, as it was able to hold with the leaders until having mechanical problems. They are involved with Volkswagen and EnerSys.
:/
Maybe a 5th grader can figure out the simple math but maybe an educated person will realize that these high performance lithium batteries may not be suited for this application. It seems that the educated engineers at companies like A123 and Altair have expanded their R&D to encompass such applications.
Your disclosure statement regarding AXPW.OB makes it clear that you favor their technology eventhough it is based on engineering promises of performance in the "minutes" category. If you look at this chart from the Axion Power website you'll see the effectiveness of different technologies...
www.axionpower.com/ind...
But the chart does not address the new lithium batteries A123 and Altair are making. The chart states that a regular lithium batter has 3x as much density for both (Wh/kg) and (Wh/l). PbC has a density of 20.5 and 40 respectively and regular lithium batteries have 65 and 120 respectively. The PbC has 1450 useful cycles and the lithium has 1000. And the the cost of ownership for a lithium batter is 2x as much for capacity and 3x as much for per cycle. That's just a regular lithium battery.
Just in regards of the Altair Nanosafe, is has densities of 4000 W/kg and 5000 W/litre. Total cycle life of 25000 charges (not yet proven by a 3rd party but). And costs about $2000 /kWh.
www.b2i.cc/Document/54...
So in essence...
PbC: $610/kWh for about 1600 charges @ 20.5 Wh/kg & 40Wh/l
Nanosafe: $2000/kWh for about 25000 charges @ 4000 W/kg & 5000/l
You do the math!!!
It's really too early to tell which technology will be the most disruptive for which industry. But with the new technologies coming forth, let's try and keep an open mind about how things might play out in the future.
You and I are in complete agreement. If an application can use 25,000 charge cycles, then one should buy a 25,000 cycle battery. But if you're only going to use 250 to 300 cycles per year, buying a 25,000 cycle battery is insane.
My mother always told me to buy solid shoes that fit well and matched the the job. So I don't wear my hand made crocodile loafers to garden. The same advice applies to batteries.
One last question: If you are right about your theory that a lith battery in a car makes no financial sense whatsoever, then why are all 100 major manufacturers of automobiles world wide fast tracking the development of electrically aided vehicles?* Are you wrong, or are they wrong?
*As I wrote earlier, Charles Gassenheimer, CEO of Ener1, said this during the recent Internet conference call.
I would think the purpose of the cycle testing is to show the intergity of the technology... how one battery compares to another in a similar situation. To address your comment about the validity of lithium batteries in a car... well I was just trying to show that certain technolgies may not be suited for cars. In regards to the Nanosafe battery by Altair... it's hard to think that a battery with 25000 cycles will be suitable when you consider that the battery will last longer than the car's lifespan... actually at 25000 cycles averaging about 250-300 cycles a year that would put it at about 20 years, it would last longer than the life span of the car twice over. And now let's account for the cost, the original Nanosafe battery in the Phoenix Motorcars vehical's has a cost of about $75,000 just for the battery and the companies were hoping for credits to offset the battery cost. To me this application for that technology is a bit over kill and expensive. Hopefully they can bring costs down and come up with a different format for the Nanosafe to adhere to the upcoming HEV, PHEV, and BEV markets about to be put into play. However, I do see a need for this type of technology in cars for fleet vehicles... thus the contract Phoenix has with PG&E to supply these BEVs. I just don't see it as something at this moment in time for the average consumer market.
And yes it does skew the math a little bit if you start to consider regenerative brake systems. I was just using my stats as a basis of product compaison. All these new technologies have to undergo 3rd party testing to validate their claims. You should check out Altiarnano's website. You'll read some articles for these types of testingand their progress. I'm not trying to say lithium is not usefull in the car industry... I'm just not convinced that these battery companies have found the right configuartion of their technologies for the car industry. Don't get me wrong.. i'm all for HEV, PHEV and BEVs. It's just that a majority of the products coming out right now are not proven right for the consumers. Remember... a majority of this stuff is still in R&D.
On Aug 18 12:50 PM Kirk Lindstrom wrote:
> "While reader comments have made it clear that folks don’t like it
> when I challenge their assumptions and they like it even less when
> I criticize a favorite stock, the numerous comments pro and con have
> helped refine my thinking and clarify the core message."
>
> Congratulations on your success as the comments above range from
> positive to nasty.
>
> Have you used any of the new tools that have Lithium batteries?
> I have a new Skill "2336 ixo Lithium Ion Cordless screwdriver."
> I like the small size, light weight and ability to hold a charge
> far better than NiCad. I really don't care that it cost $40 compared
> to maybe $20 for a cheap tool.
>
> Have you considered that many thought the cost of seat belts, air
> bags and smog equipment were all good reasons to not put them in
> cars? Now they are expected and nobody seems to complain about the
> higher cost.
>
> Many here in California don't care as much about the lowest cost
> but they do care about performance and "green" solutions. There
> is a waiting list to pay over $100,000 for an electric sports car
> that runs on thousands of Lithium batteries. Others have paid an
> extra $10,000 to get a hybrid sticker so they can drive in the car
> pool lanes. Saving gas was not as expensive as saving time. <br/>
>
> Many are patriots and will do anything they can to help sending money
> to the Middle East.
>
> Have you read my article here called "Valence Technology: Green Stock
> with Potential to Bloom?"
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
>
> I made a great deal of money selling some shares into strength and
> the shares I have left are up over 50% since I penned that Feb 2008
> article.
>
>
>
The other posters and commentators should pay heed, and not say silly things that make them look dumb. As the Chinese adage goes, "...'tis better to remain silent and be thought the fool, then open one's mouth and remove all doubt...".
There's a big difference in lead-acid batteries; most SLI (commodity batteries that are in a gas IC car) are designed to last little more than 3 years; yet it's possible to make a lead battery that lasts 100 years if only used for "Starting Lights and Ignition".
Energy storage using batteries, unlike SLI apps, takes "deep cycling"; if you use the battery in an EV, it needs also to put out a lot of power (up to 400 Amps -- and if you don't know what that means, you need to study before commenting). High power draw tends to break up battery insides, destroying the electrodes or other components, especially because mostly we hook them up in series to get high voltages. Other concepts you need to know are "internal resistence", "voltage drop", and "discharge curve". A123, for example, has an extremely flat discharge curve which makes it difficult to predict when the voltage drops to dangerous levels. This is part of the reason why GM chose to *buy* 16 kWh of Lithium (from LG, not A123) but only *access* 8 kWh, making it twice as expensive. NiMH and lead don't have that problem; you can run them close to "zero", we have many times, even below "zero".
Lithium gets torn up worse than others, in high power applications; lead acid actually does better, which we've found in actual experience using EVs. For backup power applications such as peak-shaving, this doesn't matter much; but it is a big deal for EVs.
Tesla, following ACP, uses commodity laptop 18-650 Lithium batteries in a parallel-series arrangement that allows monitoring in parallel and discharge in series; various newer Li chemistries have their own chemistries, and their own unsubstatiated (so far!) claims.
Now the other concept lurking behind Mr. Petersen's articles is that of "Life Cycle Costing" (LCC). Some uneducated or naive folks don't distinguish between "safe disposal" and "sale for junk value". Unbeknownst to the public, there's a whole industry involved in junk metals, what is now called "recycling". This has vast implications for LCC comparisons for the three technologies, and also for the issue of "material supply". If your lead is "mined" from junk batteries, you may never need to refine much new lead.
Lead acid batteries are almost all recycled; there will never be a shortage of lead at current prices because it's almost all reused and most of our lead supply comes from melted junk lead. "Dissipatory" applications, such as the former use of lead in paint or tetraethyl lead, where it can't be recycled, are no longer extant.
NiMH uses Nickel metal and some rare metals such as Vanadium, Titanium, and rare-earth misch metals. An industry can be made in reusing old Nickel batteries; most Ni comes from junk metal anyway, and most is used in Stainless Steel, Monel propellor shafts, surgical and corrosive environments, etc.
Lithium almost all comes from virgin Lithium, not because of the high temperatures, but because of the chemical properties of Lithium, which, like Na and K, reacts violently with water or humid air. Refining Lithium from ore does require processing of Lithium Carbonate, a stable form, but to purify the metal requires special attention to the explosion and fire danger. Hence, Lithium currently has no junk value; it's true that Toxco does recycle it, but I suspect mostly for the additives, Cd and Co; pure Lithium batteries have no junk value, they are "safely discarded into the trash" unless they have toxic Cd or Co.
Now LCC is composed of three elements:
Initial cost;
Logistic (support) cost;
Sunset (disposal) cost or credit.
With an article such as batteries, we amortize the LCC over the number of years or product cycles to compare the three.
Lead: low initial cost, low support cost, high junk value; 50K miles
Nickel: modest initial, low support, high junk; 200K miles
Lithium: very high initial cost, high support, no junk value; 50K miles.
Obviously, if you do the numbers, Lithium is (so far) way off the scale, much too expensive for EV application. Now you can argue about the numbers, but they are best we can do and from actual real-world applications. There are other factors: Lithium lasts longer in small cars, where it doesn't have to push so much weight, and all three have unique temperature and BMS requirements.
Lead: Less than $6000 over 50K miles for 12 cents per mile;
NiMH: No more than $11,000 over 200K miles for 5.5 cents per mile;
Li: Total cost of about $25,000 over 50K miles for 50 cents per mile.
Now this doesn't mean that Lithium is impossible; just that so far, it's not economical. In all the hype about Lithium cars, there is
NO LITHIUM EV WHICH HAS GONE MORE THAN 50,000 MILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT BATTERY DEGRADATION.
If you know of an EV that did so, I want to hear from you: call me at 562-430-2495. But so far, no car.
This irreduceable fact must be dealt with: but it takes some thinking to understand that Lithium might work well in a low-power-draw applicaton such as a cell phone or laptop, but not be as economical in a high-power-draw application such as an EV. Actually, in a cell phone, we use Lithium because of its sterling Wh/kg ratio, because it's the only one that meets the usage parameters, the cost doesn't matter.
Now as for peak-shaving, the advantage goes to Lead!!!
No one would think of using anything else for battery backup or storage, just looking at the LCC. For example, I have 7 year old $1500 total-cost top-of-the-line lead batteries for my battery backup, holding 13 kWh and still function at top rank. The same thing in Lithium might last as long (maybe not; there's a shelf-life issue with Lithium) but the cost would be outrageous, about 10 times the best lead-acid battery made.