Douglas Korthof

Lithium Ion Batteries and GEVs: False Gods for the New Millennium

Well, it's true that recyclable batteries are the future; the problem with Lithium is the high cost, and the lack of scrap value. Lithium is a one-way resource, from brine deposits for new Li to the dump for discarded batteries. So the only real possibilities are lead and NiMH batteries, of course, because they recycle. Using old batteries to make new ones, no new mining is needed for this operation.

But Natural Gas vehicles do work and make sense; there is no problem with making CNG charging stations, they already exist. What I stress is that if you are a "believer" in fuel cells, ask youself, why not CNG? It's here, now, it operates at lower pressure than H2, doesn't require an expensive fuel cell stack, and any car or truck can be converted to CNG. Ironically, natural gas is used to refine gasoline as well as extract high-density oil from tar sands; the natural gas used to refine gasoline would carry a CNG car about as far as the gasoline produced would take an oil-fired car. But the money is in oil, so both EVs and CNG are not pursued. Suprise??


On Nov 29 09:17 AM nrgrat wrote:

> I guess I'm not clear on whether this is an article about what makes
> sense or what is reality. Natural gas makes a whole lot of sense
> for transport, and never more than right now with these huge reserves
> being tapped from Gorgon off of Australia to Forgotonia, Pa. But
> the reality is that the auto majors tried this a decade ago. They
> got killed. They're not going back. Nobody is going to build a U.S.
> network of CNG stations for Toyota. I agree with everything you're
> saying, except the 'only significant drawback' part about the lack
> of stations. You are discounting some pretty recent pain. Nobody
> is going to invest that kind of money in technology that everyone
> describes as a bridge to battery technology. Sorry, it's battery
> or bust. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

Battery Investing for Beginners

John,
The ZEBRA battery was tried, but lasts only one year in EVs; the economics are impossible. Phoenix and others stumbled on that one, while they were flopping around looking for batteries. Sodium sulfur is kind of a joke; while it seems not much more temperature than a diesel engine, the heat density is much greater and it proved illusory in Ford's "EcoStar" boondoggle.


On Sep 28 01:03 AM John Petersen wrote:

> No1, there are two types of sodium based batteries. NGK Insulators
> of Japan makes a sodium sulfur battery that's used primarily in long
> discharge utility based applications. GE has recently announced plans
> to begin commercial production of sodium-metal-halide batteries that
> they plan to use first in hybrid locomotives. Both chemistries have
> their strengths and their weaknesses. The biggest weakness seems
> to be operating temperatures in the 400 to 700 degree range. A variant
> on the sodium metal halide chemistry called the Zebra battery has
> been proposed for use EVs. There's also talk out of Colorado that
> a company funded by the Coors family has found a way to make a sodium
> based battery that runs at lower temperatures. I don't generally
> talk much about the sodium batteries because they're hard to invest
> in, but the fundamental technologies have a lot of promise.

Battery Investing for Beginners

From the Aone filing, their losses to date are about twice their total sales. Other Lithium battery companies have this same economics, it means they lose $1 for each $1 in sales.

If you look at the Aone filing, most of their sales are batteries for tools, not for transportation; they've got, so I understand, about 100 plug-in prii running, with a conversion that costs $10,000. But if their cost is $20,000, this business is not sustainable; and, so far, the longest one has lasted less than a year. Perhaps it will do better than the others which have failed; we don't know yet. But that's the point: it's speculation, not fact, you're betting on.

Yes, we DO know how long existing Lithium will last; it's true that we don't know how long newer technologies will last, but then, neither do those who are betting their money that these untried batteries will perform in ways that existing Lithium failed at.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Aone (or one of the others) will succeed; just that propontents of Lithium EVs are, alarmingly, putting all their marbles on unproven ideas, and not using existing proven batteries that are cheaper and last longer.

Some of these, such as GM's Bob Lutz, are ignorant of battery economics in a breathtakingly sweeping manner. Don't be taken in the same way; remember, Lutz presided over the bankruptcy of Exide, before he was involved in the GM bankruptcy.

Peak shaving with EV batteries is bullshit, pure and simple. I've got a battery backup system and a solar system that makes more energy than needed to power two EVs (three, now); having produced $250 more energy last year than I used, why would I want to fall for the "peak shaving" fable??


On Sep 27 08:25 PM jerrydd wrote:

>
> Douglas, your posts are very your way or no way. But that is not
> true. Lithium is not expensive and is not likely to be. You only
> need less than .5lb of lithium/kwhr. So while recycling it is a good
> idea, it's not necessary. Look at my and Tom's above posts and follow
> the links and you'll find lots of .
>
> Nor are your other costs accurate anymore as they are yrs old now.
> Lithium has dropped a lot recently since they stopped using expensive
> materials like cobalt, etc.
>
> And used batteries for peak shaving at home is very viable, dropping
> your electric b50-75%. I use Cell phone tower take out batteries
> in 1 of my EV's and they work fine at very low costs.
>
> And I guaranty many EVer's will reuse every lithium battery that
> is usable they can get their hands on. Just like they do now with
> Prius packs, ganging up 4-8 packs. A companies rebuilds Prius packs
> too and that can be done with EV packs.
>
> As for how long Lithium batts will last, we don't know as many haven't
> been around long enough to see. But if after 10 yrs they still have
> 75% range left, for many that is fine. And you have to use some virgin
> lithium packs or you won't have any to recycle.
>
> Just because some companies make battery access hard doesn't mean
> they will in the future. In fact A Better Place will swap them in
> 90 seconds!!
>
> And more than lithium is going to be used as Sodium batteries are
> better for trucks, taxi's, vehicles that get used a lot so the heat
> energy loss isn't as much a problem. They are likely to last 20 yrs
> too.
>
> So lighten up. Things are not as bad as you think.
>
> On Sep 27 07:13 PM Douglas Korthof wrote:

Battery Investing for Beginners

Toxco pays NOTHING for the Lithium; they make money off the additives, Cd for example. The economics of battery production is something that is hidden from those putting their money down on stocks they basically know nothing about.

EV batteries, you need to realize, are high-power-output batteries; it's hidden in engineer-speak gobblydygood, but the EV1, for example, needed to put out up to 100 kW; the Tesla, up to 185 kW; the RAV4-EV, up to 50 kW. EV batteries age when their internal resistence rises; dV=I*r, or voltage drop depends on current times internal resistence. Spent EV batteries don't have this ability, so they are merely energy batteries, which can put out low power draw for a long time; for such batteries, it's always better to use lead-acid, which last longer and are uniform in their ability to put out energy.

So, in practice, for my 13 kWh battery backup for my solar system, I never considered spent EV batteries; I use lead AGM, which are balanced, matched and will last perhaps two decades, maybe more. Yes, I have spent EV batteries; they need to be recycled, but I never considered using them, in their rag-tag glory, for my solar system.

Lead "energy batteries" are so much cheaper than EV batteries, it makes more sense to buy new ones rather than try to match junk EV batteries. For powering a segway or wheelchair, who knows? But the market is not large enough to support an EV battery industry, if one were to develop.


On Sep 27 07:59 PM Don Harmon wrote:

> Oh contrare, Douglas. There are many uses for Lithium -ion battery
> packs which are considered "spent" by EV standards. These include
> solar, wind, e-bikes, and lots of wheelchairs for example. You just
> have a block to what this technology is capable of. You might also
> want to check out this company: www.toxco.com/ who just received
> a grant from the ARRA/DOE battery funds. They already have developed
> a real technology for recycling Lithium batteries, so you need to
> brush up on just how fast this sector is moving my friend!

Battery Investing for Beginners

Don: Also, the idea that spent EV batteries can be used in peak-shaving or solar backup is enticing, but without reality, like EEStor's claims. Most solar is grid-tied, not battery backup, and it's much cheaper to use solar for peak-shaving, with hydro storage even lower cost (at Lake Castaic, and other places, at night water is pumped up to the lake by 6 huge pump-generators powered by cheap off-peak Washington electric at 3 cents/kWh; the next day, during peak, the pumps turn into generators to retrieve the "stored" power at a cost no more than 4 cents). There's no market for spent EV batteries.


On Sep 27 06:52 PM Don Harmon wrote:

> Douglas, consider for a moment the useable life cycle of a LiFePO4
> battery pack in an automobile is 10 years. At this point the same
> battery pack still has over 75% of it's original power or energy
> density thus can be re-purposed for other markets like wind or solar
> giving it another 10 years of life (or more). Thus after 20 years
> these batteries might be ready to go to the re-cycling companies
> for reclaiming the original resources used to produce them.
>
> Don't you think that 20 years will suffice to develop the sufficient
> re-cycling technology that Lithium will require?
>
> It's only common sense when you really think about it!

Battery Investing for Beginners

So far, the maximum Lithium of any sort has powered an EV is 50,000 miles; and there's a shelf life issue. Besides this ominous fact of current Li life, the overall point is that you CANNOT talk seriously about cost until you consider logistics and sunset. Yes, it's common sense, which is sorely lacking in the supposed march to Lihtium.


On Sep 27 06:52 PM Don Harmon wrote:

> Douglas, consider for a moment the useable life cycle of a LiFePO4
> battery pack in an automobile is 10 years. At this point the same
> battery pack still has over 75% of it's original power or energy
> density thus can be re-purposed for other markets like wind or solar
> giving it another 10 years of life (or more). Thus after 20 years
> these batteries might be ready to go to the re-cycling companies
> for reclaiming the original resources used to produce them.
>
> Don't you think that 20 years will suffice to develop the sufficient
> re-cycling technology that Lithium will require?
>
> It's only common sense when you really think about it!

Battery Investing for Beginners

Lithium and nanotechnology *sounds* good; but it translates in my mind to the world "hogwash".

Lithium batteries have a bright EV future, perhaps, but they are about 4 to 10 times as expensive as NiMH and over 20 times as expensive as lead. Concentrating all EV efforts on Lithium, like concentrating all efforts on fuel cells, simply removes the EV program from a mass-market to a niche-demonstration program, "no threat" to the current oil-auto companies, and no chance for large-scale production of batteries or for the kind of growth that some seem to be expecting..

You are never going to build a mass-market for EVs or plug-in cars using virgin Lithium, it's always going to be a niche or demonstration market, maybe 500 or, gasp, even 5000, or, gurgle, 50,000 cars. The WORST thing is that there are already good batteries that will do the job; but no one is even looking at them.

I have no doubt that a battery technology COULD be developed, if there were anyone who wanted to do so in the existing oil-auto companies!

But so far, there is no interest in developing a battery recycling program, for example, needed for lowering costs. After the (curently 500) Tesla need new batteries, say after 60K miles, what's to be done with the old batteries? No one outside of, maybe, Tesla has a plan, and if they do, it's secret.

If there's to be a fleet of EVs, really, then it must be understood to form an "urban mine" of spent batteries for reuse in making new batteries, using all the same materials and ever-improved methods.

Like the Internal Combustion car business has been for the last 100 years.

EVs should be looked at as a source of "reforming" those batteries when they sunset; every metal is an artifact, except gold, it takes mining and refining. The re-use of old batteries, which have all the alloys and components needed, would be the way industry were headed, IF they were serious about a mass market EV; but of course, they are not serious.

The steel industry dramatically lowered costs when they used scrap steel as the basis for processing, instead of virgin iron ore! Put a lot of legacy companies out of business, with their legacy bessemer furnaces!!

Imagine, after 200K miles, when the NiMH batteries finally give up the ghost, they are brought to a reforming facility, all the rare earth metals, Ni, Ti, V, etc., fractionated and used directly to "refresh" the battery to new, using ever-more-successful techniques to prolong battery life, more robust batteries after each generation.

Or, let's say, when the good lead PSB batteries finally fry, after 50K miles, the high-quality lead is reformed into new batteries. Or, when Tesla's Lithium batteries are finished, they are brought to a reforming facility to make new Lithium batteries, using the same materials in the old batteries. Currently, this is much more expensive with old batteries than with new Lithium ore from brines, dooming the idea of economical production.

BTW, replacement and servicing of batteries ("logistical considerations") is something that NO one has looked at; replacing one battery on the EV1, RangerEV, Rav4-EV, etc., requires an expensive 4- to 8-hour process of "dropping the pack" that can only be done at the dealer and only with a $100K lift. Any competent M.E. would lose his lunch over that one!

Practical considerations and lowering life-cycle cost; that's the way to make a battery EV industry.

But it's not being done, nor looked at, by those Auto Alliance companies supposedly "racing" to "develop" EVs. Lutz, for example, pretends to think that GM can just "order" the batteries, and they will appear; and need have no concern for life-cycle cost.

Obviously, any expectations of a burgeoning, ballooning market for high-quality batteries would require such infrastructure as logistical support and planning as well as sunset or scrap value; the lack of the latter seems to invalidate the former.

A123 Increases IPO Price Range

A123 has financials not unlike other Lithium battery companies, which is to say, limited production at a cost about twice what the batteries sell for. No Lithium company so far has cracked this barrier: A123, for example, produced 124,000 kWh of batteries and received $154 million in product sales revenue -- meaning a sales price of about $1200/kWh. Understand, that's about 4 times what NiMH was estimated to cost in volume production, and about 10 times lead-acid.

But the worst part is that to PRODUCE that $154 million in product sales, A123 generated about $150 million in cumulative losses to date, meaning that it lost $1 for each $1 in sales.

This is the problem with other Lithium companies; even when they gear up to higher volume, the economics don't seem to change. But time will tell; certainly, Li batteries work; whether they become mass-market is the issue, and whether they last long enough to bring the life-cycle cost down is a big thing.

Some unrealities from the filing: while it's true that there are, perhaps, 19 "EV, PHEV, HEV" cars on the market in 2009 which sold more than 20,000 per car, NONE OF THEM ARE PLUG-IN, ALL OF THEM HAVE TINY HEV batteries like the Prius, only 1.3 kWh per car. This kind of sales are not going to generate the kind of revenue that PHEV would do, with at least 5 kWh per car, optimally 30 kWh per car. So that's one little bit of mis-information.

Secondly, the filing claims that Ni is toxic; formally, that may be true in some sense, but it generates a laugh here. Then it goes on to claim that, at the end of their useful life in EVs, the spent Li batteries might find a use in peak-shaving ideas!! That's the biggest crock, an old chestnut that fails to convince. Old batteries are best RECYCLED to reform the spent materials into new batteries, and reuse them, so that no new mining is necessary except for new cars.

Overall, while the IPO leaves them with 100 million shares and $200 million in cash, it leave them with an indicated capitalization of $2 billion; lot for a company that lost $80 million last year on product sales of $80 million, and stands to do even worse this year.

How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence

On the contrary! Despite all the hype, there is no plug-in car for sale (except the eBox and Tesla, which involve a waiting list).

There is NO EV juggernaut; it's all a lie. There IS NO shortage of batteries now except in the fetid imagination of Big Oil paid sockpuppets.

Just as they "worry" about taxing the grid to power EVs, when there are no EVs!!

As Elon Must stated, don't worry about pastures for unicorns until there ARE some unicorns.


On Aug 26 01:44 PM John Petersen wrote:

> Tom, I try to keep the level of emotion to a minimum, but sometimes
> I'm less effective at that than others.
>
> CanEginTx and Mark Divy, many thanks for refining the details on
> my rough recollection from college chemistry.
>
> Zenfar, I'm no great respecter of EPA estimates, but they do provide
> a reference point. The real choke point in all of this is battery
> manufacturing capacity and until we can make all the batteries we
> would ever want, national energy policy has to favor putting the
> limited supply of batteries in the applications where they'll do
> the most good in terms of reducing gasoline consumption. I agree
> that the whole sector is in for massive growth and despite my contrary
> mutterings, there is an awful lot of momentum behind the push for
> PHEVs and EVs. One blogger throwing spitballs at that supertanker
> isn't likely to change anything, but it may open some investor's
> eyes to the broader opportunity that will unfold over the next few
> years.

8 Energy Storage Stocks that Can Expect Explosive Growth

California, among others, requires that Time of Use (TOU) tariffs be made available to any customer who requests it; in addition, the Solar Rights law requires that TOU be made available to residential solar customers. Thus, solar, which produces in peak, earns more credits via TOU which can be used for off-peak charging of a plug-in Electric car. This "PV-EV" combination helps the grid both ways: lowering daytime peak demand via solar, and raising the night-time off-peak usage, helping equalize loads and lower costs.


On Aug 16 12:55 PM Bindlepete wrote:

> The real change for lower cost electricity, via load leveling, wil
> arrive when the Regulatory agencies from FERC on down to the State
> levels demand that the consumer/homeowner be given an option for
> realistic time of day metering.
>
> Back in the 70's such a system was proposed but so adamantly opposed
> by the generating industry that they killed a bill mandating a parallel
> privilge to those available to industry for the residential user
> . The Senate refused to go to conference with the House Bill unless
> the section was removed.
>
> Gib=ve the residential consumer such an option of low cost electricity
> and they will run their dryers and washing machines with an off peak
> timer. Refrigerators could be so designed to effect real savings
> as can hot water systems. Europe does this with ease and no complaints.
> Why not we? Greed not public service.

Axion’s Lead Carbon Batteries: Sweet Spot for Micro-Hybrid Vehicles?

A telling comment: "...working so well...few are being taken out of service...".

Reliability is, of course, the big advantage of NiMH and lead-acid; Lithium doesn't have that track record. Interesting that, as noted above, all the major manufacturers are committed to Lithium, a battery that, so far, has never powered an EV more than 50,000 miles on the same battery pack.

Almost as if all the auto makers were just pretending to make EVs, since they are avoiding the only technologies (NiMH and lead-acid) proven to work.

Actually, GM's Lutz admitted recently that the VOLT, with its postulated Lithium battery, is important for image, not for sales or profit. Image and PR, that means actually producing the VOLT-hoax is not a big priority with GM.

Lithium Batteries: Nothing But Illusion

One correction:

'...There is mention of Bolivian reserves, which is mining geology’s term for estimated quantities “unverified” by believed to be present due to professional surveys and comparisons with other known deposits of similar types...'

s.b.

'...There is mention of Bolivian <b><i>reso... which is mining geology’s term for estimated quantities “unverified” <b><i>but&... believed to be present due to professional surveys and comparisons with other known deposits of similar types..."

"resources" are unproven so far as economically viable for extraction; "reserves" are bankable. For example, gold "resources" can be 10 million pounds, but if it's less than 1 gm per ton, it's not viable to mine it with current technology and at current prices, and can't be considered "reserves".

Lithium Batteries: Nothing But Illusion

Chevron's use of IP to suppress use of NiMH batteries and their use in plug-in cars violates laws against unfair trade practices IMO.

In addition, use of oil money to buy up EV battery patents goes against the very idea of patent rights, which are intended to promote the improvement of technology.

In this case, Toyota was penalized for improving the NiMH batteries, and their use was in practice suppressed until Chevron's rights are either stripped away by the Courts or until they expire.


On Apr 20 06:47 AM Douglas Korthof wrote:

> Very important article and true as far as it goes.
>
> FYI, the 1999 EV1 with PSB 1260 lead-acid batteries had a range of
> over 100 miles on a charge, and would work for the VOLT (the volt
> Lithium battery is 400 lbs., if that were PSB 1260 it would have
> 8 kWh, enouigh to go 40 miles in all-electric range).
>
> Nickel metal hydride batteries developed by Toyota-Panasonic's unit
> PEVE proved to actually last more than 10 years and more than 100,000
> miles, and are still running on the roads of California.
>
> Why is no one talking about lead or NIMH? Because GM is still lying,
> or painfully ignorant, about batteries.
>
> Lutz himself knows nothing about batteries; recall that he was CEO
> of EXIDE battery corp. when it filed for bankruptcy due to excessive
> debt and over-enthusiastic bombast about "Li Ion" batteries.
>
> Petersen is correct about lead-acid.
>
> General Motors bought up control of the NiMH patent rights in 1994,
> trying to suppress its use, claiming that it would not work in cars
> because of the heat problem. When Toyota improved NiMH so that it
> solved that problem, GM sold control of the patent rights to Texaco
> on Oct. 10, 2000. Six days later, Texaco announced it was bringing
> the patents to Chevron (Standard Oil of California). The year after
> the merger was consummated, Chevron funded a lawsuit by its COBASYS
> unit against Toytota.
>
> In Dec., 2002, Toyota agreed to stop selling the Toyota RAV4-EV,
> which we are still driving to this day, and Toyota stopped making
> the EV-95 improved NiMH battery that GM had claimed could not be
> done. Toyota had to pay Chevron et al $30,000,000, and to this day,
> you are unable to buy the EV-95 NiMH battery.
>
> That's why we are all driving on pre-2002 battery packs, which are
> still running fine.
>
> NiMH or lead-acid are the solution; Lithium is a bogus distraction,
> a con-job (at least so far), and a source of many investoer losses.

Lithium Batteries: Nothing But Illusion

Very important article and true as far as it goes.

FYI, the 1999 EV1 with PSB 1260 lead-acid batteries had a range of over 100 miles on a charge, and would work for the VOLT (the volt Lithium battery is 400 lbs., if that were PSB 1260 it would have 8 kWh, enouigh to go 40 miles in all-electric range).

Nickel metal hydride batteries developed by Toyota-Panasonic's unit PEVE proved to actually last more than 10 years and more than 100,000 miles, and are still running on the roads of California.

Why is no one talking about lead or NIMH? Because GM is still lying, or painfully ignorant, about batteries.

Lutz himself knows nothing about batteries; recall that he was CEO of EXIDE battery corp. when it filed for bankruptcy due to excessive debt and over-enthusiastic bombast about "Li Ion" batteries.

Petersen is correct about lead-acid.

General Motors bought up control of the NiMH patent rights in 1994, trying to suppress its use, claiming that it would not work in cars because of the heat problem. When Toyota improved NiMH so that it solved that problem, GM sold control of the patent rights to Texaco on Oct. 10, 2000. Six days later, Texaco announced it was bringing the patents to Chevron (Standard Oil of California). The year after the merger was consummated, Chevron funded a lawsuit by its COBASYS unit against Toytota.

In Dec., 2002, Toyota agreed to stop selling the Toyota RAV4-EV, which we are still driving to this day, and Toyota stopped making the EV-95 improved NiMH battery that GM had claimed could not be done. Toyota had to pay Chevron et al $30,000,000, and to this day, you are unable to buy the EV-95 NiMH battery.

That's why we are all driving on pre-2002 battery packs, which are still running fine.

NiMH or lead-acid are the solution; Lithium is a bogus distraction, a con-job (at least so far), and a source of many investoer losses.

Lithium-ion Batteries: 9 Years of Price Stagnation

Why not draw the obvious conclusion, that the (assumed) need for Lithium is FALSE?

NiMH and lead have proven successful in Electric cars and hybrids; NiMH is the lowest-cost battery that lasts more than 100,000 miles (perhaps 200,000 miles, we don't know yet).

NiMH batteries have carried EVs over 200 miles in range; 400 lbs. of NiMH, the same weight as would be used in the so-called VOLT, would yield 12 kWh of accessible energy, enough to go 60 miles in an EV or EREV.

The Toyota RAV4-EV has proven over 17,000,000 miles of all-electric travel on NiMH batteries. Why fool with Lithium, when NiMH is recyclable for CASH, long-lasting, and 25% the cost of Lithium? NO cost decrease for Lithium, despite the economies of scale in lap top batteries; and no increase in life (no Lithium EV has so far gone more than 50,000 miles without significant battery degradation).

GM's insistence on using Lithium just shows they don't want to make an EV, and are lying about their intentions.

Lead-acid PSB 1260 batteries carried the EV1 more than100 miles on a charge, more than needed for the so-called VOLT.