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.

A123 vs. BYD and Other Irrational Battery Investments

Another insightful article.

While I don't believe in Lithium batteries for EVs and HEV, since lead-acid and NiMH are much cheaper and have a sunset (recycle) value instead of being discarded into landfills, certainly they work in power tools and consumer electronics. Li has been improved, but still there is
<br>no Lithium hybrid,
<br>no Lithium plug-in hybrid, and
<br> no Lithium EV battery pack has lasted more than 50K miles (Tesla included).
<br>Nissan leases the battery for $150/month; that should give you a hint about how high the cost. GM is already singing the weeps about VOLT-hoax costing, because they are using the wrong battery, of course.

Whereas, our NiMH EVs are still running over 100K miles, and the batteries contain ALL the metals needed for new batteries, they recycle 100% and don't require any mining of new metals; Lithium requires a continuous supply of new mined metal, which is unsustainable.

Aone may find a use for their batteries in EVs, but so far, the bulk of their revenue is in power tools, like all the other Lithium makers.

As for Valence, it's been touting its "superior technology" for a long time, but has only managed pitifully small sales, even compared to marginal companies who try to sell Lithium batteries. Valence has become an article of faith, with a circle-jerk of the same old sales pitch about the coming deluge of cash.

Well, as Aone will find out, it's a lot more difficult to make a living off Li batteries than it is to make hoopla about them.

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.

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.

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Another ignorant comment by a sockpuppet. Most successful EVs go 120 miles on a charge; the EV1 with NiMH went an EPA certified 140 miles, and would have done 200 with superior NiMH batteries.

But the whole point of the PHEV is that the gas or diesel engine-generator kicks on automatically to create electric if and when the battery is low (say, after 100 miles of driving), and the battery stands ready to absorb excess electric from the genset or from regenerative braking.

In fact, the energy curve of an EREV (serial hybrid) going up a hill and coming down that hill is identical to the EV, if the hill is low enough to ascend on battery power alone (you won't even fire up the genset, for example, ascending to Big Bear or Mt. Baldy); for higher hills, say 15,000 ft., the engine-generator cranks on when the battery is low, but shuts off when the car recharges on the way back down. You arrive in both cases with the battery charged, less 20%.


On Feb 16 08:05 AM Renzo wrote:

> Thank you for another concise analysis of the problems inherent to
> the use of lithium batteries in HEV’s and PHEV’s. There seems to
> be a consensus that a 40-mile range is adequate to make a PHEV commercially
> viable. I’d like to know where, exactly, people expect to drive these
> vehicles. A vehicle may have a 40-mile range in a moderate, costal

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

LOL! It was BUSH who blew all our money (about $10T) down the toilet!! You are funny if not so ignorant.


On Feb 16 11:55 AM Paul Killinger wrote:

> The motto for the crew now in charge in Washington is to never let
> the facts get in the way of a good story. So they won't. If they
> can print enough new money, they'll buy one of these clunkers for
> each of us.
> Indeed, they can use the proceeds from their upcoming cap and trade
> scheme for funding. Fasten your seat belts everyone, we've only just
> begun!
>

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

A123 batteries are not only too expensive, but they are apparently inappropriate for use in an EV. Any car that runs on batteries alone (such as the Chey VOLT for the first 40 miles) needs three things:
1. High power output (at least 50 kW, 400A at 120v; preferrably 100 kW or even more); this tends to break down some batteries, perhaps A123;
2. Deep cycling, putting out enough power to go 40 miles takes 10 kWh in an Electric car;
3. Long cycle life, at least 1000, or about 5 years.
GM chose the well-proven LG-Chem over A123, we know that LG only lasts 50K miles in the Tesla, but GM might hope to stretch that out by only cycling 30-80. They are battery ignoramuses, however, and will probably fail.


On Feb 16 04:04 PM speculawyer wrote:

> A123 batteries are expensive . . . but they are nice due to their
> high-power output and reliability. But, as with so many other things,
> China may knock out the US makers like Valence and A123 due to low
> cost (unless they do everything in asia too). The $0.50/wh Thundersky
> LiFePO4s can't be ignored. But since the whole market is under-capacity,
> it is hard to get good price numbers. Valence seems to be selling
> every battery they make.
>
> I'd like to see some successful Li-Ion makers from the USA (and manufacturing
> in the USA). But I'd rather buy Chinese batteries than Saudi oil.

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Actually, it's because Lithium reacts explosively with H2O, and the lithium metal (Lithium comes from Greek Lithos, stone) is so hard to separate out, it takes a LOT of electric energy plus working in either cryogenic or oxygen-free environments. Whereas, Lead and Nickel are relatively easy to recycle: once you have produced a metal, there is no need to discard it!! You need to recognize that all metals (except gold, which is found in nature) are, ipso facto, an artifact! It takes effort to purify them; that's why we use scrap iron for the modern electric furnace, because there is a "minefield" of existing scrap metals that can be reused.


On Feb 16 01:04 PM Advill wrote:

> Can somebody tell me why producing lithium batteries is SO Expensive?.
>
>
> Mining lithium salts is not more expensive that nickel, zinc or lead,
> I dont argument about DOE report for me it´s a fact.... but why?.
>
>
> The problem with cheap lithium right now is the geographically highly
> concentrated mines available (Bolivia-Chile and Canada-China), in
> my point of view there is not a clear case in the cost of lithium
> against other minerals (except strategic considerations as it was
> with oil at the begining in S.XX.).
>
> Perhaps here the lithium batteries. producers can explain in detail
> why they are charging 10,000 USD per car set of batts, for me the
> key is why they are charging so much.
>
> Regards

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Learn something: almost all lead-acid batteries are recycled, lead is a valuable industrial metal. Lithium batteries have no recycle value, since it's energy-intensive to produce the Lithium metal needed for the batteries. Li-po batteries are simpley thrown away, stupidly, wasting the effort to make them and refine the lithium.

NiMH also recycles, since Nickel is a valuable metal primarily used in stainless steel, monel, and for corrosive enviroments.


On Feb 16 01:54 PM Waterskius wrote:

> USABC is a conglomerate of the "not haves". These are all companies
> that are not there yet.
>
> If you contrast those companies to VLNC, ABAT, CBAK and PC you will
> find a different story. They are ready to go with the chemistry,
> investing in manufacturing and going to achieve lower price points
> with economies of scale. VLNC for one is offering 100 miles per charge
> in the commercial vehicles and a possible 10 year batter life (see
> Tanfield website). Iron Magnesuim Phosphate is much more stable (no
> fires) and can be disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.
>
>
> The thing most people don't like with lead acid is they are environmentally
> unfriendly when disposed.
>
> Please enlighten me.

DOE Report: Lithium-ion Batteries Are Not Ready for Prime Time

<b>Nickel Metal Hydride</b> is the only proven successful EV and hybrid battery. It's lower initial cost, recycles (so the only real cost is manufacturing), is safe, lasts longer than the life of the car, even a Toyota car, and is the only battery chemistry owned by, and suppressed by, an oil company (Chevron owns control of the patent rights, having acquired them on Oct. 10, 2000 from General Motors).

So the bottom line is, if you aren't using NICKEL METAL HYDRIDE batteries, you are just bullshitting about Electric cars and/or hybrids.

Lead-Acid, Lead-Carbon Batteries: The Only Option for Average Consumer

You won't post the truth. In reality, GM's move to NiMH had nothing to do with it's being "robust", GM was forced to do so by Toyota's use of NiMH and CARB's sticking to its requirements.