thotdoc

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

Porsche just announced a lithium-ion battery for their race cars that are driven on the stret; GT-3, etc.

It costs $1700.00 and will not start the car when the temperature is below 32 degrees. They also give you a regular battery for those times that you need it. So, you get to the track and take out the regular battery and save 22 pounds.

I don't know where the battery is in new Porsches. Perhaps in the front to equalize weight. That would save the problems with overheating the battery.

They do say that it will recycle more times. But, recycling is not really an issue in any battery I've ever used.

$1700 and not really usable in winter.

Rapid Transition to Grid Enabled Vehicles Not Possible or Desirable

I regret that I have only one thumbs up to give you.

WTF is up with the US not becoming more reliant on Natural Gas?


On Nov 20 05:37 AM John Petersen wrote:

> I never forget the monetary and emotional costs of the foreign entanglements
> and conflicts required to keep supply lines open and agree that reducing
> oil dependence is a top priority. But we can accomplish far more
> with far less money by encouraging natural gas vehicles and pure
> hybrids than we'll ever accomplish by creating a white elephant infrastructure
> for a technology that trades power-plant pollution for tail pipe
> pollution. Read the roadmap. Then read my articles on how GEVs will
> sabotage the drive for energy independence and will be plugging into
> a lump of coal. Sometimes the solutions that seem perfect in the
> talking lose their luster when you start cranking the numbers.

A Month After Its IPO, A123 Systems Is Still Rising

Look at the chart. The trend is down.

Obama Announces List of Grant Recipients, Recognizing Significance of Hybrid Markets

Mr. Petersen has spent countless hours teaching us about this area. He comes across as a gentleman and mature in his handling of people.

Speculawyer, you snipe, teach nothing as far as I can tell, and come across as jealous and small. If you wish admiration, which is too clear, please write months of articles educating us instead of nit picking and trying to turn this thread into some typical "he said-she said."

Thanks,

Gordon


On Aug 06 11:05 AM speculawyer wrote:

> >>On balance, I'd say my predictions from earlier today were not
> too far off the mark.<<
>
> LOL! You mean your completely changed predictions. You spent a
> year hopelessly bashing li-ion technology only to see li-ion technology
> get the lion's share of money.
>
> On February 16, 2009, you said:
> --------------------
> In a recent article titled “DOE Reports That Lithium-ion Batteries
> Are Not Ready for Prime Time,” I reviewed the 2008 Annual Progress
> Report for the DOE’s Energy Storage Research and Development Vehicle
> Technologies Program. While DOE concluded that Li-ion technology
> was promising, it also noted that there were numerous technical barriers
> that prevented immediate commercialization of Li-ion batteries for
> use in automotive applications including cost, performance, abuse
> tolerance and life. Based on the conclusions, tone and tenor of the
> DOE report, it’s clear that the DOE views Li-ion as a promising R&amp;D
> stage technology, but believes it is not a prime technology that’s
> ready for immediate commercialization.
>
> The final bill sent to the President requires the DOE to include
> Li-ion battery developers in the class of eligible grant applicants.
> Without that requirement, I think there would have been a reasonable
> argument that Li-ion developers should be excluded from grant eligibility.
> *****While Congress clearly wants some funding for Li-ion battery
> developers, it’s clear that the battery manufacturing grants are
> not directed solely or even principally toward Li-ion technology.
> The Congress wants energy storage solutions that work today, not
> potential solutions that may work in 5 or 10 years. On balance, I
> expect the bulk of the battery manufacturing grants to go to companies
> that are manufacturing and selling existing products into established
> markets.*****
> --------------------
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
>
> Yet the funding principally did got to Li-ion technology. D'oh!
>
>
> Ah well, reality bites.
>
> Although I've got to confess this . . . I have become less enthusiastic
> on PHEVs and BEVs . . . NOT because of battery technology but because
> of EV component costs.
>
> I had been assuming that an EV drivetrain without the batteries was
> about equal in price to a gas drivetrain. Apparently it costs quite
> a bit more. The controller, charger, electric motor, and gearbox
> for an EV costs a few thousand more than the fuel systems, gas engine,
> transmission, and exhaust system for a gas car. So that is where
> the problem currently lies . . . not in the batteries.
>
> But at least there is a chance to get those costs down. EV components
> have not been made in large volumes. And large volumes should be
> able to cut the prices down a bit. Especially the charger &amp;
> controller portions that include a lot of software to operate. Since
> software has a near zero marginal cost for each additional item,
> that should help get prices down. But if they can't get an EV drivetrain
> down to about the same cost of a gas drivetrain, then it is going
> to take even higher gas prices before EVs become practical. :-/