I am a little surprised by the comments on Lithium Ion battery safety and cycle life. The press releases I've read by Altair and A123 batteries seem to suggest that their batteries have passed safety tests with flying colors. I thought they had beat the overheating problem period. I've also read that the new Lithium Ion Nano-tech batteries are essentially good for the life of the car.

What gives.

There is a big difference between bench tests and field tests, and having a proof of technology versus a technology that can be commercialized successfully for transportation, including the reliable manufacturing and packaging of millions of units at an acceptable price point. Transportation is a tough application.

What Altair and A123—and others—have done and are doing are important steps along the way, but there is apparently still some distance to go before having mass-produced battery packs for PHEV vehicles...including not having a clear design target.

The A123 batteries are being tested in a plug-in hybrid Prius as we speak. 9 kWh pack made from 26650 type cells adding 60 kg to car weight.

http://hybrids-plus.com/

www.valence.com
Best battery, but to expensive.

I understand that Altair tests got a 9000 cycle life out of their batteries. But there was no indication of their calendar shelf life. Anyone heard?

Nice to see that there is some official desire to see PHEVs hit the road. The fuel savings look great! And thats not even including other possible savings such as lighter materials. (and death to SUVs!, sorry I digress)

PHEVs have promise, but they still cost at least an additional $10,000 for a very limited range and low top speed. Reasonable battery costs are always just around the corner. In the mean time, auto companies should be investing in ways that permit vehicles to get super mpg, i.e., at least 100 mpg without the necessity to charge heavy batteries from the grid. They could start with lighter materials such as carbon fiber and bigger battery capacities and larger electric motors as costs come down.

It's kind of like solar PV for your home. The first thing to do is to make your home as efficient as possible. Only after you have maximized efficiency does it make sense to then install PV or solar thermal.

Like the article implies, it also makes sense to have a wide range of options and price points or even the ability to upgrade one's vehicle as battery costs, longevity, recharge times, and weight come down.

In the mean time, we can make tremendous strides in cutting oil use by fully utilizing the technologies we already have and the size vehicles we already have.

As usual, changes in our value systems will have more impact than changes in our vehicle systems.

"There is a big difference between bench tests and field tests "

A123 batts are "on the field" in deWalt powertools.

"PHEVs have promise, but they still cost at least an additional $10,000"

The next Prius is meant to have a 9 mile EV mode, rechargeable from the grid to its onboard lithium-ion battery (according to a senior Toyota engineer).

That 9 mile range would require 2 kWh of storage, assume 2.5 kWh if cycling between 80% DOD.

How much would that cost? Well, since you can buy lithium-ion 18650s for $3 per cell, and each holds 9 Wh, that's $330 per kWh.

Remove the Prius NiMH battery (-$700) and add 2.5 kWh of 18650 LiIon (+$825) and you have a PHEV-Prius for $125 more than a standard Prius.

It does not need to be anything like $10,000.

While PHEVs are a great transportation option I do believe the actual general consumer demand for PHEVs will be less than 1/4 the demand for a standard HEV. Then again I also feel every new car should at a minimum be a micro-hybrid capable of idle stop.

t-.

You have the proper approach. Let efficiency guide us for the purchase of new or replacement vehicles. This may have already started to some extend. The retailers lots are full of unsold Gas guzzlers in our city even with $8000 rebates.

If we all refuse to buy a vehicle with less than 40 mpg or even 50 mpg efficiency this could do more for the reduction of fosill fuel consumption than a few thousand hybrids while promoting the purchase of more Hybrids and future PHEVs.

Unfortunately, our love affair with 3-Ton dinosaurs is so strong that most of us will not give up those gas guzzlers until our pocket book is depleted.

The switch to more efficient, lighter and probably more expensive vehicles will not occur on a massive scale until the price of liquid fuel (fossil or bio) goes up significantly.

A $3+/gal progressive (over 3-5 years) carbon tax may be required to convince most of us. Are we mature enough to accept this inevitable tax? Would any politicians be re-elected after such a move?

Politicians would much prefer to see crude oil at $150+barrel/barrel so they could wash their hands of it and maintain that it is not their fault if the price at the pump has gone up from $3+ to $6+.

Unfortunately, while the end objective may be attained with $150+/barrel, the green backs would be going to the wrong places unless we quickly divert food crops to the production of ethanol and n-butanol on a massive scale.

Mike,

While I accept that bankrupt transportation is a tough business and I lack an essential understanding of what it takes to go from successful field testing to viable commercialization, I do wonder if we are confusing marketing with politics.

In other word, it is okay for people to line up for gasoline a few cents cheaper than the norm, but if you are saying that with increasing gas prices and the potential for greater oil shortages, there is a lack of a market for PHEVs, then I question that assertion.

I would be more inclined to surmise that the people with the money who can give the nod to marketers to drop subtle hints about shifting to cleaner, cheaper electricity are disinclined to encourage "a clear design target" because so much of their money is in oil stocks and who would want oil stock with everyone running off the Grid?

clett.

If you what you say is true, then that means the current retrofitters are truly ripping people off. Why can't they do what you propose?

I drive 7 miles to work where I could plug in. I think that many drive that distance or less to work. Also I think that at some speed it makes sense to switch to drive directly by the ICE. Thus I think that a 5 or even less mile PHEV would make sense for some.

In fact I have thought that in the current Prius with a potential 1 mile all electric range could be plugged in would be cool. On average you might arrive with your battery half a mile low. If your average trip between charges was 7 topping off that ½ mile would improve your mile .5/7 = 7%. Some people might find it worth plugging in just to see how much they can push the mileage.

Having said that I agree with T. I think that MPG can greatly improved without resorting to PHEVs. In fact if the rumors are true that the Prius III (due out in 2008) will be a plug in hybrid, I think that it might be that only because they needed to add battery capacity to be able to capture more from regenerative braking systems and so why not add a plug.

Capital, capital, capital. That is the barrier to more efficient non-poluting cars and all new technologies. If state and local governments committed themselves to buy only PHEVs the capital would flow to the manufacturers quickly. Investors want customers before they invest.

t, you mention limited top speed and range. Are you referring to the electric drive alone? I suspect you must be. Because with the standard engine a plug in prius or any other plug in is *not* limited.

And regarding some of what has been said here, why can't we have both a more conserative lifestyle AND a plug-in-hybrid?? I want both, and we can have both, and I do believe we will get both, eventually. It shouldn't be a toss-up between the two, even initially. But I am being a little idealistic here. Money does talk loudly.

A Li-ion battery like the 18650 lacks the deep-discharge cycle life required for EV or strong PHEV applications. But it's manufacturing cost observed by Kert should be representative of that which will be achieved using the improved power/life-cycle technologies that are just becoming available (eg. A123, Altair-nano). While the energy density of these new formulations is lower than that of the 18650 and the initial cost/KW-Hr will be higher, observing the cost of these widely available cells provides a good perspective.

here's what i never got. people keep talking about how the catalytic converter has to be heated. but why the hell does it have to be heated with the ICE? wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to just have an electric heater, dedicated to catalytic converter heating, that would take its power from the main (traction) battery? no?

Clett, those $3 18650 Li-ion cells don't put out nearly enough power for the Prius and only last about 500 hundred cycles (4500 EV miles). They also have problems with flammability and explosiveness, especially in large size automotive packs. I don't know of any serious manufacturer considering regular Li-ion (lithium cobalt) cells.

Newer chemistries, such as lithium iron phosphate (Valence, A123) and lithium mangenese oxide (several vendors) promise to solve the power, safey and cycle life issues. But the few that are in production are still very expensive. I hope to see acceptable price/performance in 2-3 years.

Actually, AC Propulsion did make an EV full of cobalt-oxide based Li-ion sells, but they weren't selling it as a commodity vehicle either.

LA to Las Vegas on one charge ain't half bad.

The AC Propulsion work is very neat, but with no firm production date, and an expected price "somewhere between a Porsche and a Ferrari," it seems as if their designs are at least a few years away from the mainstream.

All the same, downsizing the battery pack from an all-electric range of 100-200 miles to a PHEV-style 20-40 miles (and adapting it for a vehicle somewhat larger than a two-seat roadster) should bring the price down from the stratospheric to the merely unaffordable. The Li-Ion lifespan issues (calendar/discharge cycle) also need to be addressed. A very near car, though.

That is, a very "neat" car. And somewhat near, though not yet arrived.

Hybrid Technologies has a $125K all electric supercar ( LiX-75 ) full of lithium batteries for sale now.
Thats merely unaffordable, not stratospheric.

NiMh batteries used in HEV are totally unsuitable to PHEV because of high rate of self-discharge, highly elevated at high temperatures. Household NiMh battery looses about 3% of the charge daily, and any one who put it into, say, TV remote control know that it need recharging in about a month. If you leave NiMh battery powered flashlight in glove compartment of a car parked at summer heat, the battery charge is gone in 3 hours.

Li batteries are not nearly developed enough to rugged vehicle applications at summer heat. Current failure of Valence Li batteries due to high level of self-discharge indicates just that. There is no wonder that Toyota, the highest authority in HEV, placed appearance of PHEV vehicles in about 8 years frame. Chill down, folks.

Unfortunately, while the end objective may be attained with $150+/barrel, the green backs would be going to the wrong places unless we quickly divert food crops to the production of ethanol and n-butanol on a massive scale.
Harvey,
Let's do the math: In 2005, it is estimated that about 14% of the US corn harvest (total harvest: about 10 billion bushels) was used to produce 4 billion gallons of ethanol. Sounds like a lot? It's only 260,000 bpd. To put that in perspective, it is enough to replace almost 1% of the US crude demand, after factoring in that ethanol does not pack the same punch as gasoline. You don't have to be an economist to know that long before you make a dent in crude imports, you are going to cause corn shortages and affect the price American families pay for food.

For those who are slow: converting 100% of the US corn harvest into ethanol would allow us to produce ~7% of our oil needs.

So, if "we quickly divert food crops to the production of ethanol" we would not be achieving much ito energy independence. The food shortages would be quite noticeable, though!

An engineer: We are right and wrong. Dont forget that a massive switch to¨PHEVs and EVs could reduce liquid fuel demand to less than 15% of current consumption.

Alternative fuels (all kinds) could support a drastically reduced demand.

More efficient lighter vehicles and a switch to electric heating and electric trains could further reduce the total liquid fuel demand level.

(Dumb?) Question from a novice...
Does anyone know in terms of watts, how much electrical energy is required of the Prius to drive in EV mode?

I've been curious as most stories mention 1, 2 or 9 kWh electrical needs. I'm a computer guy not an engineer but do understand the concepts in terms of watts (as computer power supplies are rated in those terms) but not watt hours.

Thanks.

Kilowatt hours (KWh) are units of energy. Energy stored in a battery determines is how far the car can go. A car like the Prius gets about 3 miles/KWh. Thus a battery that stores 10KWh can provide power for about 30 miles of travel before the battery is drained.
Watts are units of power. Power is how fast energy gets used, and determines how fast the car can go (and how fast it can accelerate). A car like the Prius can creep along slowly on less than 10 KW; with 50 KW, it can travel moderate highway speed.
Energy and Power are often confused.

Although ethanol has about 75% the energy density of gasoline, it has an octane rating well above 100. The first thing we should do is to get rid of the low octane gas and immediately jump into higher compression ratio engines. Opposite to popular belief, gasoline engines are more efficient than diesel engines (as long as they have the same compression ratio). Having a system similar to the E85 SAAB that "samples" the fuel for octane rating is the easiest and cheapest way to "artificially" increase the compression ratio of a gas engine by injecting more air before the air-fuel mixture is compressed. This results in an net increase in thermal efficiency which translates in more power with the same fuel consumpition, or same power with less fuel consumption.

Although ethanol has about 75% the energy density of gasoline, it has an octane rating well above 100. The first thing we should do is to get rid of the low octane gas and immediately jump into higher compression ratio engines. Opposite to popular belief, gasoline engines are more efficient than diesel engines (as long as they have the same compression ratio). Having a system similar to the E85 SAAB that "samples" the fuel for octane rating is the easiest and cheapest way to "artificially" increase the compression ratio of a gas engine by injecting more air before the air-fuel mixture is compressed. This results in an net increase in thermal efficiency which translates in more power with the same fuel consumpition, or same power with less fuel consumption.

Does anyone know whether using photovoltaic cells could allow some battery capacity reduction? While the power contribution of such cells may be quite small, by having the car parked in the sun while at work or even during shorter periods could allow some recharging... or are such cells too expensive and heavy?

alfredo, the LiX-75 that i linked to above actually employs solar panels for that purpose.
so does this homemade Solarvan
http://www.solarvan.co.uk/
the guy has his building costs listed on the page

I'm going to take the whole issue a step further. Why can't we have EV mode cars in the Prius for example? I don't mean just for a few miles but like for 50-100 miles. An electric car can go up to 300 miles per charge.
And why can't PHEV and hybrids be equipped with optional solar panels on their top roof? Many cars park under the california sun. For most people they leave their cars outside in the sun for at least a few hours during work or classes. That's free electricity.
It's just too bad that the electric cars were destroyed by automobile industry(primary reason) because they were too good and would destroy their oil-vehicle market. If automobile industries were smarter they would have invested in the electric car because just like someone mentioned above they will have different quality batteries a,b,c, in the future and others features just like we do for oil-vehicles. We'd have quieter neighborhoods and more money to spend for christmas gifts.

Highly efficient small diesel engines can get better over all efficiency than gasoline engines and diesel does not cost as much to refine from crude oil. Such engines used in a constant speed mode to charge a battery in a car can have very low emissions. The overall efficiency is better than that of hydrogen produced from any source. Diesel or dimethylether can be made from coal for fuel for such diesel engines. Slightly modified diesel engines can burn corn oil directly, and recent reports state that this is more energy efficient than ethanol from corn. There is a very small diesel generator being built in a suitcase like package for a hybrid military vehicle. Replace your engine by pulling it out with a handle and inserting a new one. If you need more performance plug in two generators or more into your car.

Relatively cheap batteries have been available for a long time for full electric cars. These are called Zebra batteries and are made by MES-DEA who is producing a limited number of cars for Switzerland. These batteries use one fifth the amount of nickel that NiMH batteries use for the same energy and have a longer deep cycle life.

An electric car without at least a small gasoline or diesel generator built into it, is both an engineering and public relations mistake. Even if the small generator is never used it only weighs 20 pounds or less, and five gallons of fuel would take the car 200 miles at slow speeds and only weigh 30 pounds.

Most people don't drive hundreds of miles every day but they need a car that can do so ocasionally. Given that most families have two cars these days I think a pure could be sold as an ideal "second car". Having access to a gas car for long trips considerably reduces the percieved "problem" with electric cars. Of course it's no good if it looks like the car Noddy drives.

Hello- is there anybody out there??
issue is large format ability and guess what? Valence has it nailed down. yes expensive but still cost effective...

Strictly novice... but I have a couple of questions
about batteries. Is it true that big oil bought the battery companies ie: lithium ion companies?
Why do L.I. batteries cost 50k to 100k? This is exactly why electric cars can't hit the street...to much $ for the batteries.
Do all e.v. have to be so ugly? I have seen some beautiful prototypes but nothing that doesn't have a delivery date of 2007. Wouldn't the perfect match be the L.I. battery and the exotic kit car....no rules?

Dear Jim,

About your post on August 1 re: litiium Ion batteries and that the possibility that big oil owns some if not all of these companies.
Well, as you can see from the response generated since that time.....nobody gives a damn. No one has answered you and nobody knows anything, including me.
It is for the above reason that I would delete this web site from all memory in your computer because it is totally worthless with useless members who can't come up with any hope of an intelligent answer.

Horace Mann

Lion batteries don't cost 50k, more like 20k for very large capacity ones (like tesla's 50kWh 250mi ev range), 12k-10k (installed conversion kit)for the phev ones (180lbs 9kWh 60-50 mile ev range) expected to go down to 5k w/ mass production. Battery probably less than 10k for 9kWh now. Its even less for the prius if its only a 9 mile range. I may be mistaken because using the small batteries 9kWh only costs around 3k. About bought patents, I know GM bought up advanced nimh patents for the ev1 project then sold it to Texaco, and Chevron merged, so now it owns the patents. Chevron specifically forbids licensing of the patents for plug-ins or ev use, they only allow it in hybrids.

my 66 volkswagen beetle got 50 miles to the gallon 50 years before this hybrid crap!!! And the beetle was standard internal combustion engine!!! What gives!?!?!?! Hybrids utilize way to much bullshite to gain fuel economy!! why doesn't anyone make a 50 mile to the gallon combustion!!! its a conspiracy !!!

66 beetle cost about $700 dollars
back in the day, new hybrids are about $40,000 come on!!!