Good discussion and information.

I would like to make a general point. I think it is inappropriate to make comparisons in the cost vs. performance trends in consumer electronics, or signal electronics in general, and high energy or high power components, like batteries, energy storage generally, and power electronics. There are fundamental differences, especially when you compare their application in the automotive sector vs. less capital-intensive manufacturing sectors. Moore's law doesn't hold here, and such assumptions will lead you down the primrose path.

Also, reliability requirements are different. How long do those $10 CD players last? My kids have had about a half dozen each over that last several years - and those were the so-called ruggedized ones (perhaps I exaggerate slightly, although I think they were more like $50 apiece). Sid's comments re: cycle life are correct - that is as important as the energy density, unless cost REALLY drops.

Regarding super caps, it is my understanding that they are superior for power density, but far inferior for energy density, relative to any of the modern battery chemistries. So, the burden for energy storage in EVs falls entirely on the battery, just as it falls on the gas tank for HEVs (okay, maybe some of the burden falls on the local branch of Edison Electric for PHEVs). I know that super caps combined with batteries have potentially significant advantages for HEVs in reducing the mass and volume of the energy storage system, because in that case the batteries are generally oversized energy-wise in order to provide the necessary peak power. Perhaps the super caps have a different role in EVs, that is, to reduce the power cycling that the battery sees. This would extend the life of the batteries, but at the added cost of appropriate power electronics to manage the power flow.

"Cheers for Antonov"

It struck me as well, that this article was a bit one sided. Surely Toyota has something to say about this, or is their silence essentially admitting complete guilt?

So, I found this article at
http://www.growthcompany.co.uk/

“Toyota, for its part, has filed a counter-suit in Munich, alleging that the patent claimed by Antonov is not valid. Perversely, a decision in that case is not expected until a year to 18 months after judgement in Antonov's Düsseldorf action.

Even more ironically, according to Moore, Antonov, whose claimed patent runs until 2009, would need technology patented by Toyota to install the driveline into car gearboxes anyway. Essentially, this is a dispute about royalties between now and 2009.”

You can read the article using google, “Toyota antonov” and click on “Growth Company Investor: Antonov sues Toyota”

It could drag out like all those other patent cases. If that happens, it might take years to sort itself out; until 2009 perhaps.

Hi Roy, the point someone was making simply was that prices will come down, and that substantially. It's safe to agree with that point, no matter what comaprison is used. I hate hearing all the nay-sayers (not necessarily you), complain about price, but what do they expect when it is still new and in the "novelty" and "exotic" stage for many? And they never mention the thousands they will save not only on fuel but on maintance and upkeep.

The $10.00 cd player doesn't last today because it's built in China very cheaply with cheap parts/labour. I remember stereo equipment from the 70's: it was much more solid and there are still quite a few around that work fine; it was just built heavier duty. Today everything is cheap cheap cheap quality! Walmart syndrome. In the automotive world it is going the same way with manufacturers: many produce cars that will just get them through their warranty period, if, though they will never say this.

Solid state electronic and power control electronics prices will be high at first, like all recently intorduced technology, but they will get very cheap eventually, and probably quicker than anticipated. But they don't have to be "cheaply built." It is all about quality of build.

I know some won't like to hear this kind of "boasting" in Honda again here, but I've had a four cylinder Honda Odyssey for years. It has almost 300 000 kms on it and almost 10 years old: all that's been done to it (aside from fluid changes, etc) is brake, tire and exhaust work, and it works great still at almost 30 miles per gallon average with no immanent repair work coming up. That is quality build: if they can do that for an internal combustion engine, they can certainly do that with solid state electronic equipment that has no moving parts. It can be cheap and built to last, at least, with certain manufacturers.

Nick:

The current price for 18650 Li-On in large quantities (100+) varies from $615/Kwh to $1535/Kwh. The average price of $1075/Kwh becomes $1236/Kwh with sales taxes + handling + transportation.

The total average installed price with packaging, cooling and control equipment etc would be about 20% more for something close to an average cost of $1500/Kwh.

Of course, the installed price could be lower if you use the cheapest generics, i.e. ($615 x 1.15 x1.2 = $850/Kwh)

Roy: Keep going to work. Comparisons between batteries and gasoline are mute if there's no gasoline to be had. (timeline on that is up for debate). I'm confident that the economics of EVs (PHEVs first) will work out in the long run.

Neil: thanks for the encouragement. Long run, yeah, we'll be out of fossil-based gasoline. And of course I think there will be EVs and PHEVs and so on. Long term though, as fossil-based petroleum runs out, the economics of biodiesel, ethanol, and even hydrogen, will look more favorable. Will batteries beat out biodiesel and ethanol? Emissions-wise, let's hope so, but you better start considering nuclear power plants, possibly augmented by wind, on a grander scale, and hope for improvements in coal-fired powerplants, to charge all those batteries.

Don't forget there is a HUGE installed base and infrastructure in place to support and enable internal combustion engines in all kinds of applications. They won't go away easily -- nor should they in my opinion -- nor be replaced cheaply or quickly.

Roy, why do you feel ICE's shouldn't go away easily?

If the ideal, really cost effective battery appeared, I would think there would be every reason to switch immediately to serial plug-in hybrids that were heavily biased to the electric side - essentially EV's with a small ICE generator onboard for very long trips.

Do you agree?

Nick,

If the truly ideal battery appeared, then maybe over several decades its feasible that all new cars would be electric. But even you've assumed best case is a range-extender type HEV with IC engine, in your post.

You have to realize there are about 65 to 70 million new cars and light trucks sold every year in the world (and increasing). It takes a lot of time and seriously good economics for the automakers - existing or upstarts - to install the kind of capital assets required for mass production of that many new tech powertrains. And, they'd have to have a pretty good assurance that the products will sell. That's one reason it will take time.

Add to that all the heavy duty trucks, stationary generator sets, marine, aviation, lawn mowers, etc, etc, and you have probably (I'm guessing) a few billion IC engines out there. That's what I mean when I say "in all kinds of applications." The scope is huge. Mind-bogglingly huge.

And, I'll probably catch flak for this comment on a green blog (I mean no offense), but if biodiesel and ethanol are more economically viable than (or even comparable to) batteries, the IC engine will win out for some time just because of societal/technological inertia. Unless Los Angeles and Indonesia are already submerged from polar ice cap meltdown, don't expect good environmental stewardship to win out over better economics. Its POSSIBLE (but unlikely) that such could be the case in the wealthier economies of the world, but not in the developing world.

EVs or PHEVs could be a substantial niche product for a significant period of time. Actually, that's a pretty positive scenario as far as I'm concerned.

Roy:
Thank you for your comments. I truly hope you will continue to post on this web site, because we really have luck of professional opinion on EV here.
My opinion in short: modern battery and power electronics is approaching level when mass produced PHEV vehicle will be feasible. It will be revolutional leap forward (together with LED lighting).
P.S. US government (and Exsson-Mobil too) conspiracy abilities – my favorite joke for years too.

It's too bad that Honda is not exploiting all the potential it has at its disposal. Honda made the clever move of getting into solar cells but does not seem to be willing to make the bold move of installing solar cells in a PHEV. This is how it would work: the available surface area for solar cells is usually 2.5 square meters (roof and hood). At 20% efficiency, and 1000 W/sqr m, that is 500W. For an average of 8 hr of max sun light per day, that translates into 4 KW*hr, or a little over 16 miles range. The point is that we don't really need such big batteries if we find a way to charge your PHEV on your way back to work. A 10 KW*hr battery (about 100 Kg or 220 lbs with lithium Ion batteries) will give you a range of 40 miles each way. So in theory, you can charge you car twice a day and get a combined range of 80 miles per day. At 10 cents per KW*hr, you can drive the first 40 miles of the day for 40 cents, at 25 cents per KW*hr when charging your car while your at work, you can drive another 40 miles for $1.00. The key here is to find a battery that can be charged 730 times per year with very little loss of capacity. Toshiba claims to have built a battery that can be charged 80% in 1 minute and can be charged 1000 times with only 1% loss of capacity. The better question is why no car manufacturer has approached Toshiba for a deal. If Toshiba could produce enough 10 KW*hr batteries for all new Toyota Prius, at $300 per KW*hr and 120,000 Toyota prius per year, that would be a 360 million dollars a year business for Toshiba.

Lithium-ion can be had in 18650 form for a lot less than people think.

A good report on the matter can be read here:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/149.pdf

Page 34 shows that a single 18650 costs about $1.70 to make (today). At 44g and 200 Wh/kg, that's $193 per kWh for current manufacturing costs. The rest is profit and distributors.

Note the manufacturer's comment that their cells now cost $2 to make vs $18 in 1992. If you can buy 18650 at $2.50 per cell, that's viable PHEV territory already ($280/kWh).

Freddy,

Thanks for the post on the solar cells. Its a question that keeps coming up. Can you comment on the following:

1. How much does that 500W worth of solar cells weigh, and what does it do to the aerodynamic drag of the car? It may add enough load to the powertrain that it cancels out some or all of the benefit.

2. What voltage is produced by the array of cells? How is it to be regulated in a manner that will allow you to charge the battery properly? It will need some power electronic conditioning very likely, which will add weight, increase losses, decrease reliability, need to be packaged in the vehicle somewhere, and cost money.

3. What is the charging efficiency of the overall system, from solar cells back to the battery. Chances are you won't get 4 kW charge into the battery.

Regarding the 10 kW battery installation - what is the cycle life of the battery like when you take 10 kW out and put it back in several times per day? I don't know much about Li-Ion, but for NiMH if you wanted to do that, you'd seriously shorten the life of the pack. Right now, the Prius has about a 1.5 kW-hr pack, and they only use maybe +/-5% of the capacity in any given charge/discharge cycle, to keep from killing the battery. If a similar strategy is needed for Li-Ion, then you may have to install significantly more than 10 kW-hr capacity to get 10 kW-hr usable capacity. That means more weight, reducing payload (mass and volume) or else increasing the W-hr/mile energy consumption.

Clett,

A great report. I've been looking for that kind of data for a while. Interesting that the paper singles out cobalt as the material most prone to supply limitations. I would hope that the use of iron phosphate as a cathode material would yeild further cost reductions and price stability.

Roy,

How does 2000 cycles at 100% depth of discharge with a 10 year calender life and a energy density of up to 150wh/kg (depending on the energy/power denisty trade off) grab you?

www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2005/NguyenPaper2005.pdf

http://www.gebattery.com.cn/product/lf.asp

http://www.powerstream.com/ (for a price on the above cells brand of cells - around $2000/kwh)

This is new battery tech, price is still high. Over time the price should hopefully fall to current li-ion prices or lower. I'm confused as to what further in battery technology is required.

Last line should say: I'm confused as to what further advance in battery technology is required.

NickF,

Maybe this is the battery tech that will make the difference. Taking a quick look at the energy density you cite, and forgetting about cost, here's some info to consider.

I have the vehicle properties handy for a European A class vehicle, something you might see as a fuel cell demo car. At 70 mph, no grade, it requires about 18 kW at the wheels, or about 24 kW at the battery terminals, give or take. To sustain you at that speed for 1 hour you need 160 kg of battery. Not too bad, but only 1 hour.

At 165 km/hr (102.5 mph) on the autobahn, you need about 440 kg of battery (65 kW at the battery, just for propulsion), per hour you want to travel, again without any grade. That's starting to get a little heavy. And, it doesn't include any accessories (your 100W sound system, your 1800W air conditioner, your 100W average electric power steering draw, your 50W coolant pump, etc.).

My Taurus will go about 5 hours at 70 mph between refueling stops, and it takes 5 minutes to refuel. The A class cited above would probably go for 6 hours between stops at 70 mph. That would be 800 to 900 kg of battery.

Peak power wise, you are going to need in the neighborhood of 75 kW to have decent acceleration characteristics, at the wheels, or about 100 kW at the battery terminals.

Do those numbers look okay? I haven't checked your cited paper yet to see if the power/energy density numbers are doable - that is, 100kW peak power for maybe 30 seconds, say 35 kW continuous, and 120 kW-hr capacity (800 kg). I also don't have a good feel off the top of my head for whether 800 kg worth of battery would package easily. What's the volumetric energy density?

Seems to me the gross vehicle mass for that size car is only about 2000 kg. Right now they have a hard time keeping vehicle mass within budget with only about 50 kg of fuel plus tank. You'll probably get a net 100 kg mass benefit for replacing the engine with an electric motor/inverter combination. That still leaves you 650 kg heavier for comparable components in the powertrain.

Is the 150 Whr/kg a crash certified packaged number?

For many missions, in fact for most, today's batteries will work fine. The government has the statistics to prove that. Unfortunately, it puts limitations on the use of that vehicle for the occasional trip to grandmas three States over or to the World Cup when its on the other side of Europe. That's an okay tradeoff for the environmentally conscious upper-middle class guy. Unfortunately, he's a small minority of car buyers. The problem has been with the darned average Joe-Customer. He doesn't want to buy two cars to do what one will do today with petrol or diesel. I can't say I blame him.

So, maybe the this battery you're talking about or Li-Ion is workable for pure EV's. Sounds like it will go a long way towards a viable PHEV. Get the cost down to a couple $1000 per car, and voila, you're in business.

The distance a vehicle can travel on a kilowatt-hour of battery storage is well established.

The T-zero (0-60 in 3.6s) can go 300 miles on 50 kWh of onboard storage in its 350 kg battery (6 miles per kWh).

For a larger vehicle, the RAV4 EV SUV can go 100 miles on 25 kWh (4 miles per kWh.)

So assuming the average vehicle to manage 4.5 miles per kWh, each mile of range would require 1.1 kg of 200 Wh/kg LiIon battery.

A 300 mile range (5 hours of operation) can therefore be accommodated in a 330 kg LiIon pack (less than the weight of the engine and transmission in some cars).

Roy,

An interesting exercise. Using your numbers, our A-Class lithium phospate EV will:

Have a battery pack of 125 aprox kwh.

Great acceleration. Even at a battery preserving 1.5 discharge rate we have 187KW continous.

Be a bit heavy with an 850Kg battery

BE a bit bulky with a pack size of 360 litres (
presuming 350wh/litre)

Have a range of 420 miles. (it will be less than this as we haven't factored in the extra power needed to pull the extra weight)

Ok, I agree, its not a convenient as a small petrol car like your Taurus.

However if such a car was cost effective and available to all.I wonder how long it would be before all the external advantages of EV's:

City air as clean a country air.

A drop in co2 output of at least 2/3

No dependence of unstable foreign oil.

Would be valued sufficeintly by people to warrant incentives and taxes in favour of them.

Cheers

Nick

Roy:

Where did you get the data for power consumption for the various accessories (ps, AC etc.

Thanks

Bill,

Accessory loads can be gleaned from SAE papers and from the websites of manufacturers of some of these items - Denso, Valeo, Delphi, TRW, etc.

Nick,

I wholeheartedly believe in the benefits of electric vehicles. I am just trying to point out that the competition from existing vehicles is stiff, and if we are to be successful in the marketplace, the cars have to be comparable. I know that many applications can be met with today's and the emerging batteries, but mass production will require very close to the same performance as your car with a 16 gallon gas tank. I put a caveat on that - if there's some kind of catastropic event(s), things can change, of course.

Clett,

The T-Zero is only an 1100 kg car and has some special construction features, I believe. The RAV4 is a much more typical vehicle to use. Range for any of these is highly dependent on driving cycle and auxiliary loads.

Regards.

DME developments in China:
Since DME has an advantage of decomposition at lower temperature than methane and LPG, R&D for hydrogen source for fuel cell has been carried out.

If you would like to know more on the latest DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:

DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia

Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.

Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe

Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation

For more information: www.iceorganiser.com