« LML Korea Licensing TNO Series Hybrid Technology; Hybrid NewBeetle as Demonstrator | Main | Ford to Introduce New E85-Capable, Direct Injection, Turbocharged Engine Family »
Cobasys and A123Systems Partner on Li-Ion Batteries
3 January 2007
Cobasys and A123Systems have signed a memorandum of understanding to enter into a partnership to develop, manufacture, sell, and service lithium-ion energy storage systems for hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) applications.
The scope of the agreement will include joint development, marketing and supply of A123Systems nanophosphate lithium batteries and Cobasys systems integration and manufacturing of battery systems for HEV markets. Cobasys manufactures NiMH batteries, and is currently the battery supplier for the GM Saturn VUE and Aura Green Line hybrids. (Earlier post.)
To support customer programs in transportation markets, Cobasys will act as the tier one supplier providing the technical assistance and expertise for the design and development of battery system products including: packaging, thermal management, wiring, electronics and control algorithms.
Cobasys will help develop the requirements and specifications to meet the integration needs of customers and partners and will provide the validation testing of fully integrated lithium battery systems. A123Systems will manufacture and supply its automotive-class nanophosphate lithium ion cells and technology.
The agreement to unite Cobasys system expertise with A123Systems lithium technology further exemplifies our vision to be recognized as the world’s most admired energy storage integration solutions company.
—Thomas S. Neslage, Cobasys President & CEO
We look forward to working with Cobasys to introduce lithium ion into the automotive market. This partnership will provide the market with game changing performance to further accelerate the adoption of hybrid electric vehicles.
—David Vieau, A123Systems President and CEO
Cobasys designs, manufactures and integrates advanced battery system solutions for transportation markets, including Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV), Electric Vehicles (EV) and 36/42 Volt applications and to stationary markets, including Back-Up power supply systems for Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), Telecom and Distributed Generation markets. Cobasys is a joint venture between Chevron Technology Ventures LLC, a subsidiary of Chevron Corporation and Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
In December, the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC), an organization composed of DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation, awarded a $15-million battery technology development contract to A123Systems. (Earlier post.) The company, which supplies li-ion packs to Black & Decker for power tools, is also working with GE Global Research, Ballard Power Systems, and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to develop a lightweight, battery-dominant zero-emissions hybrid fuel-cell bus. (Earlier post.)
Two plug-in hybrid conversions companies—HyMotion (earlier post) and Hybrids Plus (earlier post)—also use A123Systems li-ion cells in their PHEV battery systems.
January 3, 2007 in Batteries | Permalink | Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7363973
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cobasys and A123Systems Partner on Li-Ion Batteries:
Comments
This could get A123 into the car market. It looks like a good business move for them and I would guess that it is good for Cobasys to go from NiMH to Lithium Ion technologies. If this helps get PHEVs going, then it is a very good thing. However, it sounds like Cobasys has deals on the BAS kind of car and not the full hybrids that can be used with PHEV.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 3, 2007 7:32:33 AM
Cobasys is a joint venture between ChevronTexaco Technology Ventures—a subsidiary of ChevronTexaco—and Energy Conversion Devices (Ovonics). These are the oil people, who now call themselves energy companies and are currently controlling the NiMH battery market. And, now they are going for control of the Li-Ion battery market. Notice there are few independent oil companies now and notice how the major companies are merging for more control of the energy business. Bp-Arco being the latest.
The way they operate is by patent infringement suits through the courts and then they settle by limiting the size of the batteries they will allow to be manufactured; and by having "friendly courts" issue a non disclosure order to the losing battery manufacturer so there are no public record of the settlement. This is the reason you haven't seen a Plug-in Toyota in the market place. Toyota is simply not allowed to buy larger batteries.
These energy companies are very busy working with other energy device and fuels manufacturers to make sure they protect their oil market and energy investments by controlling all forms of energy in the U.S. The oil companies are in the solar cell business and the alternative energies business as well and in the battery business.
All this big business control serves to slow down the development and time to market of other forms of energy. Good for their profits; bad for the consumers and worse for Global Warming.
I think it's time for a investigative reporter to gather this information and make it public so that our Congress has to address the issue. Where is Thomas Friedman when you need him?
Posted by: Ladson | Jan 3, 2007 8:28:32 AM
eh ? Cobasys ? Chevron ? Oiiil ? the ones that FORBID using nimh batteries in electric vehicles ?
Something smells fishy here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid_electric_vehicle#Stranglehold_on_battery_technology.3F
Is the stranglehold trying to extend and extinguish the alternatives too ?
Posted by: kert | Jan 3, 2007 8:44:24 AM
Could it be possible that these oil companies see the writing on the wall and would like to participate in the profits to be realized from alternatives.The dems are promising aggressive energy legislation.
This story shows a supply chain developing. It seems to be pointing towards mass produced li-ion batteries to be used by major automakers.I think it is news we have been hoping for not an x-files conspiracy.
Posted by: earl | Jan 3, 2007 9:23:57 AM
As Cobasys has already shown its intent to control NiMH large format batteries, we can assume this to be their same play for LiIon. Under any reasonable interpretation of law, this appears to be a restraint of trade and violation of anti-trust law restricting monopolization of markets.
If this venture encourages licensing of large format LiIon for EV use - more power to... us. If, however, the venture attempts to restrict large format batteries - it may be necessary for DOJ to step in and un-muddy the waters.
Of course A123 has only one, narrow approach to LiIon - there are other, more advanced, more startling technologies that can and will be introduced to keep BEV, PHEV etc. highly competitive. Should prove to be fun.
Posted by: gr | Jan 3, 2007 9:44:18 AM
um .. from what i gather, NiMH related developments and patents were also initially scattered around in various research groups and startups, but Cobasys went and gobbled up each and every one of them until they had the full control over the technology.
If you see a news headline "something Cobasys something AltairNano/Valence/EEStor" or smthing like that any time soon, be worried, very worried.
Posted by: kert | Jan 3, 2007 10:29:18 AM
Has anyone actually seen the fine print of the deal? The link here did not actually say anything about A123 selling their patents or being limited in their ability to play in the PHEV market. It only mentions HEVs. If they let themselves be limited to only woking with Cobasys in the automotive industry then they are the dummest halibuts ever!
Posted by: Neil | Jan 3, 2007 10:42:08 AM
Gentlemen/Ladies:
Another example of Big Oil's predatory practices:
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_48566.shtml
Do you think for one minute they would hesitate to control battery production? If these guys would only spend their money to help develop and disperse the new technologies for every one's good instead of fighting progress--we can only hope, I guess.
Posted by: Ladson | Jan 3, 2007 11:23:17 AM
Hate to be a pessimist, but why does A123 have to team up with Cobasys, of all other potential partners, given Cobasys track records and policy regarding PHEV's? This may not bode well for the future of PHEV or BEV. What does Cobasys have to do with automotive batteries, considering that A123 already has a hefty grant of $15 millions from USABC, and partnership deals with other power players, for example, GE global research? Oh, I know, Cobasys has deep pocket of billions of USD from oil profit, ready to goble up all other battery technologies and keep these on hold from BEV or PHEV market until no more profit can be made from oil!!!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 3, 2007 12:14:01 PM
I knew it was only a matter of time...
until the conspiracy theories floated to the top.
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 3, 2007 12:20:05 PM
Let’s hear it for another round of weird comments by the tin hat crowd.....a little more research on everyone’s part and you will find that a number of Japanese companies are already working on this same battery technology. So no need to panic here guys!
Posted by: JD | Jan 3, 2007 12:34:37 PM
JD
I am not normally a conspiracy follower but Panasonic pulled their large format NiMH battery which was used in the electric RAV4. They now will sell no NiMH battery useable in a BEV. They do have a sealed agreement for patent infringement with COBASYS.
Posted by: Bill Young | Jan 3, 2007 2:34:57 PM
I think A123 is looking for a buyout. When you are a startup, you either go public or sell. Going public without the contracts from large customers is difficult. Since there are other competing types of Lithion Ion batteries, they may have figured that Black and Decker would not be that profitable. So, you go with the deep pockets.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 3, 2007 3:09:16 PM
If the government is really serious about ending our addiction to oil, they would buy the most promising technologies required for the electric dominant hybrid of the future such as Altair Nano or A123 Systems batteries, AC Propulsion electric drivetrain, etc and license them for a simbolically low amount of money to all national car makers. It is obvious that greed will not allow the car companies to work toward oil freedom therefore the government should step in and level the playing field for the next generation hybrid.
Posted by: Freddy | Jan 3, 2007 4:52:11 PM
A123Systems thinks this is the right path to further accelerate the adoption of hybrid electric vehicles and they may be right. But, I’m sure I'm not the only one who can say, "I've got a bad feeling about this." I’m sure the BEV, HEV, and PHEV, advocates will be watching Cobasys like a hawk for signs of “suppression” of this game changing technology. Cobasys systems wants to be the most admired energy storage integration company, the question is admired by whom? Only time will tell!
Posted by: David Thomas | Jan 3, 2007 6:46:01 PM
Yes Freddy, it will the government -- the Chinese goverment. They know that it is in their national interest. China is rapidly expanding their electrial energy production to replace energy from oil and other finite fossil fuels. Also, our government is an auction, whereas their government leaders are not beholden to campaign contributors. I have hope, but it is not with the Republicans or Democrats that represent us.
Posted by: Arnold | Jan 3, 2007 7:06:27 PM
Arnold,
The Chinese are expanding their nuclear and hydro electricity production but their biggest expansion in electrical production is with coal which is a fossil fuel.
Electricity (and hydrogen) is not a substitute for fossil fuel. It is merely a way to deliver energy from some primary source (fossil fuel, solar, wind, nuclear, hydro etc.)to the consumer.
Posted by: Bill Young | Jan 3, 2007 7:24:49 PM
The curious bit here is that in A123Racing ( A123 outlet selling packs for RC enthusiasts ) support forums, lots of people were BEGGING for info on electric bike battery packs from them, preassembled, with chargers, for drop-in upgrades for their previous Pb or Ni packs. It was a long time before anyone from A123 responded, and the response was : "We are currently not looking at that market, but knock yourselves out if you want to assemble our cells into packs yourselves"
Mind you, people have run bikes on Black&Decker twin packs and are very happy with them, expect for the inconvenience of not having a single charger for the full pack.
Now, electric bikes and scooters are an established fast-growing market with quantifiable demand for high-performance batteries, just like RC community or powertools. How on the earth did they miss that ?
Posted by: kert | Jan 4, 2007 12:19:29 AM
Ni-MH batteries are not suited for BEV and PHEV applications. They have low charge/discharge efficiency (about 70%) and very high high-temperature self-discharge rate. Period.
At least two companies have early licensing agreements from Ovonic which allow them to make BEV batteries sold in US. All companies are free to make BEV Ni-MH batteries outside US. So far, no takers.
One could make conspiracy theories out of this at will.
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 4, 2007 1:41:01 AM
How close are Panasonic EV to a LiIon battery with similar performance?
Posted by: clett | Jan 4, 2007 2:30:49 AM
Roger Pham,
Cobasys is a Tier 1 supplier to GM, thus A123 Systems will get access to supply GM vehicles. In light of upcoming BAS, 2mode, and 2mode PHEVs, this is a BIG DEAL. This could mean contracts in the tens of thousands of units in the near term. In the long term, it could mean this company could become very successful, with millions of units installed in millions of vehicles.
Posted by: allen_Z | Jan 4, 2007 8:08:22 AM
The conspiracy fears are real but the solution is also real and simple. The government has set rules that auto makers must meet for safety and smog protection. Let our government set rules and regulations for auto production and sales, requiring all vehicles to be full electric. Bypass hybrids as they are already obsolete. Tesla Motors has seen to that along with AltairNano.
Posted by: Norm | Jan 4, 2007 9:34:37 AM
Norm... What government are you thinking of? The US government, Congress, mil and other agencies, have long fought to build the petro-industry. They're not about to kill in in one swoop by mandating EVs. Won't happen.
The current path, though slow, is transitioning us from low MPG guzzlers, to flex fuel, HEV, PHEV while giving us a chance to grow alt fuels infrastructure and production. An all-EV future will not be viable until we re-build our grid to generate electric via clean coal/H2, zero-threat nuke and alt energies wave, wind, solar, geo, etc.
Tesla is great demo tool. But $100k cars are an insignificant green market.
Posted by: gr | Jan 4, 2007 11:39:02 AM
It has been said that the U.S. created the automobile and oil industries. If that is true, then we have 100 years of capital investment and no one in the money/power structure is going to jeopardize that.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 4, 2007 4:28:43 PM
Did someone say, "I have a bad feeling about this"? Well, I have a bad feeling about this. I think I saw it coming, but hoped I was wrong. Green car fanciers, Battery Electric Vehicle lovers, we have nothing to fear but Big Oil (Dallas), Big Auto (Detroit), Big Government (D.C.) and Big Money (Wall Street). There is so much inertia in "Don't change anything, I'm making money now", that it takes many years and a tidal wave of competition from those without vested interests in the status quo, to change anything. Capitalism is efficient at making money, not at accomplishing the public good. "If I (or, you or I) were king, a lot of good stuff could get done real fast". But by the law of unintended consequences, the revolutionary army of gas station owners and internal combustion mechanics and displaced American auto workers would storm Washington and set up an Oiligopoly. Oops- I think that already happened.
Posted by: rich easton | Jan 4, 2007 9:08:20 PM
If Congress really wants to prove that they are serious about oil independence, they will move fast to make deals such as this one illegal.
It's not about whether there is conspiratorial intent--the big conspiracy is the effort to make the issue out to be you can either prove malfeasance or there's nothing you can argue about. It's a false dichotomy. Most likely, the people involved don't see anything wrong, but the organization just works out to be amazingly unproductive at undercutting its owners and selling its product or patents because the enthusiasm just isn't there as nobody senses a future in it.
In short, the issue is conflict of interest--of history-making scale. Just as we need to enforce anti-monopoly laws, we need anti-technopoly laws to address this sort of problem. And oil dependence is at the core of America's biggest problems today.
When I asked a DOE representative recently after his presentation on the DOE's projections of NiMH and lithium battery progress how can you make projections when there's nothing to stop the oil companies from buying up lithium technology and then causing it to languish, just as they did with the NiMH, he laughed.
ChevronTexaco-Unocal-Cobasys has some 10% of the oil market. If they can sell a battery pack for $2K, that will be because in 3 years (per DOE) it will save the consumer $2K in oil. In 12 years, it'll be $8K. On that pack, they'll be struggling to make much profit. The oil they replace is hugely profitable as long as alternatives are kept at bay--which the battery is the key bottleneck to, as all the best alternatives go through electrification. Planting seeds of change now will cost many more than ten times as much for the oil industry in the near future, so Chevron's stockholders would not be benefitted by an "admired" innovator. Sorry to belabor the obvious but it seems needed.
If I were an auto exec and I learned that the battery technology I needed was acquired by Big Oil, I would consider it my legal fiduciary obligation to dissolve the EV development because the prognosis is too poor for making profits and not losses. This is exactly what they all did after Cobasys bought up the only battery technology that had been invested in to maturity (courtesy that monopoly USABC) a few years ago. Today, A123's is the only battery of today's generation that is about ready for prime time.
Such investments by oil companies would be fine if Congress strictly limited the power that they have to throw around weight with their patents, but they don't and won't. Barring ownership of key reform technology patentholder firms or patent rights by corporations who would have the reverse midas touch is our only hope.
Posted by: P Schager | Jan 4, 2007 9:36:45 PM
Patent reform is definitely needed in many areas, this is yet another illustration of that. If I were an auto company executive, I would be tired of the oil companies messing with our business. I would try to find a way to make sure that we have a secure strategy going forward. If you did not, you could look forward to more dependance and uncertainty.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 5, 2007 7:20:53 AM
Allen Z,
A123 received a $15 million grant from USABC, a battery consortium by the US auto mfg's. This means already that A123 has already gotten a close relationship with the US automakers.
Whereas, Cobasys is related to oil industry, which has a vested interest AGAINST BEV and PHEV, as P Schager has posted: selling one $2000K battery pack and forgoing $8000 of oil revenue in the future. It would make them think twice about making auto battery cost-effective so that they can replace petroleum, except in small numbers as token effort.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 5, 2007 11:21:32 AM
Chevron owns 50% of Cobasys, and the new venture is btw Cobasys and A123. Sounds like Chevron is the odd firm out here, and has no majority control, maybe 25% (half of half), so claims that they are calling the shots here are wrong.
I don't know about A123, but the folks at ECD have been working on clean energy for a long time and have made significant contributions to the science behind it. They are not out to restrict production; the Ohio plant has capacity for 1.2 million battery packs per year. Where is the case for oil firms causing NiMH to languish? Media reports? Court Cases? Anyone try to license from ECD and got turned down?
To me, this is all good - battery firms get contract from major auto firm. The news here is that GM is trying to get in the game, not that an oil firm subsidairy is a minority partner in GM's supplier.
Posted by: factory rat | Jan 6, 2007 5:15:45 AM
Cobasys asserted their patent rights by forbidding the manufacturing of NimH battery cell larger than 10 Ah. This will allow them to make money from NiMh battery sales and royalties, but making BEV and even PHEV impractical. The following is a posting by Paul Heath in EVworld.com
Warren Heath:
"I recall Tom Gage at AC Propulsion, tried to get a contract with Cobsys to supply NiMH batteries for a BEV, they wanted to manufacture. Cobasys flatly refused, and later on came back saying they would develop a battery, but wanted some millions in R%D funding up front - an obvious attempt to bankrupt AC Propulsion, before they could succeed at building a BEV.
04/Jan/2007
[43835] "
Another posting, by John Westlund, echoing the same sentiment:
"Where can I get high AH NiMH batteries? You see, D-cells and such aren't practical since charging NiMH in parallel will lead to dramatically reduced cycle life and other problems, not to mention the management system for such a thing would be a nightmare. There is a practical limit to the voltage that can be used in a passenger car, so you can't just have a super high voltage either. Where can I get large NiMH modules, say, > 50 AH? That is what one would need to build an EV with a NiMH battery pack and decent range. We know these batteries are possible. The EV1, EV+, RAV4 EV, Ranger EV all used them. According to UC Davis, large Automotive volume would yield $220/kWh today, and in the 1990s, former ECD Chairman Stemple quoted $150/kWh in volume for 20,000 cars per year. Li Ion? We'd need a large volume of EV production to get costs down, unless one were to fancy paying $700/kWh on up. AC Propulsion, The Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory, and others claim $250/kWh is possible for Li Ion. But still, Li Ion only yields about 1/3 the cycle life of Panasonic's NiMH modules, increasing cost per mile. Due to lack of automotive volume for Li Ion and the consequently high cost, and oil politics relating to NiMH, lead acid is about the only affordable option available. 11/Dec/2006 [40112]
06/Jan/2007
[43942] "
More postings on this subject can be found at: http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=news&newsid=13809
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 6, 2007 8:29:04 PM
110 miles between stationary charging (electric power only. Check out what the French are up to on this web site (www.greencarcongress.com )under CLEANOVA and CLEANOVA Hybrid being used by the French postal service.
Posted by: Frank | Jan 7, 2007 10:48:37 AM
I have read all of these comments, but have not heard the moral of the story yet. There are two forces at work here, corporate greed, and greed for political power. If you write a policy that severly impacts oil related industry, you may trigger a recession, and no government wants that to happen on their watch, especially when your financial backing comes mainly from big oil. In truth this change will come, but the speed of change will come painfully slow for consumers, yet painfully quick for oil companies, who may be keeping other technologies at bay. The real losers are those who cannot defend themselves; the consumer, and the environment.
Posted by: Red | Jan 8, 2007 10:58:05 PM
What conspiracy theory?
This is good old business. The oil business will not give up without a fight. It's a lot of money involved here.
Remember the tobacco industry's propaganda? That was good old business too.
The whole affair was closed with an agreement between the tobacco industry and the DOJ that individuals cannot sue the tobacco industry for damaging their health in exchange for a lump sum of money paid by the tobacco industry to the government as compensation for the damage induced by tobacco.
I see a certain similarity here. That is nobody will be able to sue the oil industry for the damage done to the environment in the long run.
I read today an interesting article today claiming the farting cows cause more damage to the atmosphere than the automobiles on the roads. It surely reminds me of the tobacco industry tactics not a long time ago.
The irony is that some day, the oil (energy) industry will claim the monopoly on batteries and renewable energy and cash on it too, and why not? It’s perfectly legal, isn’t it?
Posted by: Homo Sapiens | Jan 14, 2007 12:59:45 AM
There's a new solid-state battery technology coming out this year[?] which is a joint venture between a new "stealth" EV and MIT. Apparently, the tests easily demonstrated [so far] up to 400+ wh/kg with rapid recharging time and long life cycle. I heard that within two year or sooner they could achieve a 600+wh/kg or more. The battery is made of relatively cheap materials hence keeping the cost way down. This new EV company is going to manufacture it somewhere in Central America and stay out of the price war and phony availability of all the other battery manufacturers.
I think their strategy will be a success and a another huge factor in their favor is that they don't have to buy from a third [battery] company which regardless of their financial status cannot guarantee that maybe one day they would be bought by Big Oil or by Big Detroit and nicely placed on a shelf somewhere in their vast storage facilities...hehehehe
Don't know the name yet, but I will investigate further.
FS PhD
Posted by: Fred Sands | Jan 21, 2007 10:29:11 AM
