« Partners Form New Coal-to-Liquids Company | Main | ARB Distributes $25 Million for Advancing Alternative Fuel Usage in California »
Lithium Technology Corporation Showcases New Battery Pack for Plug-in Retrofit
25 May 2007
 |
| The LTC PHEV pack for the Prius. Click to enlarge. |
Lithium Technology Corporation (LTC) has retrofit a Toyota Prius to a plug-in hybrid using a battery pack based on LTC’s new product line of large-format lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) cells, the largest cells of their kind in the world. (Earlier post.) The LTC battery pack replaces the OEM pack.
The 7 kWh battery pack, comprising 63 of LTC’s 3.2V, 35Ah iron phosphate cells, could support fuel economy of up to 125 miles per gallon, the company extrapolated, based on the performance of a smaller 2.2 kWh li-ion pack used in the Zytek smart for four conversion in the UK. (Earlier post.)
The large-format technology allows the use of a significantly lower number of cells. This enables greater precision in monitoring of the cells by the battery management system (BMS) to keep cells in balance for best performance and preventing damage to the battery due to over-voltage, under-voltage, over-temperature and short-circuit, according to the company.
LTC cells use LiFePO4 licensed technology, developed by Prof. John Goodenough with the University of Texas and supplied by Phostech.
 |
| The LTC Prius PHEV. |
LTC decided to build the prototype itself based on interest it was hearing in the US market about plug-in hybrids, according to Dr. Klaus Brandt, the company’s CEO. The next step for LTC will be to gather operational data on the Prius PHEV.
LTC provides li-ion systems for a range of sectors, including automotive and military. At the event at which LTC unveiled the plug-in pack, the company also showcased one of the LTC-powered xBot Remote Operated Vehicles used to explore the RMS TITANIC.
May 25, 2007 in Batteries, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/18801144
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lithium Technology Corporation Showcases New Battery Pack for Plug-in Retrofit:
Comments
Any idea how much space this pack takes up, or how much it weighs? Also, does this pack require any sort of cooling to maintain efficiency? Cost?
Anyway, its small steps like these that are helping us towards making great strides in our future transportation, our future EV transportation. My applause is to be assumed audible.
Posted by: Mark A | May 25, 2007 12:03:34 PM
The top picture gives a pretty good view of how large it is.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | May 25, 2007 12:19:37 PM
Well, their 45AH LiCoO2 batteries are 1.55kg
Maybe about 1.25kg for a 35AH LiFePO4 battery assuming little difference in weight of the components. That would be roughly 79kg or about 173lbs for the cells themselves. That rack probably adds 30-40lbs if made out of lower cost materials.
Posted by: Patrick | May 25, 2007 12:25:05 PM
60mm diameter and 232mm length for 45AH cells.
This gives roughly: 12" x 27.5" size plus maybe about 3" of height for top to bottom spacing and the frame and then maybe 8-9" in length for the frame and intercell spacing. 15" x 36.5" is my best estimate if the cells match the size of the 45AH batteries they offer.
Posted by: Patrick | May 25, 2007 12:29:41 PM
How are we going to "Support Our Troops" if Lithion-type batteries replace half the petroleum that is our God-Given right to run our cars on if we want to and employ right-thinking America-lovers doing their duty to God and country to fight for that petroleum? We're talking unemployed military men, their poor wives struggling to make ends meet on military pay, and their one-parent neglected children! On leave, how are military families gonna drive the kids across the country to Disneyland on batteries that discharge after a few dozen miles? How will military widows get to their distant minimum wage jobs that welfare requires them to take with cars whose batteries make them too expensive to buy? USA! USA! We're Number One! Huh?
Posted by: Wells | May 25, 2007 12:43:47 PM
We're going to have an acute shortage of strawmen if you keep that up, Wells.
Interesting battery pack! Now how much would it cost?
And how big will a battery only vehicle's pack be?
Posted by: DavidInAL | May 25, 2007 12:55:20 PM
Many of the current electric only cars get about 200 watt hour to the mile.
7500 / 300 = 25 miles of range. ie this is a pack you want to have a generator with. It would make a great motorcycle battery though. My electric bike gets about 8-12 miles per kwh on lead acid without regen. which puts the range at 50 miles.
Freeway speeds 80 miles per hour times 200 watts per mile is:
0.2 * 80 = 16 /0.7 = 23 horsepower genpack to keep up.
-Michael
By the way, I much prefer fewer higher capacity cells.
Posted by: Michael McMillan | May 25, 2007 1:08:16 PM
7500/200 = 37.5 miles...
Posted by: Patrick | May 25, 2007 2:13:35 PM
Wells,
Don't worry overmuch about what our military men will do for a living.
If they aren't busy securing our energy supply from raving Islamic lunatics, they will still keep busy preventing those Islamic lunatics from reaching America as they did on 9/11. Or Iranian lunatics from developing nuclear weapons, or North Korean lunatics with nuclear weapons from bringing back the golden age of communist dictatorships.
Not to worry. There is plenty of work to do for our brave fighting men.
Posted by: Kirk Ellis | May 25, 2007 2:41:45 PM
You know what?, we should invade Titan (Saturn's largest moon) plenty of petroleum up their! Make us some supersoldier space marines with that 500 billion dollar military budget and go and kick some “ice heads” butts on titan... Or we could just make PHEV.
I wonder which idea is more sane?
Posted by: Ben | May 25, 2007 4:39:54 PM
My earlier post was an attempt to achieve Memorial Day irony. Muslims surely cringe at casual assumptions that their nation's oil wealth is our energy supply to be secured through military means. It may be that US sponsored Iranian nuclear power development in the 1970's was meant solely for conserving Iranian oil for export to the USA. In other words, once again the US brings calamity upon its people.
Transportation must evolve beyond simply building a technologically better car, else we slack-skinned automatons may never achieve the status of human.
Posted by: Wells | May 25, 2007 4:54:38 PM
It's not just Muslims that cringe. I live just North of you with large fresh water resources. I've heard Californians discuss the need to divert some of our rivers. According to them we wouldn't really have a choice. You guys sure know how to make freinds.
Posted by: Neil | May 25, 2007 10:28:36 PM
There is a book I read titled "Resource Wars" that is a credible review of the worlds resources and how 9 billion people will need them over the next 50 years. Fresh water resources took up at least one chapter in the book.
Posted by: SJC | May 26, 2007 8:02:03 AM
Let's just hope nobody gets that stupid (George W.?) because such a move would destroy both of our countries. The US could take the resources overnight but the ensuing resistance would turn the entire continent into a police state. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Ben Franklin said "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." It's time for guys like Rumsfeld to get an education and think a little about the consequences of their actions.
Posted by: Neil | May 26, 2007 10:57:28 PM
With this announcement from Lithium Technology is seems to me that there now are 3 serious contenders for the US market for automotive lithium batteries 1) saft-johnson, 2) a123, and 3) Lithium Technology. This is very good news. Wonder what is the chemistry the saft automotives batteries?
Posted by: Henrik | May 27, 2007 7:24:16 AM
Nice crew....
Maybe we should all run down to Venezuela with Danny Glover, get 18 million dollars of "Chavez Oil Money" and make movies criticizing Booooosh. We can enjoy our time laughing as Chavez turns off the last free broadcasting network in his country.
Memorial Day honors those soldiers fallen in all wars, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever your disagreements, the soldiers do not deserve your self-righteious psuedo-intellectual sarcastic put downs.
Over 400,000 lost their lives during WWII defending the UK, liberating Europe. Today, 50 million more people stand to be free and liberated from tyrants and terrorist. And you verbally spit on all the volunteers in the armed forces doing this job.
You sit there freely, whaling away arrogant rants, while billions live in oppressed countries, many starving, dying, tortured, pillaged and raped. You have a gift given to you by millions gone before you that answered a call for their country... and like the Pagans of Rome, lifted up on high, with fruitless pursuits and the hubris of gods, proclaim yourself better than all beneath your level of knowledge.
The situation in the world is more complex than some star wars or x-men movie. Grow up, grow some and at the very least respect this day for what it is for those that have gone before you. If you cannot do that, then why do you deserve the freedom that others died for that you now enjoy?
Posted by: Michael | May 28, 2007 6:53:06 PM
Way to completely miss the point Mike. No one was insulting the troops in anyway, just the policy makers that misuse those troops. The best way to support our troops is to keep them at home and alive.
Posted by: John | May 28, 2007 7:08:51 PM
Right on Michael. Just like you, I get fed up with these post-colonial rants by our resident leftists who think freedom and liberties grow on trees. These so-called leftists will one day sell us to fascism or Islamism, and they will have the gall to call that "progress". Each and every Iraqi owes their freedom and their children's freedom to Rumsfeld. Shame on those who deny freedom to others and feel they are too superior and racist to share it. Shame on the post modern left.
Posted by: Mahmood | May 29, 2007 12:12:13 AM
"The situation in the world is more complex than some star wars or x-men movie."
Couldn't agree more. Too bad Rumsfeld and co. were too ignorant to understand that before they invaded Iraq without a plan. And don't kid yourself about their motives either, it's about the OIL.
Personally I don't lean to the right or left (I kind of sag in the middle) and I see a world full of dictators both right and left wing.
Posted by: Neil | May 29, 2007 8:23:19 AM
Yes, I have to agree with the other cynical rants. The USA is a very bad place full of very selfish and imperialistic people, headed by a fascist dictatorship for a government. I just wish we could go back to the good old days before the US came along and ruined this wonderful, harmonious earth. Read Noam Chomsky and listen to Michael Moore! Hugo Chavez for world emperor!
Posted by: Bob Bastard | May 29, 2007 10:07:59 AM
Nothing wrong with the US people or their form of government that couldn't be solved with an educational system and news media that started looking beyond their own borders. You don't need listen to Michael Moore for anything more than entertainment if you get some news with a global point of view (ex. guardian weekly, the economist, or BBC)
Posted by: Neil | May 29, 2007 11:32:28 AM
Yes, the world was so harmonious throughout history. Please read more than Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore.
Hugo Chavez for world emporer? Do you live in Venezuala? If no, why not since you would want Chavez to rule the world? If yes, how is it...and do me a favor, start a blog hosted on a Venezualan server that has nothing but bad things to say about Chavez and his government; just as an experiment. TIA!
Posted by: Patrick | May 29, 2007 4:13:09 PM
Fidel Castro said: The USA can't be destroyed from the outside, only from within: Liberals will do it.
Posted by: xgalileo | May 29, 2007 6:29:02 PM
Neil, to say Iraq is all about oil, is eh... just too simplistic.
The US is paying $65 a barrell for oil that comes out at $3 a barrell including shipping costs.
We took over Iraq so we get the privilege to pay them $62 a barrell? Now go figure that ... "it is all about oil" -- is too simplistic, unfactual, and a post-colonial mantra.
In any case Lithium-Phosphate batteries will reduce the need for oil, and hopefully we will stop hearing about such silly oil theories when these batteries run our cars. In fact, I will pay premium for these batteries just so to prove these anti-progressive illiberal post-colonial leftists and whiners wrong about their oil conspiracy theory.
Posted by: Mahmood | May 29, 2007 8:14:34 PM
Neil: "Guardian weekly" and BBC
heheheheheh -- Guardian is a den of lies and nobody takes that seriously but leftists. I thought you said you are a liberal. You are not. Guardian doesn't give a hoot about human rights or our liberties. Guardian is a well known mouthpiece for the totalitarian left. eheheheheheh
BBC? You mean the outfit that taxes British TV viewers to construct more left and Islamist oriented programming? You mean the outfit that does not have to earn its keeps and compete with the rest of us? That can put its hands in our pockets and self-preserve itself and become an ideological den answerable to no one, while bashing the US, even when al-Qaeda blows up 200 people in the Baghdad marketplace?
What a joke.
Posted by: Mahmood | May 29, 2007 8:20:18 PM
Mahmood: So you have no problem with the Economist? If a Liberal like me looks like a left winger to you it's because you're so far out in the right field that you can't even see home plate anymore. It's just a matter of perspective. You might want to get the LiFePO4 batteries they have better characteristics for EVs.
Posted by: Neil | May 30, 2007 12:13:59 AM
Patrick, you didn't pick up on the sarcasm?
Neil, Americans have access to more media than just about any other country in the world. I watch the BBC and read Al Jazeera among others. I constantly hear people trying to claim that Americans are having "The Truth" hidden from them by some sort of massive government/media censorship conspiracy, but these are probably the same people that think all Americans weigh 150 kg and eat cheeseburgers all day. Neil, are you aware that our government sponsored media (PBS) carries BBC world news every day? I listen to it for free on the radio in the car, and watch it on public tv at home. On the other hand I don't get Fox news, and if I did, I would have to pay for it (only available on cable).
Posted by: Bob Bastard | May 30, 2007 5:52:17 AM
Hey Bob: And whats wrong with weighing 150kg and eating cheeseburgers all day? You got something against fat people?
Yes, I know all of those media sources are available. I have been a financial supporter of PBS (Mahmood probably considers it to be a nest of communist lefties). Unfortunately that does not mean that a majority of people spend much time taking advantage of their availability. I do not believe that there is any big conspiracy theory to keep Americans in the dark. I do not think the average American is any more stupid or ignorant than anyone else on the planet (mind you that's not saying much). The difference is that the population of the rest of the world doesn't have anywhere near the power of influence of an American citizen. The USA is a global superpower. As such, and as a democracy, it's citizens have the responsibility to be significantly more globally aware than residents of countries that are unable to project power and influence beyond the borders of their country. Average doesn't cut it when you're making unilateral decisions to invade other countries. Do you really think that the current leadership of the U.S.A. is above average?
As to my previous comment about media and education.
I'm sure you've noticed that the BBC news has significantly more foreign content than US network news (CBC news isn't much better). I also have some very strong suspicions about the curriculum of US schools. Americans I've met have almost always been very knowledgeable about the States but generally lacking in significant knowledge of other countries. (Including how to pronounce "Iraq")
Posted by: Neil | May 30, 2007 6:48:48 AM
Neil, I can't really say that I disagree with most of what you say. However, I must point out that there is a reason that Americans tend to be less knowledgeable about events outside their borders than some other countries. I believe it has little to do with class room curriculum and a lot to do with simple geography. The US is a big country with a large population, that is isolated by huge oceans from most of the other major world players. Although we are diverse ethnically, this diversity is not dependent on geographic location as it is in many countries (e.g. as French speakers concentrated in Quebec.) Many Americans don't take much interest in happenings outside our borders because they have little effect on their daily lives, which is not the case when you live in a small country in close proximity to others. Most Americans only speak English and or Spanish, whereas most Europeans speak several languages. On the other hand, many Africans speak half a dozen or more languages. Is this because African schools are so much better than American or European schools? Of course not. It is due to geography, and historical events, many of which date back to European colonial times, before the existence of the big bad USA and even the dreaded Bush administration.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | May 30, 2007 8:08:38 AM
Bob,
I completely missed the sarcasm. It seemed to flow as a realistic comment based on the other posts.
Posted by: Patrick | May 30, 2007 8:13:51 AM
Bob: What you say makes sense (it also applies to Canadians although we certainly know what's going on to the south of us). That has to be one of the longest serious posts you've ever typed :)
Posted by: Neil | May 30, 2007 9:44:19 AM
Wow Neil, you're right. I don't know what got into me. I'm in a weird/serious mood today :)
Posted by: Bob Bastard | May 30, 2007 12:50:25 PM
John,
It is you who miss the point. After 9/11 and after 3/2003, Americans joined the armed forces - voluntarily with Bush as President. They still sign up today. Whether you like it or not, millions serve and like it and they want victory both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Besides, insulting the Commander in Chief is insulting those that volunteered to serve. If you have not noticed places like GatheringofEagles.com, our veterans and current soldiers support their mission, want to have victory, support the President much more than the Democrat led Congress with regards to war efforts in Iraq. That is a simple fact. So who is politicizing this? Let the troops win, stop the self-flaggelation.
The comments were not just limited to our President either. They were rude, uninformed, over the edge and completely miss the point of Memorial Day - which is not a day to be - "politicized" - simply a day to recognize all those who have sacrificed in all wars.
I responded with the appropriate level of sarcasm back at the ludicrous comments made for a day that is to be honored, not trivialized for scoring political points.
The "bring them home" comment is another Edwards, Code Pink, far left political commentary which by the way, veterans, American Legion and other organizations all vehemently protested in public statements for the Memorial Day parades and festivities. Veterans organizations all put these statements down for what they are, pure political statements during a time that none should be made.
Posted by: Michael | May 30, 2007 8:35:11 PM
So we are in Iraq for the oil.. humm Iraq would have sold us all the oil it could have produced if we would have asked them. It would have been a lot cheaper to buy the oil than to invade, support and re-build Iraq like we are today. So your statement is false, misleading and most likely a leftest mantra, or Islamicfascist propaganda or both. You leftest on this site somehow think we on the right are stupid.
You people on the left think you "own" the green movement and are the only ones that want EV's or alternative fuels; I got news for you us Right wing Republicans want EV's and alternative fuels also, but for security reasons, not for the God "Al Gore" and his lies. Wouldn't you "leftees" prefer to have us "Rightees" help achieve the same goal or fight you every inch of the way? Think about it!
Posted by: SkipM | May 30, 2007 9:45:06 PM
Mahmood;
Would you please point out a Right Wing dictator to me.
And please don't say George Bush, he was elected and his term is up in two years. In case your having problems finding one, how about Bashar Al-ASAD the so called president of Syria. A fascist dictator if I ever seen one.
Fascist: National SOCIALIST PARTY. A government where all business or manufacturing is owed by elite party members, and controlled by the state party, we call them leftest here in the U.S.
Posted by: SkipM | May 30, 2007 10:11:17 PM
Let's talk about Iraq and oil for a second. They very well may have sold us the oil. But who in the US (and the rest of the world for that matter) would have wanted the money to go to Saddam? It also would have been produced as part of OPEC by the national oil co. of Iraq. Even with their pumps running there's no guarantee that they wouldn't have just sold it to China (similar to Iran). Now since the invasion the oil will be produced by four of the major IOCs (Exxon,Chevron,BP and Shell) with a better return on investment than they are ever likely to get from some pirate like Chavez. Not only that but now the US has a very large army sitting right in the middle of the middle east just in time for peak oil. You can't tell me that Bush and co. didn't take these factors into account before invading. If it was all about rescuing the oppressed (which they were) troops would be in Darfur and a zillion other places in the world right now.
Posted by: Neil | May 31, 2007 3:55:03 PM
Darfur is in Sudan, a sovereign country, we don't invade sovereign countries for no reason. I feel sorry for the people in Darfur, but what does their plight have to do with U.S. Security or national interest? Nothing, therefor we should not become involved. Should the U.N. (United Nothing) decide that intervention was necessary, then I suggest they send Russia, China and other Marxist nations to spill their blood for "humanitarian" reasons, we have done our share, let them do theirs.
Posted by: SkipM | May 31, 2007 7:51:10 PM
Iraq was a sovereign country, and the US invaded it. So, does that means you think the Iraq invasion was for US security or national interest?
Posted by: Neil | May 31, 2007 10:03:41 PM
BTW: Russia hasn't been Marxist for quite a while (It's now more like an oligarchy with a very large and nasty mafia). China hasn't been truly communist since Mao died. (I'm not actually sure how to describe the current Chinese government, it's a weird mixture of state control and rampant capitalism). Castro is damn near dead and his country pretty much harmless. I would describe Chavez more as a pain in the @$$ than a communist. North Korea is about the only Stalinist state left and it's a mess. I'm not sure why you worry so much about Communism, It's been thoroughly discredited as an economic model worldwide. I'd say it's pretty much dead.
Posted by: Neil | Jun 1, 2007 1:59:02 PM
Iraq never was a sovereign nation. Its people were in bondage and had no sovereignty under Soviet supported Saddam Hossein.
You bet it was the superior moral and humanitarian position to invade Iraq.
Neil is just a post-colonial reductionist (i.e. all of history boils down to stealing natural resources). Most leftists have no knowledge of the middle east, or economics, and can only talk from ideology.
Posted by: Mahmood | Jun 3, 2007 12:13:51 PM
Mahmood: You don't listen very well do you. Only an ultra right wing nutbar would consider me to be "leftist". But then you don't know me, or anything about me. There is more to the world than right and left. There is a middle too. P.S. I voted Conservative in the last election.
Posted by: Neil | Jun 3, 2007 10:55:35 PM
