Awesome - that is all I can say 3000 cycles....this is great stuff. No word on price though...

Doctor Frank's endorsement is quite significant, given the many years of work on electric hybrid vehicles he has done. I bet he had access to some production samples.

Hate to sound sceptical on good news like this. However, the 3000 cycles claimed in the announcement is not what the cell specifications say on their website http://www.lithiumtech.com/StandardCells.html. It says:
“Cycle life at 20°C and 100% DOD 400 cycles to 80% nominal capacity
(0.5 C charge; 0.5 C discharge) 1000 cycles to 60% nominal capacity”

Patric I hope you are right. I tried to look for chemistry but I can’t find any on their cell specification page. How do you know?

Got it. Thank you for making it clear. The chemistry LiFePO4 should also be less expensive than LiCoO2. Cobalt is very pricy. Can’t wait to see the kWh price of this.

A few good solid battery technologies that do what they say they do would go a long way toward getting us PHEVs, serial hybrids like the Volt and BEVs. I like the idea of refueling and recharging in your garage. This is why I support CNG (SNG) and plug hybrids. The delivery system to the end user is so convenient. Methane through existing pipes and electrons through existing grids. This would take a lot of production pressure off the gasoline refineries, which allegedly has caused the recent spike in gasoline prices.

Basic Li phosphate electrode chemistry was initially developed in Texas University, and then MIT improved the technology and created private off-spin – well known A123. Currently Texas and Hydro Quebec are suing A123 (and vise versa) for patents infringement. Looks like this company is trying to make a use of close to A123 technology to produce their batteries, licensed directly from Texas Univercity.

Any way, good luck to everybody in the battery business.

Even with lawsuits, this shows a good sign. Multiple companies from around the globe are coming into play and competitors are going after each other and pouring money into research. As ugly as it looks, it is better than Chevez renationalizing private companies and dooming the future of his nation.

SJC,

Calm down. You seem to take offense easy with people who oppose your opinion, or ask simple questions. I assumed all commenting here are healthy skeptics and independent thinkers. You certainly make your opinions known here, don't you? Do you assume everyone agrees with you? Or that only your opinion is correct? Even though others did not respond? No? Good.

I think progress in societies, advancements in technology are tied together with the flexibility and freedom of political and economic systems, that in turn free individuals and business. Or, stagnation can occur due to political and economic systems. I think the communist systems, old nationalized systems fall flat, stagnate and provide little incentive for progress. Not sure why that is considered extreme.

In Russia, French companies that hire Russian citizens look past all the corruption as cash passes under the table and employees get stiffed. It is routine. And books are cooked all the time. The blackmarket is horrendous. I sent a car part FedEx for less time and money to a friend that would've paid double for 3-6 month delivery of questionable used parts.

The bottom line is good news for America and the West, that new technology is being developed in a hot market due to internal/external pressures and incentives. It shows investments are worth it to more contenders in the market place. Yes, it is "my opinion" that a free market system adapts faster than those governments that nationalize their business and heavily regulate their markets thru oppressive measures, including media, ruled by one man, like Chavez.

Russia is making a similar mistake "in my opinion."

I doubt either will provide incentives to oppose their oil markets. Maybe they'll both fund innovative materials and technology transfer for affordable transport systems, batteries, etc., faster than our open, free-market systems? Maybe they'll both fund the ultimate solution to end dependence on oil? I'm merely pointing out other countries have incentives every bit as corrupt or more so than any organization in our own country. Their incentives go directly against our own. They desire high oil prices and oil dependency. Again, this is just my opinion.

If you think my opinion is extreme and you support Chavez or his policies of natoinalization, by all means, defend it, provide a rebuttal.

I am not so arrogant to stop learning. Nor do I think everyone here agrees with me. Healthy discussions are good for all of us.

If there is one thing we all agree on is the end goal, freedom from oil dependency, affordable solutions, plus clean air and environments.