Partners Form New Coal-to-Liquids Company
ARB Distributes $25 Million for Advancing Alternative Fuel Usage in California

Lithium Technology Corporation Showcases New Battery Pack for Plug-in Retrofit

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.



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.

Bob Bastard

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).


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")

Bob Bastard

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.



I completely missed the sarcasm. It seemed to flow as a realistic comment based on the other posts.


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 :)

Bob Bastard

Wow Neil, you're right. I don't know what got into me. I'm in a weird/serious mood today :)



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, 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.


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!



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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.