Ofer Holdings Takes Stake in A123Systems
24 October 2008
Globes. Israel-based Ofer Holdings Group has made a strategic investment in A123Systems, which will develop lithium-ion packs for Better Place’s electric car venture. (Earlier post.)
Israel Corporation chairman Idan Ofer made the announcement during a press conference to mark the launch of Better Place in Australia. He added that A123 Systems had obtained access to the raw materials for the battery production through one of its subsidiaries.
Ofer also said that the joint venture between Israel Corp. and China’s Chery Automobile Co. Ltd. would probably focus on the development and production of electric cars. The joint venture will apparently become a major supplier of cars for Better Place, alongside Renault SA and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd..
In July, Israel Corp. invested another $15.5 into Project Better Place (PBB) in addition to the $7.5 million already in. The company said it would invest up to $100 million in the venture designed to deploy a regional and global infrastructure to support electric vehicles on a country-by-country basis. Idan Ofer is also Chairman of the Board of Better Place. (Earlier post.)
Will this kill future Volt sales in foreign countries because of GM's proprietary battery packaging?
Posted by: mark | 24 October 2008 at 09:05 PM
mark:
The rest of the world is working to set ISO standards and openness in the market as to the plug in infrastructures, battery sizes, car specifications, etc.
GM should follow the "Better Place" model and start selling their forthcoming electric cars as fast as they can produce them to that model.
GM management should spend some time at the "Better Place" web site and view the videos: I suggest the series of three 10 minute presentations titled: Transforming Transportation Globally - Part 1, 2 and 3.
http://www.betterplace.com/press-room/videos/
Posted by: Lad | 24 October 2008 at 11:56 PM
I find it very interesting that the head of Nissan/Renault is talking about investing in Chrysler; perhaps he is interested in helping one of America's Detroit car companies enter the electric car arena through "Better Place." I'm for helping put those poor people back to work asap.
Posted by: Lad | 25 October 2008 at 12:10 AM
'In July, Israel Corp. invested another $15.5 into Project Better Place (PBB)'
Whoopie! Lattes all round!
Posted by: Thomas Lankester | 25 October 2008 at 12:30 AM
"The rest of the world is working to set ISO standards and openness in the market as to the plug in infrastructures, battery sizes, car specifications, etc."
No. We've been over this already with Engineer Poet. It is way too early to try to make standard EV batteries or form factors now. Standardization must follow innovation. Not the other way around. You create the most inventive environment and let imagination, innovation rule. Then when there are a half dozen winning designs proven by market acceptance (i.e. peoples' choice) - bring in the standards bean counters.
Until then. It's wide open competition. As the XPrize concept has proved - THAT enables the best solutions early on.
Posted by: sulleny | 25 October 2008 at 11:41 AM
%sulleny:
I would agree with you except that the process as you define it is too slow and we really don't have the daylight to burn. We've wasted way too much time screwing around for a hundred years with an economy that's been run by the oil companies and running on ICEs.
I'm for going ahead and defining the ISO specs for the first phase of plug in electric cars; phase two could be an set of upgraded standards as the technology progresses.
Posted by: Lad | 25 October 2008 at 04:05 PM
What standards are there to set? A standard to accommodate battery swapping? Ain't going to happen, sorry. A standard electrical interface would be nice though as well as a standard type of signal a car would send to a charging post it's plugged into. It's then up to the makers of chargers to be able to decipher what's plugged into them and send energy and information accordingly.
Posted by: drivin98 | 25 October 2008 at 04:48 PM
NASA screwed around with the space program for fifty years - then Bert Rutan built a composite spacecraft for .035% of the government budget and achieved low Earth orbit.
Posted by: | 25 October 2008 at 07:25 PM
Bert Rutan was several miles a second short of earth orbit. XEBRA batteries have been effective for years for electric cars, but there is an urge that the latest greatest is best. No matter the cost or the delay ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 25 October 2008 at 07:51 PM
Some people need to get behind the programs that are working right now. Electrification is well on its way with EVERY major automaker working on EVs or some kind. They will NOT be using ZEBRA batteries for a myriad of safety issues (continuous 800C temps for one.
The question is will you get behind the vast amount of work being done on a monumental scale to alleviate the energy issue?? Or will you keep trying to use shaky programs like climate for social engineering?
Right now there is enormous opportunity for big and small energy industries. With the matrix of sustainable resources coming online we will see the success of liquid biofuels, Li-ion batteries, wind, solar, geothermal, residential co-generation, NG, standard nukes and some entirely new energy sources that will enlighten the entire planet.
Right now there's no room for old-school doomers. The fear and loathing model of behavior modification is over. Either get with the future filled with opportunity and energy independence - or get off this train. Thanks.
Posted by: nrg nut | 26 October 2008 at 10:17 AM
sulleny: You never did support your claim re: form factors and interfaces in the light of the success of multiple technologies in the AAA-D series of standard cell types.
Quoth nrg nut:
You're thinking of SOFC's. Zebra batteries run at about 250°C, which is quite a bit cooler than engine exhaust systems.Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 October 2008 at 08:17 AM
@EP:
Let's consider the trajectory of terrestrial battery development:
In 1748 Benjamin Franklin coined the word "battery" to describe a series of charged glass plates.
1800 Alessandro Volta invented the voltaic pile constructed of alternating discs of zinc and copper sandwiched by cardboard soaked in brine.
In 1866 Georges Leclanche patented the carbon-zinc wet cell. In 1881 Carl Gassner invented the commercially viable carbon-zinc dry cell.
1901 Thomas Edison invented the alkaline storage battery.
In 1924 the American National Standards Institute, authorized the formation of a sectional committee on dry cell batteries under the sponsorship of the National Bureau of Standards, Section C-18 designating dry cells A - D.
It took more than 175 years of battery invention, innovation and development before finally creating a standard. Considering the wide variety of voltages, motors, generators, battery chemistry, cooling systems, power management and charging hardware in even these very first EV designs, why would we hamstring innovation with a standard regulation??
The electrification of automobiles is wide open to startups (Tesla, Fisker, Th!nk) and the majors. Demanding a fixed standard battery pack would limit form, placement, interface, cooling system etc. for EV designers. Yes, standard sizes worked fine for dry cells for portable applications like flashlights and radios. EV technology is far more sophisticated.
And as has been pointed out previously, these early EV packs (e.g. Tesla) use standard Li-ion cells like the type #18650 form-factor. That is enough of a standard for now.
Face it EP. You are a big-government proselyte. But the time for these standards must follow innovation. Please read Jim's response to your suggestions in the previous discussion.
Posted by: sulleny | 27 October 2008 at 12:22 PM
The Zebra operates at 300 deg C, not 800. There are no safety problems with it - NREL abuse tests in the late 1990s showed this. Trauma that can break/ puncture internal ceramic cell separators causes the Sodium and NiCl to react to form common salt - inert and harmless.
Zebra is the only battery where internal cell failures allow the entire battery to continue functioning, with only the loss of that one cell voltage.
The Zebra HOT battery is the ONLY way to overcome the cold weather barrier to EV operation. Cold cranking and cold weather performance will be a show stopper for LiIon EVs - fine for California, no good in Detroit or NY in winter.
Mercedes A Class in 1998 with Zebra demonstrated 120 miles range. 50% better achievable today.
We should be churning out Zebras today by the millions at the realistically achievable cost of $150 per kWh.
The 90W hour standby to keep the battery hot (only from 4 hours after shutdown, internally generated heat during operation keeps it hot for 4 hours after shutdown before the heater needs to come on) is a lot less than the "Tesla" Roadster is using at 146W all the time.
Posted by: Emphyrio | 27 October 2008 at 01:47 PM
Quoth sulleny:
Oh, no, the dreaded ad-hominem! I am utterly defeated! </sarcasm>BTW, you forgot Planté (lead-acid cell, 1859) in your history lesson. He's far more relevant to this discussion than Leclanché.
But only 43 years since the dry cell. De-facto standards, such as 1.5 volt "A" filament batteries and 45-volt B batteries for vacuum tube gear, existed long before the ANSI standard; according to what I can find, portable hearing devices were being manufactured in 1910.Non sequitur. Who says these other variables are helping rather than hurting? They've made it difficult to turn hardware such as chargers into commodity items, with high volumes and lower costs.
Tesla is actually a counter-example, because the extreme cooling requirements and very high cell count are due to use of a cell chemistry and size ill-suited to powering passenger vehicles. But suppose there was a standard module size of about 110 volts (say, 90-130 VDC), with specified interfaces for power, control (say, an electrically isolated CAN bus with 12 volt power to run the interface) and cooling. This would give you a box of a certain size, offering huge advantages:
In actual use, it would be like USB devices: from flash drives to webcams to printers, plug and play.
A car like the Tesla could use such devices in sets of 3 (in series) to get its bus voltage of 270-390 volts. A hybrid could use one, a PHEV could use one or two. Issues of voltage and current in motors are largely irrelevant, because the power electronics deal with that anyway. You could pull out A123Systems modules and throw in Zebra modules and the vehicle would work; the data interface would tell the motor controller and charger the voltage and current limits (including restrictions due to under- or over-temperature) just like your USB devices.
Is government the ideal source of standards? Hell, no. But we are in dire need of a 1.0 standard so that we can get moving; industry can start polishing v2.0 sometime later.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 October 2008 at 04:19 PM
@EP:
"Oh, no, the dreaded ad-hominem! I am utterly defeated! "
The conscious mind exaggerates that which the subconscious fears to be true. S Freud
The implementation of the CAN(open) bus is already well underway and, significantly represents a widely adopted protocol developed by Robert Bosch in 1986. This industrial data protocol is presently in use by some 22 microcontroller chip makers and was adopted without ANY government standards!
The problem to design a module swappable between radically different chemistry should be apparent. The cooling requirements of A123 nanophosphate modules with an operating temp of -30°C to +60°C, is markedly different than the ZEBRA molten salt battery with an continuous operating temp of 270°C. The ZEBRA needs to be maintained at operating temp or suffer a cold start warmup of nearly 24 hours.
And with the fast movement toward higher energy density materials like silicon nano-wires - a fixed module form factor would be outdated before it was adopted. As for chargers - a modicum of pack ID intelligence to identify the SOC, chemistry, charge parameters etc. is a simple ROM most likely implemented by pack makers now.
No, EP, it is simply too soon for the standards regulators for EV batteries. But Dr. Freud is always interested in dreams.
Posted by: sulleny | 28 October 2008 at 09:29 AM
Quoth sulleny:
That's good! Keep 'em coming, I can use the laughs.Well, duh. I've only been writing code using CAN communications since the 1990's. I've implemented a system including a driver for an optically-isolated CAN transceiver, just like what you'd want for a high-voltage battery control and monitoring system. I know this stuff is out there because I've done it myself.
Let's see, for a peak of 130 volts we'd need:
Size the cells to fit in the box with their required ancillary gear (insulation, heat pipes, electronics) and you're done. The vehicle controller is responsible for limiting charge and discharge to the maximum values given by the battery monitors. What's the difficulty with this? Do you think that a properly-designed system wouldn't be able to handle even completely idiotic mistakes like putting incompatible modules together in a vehicle and shut down safely? This is something else I have dealt with personally.
Funny, I couldn't find anything about the 24-hour warmup on the manufacturer's site. It does say that there is no restriction on freeze/thaw cycles.
Yeah, like it wouldn't be trivial to leave part of the volume empty for a cheap unit or fill it for a high-performance one. This is another trick with a long history; some D-size NiCd units were just C cells in a D-size carrier. Downsizing the module would be a possible option for the 2.0 standard, especially if it would still fit in a 1.0 mount.
While availability of replacement batteries is a proven worry among potential HEV buyers and would be much worse with PHEVs, you are making arguments for sticking with the status quo. As long as you're accusing me of pimping for big government, let me stick you with the label of running interference for Big Oil... wittingly or not.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 28 October 2008 at 07:27 PM
"That's good! Keep 'em coming, I can use the laughs."
"The confounded mind dismisses most feared critique with merriment." A Janov
"Size the cells to fit in the box with their required ancillary gear (insulation, heat pipes, electronics) and you're done. "
The Zebra manufacturer says their cells/packs are to be air cooled. But must also be heated (only 14% internally)to maintain operating temp. Most of the lithium guys require liquid cooling. Your example of 130V would be too small for the Zebra cells - their Z23 17kWh package open circuit is 232V.
Had you bothered to READ the Zebra spec you would know that the cold start time for their batteries is rated at 24 hours @230 VAC. And the 17kWh package is 825x500x300, big as a good size coffee table.
http://donau.kicms.de/cebi/easyCMS/FileManager/Files/MES-DEA/batteries/Zebra_Z23.pdf
As there are essentially zero vehicles on the road today to quantify any data - how do you realistically spec your cell package with no field data whatsoever? EE-Pixie dust?
And how does recommending restraint from premature form qualify as status quo? My contention is to allow innovators, designers, technicians, engineers to build hundreds of new BEV configurations to ferret out the best eventual form factors. THEN spec a standard which manufacturers may or may not opt for.
Run interference for Big Oil? Does the stuff you're smoking look like rock salt?
Posted by: sulleny | 29 October 2008 at 04:12 PM
If you're going to play psychoanalyst, you might want to get licensed first. That allows you the essential protection of malpractice insurance, especially when your reasoning is so defective that you get pwned.
Yes, that pack is air-cooled. It has a finned heat sink. Maybe the standard mounting has air passages... or maybe not. Do you seriously think that e.g. conduction cooling would be any difficulty if the pack was designed for it?Cobalt-oxide ones do, but they're not suitable for non-specialty use anyway (too sensitive to thermal runaway, which is what those fancy cooling systems are there to prevent). A123Systems don't; the Killacycle runs them at about 70°C. They'd do fine with air cooling.
That's what you say, but the manufacturer says different:
Even the standard module you used as a reference proves you're wrong. The Zebra cell is 2.58 volts when fully charged. The module you referenced has 180 cells, meaning it would have two parallel strings of 90 cells each. Reconfigure it to 4 strings of 45, voila: 116 volt unit in the same package. Cut back to two parallel strings of 50 cells each, and you get 38 AH @ 129 volts OC for approximately 84 kg.
You'll notice that there is no such figure mentioned by Rolls Royce. Pack heaters can be increased in power and put into closer contact with cells if faster heating is required; the cells can run at 335°C (from your cite) but only need to be up to 155°C to melt the electrolyte.
FWIW, the ML3X cell is not very well suited to EV use; the specific power is too low. A cell designed for vehicular use would expand the electrode area to increase power at the expense of energy.
The same way you spec a power transistor or an engine cooling system; you start with figures on a data sheet.Because sorting out hundreds of different possibilities for largely meaningless choices (like the exact shape of the battery pack) takes time we don't have. I'm all for government stepping in, telling manufacturers that they need to decide on a standard that government will then endorse. But we needed that standard a while ago, and we have no time to lose.
I don't smoke, though it's arguable that debating you is doing dope.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 30 October 2008 at 12:12 PM
EP:
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
In your conspiratorial fancy who do you think "they" are?
Posted by: sulleny | 09 November 2008 at 09:26 PM