Report: Daimler and Evonik to Invest Additional €200M to Boost Planned Li-ion Production 10x by 2013
21 December 2009
Germany’s Handelsblatt reports that Daimler and Evonik want to invest an additional €200 million (US$287 million) in their joint Li-ion manufacturing venture Deutsche Accumotive GmbH & Co. KG to boost production at the plant—currently under construction (earlier post)—from the initial 300,000 cells per year targeted in 2011 to 2.9 million cells per year by 2013.
Daimler is interested in more rapid availability of electric drive vehicles, the report said, to avoid the potential of billions in fines for exceeding the coming European required fleet average of 130 g/km CO2.
If Mercedes sells 800,000 units as planned in 2012 with an average 160 g CO2/km , Daimler could face fines of €2.1 billion (US$3 billion), according to the report. Having 50,000 electric cars in that 2012 volume would reduce the fines to €115 million (US$165 million).
Officially, Daimler denies the connection. “We are 100 percent confident that we meet our CO2 targets alone with an improvement of conventional technology,” said a spokesman.
What if they just go for hybridization across the range - this would get them to 130 gms/km fairly smartly.
I imagine they would get more bang for their buck - CO2 wise by hybridizing many cars than by building a much smaller number of EVs.
Even if they went for stop/start and brake energy regeneration, it would make a difference.
Posted by: mahonj | 21 December 2009 at 07:25 AM
The report says they need 100 cells for the EV Smart so that is 29000 EV Smart cars per year by 2013. It will not make business sense for Bentz to produce less than this number.
Mahonj these are the high ampere cells that you were asking for elsewhere. They are 200 Wh /kg (see 1 below) so not as high as Panasonic’s newest 18650 cell at 252 Wh /kg. However, in this case we know that this cell has the durability and safety that is needed for vehicle use or Bentz would not be using it.
1) http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/07/daimler-evonik-20090706.html
Posted by: Account Deleted | 21 December 2009 at 08:14 AM
MB and most (all) European manufacturers will use a mix of improved ICE, HEV, PHEV and BEV to meet lower pollution standards.
As pollution regulations will tighten up, they will all have to progressively go towards semi and full electric vehicles within one or two decades at the most.
Fines will be so huge that all locally built and imported vehicles will meet the future standards.
Europe will demonstrate that regulations can be used to reduce vehicle's pollution and imported oil.
USA could do likewise if/when the collective will is there.
Posted by: HarveyD | 21 December 2009 at 08:55 AM
People in Europe are used to paying high prices for fuel (at least compared to the US).
They respond to this by driving smaller and more economical vehicles.
However, fuel is still cheap (in global terms) in Europe so the EU keeps the pressure up on car companies with the 130 gm/km rule.
The advantage of this over simply allowing the market to do its job is that oil prices rise and fall, while the 130gms/km limit is a constant (and will get even lower in the future).
Thus the companies know that they really will have to reduce the CO2 levels on their products, and they have taken to it with a vengeance.
It is a much more useful "marketing number" than BHP or max mph.
Whether or not you believe in AGW, peak oil is coming shortly, and the price of oil will go back up. This will have much less effect on people with very frugal cars.
The market is too short term in its thinking - you need to legislate to get medium-long term change.
The trick is to manage to transition to a "dear oil" economy in a planned manner, rather than precipitating market panics which gives all the money to oil producers and traders (speculators).
If they could just get the batteries a bit (say 2x) more efficient ...
Posted by: mahonj | 21 December 2009 at 09:18 AM
"..could face fines of €2.1 billion (US$3 billion)"
This would be difficult to legislate in the U.S. We do FFV loopholes to get around CAFE for large SUVs and trucks. 67% of the FFV owners do not even know that they have FFVs and less than 1% of them run E85 on a regular basis.
Posted by: SJC | 21 December 2009 at 11:10 AM
SJC:
Do large SUVs and large Pick-up still get a FED subsidy in USA? If so, will it be removed shortly?
mahonj:
I fully agree with you. Unregulated free market places will not willingly reduce fossil or agro-fuel consumption. It is not in their best interest to do so, specially in countries with very powerful Oil and Corn-Ethanol lobbies, very creedy industries and banks like USA and Canada.
Passing similar legislations in USA, with the current balance of power in the Senate, and in Canada with the current Administration, would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
A State by State or a Province by Province approach may have a better chance. It could be done if based on health care and associated responsiblity.
Posted by: HarveyD | 21 December 2009 at 12:12 PM
The previous tax breaks for vehicles over 6000 pounds was originally poorly designed by a Republican Congress to increase capital equipment investment. It resulted in doctors and lawyers buying Hummers because they got a tax break.
As far as I know, that ridiculous provision has been eliminated.
Posted by: SJC | 21 December 2009 at 03:27 PM
The free market works exceedingly well to provide the best (as valued by the buyer) products for the present and near term. (that's why it is so idiotic for Puget Sound and the DOE to buy 5700 Leafs).
If you want products to be “what we should be buying”, some laws or taxes are required.
It is irrational to think Detroit built and sold many millions of vehicles that no one wanted over the last century.
It is equally irrational to think an auto maker will, or should, risk bankruptcy by building small unprofitable cars (that he cannot sell) in an effort to reduce our oil dependency.
Each buyer wants everyone ELSE to buy small, American cars (as they would like everyone ELSE to pay taxes).
That’s where the government must step in.
The problem is that they presently see punitive taxes as a good way to buy the votes of those who pay no taxes while accepting money from the bank and conglomerate lobbyists.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 22 December 2009 at 07:36 AM