GM, Itochu Technology Ventures Take Stakes in Battery Company Sakti3
CPT to Demonstrate Production-Ready Version of Next-Gen Stop Start System; 7-10% Overall Reduction in CO2 Emissions

GS Yuasa Prototypes Li-ion Batteries with Vanadium Phosphate Cathode Material

Tech-On. GS Yuasa has developed vanadium phosphate cathode materials for Li-ion batteries and has prototyped a battery using the new material.

The vanadium-based material improves output density and safety and also potentially lowers cost.

Compared with a battery using lithium iron phosphate...the safety of the prototype is almost the same and its output is 20% higher. The company plans to develop Li-ion rechargeable batteries by using the new material.

GS Yuasa expects that the new battery will be used in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and micro HEVs equipped with an idling stop mechanism. The battery cell prototyped with the lithium vanadium phosphate has a nominal voltage of 3.5V, a current capacity of 5.0Ah, a size of 21 (W) x 112 (D) x 81mm (H) and a weight of 318g.



With this capacity and weight, I come up with 973 lbs for a 24 KW battery such as in the Nissan Leaf. Am I wrong? Here's my calculation:
5 amp x 3.5 volts = 17.5 watts
24 kw divided by 17.5 = 1371 batteries
1371 x 318 grams = 435978
43978 divided by 28 = 15570 ounces
15570 divided by 15 = 973 lbs.


Its not made for that its made only for hevs and micro hevs where its output boost of 20% will mean they can use a slightly smaller battery and get the same power output.


That is only about 55Wh/kg. There are supercaps under testing that are over 20Wh/kg and they will provide much more power (and there are some new experimental supercaps that may top out over 60Wh/kg themselves).

I think that it would be better to focus on supercaps to supplement the batteries in this type of scenario. They have hundreds of thousands or even millions of cycles compared to a few hundred or possible a few thousand cycles for most batteries.

But any battery research seems useful and maybe there will be some cases where these batteries would have an advantage...certainly price wise they could at this point.


435978 divided by 28 = 15570 ounces
15570 divided by 16 = 973 lbs. (for 24 kw battery=55Wh/kg)
but that seems low(?) by 2-5X per


DaveD has a very good point. Super caps (specially future ones) could be a better solution then these very low energy density batteries.

With this capacity and weight, I come up with 973 lbs for a 24 KW battery such as in the Nissan Leaf.
The technology is explicitly NOT aimed at BEVs like the leaf.  FTA:
GS Yuasa expects that the new battery will be used in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and micro HEVs equipped with an idling stop mechanism.
Supercaps still don't get near the energy density of batteries. Where performance for freeway ramps and climbing hills is required, batteries rule.

@ DaveD and HarveyD,

I like supercaps very much for storing 30 seconds worth of hard acceleration, to supplement batteries in HEV...but even that small amount seems to run about $1,000-$2,000 (from Maxwell), before you get to the batteries and control electronics. Has anybody else run numbers that differed much?

Interesting article on supercaps. Seems like a 5 kg sc could supply 150 W-h. Enough to power an electric bike maybe 10 or 12 miles! How fast could it be charged, I wonder. If it likes high current charging and lasts a million cycles, and the cost comes down a bit, it might be the way to go.


High energy density ESStor units will be out soon and we will change our appreciation of what super caps can do. One storage unit may be enough for 30+ years or your next three vehicles.

A 50+ Kwh unit, recharged every night at low over night rates, could supply all the energy required for the house + 2 BEVs. Power grid peak loads may be eliminated or better managed with automated charger controls.


EEStor claims to be demonstrating their SC for the Air Force soon. If they or another outfit actually produce this level storage merely time shifting the energy to leverage the cost will not work long. The utils will grok this and raise rates overnight.

Better to stay on course toward true energy independence. That means offloading grid demand to Residential Power Units. We see an actual WORKING demo of this in the new B of A tower in New York City. NG fired turbines produce 5.1 MW electrical energy and the waste heat produce hot water, heat and chiller air.

Even with excellent storage capacity promised by SCs - we need to address efficient production of electricity. That immediately rules out fossil combustion since most all radiate their waste heat. Most nuclear designs fail to use their waste heat due to location but are overall efficient.

But NG fired CHP systems bring overall thermal efficiency into the 60-70% bracket. The challenge now is to build turbines or FCs economically on a residential scale. Bloom is working on this as are others.

Final step: find a convenient replacement for NG. What could that be? How about cracked H2O?


@ Reel$$,

I don't think your premise leads to your conclusion.

If energy companies get so much demand from BEV that they raise night-time electricity prices, we still come out way ahead as a nation because:
1. Power plants are about twice as efficient at getting energy out of fossil fuels as ICE cars are, which cuts fossil fuels for vehicles in half, and;
2. We could then power some of our vehicle fleet with indigenous coal reserves, which helps greatly with energy independence and still emits less greenhouse gas than petrol, and;
3. Renewable energy sources will gradually increase their share of the electricity market, further helping energy independence and CO2 emissions


Time shifting energy usage does make sense. If you can store power generated at night, you can use it during peak load and avert the need to build more plants.


@ HealthyBreeze; danm; Reel$ Yah, and I would contribute that off-grid production outside of legacy-urbanized areas is an open (sh-h-h-) gift waiting to be exploited by individuals/groups desiring a community-run and administered grid for charging their vehicles, powering their homes, etc.


Let's say biomass is made into methane to fill the natural gas pipes that run the CHP fuel cells in people's homes. Now they charge their cars, power, heat and cool their homes with biomass derived methane, all at higher efficiency than we do now. That CO2 neutral thought sounds good to me.



Correct that EVs powered by old grid DO lower demand for imported oil and therefor are a boon to energy independence. I am pushing CHP not only for efficiency and independence - but for other myriad benefits.

1) JOBS - manufacture, installation and maintenance of CHP systems invigorates an entire new energy market.

2) Limits or excludes need for new coal-fired power plants - an environmental boon.

3) Security - centralized grid systems are easy targets and subject to climate/exposure related failures.

4) Economics - we've had a century of high voltage copper wire strung overhead. It is hazardous, costly to maintain, inefficient and unsightly. Distributed energy lowers grid demand and competes at $/kWh.

5) Politically there is danger in handing energy management from oilcos to electric utils. Most utils are public/private State or Municipal entities incorporated to produce profits and dividends. Presently they monopolize the electric energy markets - city dwellers and rural home owners have a single choice for electric power. Prudent business demonstrates the danger in single-source supplies. Competition from CHP systems pressures utils to better SERVE their energy market and customers.

It is rapidly becoming feasible to make our own power, heat and cooling without need for a grid - "smart" or otherwise. Let's create JOBS, become truly independent, enhance security, obviate overhead wiring, limit new power plant demand and...!! green the world!

Energy independence is evolutionary.


The recent natural gas main explosion in California highlights the need to replace steel pipes under high pressure near populated areas. This can be done, the service will cost each user slightly more and shave a few cents off the dividend per share, but it is the right thing to do.

Most utils are public/private State or Municipal entities incorporated to produce profits and dividends. Presently they monopolize the electric energy markets - city dwellers and rural home owners have a single choice for electric power. Prudent business demonstrates the danger of single-source supplies.
As monopolies, utilities are subject to regulation—unlike the oil cartel.

It's worth looking at magnitude of change required to replace oil imports by various means. If the entire ground transportation system was converted to electricity, it would cut demand by ~12 million bbl/day and imports by perhaps 75%. The increase in electric demand would be approximately 40% over today's average (making conservative assumptions). To produce 12 million bbl/day of new crude would require an increase in domestic production of more than 200%. Electrification can get rid of oil imports, "drill baby drill" can't.


Good points EP. Sun energy over dessert lands, if fully captured during 6 hours, could supply the world with enough energy for a full year.

EU is drawing plans to capture 400,000+ megawatt of sun energy in the Sahara dessert and transport it across the Med Ocean with 10+ undersea facilities. A $10+B/year on-going clean energy project for EU would be reasonable. The cost, over 20-40 years implementation, could be as high as $400B. The other large desserts could do as much and more. It could be one of the easy way out for USA and China clean energy production.

Sun energy is fairly well distributed over the globe and it will be around for a few more billion years. Future converters efficiency will be higher and cost will come down. The world will never be short of energy as long as the sun shines.


It was estimated that a 100 mile by 100 mile area in Nevada could power the whole U.S. I calculated that it would cost more than $12 trillion, or the whole U.S. GDP but the fact is, it could be done.

This is the nature of going down one path for 100 years with no alternatives. The investment is made over the long haul and to make changes later in the game becomes more expensive. Let us hope we find the way to make more of the transitions that we require.

The comments to this entry are closed.