Fiat debuts first application of turbocharged 1.4-L MultiAir in 2012 Fiat 500 Abarth
Neste Oil’s renewable diesel passenger car trial completed in Germany; reductions in tailpipe and greenhouse gas emissions

Toshiba’s SCiB battery for the Fit EV

20Ah-SCiB_TMcell
20Ah SCiB cell. Click to enlarge.

Honda selected Toshiba Corporation’s SCiB rechargeable Li-ion battery to power the Fit EV. (Earlier post.) Toshiba will supply battery modules for the new car, which Honda will launch in summer 2012 in Japan and the US.

In 2010, Toshiba announced that it was working with Mitsubishi Motors Corporation to bring the SCiB battery (earlier post) to electric vehicles (EVs). (Earlier post.) Toshiba developed the SCiB module for the FIT EV with Honda; the module was supplied to Honda in December 2010 for evaluation in real-world verification testing of next-generation personal mobility products that the company conducted with Saitama and Kumamoto prefectures.

Honda selected the SCiB module for the FIT EV after a comprehensive evaluation program that tested the battery’s performance under diverse and demanding conditions.

The SCiB cells use lithium titanate oxide in the battery anode, enabling rapid charge times and a long battery life, with stable power discharge in a wide range of environments. In extremely cold conditions as low as -30°C the SCiB is less likely to experience lithium metal deposition, which enhances the risk of internal short circuiting and battery degradation, and at high temperature, even above 40°C, the impact on battery degradation is lower than in conventional lithium-ion batteries, according to Toshiba.

The characteristics of the SCiB battery cell enable longer range for electric vehicles; the SCiB is able to use a wider state of charge window than a conventional lithium-ion battery, and the SCiB also achieves efficient regenerative charging (using kinetic energy from braking and slowing down to charge the battery) that adds to performance.

The SCiB charges in about half the time of a typical Li-ion battery, Toshiba says. An SCiB 20Ah cell charged with an 80Ah current will reach 80% of capacity in 15 minutes and 95% in an additional 3 minutes. The SCiB generates little heat even during this fast recharging, eliminating the need for power to cool the battery module. Moreover, the full charge-discharge cycle for SCiB is 4,000 times, more than 2.5 times that of other Li-ion batteries. This long life could also contribute to the reuse of the battery.

Toshiba says that it will take full advantage of Honda’s selection of the SCiBT to promote its further application in electric vehicles. The company will also promote use of the battery in other areas, including as a stationary power storage device in smart grids.

Comments

Reel$$

Dave - I would be surprised if LG does not move to Li-titanate chemistry before long. Or GM might acquire AltairNano - which has pioneered the chemistry in large format batteries.

In any case, the Volt 2013 model will be quite different from the current offering. Smaller, more energy dense battery pack and perhaps even a smaller genset. However, driving the current Volt is an absolute pleasure. A BRILLIANT piece of engineering by one of the best technical team in the world. Green Car of the Year.

HealthyBreeze

I like the economics of an 80-100 BEV for 95% of the miles put on most cars. This does presume people can charge at home and or at work, and that people on extended trips don't mind the 18-minute partial recharges every hour or so.

If the car drive train truly lasts 400,000 miles, then people may occasionaly swap out body panels for variety.

Roger Pham

@DaveR,
Yes, the near-future economical and affordable 30-mi-AER PHEV could well be the Volt II, with a 1.4-liter Atkinson-cycle engine and no more than 8kWh of SCiB battery that should be able to cruise at hwy speed at above 50 mpg, with seating for 5 and adequate trunk space. The use of Atkinson-cycle engine can boost the Volt's 40 mpg hwy to 50 mpg hwy.
That could also be the PHEV Prius Gen 4, with perhaps solid state Lithium battery pack of 8-10 kWh but the battery is so compact and light that luggage space is equal to non-hybrids, and so low in operating cost that few people would even consider cheaper conventional non-hybrid petrol cars.

Bob Wallace

I don't see the PHEV as having a long future, except perhaps for larger vehicles which have to haul/tow large loads to places where rapid charging might be hard to find.

For personal vehicles something at/above 150 miles range will be enough. (I have been saying 200 miles, but the Toshiba SCiB will apparently take a 95% recharge in 18 minutes.)

150 miles and 20 minute charging let's you drive 430 miles with two short stops. Another 20 minutes of charging will let one drive 570 miles in one day. I doubt very many people would find the need to stop two or three times in a long driving day very troublesome. Few of us drive cross-continent often.

There probably are some people who drive lots of miles very frequently, but they are likely to be the last buyers of ICEVs and PHEVs. When affordable range exceeds 200 miles then I suspect even they will switch over.

Internal combustion engines are unlikely to get cheaper to manufacture. They will continue to need cooling and exhaust systems. Batteries are likely to drop in price as well as increase in capacity. I suspect we're working our way to the threshold at which we turn our back on the ICE.

And electricity is likely to get cheaper while gas gets more expensive.


At ~150 mile range one can put in a long day of driving.

Roger Pham

@Bob,
No one can really predict long into the future!
With new battery having 4000-5000 cycle life, a BEV really carries way more battery's potential than necessary. If you charge your BEV once a week, you only charge it 50 times a year, 500 times in 10 years and 5000 times in a 100 years! At a calendar life of 10 to 15 years, all these cycling capability will be lost. Unless the BEV owner wants to participate in V2G to recuperate the extra cost of the large battery pack, then you'll be caught with a BEV having only 1/2 of its maximum range on board. Quick charging of BEV won't be as easy as you think, requiring a lots of Amps, hence putting a severe strain on the Grid and hence at great cost!

In a PHEV having 1/5th the battery capacity of an adequate BEV (3-mi AER vs. 150-mi range), your battery will last the life of the car and no more...a better deal. ICE will cost only a few thousand dollars, especially the minimum-sized ICE for an efficiency-optimized PHEV. When a lot of winter heat is needed, a 150-mi-range BEV may get stranded...caught in a snow storm and having to wait for hours for rescue, which one would you like to be driving? a 150-mi range BEV with about 30 kWh of energy on board? or a PHEV with about 330 kWh of energy on board? After a snow storm,or natural disaster with power outage, which vehicle would you rather own? A BEV with 30 kWh of energy, or a PHEV with 330 kWh of energy with a plug-out that can power your house for up to a week's time and even get you to work, while other will get stranded when their BEV's will be out of juice?
I will definitely choose a PHEV over a BEV, regardless of cost different for the above advantages of the PHEV!

Time will tell. All good news ahead, either ways.

Roger Pham

Correction to above : shoud read "(30-mi AER vs. 150-mi range)

MG

@Roger, agree fully that a PHEV version with a small ICE would be more convenient (and probably appealing) to more people than pure BEVs, especially to those living in areas with winters, and to those whom it's the only car. Also to those who may not always have access to charger. It may be like that, even when batteries with much higher energy density become available, it would be like a sort of insurance, as today many people buy gasoline power generators, just in case, everyone wants a car to be usable in all weather conditions.
Another reason for PHEV-s with short AER is that they can use cheaper batteries with higher self discharge rates (even 10%/day is acceptable, if charged in the night for the morning drive).

Resale value (in %) of PHEVs with smaller battery pack could be higher than of those with bigger pack, (or BEVs) - if batts fail, new owner will have to pay say 2-3 k$ for a 6 kWh pack, while 16+ kWh would cost several times that amount.

I think that it doesn't make much sense for Toyota to build non-PHEV Prius, once they build sufficient production capacity for PHEVs, which according to available specs, only differs by battery size, e-motors and engine appear the same. PHEV Prius will probably bring higher profit margin.
The common type of hybrid used in new Hyundai Elantra hybrid (e-motor between ICE and multi-speed transmission, with clutches on both sides of e-motor) seems (to me) cheaper to build than Prius, and in terms of fuel efficiency it's close to Prius (still needs some polishing, but it's just the first model-year for Hyundai).
So for non-PHEV vehicles there is no need for complex Prius-type hybrid. Actually chief designer of Elantra hybrid said that, at the time of Prius design, the clutch control technology was not up to task to enable the type of hybrid architecture used in current Hyundai/Kia hybrids, and that was the reason Toyota used the non-clutch based HSD system.
I'm not 100% sure about component costs, just a guess.

PHEVs with twice battery pack, that allows for trip to work (morning), and back home (afternoon), won't mean twice the fuel savings (compared to PHEVs that have AER just to drive to work), as mornings are usually much colder, ICEs are often 10+% less efficient than in afternoon. Electric drives should be less affected, unless it's below freezing. Depends on battery technology. This factor should increase the value of short AER PHEVs over non-PHEV versions.

MG

@Roger, agree fully that a PHEV version with a small ICE would be more convenient (and probably appealing) to more people than pure BEVs, especially to those living in areas with winters, and to those whom it's the only car. Also to those who may not always have access to charger. It may be like that, even when batteries with much higher energy density become available, it would be like a sort of insurance, as today many people buy gasoline power generators, just in case, everyone wants a car to be usable in all weather conditions.
Another reason for PHEV-s with short AER is that they can use cheaper batteries with higher self discharge rates (even 10%/day is acceptable, if charged in the night for the morning drive).

Resale value (in %) of PHEVs with smaller battery pack could be higher than of those with bigger pack, (or BEVs) - if batts fail, new owner will have to pay say 2-3 k$ for a 6 kWh pack, while 16+ kWh would cost several times that amount.

PHEVs with twice battery pack, that allows for trip to work (morning), and back home (afternoon), won't mean twice the fuel savings (compared to PHEVs that have AER just to drive to work), as mornings are usually much colder, ICEs are often 10+% less efficient than in afternoon. Electric drives should be less affected, unless it's below freezing. Depends on battery technology. This factor should increase the value of short AER PHEVs over non-PHEV versions.

Davemart

Lithium titanate batteries are not going to take over the universe as they are not energy dense enough.
Toshiba has hit 100Wh/kg with these at the cell level, about the same as the current generation Leaf and Volt, and hope to get to 150Wh/kg.
NMC batteries though can hit much higher densities, around 250/300Wh kg, and people like Nissan are looking at those.
Although they do not currently have the extraordinary cycle life of lithium titanate, they are around 2-4 times as good as manganese spinel, with 1,000 to 2,000 cycles possible.
A big pack cycles less often, so a 200 mile 50kwh pack doing 12,000 a year and getting 1,500 cycles might hit around 300,000 miles or 25 years, and the car companies will not be interested in providing more than that.
That calculation ignores the fact that if you use your old car and battery pack after your 25 years for local running around you would not need the 80% of 200 miles, and might be perfectly happy with 100 miles instead of 160 miles.
Calender life permitting, cycle life should not be an issue.

Bob Wallace

Ample cycle life would make ones EV a good candidate for V2G use. The money earned by letting the utility company rent some capacity could make owning an EV even sweeter.

Battery/car prices are almost certain to decrease.

Cents per mile prices are already great and likely to improve with TOU charging and more wind generation on the grid.

Add in some rental income from the grid manager and driving a car could get cheap.

--

There's another answer to the ICE. Build EVs with a good 'normal range', somewhere above 100 miles. And make it possible to snap in an extra battery for long highway trips. Driving Seattle to LA? Pick up an extra 150 mile battery when you get to I5.

Rapid charge a few times during the ~1,100 mile trip. Three hundred miles of range (Tesla Model S offers it) would let you get there with about three charge stops.

Drop off the extra battery when you get to LA. You don't have to own a full 300 mile set of batteries. You don't have to carry all that extra weight around during your normal driving.


Reel$$

Bob, that scenario might be the way for A Better Place to go. IF the add-on was quick and easy and did not greatly inhibit trunk/passenger space.

These all appear to be short term solutions to a storage issue bound to disappear in 20 years. If we want it to.

Engineer-Poet

Bob, if you can manage to get political buy-in on something like Hanazawa's "power from the road" system, the 20-mile PHEV becomes a 100% EV whenever it's on such a road.

The other facet of that is that Hanazawa's scheme essentially puts guidance "tracks" in the roadway (the capacitive plates). This allows a car to track the lane perfectly without fancy stuff like Google's camera-driven car. Use a radar cruise control and a GPS (or "bar codes" in the road electrodes to encode mile markers!) and the car can drive itself for much of a commute.

It wouldn't matter if it saved gas or not; people would kill to have such cars, the reduced stress and annoyance would be so great.

SJC

Having the car deal with stop and go driving on LA freeways under computer control would be desirable to many.

kelly

This battery has been sold on a schwinn ebike for over 3 years.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/09/toshiba-scib-li.html

From the positive comments, one would assume everyone already has such a praised item at $3,000 with the 10ah x 24v, 240w SCiB battery pack.

Reel$$

Even without the induction power piece, adding some RFID tech to California's lane reflectors (between lane paint) could accomplish the same task. Since the reflectors are solid objects embedded in the roadway and RFID requires no optics, this lowers cost and maintenance. Add vehicle sonar for front/rear spacing.

Cars equipped with appropriate signal processing can switch to "autopilot mode" - others continue under driver control.

I wouldn't kill for this, but I might shell out extra coin for reduced stress and reading time.

Bob Wallace

E-P - that would seem to be a lot of infrastructure.

A big breakthrough in battery capacity could make all that buried inductance obsolete in only months.

Harold Kung's group at McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science claims a lithium-ion with 10x the capacity and 10x faster charging. If they are only half right it's pretty much game over. We could have very fast charging 200 mile EVs with battery packs which would be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111114142047.htm

--

BTW there's an EV bus going into operation at U Utah which is going to be inductive charged, will hover for 45 seconds over charge pads (I would assume at regular bus stops) and supposedly loses only 2% electricity with a 10" gap between sender and receiver.

If they've got it down to 2% that's a sweet improvement. With an EV you could pull off the highway and park over a pad, get charged up and be on your way post pee break.

Bob Wallace

Reel - Google has already put 190,000+ miles of 'hand-free- driving in using existing road cues.

They have had two "accidents". One of their cars got rear-ended while stopped at a red light. Another suffered a fender-bender while being operator driven in a parking lot. ;o)

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/how-google-self-driving-car-works?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrum+%28IEEE+Spectrum%29

BMW also has a self-driving car in the works.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/news/565147/bmw-continues-work-on-the-ultimate-self-driving-machine--the-takeover-is-near!/

Engineer-Poet
E-P - that would seem to be a lot of infrastructure.

A big breakthrough in battery capacity could make all that buried inductance obsolete in only months.

Hanazawa's system is capacitive, not inductive. All you need is a stripe or a pair of stripes of conductor in the pavement. This could be laid down in asphalt roadways in one operation by a specialized machine; you could do a major metropolitan area's HOV lanes in a few months, working nights and weekends. Then you can do major surface roads.

A battery breakthrough would be nice, but we'd be fools to bet on it. Even if it did happen, instead of using it to make some 200 mile EVs we could turn everything into a 20-mile PHEV overnight, perhaps with retrofit in-wheel motors on existing ICEVs. Eliminating much of the fuel demand from the existing fleet would transform the US economy overnight.

As for what you'd do to get the electricity, there are lots of places on current freeways where you could put gas turbines to supply local peak demand. At 15 kW per vehicle plus losses, a 100 MW turbine could power 5000+ vehicles (more at traffic-jam speeds and power demand).

Bob Wallace

Even a pair of stripes of conductors is thousands and thousands of miles of conductors. In 4, 6, 8 lanes.

At this point I think smart money would bet on enough battery improvement to give us 200 miles of range in the next few years. The Fit gets us to 120, the e6 to 200 and the Model S to 300. It's mostly about battery price.

Efficiency will lower the power needed (new steel drops vehicle weight 10%) so we're going to work on range from two directions. Improved battery capacity also reduces weight.

Toshiba seems to have the recharge problem solved. 95% in less than 20 minutes. And they seem to have solved the battery life problem.

I'd love to see data on how many driving days exceed 200 miles. I'd be surprised if even 10% of all drivers have more than a handful of >200 mile days a year.

I'm not sure I follow your 'instant PHEV' idea. You'd replace the two non-driven wheels with in-hubs and install a battery? I suppose you would end up with a crude PHEV in which at some point the battery would run low and the driver would start using the ICE system to power the other two wheels. It might make more sense to produce a conversion kit for all popular models of ICEVs and turn them into BEVs.

Reel$$

Like most mass adopted technology, these automated control systems need to be affordable. The Google sensor package is complex and undoubtedly expensive. Same with BMW. I'd be very interested to see how either performs in visual cue-limiting weather, snow, heavy rain, and at night. But a fun direction never-the-less.

DaveD

EP,

I don't see it on the infrastructure side. We can't even pay to fix potholes and repair bridges that are on the verge of collapse. Some states have as much as 25% of their bridges rated as unsafe or dangerous and they can't do anything about it.
I just don't see us putting charging of ANY type in roads on a grand scale. I sure don't see if it the majority of cars are not already EVs. And I don't see the majority of cars becoming EVs without much better batteries...which would get rid of the need for the road charging infrastructure.
IMO, that's an even bigger chicken and egg problem than trying to build out an H2 infrastructure.

HarveyD

Practical extended range steel BEVs will need about 100 Kwh to 140 Kwh battery to go 500 Km to 700 Km without recharge. At the current development state, that could mean a battery pack of 500 Kg to 700 Kg costing about $33.3K to $46.6K.

Extended range BEVs cannot be currently mass produced because of very high cost and too much weight. Three elements have to be changed before they become a common reality.

1. Lower vehicle and batteries weight.
2. Much higher (5X to 10X) battery energy density.
3. Much lower batteries cost ($100/Kwh instead of $350+/Kwh)

Half of the required changes will probably be done by 2020 and the other half by 2030.

That being said, till the end of the current decade, users will have to use ICEVs or HEVs or PHEVs for long trips and BEVs for much shorter trips. After 2020, long range BEVs will progressively become available and affordable.

By 2030 and thereafter, forget about ICEVs, HEVs, PHEVs and in road charging systems. Fixed, high capacity, wireless, public quick chargers will do the job.

Engineer-Poet
We can't even pay to fix potholes and repair bridges that are on the verge of collapse.
I drove through quite a bit of freeway construction this year, so at least some work is getting done.

You make a good point about budgets, but you ignore the ROI on the electric systems. Suppose that the road-powered EV (RPEV) costs 6¢/mi, all taxes included. A 30 MPG car burning $3.50/gallon gas costs almost 12¢/mi, which rises to 15¢/mi at $4.50/gallon. Even a 50 MPG Prius costs 7¢/mi at $3.50 and 9¢/mi at $4.50.

Suppose for a moment that road electrification can shift 20% of US miles driven (600 billion mi/yr, give or take) to electric in 5 years, and the reduced demand holds gasoline prices to $3.50/gallon instead of rising to $4.50. The annual savings exceed $50 billion on the all-electric miles at year 5 and the savings on the remaining ~110 billion gallons/yr of fuel saves a further $110 billion. $160 billion buys a LOT of road work.

I sure don't see if it the majority of cars are not already EVs.
The majority of cars out there are FWD. The rear wheels and brakes might be replaced with in-wheel motors, allowing electric assist even without a battery. The vehicle CAN bus already carries info like throttle setting, so integration isn't that big of a deal.
I don't see the majority of cars becoming EVs without much better batteries
They wouldn't be, they'd be PHEVs like the Volt. But if you can cut the Volt battery from 16 kWh to 4 kWh while taking the AER from 35 miles to infinite, the reduced battery weight, bulk and cost allows PHEV to be introduced as an option on almost all car models instead of needing a clean-sheet design. You could even throw a battery in the trunk and replace rear drum brakes with in-wheel motors on the existing fleet. Do you realize that GM's BAS II motor, at 11 kW, has nearly the power to push a car at highway speeds on level ground? This is closer to production than you think.
much better batteries...which would get rid of the need for the road charging infrastructure.
Indeed they would... IF we get good enough ones soon enough. We need a backup plan. We can always cancel it if it isn't needed, but after the fiasco of the PNGV cancellation do I need to lay out where we'll be if we need it and don't have it?

Roger Pham

"By 2030 and thereafter, forget about ICEVs, HEVs, PHEVs and in road charging systems. Fixed, high capacity, wireless, public quick chargers will do the job."
Good luck for someone with a cardiac pacemaker or other implanted bioelectronic devices or metallic prosthetic devices coming close to the super-powerful and highly fluctuating magnetic field strength that is required for wireless quick chargers! You'll likely get heart-stopping shocked, zapped, and knocked down or heated up big-time!!! The massive power demand for quick BEV charging will require high-voltage line connection to the charging station, with huge step-down transformers, definitely not any cheaper than an automated and simple H2 refill station.

Why not just get a H2-FCV and fill it up in a few minutes for >300-mile range?

HarveyD

RP...for H2-FCVs to become practical, you will need:

1. Much lower cost (1/50) FCs.
2. FCs with longer life (5x?)
3. Access to H2 everywhere ($$$$$$$B)

All three are possible given enough time and $$$.

What would work best, BEVs with future more (10X) efficient 100 Kwh quick charge battery pack (rechargeable in the home garage with level II charger every second/third night or so or/ at Level IV public quick charge stations) or/// FCVs with equivalent 500+ Km range with refilling at public stations (if and where available)?

Both technologies could work and progressively replace todays's ICEV.

Personally, I think various size/range BEVs will win for future lighter cars. FCs may work better for heavy duty cargo trucks and long range buses?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)