Dow Energy Materials showcases current Li-ion cathode, anode and electrolyte systems at EVS26; layered-layered NMC cathode and Si anode materials under development
08 May 2012
|
|
| Dow coated NMC cathode materials. Click to enlarge. |
Dow Energy Materials (DEM), a business unit of The Dow Chemical Company formed in 2010 to focus on the development of advanced battery systems (cathode, anode, electrolyte) presented a poster on its current coated graphite anode and coated NMC cathode and a second poster on its high voltage ethylmethoxyethyl sulfone electrolyte at the 26th International Electric Vehicle Symposium (EVS26) in Los Angeles.
In addition to the NMC cathode materials, DEM is also providing phosphate cathode materials, said David Kalnecky, Global Business Director, Dow Energy Materials.
Dow Energy Materials uses a proprietary coating process for their anode and cathode materials that, when used in combination, provide greater lifetime (up to 2x over conventional uncoated systems), higher energy density, improved safety and a faster charging rate. Through Dow Energy Materials’ joint venture with Ube Industries, Advanced Electrolyte Technologies, the company offers functional electrolytes. (Earlier post.)
Next-generation. The coated NMC and graphite materials are current products—what DEM calls Horizon 1, said Dr. Alan Nelson, DEM R&D Director. For Horizon 2 products, DEM is working on layered-layered NMC cathode materials as well as silicon-based anodes. DEM is not a direct licensee of the Argonne National Laboratory layered-layered materials, noted Klanecky, but can work with cell manufacturers who are. In addition, DEM has its own research efforts ongoing. On the silicon anode side, DEM is exploring a variety of approaches, Nelson said, but is not yet ready to announce.
DEM expects to deliver these next-generation materials with cathode capacities in the range of 280 - 300 mAh g-1 and anode capacities in the range of 1,000 - 1,500 mAh g-1, Nelson and Klanecky said.
Much further out (Horizon 3) are efforts on Lithium-air batteries and other potential chemistries.
One-third of the cost of an electric vehicle is the battery itself. We are focused on developing technologies that provide higher performance while reducing battery cell cost, and ultimately the cost of EVs.
—David Klanecky
DEM is distinct from Dow’s battery manufacturing JV Dow Kokam; DEM will supply materials to any battery manufacturer.
These studies about lithium-ion battery are obsolete and going nowhere. They never discovered something sensible since years and years while hydrogen fuelcells are ready and proven and already in good use in many warehouse in forklift where it cut the cost of forklift operation by 50% with improved productivity. Please begin fuelcell cars and trucks commercialisation now and stop these subsidies madness toward proven failed batteries.
Posted by: A D | 08 May 2012 at 08:29 AM
Do we need a worldwide survey to establish what people really prefer by 2020 or 2030?
1) Improved lighter EVs with (4X to 10X) improved performance and lower (1/4 to 1/10) cost quick wireless charging batteries using existing worldwide electric networks.
2) Lower (1/4 to 1/10) lower cost, extended range FC cars plus worldwide very expensive new infrastructure for hydrogen.
I give one vote to No. 1).
Posted by: HarveyD | 08 May 2012 at 08:53 AM
HarveyD,
You can't take AD/gorr to seriously on these things. He thinks that hydrogen is free and sitting around everywhere for us to use and we're all ignoring it because of a conspiracy...all of us. I guess the evil "they" brainwashed us???
He also fails to discuss that fact that you can't buy a usable fuel cell for less than $100k...which makes it kind of hard to fit in a $20-$30k car :-)
And he always ignores any responses or questions when you ask him to address these issues.
Posted by: DaveD | 08 May 2012 at 09:16 AM
Thanks, DaveD.
If "..a proprietary coating process for their anode and cathode materials that, when used in combination, provide greater lifetime (up to 2x over conventional uncoated systems), higher energy density, improved safety and a faster charging rate." can economically double present Li-ion battery lifetime, besides improve energy density, it's a winner.
Posted by: kelly | 08 May 2012 at 10:18 AM
H2 is free for the taking in Jupiter..
Posted by: Herm | 08 May 2012 at 10:18 AM
They mentioned Si in the title, but don't really talk about it in the story. If they have a coating that improves the cycleability of a Si anode that would be awesome. Presumably that is the 1,200-1,500 mAh/g anode material, which is not unreasonable, it's just that cycle life is the typical issue for these and it's known that SEI is the primary problem. So again, if they have a coating that fixes the Si anodes that would be great.
Posted by: Brotherkenny4 | 08 May 2012 at 10:32 AM
This sounds like Dow BS to me. Horizon 1 is coated NMC which will be at most 150 mAH/gram at 2C. The leap of faith from 150 mAH/gram to 280-300 mAH/gram is a long one. Companies like BASF and Toda have been working on layered-layered NMC cathode for years. Even Argonne National Lab has not solved issues surround layered-layered NMC cathode. As for Si-anode it sounds like a copy cat announcement from recent anode announcements by Sinetsu and Envia. So my read is Horizon 1 is not competitive, Horizon 2 is fiction and Horizon 3 is fantasy. They also say one-third of electric vehicle is the battery itself. The important part is 80% of the electric vehicle battery are active materials. That's the part that needs advancement not the battery itself. BASF will eat your lunch Dow - one bite at a time.
Posted by: Avadyo | 08 May 2012 at 12:48 PM
It seems to be too early to be making battery powered cars. Perhaps when Li-air gets here they will be viable. As for fuel cells and hydrogen, the fact that so many large car makers are working on it gives me hope that they see a way to make it work. If I were to gamble on one vs the other I'd put my money on fuel cells instead of batteries. What would be a great stop-gap is if they could figure out how to make hydrogen from gas at the gas station. That would give us time to put together a hydrogen infrastructure.
Posted by: Joseph Wilder | 08 May 2012 at 04:25 PM
For at least the 38+ years since the 1973 OPEC embargo, our leaders and energy policies have failed.
The world constantly lies under threat of doubled oil/transportation costs every and any given month.
Yet no one seems to understand the value of having a stable electric vehicle alternative to oil for getting to work and getting things done.
If one can't do their necessarily local travel, whining about about EVs not driving 500 miles daily on annual vacation means VERY little.
Posted by: kelly | 08 May 2012 at 05:01 PM
"As for fuel cells and hydrogen, the fact that so many large car makers are working on it gives me hope that they see a way to make it work. If I were to gamble on one vs the other I'd put my money on fuel cells instead of batteries. "
That's funny since more large car makers are working, and actually selling or are soon to sell, much more affordable EV's. And you want to put your money on fuel cells instead, which by your own initial criteria makes no sense at all.
Posted by: JRP3 | 08 May 2012 at 06:10 PM
Kelly is hitting the main issue slowing down EV adoption right now: the mistaken belief that an EV has to have a 500 mile range because someone might want to drive that far once a year.
I think the tipping point will come when there are EVs which truly hit 150 miles of range in every-day driving and can recharge in ~20 minutes.
Imagine a nice looking car like a Focus or Fit (something that is actually popular for it's looks), a 150 mile range, recharge in 20 minutes and a $28k price tag while gas is $5-$6 a gallon. I think that car would sell like hotcakes.
Posted by: DaveD | 08 May 2012 at 10:39 PM
"It seems to be too early to be making battery powered cars."
Not really. If we could bring the price down to only a few thousand more than a comparable ICEV then current EVs would be a great 'second car' in multi-car households. And some single car households.
There must be a very large percentage of households who have one (or a couple) cars that never travel more than 100 miles per day. I'd guess at least 50% of multi-car households fall into that group.
Think about the household that has two cars. One person has a longer, say 60 mile RT, commute and one a shorter daily drive. Use the EV for that longer daily and save a lot of fuel/maintenance money. Use an ICEV for the short drives and when someone needs to exceed the EV range.
Switching even half of our personal vehicles to electricity would do wonders for both our economy and environment. We could cut our imported oil by a very significant amount were we to do 75% of our driving with electricity.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 09 May 2012 at 11:45 AM
Good observations BW. Many near term EVs will have enough range to do exactly what you mentioned but the purchase price is still a bit high. However, by 2015 that very tipping point will be reached.
Yes, an affordable (smaller) EV with a solid 100 miles range plus a Camry or Ford Fusion HEV would be an effective combination.
Posted by: HarveyD | 09 May 2012 at 02:15 PM
BW...the new Tesla S will do 320 miles instead of 300 with its 85 KW battery pack. By 2015 or so it will easily do 400+ miles between charges with improved batteries.
Posted by: HarveyD | 10 May 2012 at 08:19 AM
"Yes, an affordable (smaller) EV with a solid 100 miles range plus a Camry or Ford Fusion HEV would be an effective combination."
A Lexus (for those who wish to step out in fashion from time to time) or a big-assed SUV (for those who want to haul a boat to water some weekends) would also be good combinations.
As long as we use the least efficient vehicles for the normal short range trips we can keep some inefficient vehicles on the road.
Manufacturers are finding ways to make ICEs more efficient. If we could move the majority of our driving to electricity and make the remaining "25%" twice as efficient I suspect we'd be fine. Our oil use would be 80% to 90% less than it now is, something we can furnish with in-country oil. Our greenhouse gas emissions would be tolerable.
--
A 300 to 400 mile range is valuable in the same way that the exceptional speed of the Tesla Roadster was valuable. Both destroy the myth that EVs have to be glorified golf carts that can't travel very far.
In reality, a 300 to 400 mile range is not needed. Somewhere around 175 miles is plenty for almost everyone.
The extra range increases cost and cuts miles/kWh.
If we get really cheap, lightweight batteries then, sure, build with high range. Even if it gets used only a couple times a year.
If IBM pulls off a miracle and produces a cheap air-zinc battery that has the energy density of gasoline, then all bets are off. Affordable EVs with hundreds of miles of range - bring them on!
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 12 May 2012 at 10:08 AM