Specialty carrier of refined petroleum products in California switches to Neste MY Renewable Diesel
ACO, FIA introducing new hybrid top class for Le Mans for 2020-2024; hydrogen racers in 2024

Japan NEDO launches major $90M solid-state Li-ion battery project targeting EVs; 23 companies, 15 universities/research institutes

Japan’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) has launched the second phase of a major solid-state Li-ion battery project in a quest to achieve both high energy density and safety in batteries for electric vehicles. NEDO set a target date of fiscal 2022 for the core technologies; prior NEDO work in solid-state battery research primarily engaged materials makers.

The ¥10-billion (US$90-million) project, which involves 23 automobile, battery, and material manufacturers as well as 15 universities / public research institutes, will tackle technologies that are currently bottlenecks for mass production of solid-state Li-ion batteries (SSLIB) such as the solid electrolyte; electrolyte coating with active material, and the sheet formation of the electrolyte-electrode layer.

In addition, the project will develop simulation technology to predict the deterioration of all-solid LIB cells and battery packs, and test evaluation methods for durability and safety with international standardization.

The project ultimately aims to lower the battery pack cost to around ¥10,000/ kWh ($90/kWh) by around 2030—about one-third the cost for existing lithium-ion batteries. The research also targets a fast-charge time of 10 minutes, also around one-third of that needed for lithium-ion batteries.

Partners participating in this project include: Toyota Motor Corporation; Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.; Honda R & D Laboratories; Panasonic Corporation; GS Yuasa Corporation; Hitachi Automotive Systems Co., Ltd.; Maxell Corporation; Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Yamaha Mr. Motor Co., Ltd.; Asahi Kasei Corporation; JSR Corporation; Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd.; Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.; Toppan Printing Co., Ltd.; Toray Industries, Ltd.; Nippon Shokubai; Fujifilm Corporation; Mitsui Chemicals Corporation; Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation; Kuraray Co., Ltd.; Nissan Chemical Industries Ltd.; Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd.; Mitsui Mining and Smelting Co.; National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology; National Institute for Materials Science; National Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN); Osaka Industrial Technology Research Institute,; Kyushu University; Kyoto University; Gunma University; Tokyo Institute of Technology; Toyohashi University of Technology; Nagoya University; Hyogo University of Teacher Education; Hokkaido University; Osaka Prefecture University; Konan Gakuen; Japan Automobile Research Institute.



The cost figures are interesting.

They put the cost of current batteries, presumably at the pack level, at around 3 *$90KWh, or $270KWh, which accords well with academic research, and also the actual prices charged for, for instance, stationary storage.

It blows a king sized hole in the pumpers like Musk's fakery about $100KWh being imminent though, and sets crossover ex subsidy for long range BEVs against ICE back a decade or so.

Who knows more and is more honest about battery costs and prices, Panasonic, which is part of this consortium and actually builds the Tesla cells, or Tesla, who have fudged up innumerable figures and missed by a mile on all sorts of subjects?


The important take-away is that if these performance targets are met, battery electrics will be the most cost-competitive technology by far, validating Tesla’s daring strategy.

Whether Toyota, Nissan and Honda can create compelling cars that compete with Tesla’s successful mix of design, practicality and performance is an open question.

They have the technical chops, but do they have the vision?


This type of combined efforts is good news for future (2030) SS higher performance, lower cost batteries.

It is doubtful that $90M will be no where near enough, $900M would be a minimum?.

No doubt that current care makers in Japan have the experience, knowhow and vision required to do as well if not better than TESLA.


Minimal cover on Electric Car Insider on the 19 traction battery fires which Tesla has had.

Certainly no analysis of the fact that they are almost unique in this in the BEV and PHEV world amongst major Western manufacturers, with only a GM Volt catching fire 2 weeks AFTER a crash when improperly disposed of.

Renault - zero traction battery fires after crashes
Nissan - zero
GM - zero
BMW - zero

Tesla use batteries never designed for the purpose, using NCA which is very energy dense but volatile.

And two of them have burst into flames with no crash,

I am tolerant of car sites being unable to comprehend financial 10Q's, although the flannel merchant at Tesla would not have fooled me when I was six years old, but not of zero displayed knowledge of either the underlying battery technology, or the farcical management by panic manufacturing, throwing new hires at a line to somehow bash cars together by hand after the CEO completely screwed up automation.

That is a recipe for the appalling sub 1970's quality Tesla demonstrate.

Inside EVS along with other electronic rags are going to materially damage their readers, who are encouraged to buy these dustbins when even the survival of the company to service them is in question.

That is aside from the intermittently lethal Autopilot.

Tesla are not leading in battery technology.
They use an obsolete and dangerous format.

And their standard of build is sub Third World, whilst their financials are worthy of Enron.


Never miss a chance to be nasty, Davemart, or to moronically conflate Electric Car Insider and Inside EVs even though you’ve been told no less than six times here that there’s no relationship between the two publications. Perhaps, like Trump, you feel that if you repeat the lie often enough people will believe it.

As much as you bash Tesla, they’re now the leading seller of premium sedans. The market disagrees with your point of view.


Electric Car Insider:

Apologies for the conflation, I was not aware of your publication, and my remarks refer to Inside EVs.

I would be interested in whether you have addressed the unique problem Tesla have among BEV and PHEV manufacturers of bursting into flames?


The point is a combined effort can bring results. Solid electrolytes are SO important we can not wait for the "market" system to allocate funds.


Apology accepted, I appreciate the civility.

I haven’t written about Tesla fires, because we’re not an ambulance or fire truck chasing kind of publication. We don’t really do news at all, we do EV education, mostly for consumers, and recently some fleet topics.

As the owner of two Teslas, a Model S with 75,000 miles that’s been from border to border and coast to coast in the US, and a Model 3 that’s already racked up 7,500 miles in five months, naturally I’m personally interested in and concerned about any maintenance issues.

I’m less concerned about Tesla fires than gasoline fires. They seem to be much slower moving and less lethal.

All cars have mechanical issues. What impressed me about Tesla is that they have been incredibly good about any repairs, including out of warranty repairs, that have been needed.

I’m also impressed that they seem to turn around fixes, like the Consumer Reports identified braking issue for the Model 3, much faster than any other automaker (mere weeks in that case).

I was an auto technician as a first career, first British makes, then Japanese, then BMW and some Mercedes. Finished my career in a well-know exotics repair shop. I’ve seen the repair business from both sides of the counter. I’ve never seen better service or faster engineering fixes from any automaker.

Friday and Saturday I hosted an Electric Car Guest Drive in Orlando for two hundred people who were interested in learning more about and driving EVs. We had Tesla Model X, S, 3, BMW i3, Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt and Bolt, Mitsubishi Outlander, Toyota Prius Prime. All the top selling EVs. The week before, we did the same in Kansas City.

The Teslas were by far the most popular cars for drive requests, and people came away with the highest praise for the Teslas after the drives.

That’s not my own bias, that’s what several hundred people experienced and reported.

No one that I talked to was concerned about battery fires.


Blogs on the web should not try to overstate their supposed importance.


Renault - zero traction battery fires after crashes
Nissan - zero
GM - zero
BMW - zero
Tesla - 19
ICEVs - OVER 20,000 PER MONTH!!!!!!! Over 40 deaths per month !!! PER MONTH!!!! How/why would any civilized society tolerate these death machines?

Go for it. Defend or dismantle your on logic.



I am entirely unable to parse your statement.
Are you claiming 20,000 fire deaths per month in ICE cars, as you have written?

And then what is the 40 about, and what is your source?

Tesla typically grabs data from anywhere and misuses it to put themselves in a favourable light, so they compare their own large expensive executive saloons, which are also newish, with every old banger on the road.

Against their peer group of other large, newish executive saloons they don't do well for total fatalities.

But more to the point, the true peer group to see how well they do for fires in crashes is other BEV and PHEV cars.

And they are the only one who kills people in fires, or in fact burst into fire when they have a crash.

This is the result of lousy engineering using an unsuitable format, where despite the flannel the emphasis is wholly on acceleration, not safety.

Their abysmal QC does not help either, with ex Tesla employees confirming that batteries were being assembled by hand to poor standards.

Tesla uniquely kills by battery fires.


I didn’t realize reading comprehension would be such a challenge and given your fascination with auto fires I presumed you’d be vaguely familiar with those numbers. I’ll see if I can locate some EU numbers.

If try rereading that you might realize I never stated 20,000 deaths per month. I actually explicitly state otherwise but let me explicitly spell it out so as to not confuse you. The 20,000 per month refers to calls for ICEV fires to US fire departments. That was an average over a five year period per the NFPA. The 40 is deaths per month related to US ICEV fires also per the NFPA.

That actually was d data that I grabbed of the internet. Per the NFPA’s most recent report I could locate ICEV fires had dropped to a bit below 15,000 per month and deaths from ICEV fires were down to 37 per month in the US.

Per CNBC There have been 1-3 Tesla related fires each year world wide from 2013 though early May of 2018.

The message the available data seems to deliver is that if you suffer from pyrophobia you should definitely not even think about an ICEV. A BEV should be your first choice as long as it is not a Tesla.



Perhaps you should learn to write comprehensibly instead of in a capital letter heavy mess.

You threw out 20,000 a month with not hint of what or where you were talking about, let alone a source.


The hint was that it was preceded by your list of info. Sadly the contextual continuation was not enough for all. In the future i’ll Strive to be more inclusive.


On the list of “things to be afraid of,” Tesla fires seem to be very low on the rank sort. How many Tesla fire deaths have been documented where the occupants had not already expired due to blunt force trauma? (I recall reading about a car thief that came to a bad end. Seems like that case should be excluded as it included a 100+ mph joyride that terminated in a telephone pole and/ or building).

The relevant stat appears to be “miles traveled per fatality or serious injury” per make/model.

The comments to this entry are closed.