|
|
 |
|
EV World Open Access Article |
The latest generation of the Kewet Buddy 3-passenger electric car produced in Norway offers emission-free mobility in urban environments where it's classified as a quadracycle by the goverment. Its range is 50-60km using common lead-acid batteries and 150km using lithium-ion. |
Advanced Auto Battery Progress Report
Transcript of Dr. Menachem Anderman's testimony before U.S. Senate Energy Committee, January 30, 2007
By Menachem Anderman
Open Access Article Originally Published: February 02, 2007
Introduction
My name is Menahem Anderman; I have worked in the
battery industry for 24 years, with both technology and business management
responsibilities. I am the president of Advanced Automotive Batteries, a firm
that provides consulting services in the area of energy-storage technology for
advanced vehicles. Our activities include—among others—publishing multi-client
industry and technology assessment reports, and organizing what is widely
regarded as the foremost annual conference in this industry. I was invited by
this committee's honorable chairman to brief the committee about the status of
battery technology for hybrid electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles, and am very appreciative of this opportunity.
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) are
propelled by combining mechanical power from an internal-combustion engine with
electrical power from a battery. Fifteen hybrid car models offered in several
vehicle classes are now available in dealerships across the United States,
Europe, and Asia. Sales of no less than 350,000 new hybrid electric cars,
representing over 0.7% of the total new car1 production in the world, were
reported in 2006, 60% of which were in the U.S. market, accounting for 1.3% of
total car sales. Coverage of the hybrid-vehicle technology by the media has
increased substantially, and the average Japanese and North American consumer is
now well aware of this new breed of vehicle. The technological and commercial
success of the 2004 model year Prius—the third generation of this flagship
hybrid—combined with the steep rise in oil prices during 2005/2006, the growing
concerns about a diminishing world energy supply, and the increased awareness of
the relevance of CO2 emissions from vehicles to the potential for global warming
have all intensified the automotive industry's efforts to develop and introduce
hybrid electric cars.
As the realization spreads that fuel-cell vehicles are unlikely to enter mass
production within the next twenty years or more, and the pressure to reduce
vehicle emissions and fuel consumption continues to rise, hybrid electric
vehicles seem to offer a timely solution that is both technically proven and
economically viable (or almost viable). However, other technologies with some
environmental benefits, including ultra-efficient IC engines, clean turbo-diesel
engines, ethanol-fueled IC engines, and advanced hydrocarbon fuel technologies,
are also evolving. In most cases, these alternative technologies are less
expensive and appear less risky to the automakers, which explains their interest
in pursuing them in parallel to, or instead of, the hybrid approach. However, in
the competitive race to improve drivability, comfort, and safety, while reducing
fuel consumption and emissions, automotive engineers are discovering that many
of the prospective solutions to these problems will require increased electrical
power, which reinforces the desirability of at least some level of vehicular
hybridization.
Hybrid cars today cover a range of technologies, each characterized broadly
by the extent to which electrical power is used for propulsion in the vehicle.
At one end of the spectrum is the 'micro-hybrid', a car that features a
“beefed-up” starter, in which fuel is saved during vehicle idle stop, and
mechanical energy is captured during braking. At the other end of the
range—which also includes mild, moderate, and strong hybrids—is the 'plug-in
hybrid', in which a 40- to 100-kW electric motor is capable of propelling the
car on its own for, say, 5 to 50 miles, and supplements the power of the
internal combustion engine in most acceleration events. To date the most
successful hybrids on the market are the strong (sometimes referred to as
'full') hybrids. These vehicles employ a 30 to 70-kW electric motor that is
engaged frequently during the drive cycle and is powered by an advanced
high-power battery, which is charged on board by the IC Engine and by the
kinetic energy captured during deceleration and braking of the vehicle.
The debate over the 'right' level of hybridization has recently intensified.
While many automakers are searching for a reduced—although measurably
beneficial—level of hybridization (to cut the high incremental cost of the
hybrid powertrain), governments, many utility companies, and environmental
groups, frequently supported by the media, are pointing in exactly the opposite
direction, favoring the introduction of plug-in hybrids that will offer
significantly reduced fuel consumption, pollutants, and CO2 emissions, but with
a large price tag and other drawbacks.
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Batteries
Central to the discussion
regarding the relative merits of the various hybrids is the big box that stores
the energy to propel the electric motor—the battery. It is evident that the
battery is a key to achieving (or failing to achieve) technical and commercial
success with any of the various hybrid architectures. In fact, the battery is
responsible for 25 - 75% of the increased weight, volume, and cost associated
with the various hybrid configurations. Even more critical are battery life,
reliability, and behavior under abuse as they present the largest threat to the
commercial success of hybrid technology.
Batteries store electrical energy, which is measured in kWh. Today's mild,
moderate, and strong ('full') hybrids on the market utilize batteries with rated
capacities of 0.6 to 2 kWh. In general mild hybrids require smaller batteries
than do strong hybrids. The rated energy capacity of the battery is dictated by
the battery's level of usage (the duty profile), and includes a significant
margin for life, to meet the 10-year minimum life requirement of the automotive
market. In today's hybrid batteries, only about 10% of the rated battery
capacity is used frequently, and up to an additional 30% is accessed under
extreme driving conditions. The remaining capacity is in place to ensure
adequate service life.
Currently, essentially all hybrids with moderate to significant powertrain
hybridization employ a NiMH battery as the main electrical-energy storage
device. NiMH batteries are a reliable power source for hybrid cars; their
manufacturing base is expanding, and field results suggest long life. However,
NiMH batteries are not an ideal energy-storage device for hybrid cars. Their
limitations include moderate energy conversion efficiency, which translates to
some energy loss and significant heat production in normal usage, reduced life
with high depth-of-discharge (DOD) cycling, and unsatisfactory performance at
high and low temperatures. NiMH battery packs for HEVs are priced at $900 to
$1500 per kWh, which brings the price of today's pack to between $600 and $3,000
per vehicle. The 2006 NiMH battery market for HEVs is estimated at $600 million.
Although NiMH is currently the most economical (and only proven) power source
for the application, it has limited potential for cost reduction as production
volume further increases, particularly in light of recent substantially higher
nickel prices—nickel, in several metallic forms and compounds, being the
battery's main component.
Lithium-ion batteries offer higher power and energy per unit weight and
volume, and better charge efficiency than NiMH batteries. Thus, if they can
maintain performance over life, smaller and lighter batteries can be used in
given applications. These attributes allowed them to capture a major part of the
portable rechargeable battery market—which requires a battery life of only 2 to
3 years—within a few years of their introduction, and to generate global sales
estimated at $5 billion in 2006. Nevertheless, the reliability of lithium-ion
technology for automotive applications is not proven—unfriendly failure modes,
for example, are a concern—and its current cost is higher than that of NiMH.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 23072 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
9 comments so far...
09-Jul-2008
62634
| |
I noticed that the Toyota Rav4 EV was not mentioned. The Rav4 EV utilized NIMH bateries supplied by Panasonic. These vehicles, if manufactured today with our $4.139 per gallon gasoline, would sell out as fast as they could be produced. Too bad no one seems to care that Texaco / Chevron pulled the NIMH battery off the BEV market. Maybe Texaco / Chevron are waiting for the $300,000,000 US government prize contest before they let the HIMH battery back into BEV production.
Posted by: Robert Kapp
|
|
05-Feb-2007
47513
| |
Given the assumption, perhaps too optimistic, that it would cost an additional $5,000 to get a 10kw battery to let one drive 20 miles (at low speed) on electricty. And, let's assume we are talking about a Prius, which is enabled to get 100 mpg on average versus 50mpg. At $2.50 per gallon, the gasoline cost per mile would be $.025 vs $.05. At 12,000 miles per year, this would save $300. However, if half of those miles were fueled by electricity, the electricity costs for the year would be $.032 times 6,000 or $192. This assumes a relatively cheap electricityh cost of $.08 per kwhr, which I believe is far cheaper than the costs in California, for example. Therefore, on these probably optimistic assumptions, the total fuel savings per year would be $300 minus $192 or $108.
Applying this $108 to the $5,000 battery investmen
(ignoring all other costs associated with manufacturing a plug in hybrid), yields a return of 2.16 percent.
Further, this rate of return is overstated considering that one is investing in a depreciating asset whose residual value approaches zero when the battery can no longer retain a sufficient charge. I don't know how long these batteries are supposed to last.
Clearly, we will need a radical reduction in battery costs or a tremendous rise in gasoline costs before the plug in hybrid comes close to making economic sense.
While we also need to consider reductions in emissions such as greenhouse gases in this equation, the consumer also needs to consider the costs of reducing his or her carbon footprint through other means.
This also doesn't even take into account that Toyota has indicated that their next generation Prius may come with radically improved gas mileage using improved hybrid, not plug in, technology. This could make the transition from hybrid to plug in hybrid even more problematical.
Assuming a household that has two or more vehicles, anyway, perhaps it will eventually be shown to make more sense to go directly to an EV for short term commutes. While one will still require a cost effective battery, at least , under this scenario, there will be tradeoff cost savings in terms of the engine and all those peripherals associated with the ICE.
No doubt I am missing something here. So, please, I would love for some expert out there to demonstrate how the PHEV makes sense.
Someone may object that I am mainly just considering economic factors. Consider, this one example, however. For 1.3 cents per kwhr, I can get my local utility to purchase a kwhr of wind versus a kwhr of coal. For $6.50 per month, I can divert 500 kwhr into wind. Just the interest alone on $5,000 can satisfy my electric needs for me and several other families within the community indefinitely. Just a 5 percent return on $5,000 is $250. Based on 500 kwhr a month, that would provide wind power to over 38 families.
Posted by: Tom Street
|
|
07-Feb-2007
47762
| |
While I agree on many of the points made in this speech/article, I have to disagree on the following points: 1) That battery technology for a full BEV is still more than 10 years away from reality. This echos the remarks made by GM and Ford that battery technology is still a future possibility when in reality small companies like Tesla, Phoenix Motorcars and AC Propulsion are putting battery electric vehicles on the road today that offer the features that are said to be unavailable by the domestic automakers (safety, long life - Telsa tested their battery pack to 20,000 charge/discharge cycles before putting it into their car for public use). If this speech were given 5 years ago, then I would have agreed on this but not with these small startups proving that the domestic automakers don't know what they are talking about when it comes to build HEVs and BEVs 2) That lithiom ion battery technology is not safe. Would every cordless tool manufacturer put an unsafe product into the hands of millions of people ? How many millions of laptop batteries didn't start a fire ? How many millions of cell phones, mp3 players, digital cameras and other portable electronics, with lithium-ion rechargeable batteries, are there in use today ? The bad press that the laptop (sorry Sony) lithium-ion batteries received is not at the level of the problem. When was the last time you saw millions of cars recalled for some reason ? Do we say cars are bad/not safe with the same type of recall issues as we term lithium battery technology as unsafe because of a recall ? (My 2004 Chevy Malibu - 3 recalls in 2 years) (Anyone remember the Pinto with the exploding gas tank ?)
3) The 2nd to last paragraph sounds like same request by the domestic automakers asking for more money to do more 'research' on battery technology. Does this statement coming from a consultant to the battery industry carry more weight that would move our elected officials to give the money to the same automakers that haven't produced any realistic results for the public use with all the prior taxpayer's billions that were spent ? 4) The last paragraph where it states that we've lost the manufacturing of batteries to the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans. We didn't lose it, our short sighted corporate leaders, in an effort to grab quick profits, outsourced the technology to them. Does anyone remember when all electronics that said 'Made in Japan' were looked upon as inferior to ones that were 'Made in the USA' ? If our corporate and government leaders weren't so short sighted (lets make next quarter's profit look good so we can get a bonus), we would have more domestic manufacturers of technology. Instead, we get things like NAFTA so that GM can produce cars in Mexico and Canada and not pay any import tarrifs. 5) The reason there is only 1 domestic manufacturer of NIMH batteries, is because they hold all the patents and won't let any other company expand on the technology. Why isn't any federal agency looking into the monopoly in the NIMH industry ? (Texaco/Chevron [51 % owners of Cobasys] - contributions to re-election campaigns of many Congressmen/Senators, maybe ?) Panasonic/Toyota have proven that they can build a NIMH battery for the BEV market (a 'proven' battery technology - according to the article) but Cobasys sued to stop them from producing the NIMH batteries for BEVs. In 1998, GM released the NIMH version of the EV1 that would give the car a range of 130 miles on single charge. That same technology was then sold to ECD/Ovonics (now Cobasys) after the demise of the GM EV1. The millions of lithium batteries being produced overseas are in the small format (cell phone, mp3, AA size)and not in larger formats required to power a BEV. Don't you think the $ 500 million that the automakers asked for in the continual development of battery technology would be better spent on companies that are producing results and not coming back to ask for more money every few years ? Trying to scare Congress with the lines that 'all the lithium batteries are produced by Japan, Korea and China' won't change where they are manufactured since the government shows little control over where corporations send their technology to be produced.
Posted by: Bill C
|
|
03-Feb-2007
47210
| |
Interesting speech. Quite conservative in his views. But I think quite right.
His comments make me worry about two companies. Tesla's use of the huge battery pack makes me wonder if they are taking too much risk, without enough real-world testing. As Dr. Anderman points out, their type of system puts a real strain on the battery.
I also worry about Altair Nanotechnologies. They built their own plant in Anderson, Indiana, and have no track record in making batteries. As Dr. Anderman points out about making lithium batteries, the Japanese, Korean and Chinese makers that lead the field paid a high price for their experience.
Let's hope that Tesla and Altair did not bite off more than they can chew. If they did, we may all suffer for it by seeing electric vehicles lose some of their allure.
Posted by: john
|
|
08-Feb-2007
47955
| |
I think Tom Street's comments on PHEV economics hit the nail on the head. PHEV's are just too complicated and expensive for their own good, look at the market's assessment of used Prius prices versus used Camry prices, the Prius depreciates much faster (46% against 32% over 5 years, figures from http://www.automotive.com), and PHEVs are even more complicated than the Prius.
EVs are clearly not cost competitive with ICEs if they are sold as direct replacements for them, because they aren't. An EV can do more than an ICE because you can use it to trade electricity on the grid in a way a fixed store cannot - the EV can move about so it can buy in one place and time and sell at another. That gives it a huge advantage, and if you join a consortium which allows you to buy at spot price and sell to an end user at retail, you can cover the additional cost of the storage. ICEs and fixed electrical storage systems cannot do this.
It's called V2G.
Posted by: Tony Maine
|
|
03-Feb-2007
47267
| |
Let's here from Valence and Altairnano along with other leading battery makers to see what they say. Advanced Automotive Battery has never done anything yet in their highly subsidised history. Even the starter battery in all cars is still a lead acid lump with short 2-5 year life. If they haven't even been able to make the freedom car lets not count on them for anything.
Now when you talk with Toyota who makes theworlds leading full hybrid you may get more realistic answers. They are ready to switch fron NiMH to lithium in the Prius and want to be first in the world again. Their 2008 model tests at 94 mpg. A plug-in version would be the next logical step and I'm sure they will make it but you have to ramp up the lithium in the hybrids as a first step.
Concept cars and talk won't produce much. We need to put our money in the companies making real progress step by step. The finalresults will come and not be recalled and crushed like some other attempts to just to far too fast. At least now we all moving ahead.
You decide if it's better to have a few hundred full electrics or millions of part electric hybrids that can be used anyplace anytime. With Tesla , eBox and Phoenix motors we may be able to have both. It will take a little more time but good things of quality do take more time than quick attempts that have problems.
Posted by: Jim Stack
|
|
05-Feb-2007
47471
| |
Jim, I think you are confusing the Advanced Automotive Batteries consulting firm with the US Advanced Battery Consortium. Dr. Anderman seems to be highly regarded. He does not do battery research. Rather his firm evaluates battery technology and industry trends, and in particular organizes an industry conference every year.
Posted by: john
|
|
31-Mar-2008
61004
| |
Unfortunately Menahem Anderman has carved quite a niche for himself by taking the veiw that battery technology will not support electric vehicle production. His opinions have not changed much over the years but the technology has. This man in in danger of being dragged out for years every time somebody wants to write a negative article about electric vehicles. He is also in danger of being ignored, regardless of what he says, because of this typecasting.
Posted by: Bill Bradshaw
|
|
11-Sep-2007
58231
| |
Great article. Interesting how the negative comments always fall back to simplistic cost models that do not account for significant increases in gasoline prices as well as likely shortages (think gas lines) in the not too distant future. How do you price only having to fill up once a month or so and not having to wait in line (for gas) for a few hours every week? Even worse, what if gasoline rationing becomes the norm in the future. Then what will you do with your 18mpg SUV. Sorry, but demand for transportation fuels is increasing faster (worldwide) than the supply and our current way of life (in the USA) depends on using cars instead of mass transit for transportation. Plug-In hybrids seem to be about the only technical solution on the near term to help maintain our current quality of life in the face of looming gasoline shortages. Worrying about spending a few thousand extra for a car seems petty if the alternative is not being able to drive at all. So what's the big deal if we have to skip the leather interior and sunroof and spend the extra few thousand instead on batteries. From the published numbers and specs, it appears that at sub $25K plug-in hybrid electric with a 20mile range is possible today. Also, why the emphasis on a 20mile range. How about a 10+mile range with a 5Kw-Hr Lithium-Iron-Phosphate battery. At 0.1 Kw-Hr/Kg, about 100 pounds of battery would offer 10 miles of battery only driving distance. With a 10 mile each way commute, at least half of the distance could easily be battery only and maybe longer is employers offer electric outlets (in employee parking lots) for daytime recharging. 100 extra pounds (for a battery) doesn't seem like too much extra weight in a 3000 pound car to give your 80+mpg - not to mention gas for the equivalent of less than $1 a gallon. As a country, why are we waiting?
Posted by: Joe Smith
|
|
|
September ePOLL
Do you agree that the $100 billion invested in technology innovation was an appropriate expenditure by the American government?
|
