Thanks for the reply.

First, current electric cars are NOT using the advanced technology developed by ovonics. Panasonic is the battery supplier for current HEV's (not to take anything away from Panasonic). The battery pack for the Prius Gen I was literally D-cells strung together.

Second, the battery packs in current HEV's are only 6.5 amp-hours, weigh around 50 lbs, and are relatively small. Packaging, safety testing, and technology are not obstacles by simply adding say, 3 extra batteries. Certainly noone would suggest that 150 lbs, or even 300, would warrant additional crash testing (unless one proposes to locate the additional batteries on the rear bumper) Lithium batteries are superior, no doubt – but the existing technolgy is not being utilised to its potential. The best of existing technology (ovonic) is not even publicly available.

Third, I see repeated references to Lithium-iron battery problems. There are other variants of Lithium batteries, so lets not discount the entire entire family of lithium batteries when only one subcategory has an overheating problem. How many Segways have been sold with Valence battery packs? Let's also remember that current HEV's already incorporate a temperature regulation system.

Finally, with regards to increased cost and customer demand. If customers purchased current HEV's based on logical analyses of fuel costs, no HEV's would have been sold. Several gasoline and diesel vehicles achieve greater economy. The public has overwhelmingly demonstrated willingness to pay extra for "green technology", even given that the motivation to purchase that technology is not logically justified by cost savings, or even real reductions in environmental impact. The Prius wasn't supposed to sell because of its increased cost; it has been one of the biggest success stories in recent automotive history. Who would really suggest that a more expensive PHEV, even if $10,000 more, would not sell?

As for PHEV's necessitating government subsidies and grants – those monies have already been spent in battery development, utility subsidies, highway funds, and municipal charging facility implementation. Rather than the government opening its wallet again, I would humbly suggest that we enforce that the entities who received those monies provide the benefit of the cash they received. Somebody removed the municipal charging stations that were established in the 90's. They should be replaced without cost to the public. Battery technology was government funded. That technology should be available to the people who paid for it. Battery insurance was a part of the federal budget in the late 90's. Would we postpone PHEV's because the public has to provide funding AGAIN for programs that were never realised?

Yes, I do understand that those who squandered these monies will never be held accountable for providing the services and goods for which they were paid from public funds. However, I do rebuke the notion that the success of PHEV's would be dependent on how much money the government provides.

In summary:

Agreed – Lithium batteries are superior, and one variant of Lithium battery technology has immediate overheating issues.

Disagree – I do not beleive PHEV development is dependent on Lithium-iron battery technology.

Agreed – PHEV's are not the end solution for our transportation needs

Disagree – I don't beleive we should hold off on PHEV's and EV's while we wait for the end solution. We keep changing our direction on the final target, anyway!

Agreed – PHEV's will be more expensive, and will not offer the same features as similar gasoline cars.

Disagree – That public demand is an obstacle for a more expensive vehicle with fewer features. The success of the current HEV's demonstrates that the public will pay for green technology, even when that technology is imperfect. Would Toyota claim that they've lost money on the Prius?

Disagree – that PHEV's are dependent on governmental spending, or contributions from the manufacturers or utilities. Besides, the money was spent once already and nothing tangible remains today.

Disagree – that EV / HEV / PHEV technology trades "gas for coal". Respectfully, I really hate to see this issue raised again, as it's been long disproved.

Agree – that PHEV is not the best current solution. We can do better RIGHT NOW. 100% BEV's are current technology, in production, and in demand. (no, they're not perfect – but they're selling)

But that's another debate.

I've really enjoyed this discussion, and regard your contributions (and those of the other contributors) with the deepest respect. I extend my gratitude to Ms Canter for writing a provocative article. May I humbly suggest a "part 4" to this series, summarizing the solutions and technology currently being implemented by the likes of Tianjin Qingyuan, Zap, Smart, Tesla, GEM, Zenn….. Perhaps with a comparison to the EV1 as a baseline, and a summary of the current status of the now decade-old EV1 technology?

There has been a lot of focus on the problems of future technology. Precious little is presented on current technology.

Eric Schneider

Thanks for the good thoughts – I'll see if I can address a some of them -

A couple of difficulties with NiMH (Ovonic's invention, derivatives of which all of the auto manufacturers are using in today's hybrid batteries):

a) Energy density is low, compared to Li-Ion. About half, give or take. So if you want a PHEV battery, the size and weight of a NiMH battery would be approximately double that of the LiIon variety for a given battery storage amount.

b) Charge-Discharge efficiency of NiMH is much less than Li-Ion (~70% compared to ~95%) (I can't remember exact numbers – correct me if I'm wrong anyone).

c) Self-Discharge rate of NiMH is much higher than Li-Ion.

So all of these things together does not make it such an attractive solution for PHEV.

Would it work in a PHEV? Yes.

Would it work well enough to mass produce a consumer product with a clear benefit to the customer? Doubtful.

Which is why all auto manufacturers have been working for years on developing Li-Ion batteries for pure hybrids. Of course they see the clear advantages!

But the problem with the Li-Ion so far has been a few things:

a) Safety (LiFePO4 is a new beast – A123 and others are doing good work to capitalize on safety trouble of other chemistries).

b) Cycle life (less than NiMH) especially at deep discharge. Again, some excellent work is being done on it, but I don't think any battery company will tell you that they are unconditionally ready for an automotive application. If they do, ask them what the warranty is, and whether they are willing to put up their own money to guarantee it. Everyone is willing to use the automakers' money, except, of course, the automakers!

c) Cost. Still expensive! Yes, some people will pay an additional $10k. But how many? Enough people to make a profitable vehicle? Nobody knows, but the risk to an automaker to make that gamble is pretty big.

So can a conversion be built that will work? Of course. We see several of them.

But back to your question of certification – basically an automaker would not sell a PHEV similar to the ones that are being made now with batteries in the crash-crushable spaces of trunk and spare tire area. Yes, NHTSA tests significant differences in powerplant configurations, if they think it mght have a different crash test result. A PHEV with a bunch of batteries in the trunk would probably not pass FMVSS 301. It might be just a question of packaging – it must be possible to build a car where the battery is protected (like today's hybrids) and where it poses no risk of fire in a collision, and no projectile risk to occupants. But this means a new vehicle body, which costs several tens of millions in initial investment. So you might forgive automakers for waiting until they know for certain they have a battery to put in it!

So yes, you are probably right – PHEVs are similar to where HEVs were in the early to mid 1990's. And you will remember it took until the late 1990's for the first couple of hybrids to exist on the market, and not until the early 2000's until they existed in quantity, and not until gasoline prices rose to around $2.50 to $3.00 per gallon that a consumer could actually save money by driving one, versus a similar non hybrid car. And not until now for a US automaker to introduce their own hybrid (Ford's is based on Toyota's technology).

So forgive me if I'm skeptical about the immediacy of PHEVs – I think the technical difficulties put it off a few years, and once those are solved, it takes some value proposition to sell it to a consumer. Cost and perceived value have to strike a chord with the consumer.

Once most of the technical hurdles are achieved, I think these steps need to be taken in order for PHEVs to be successful:

1) Government must buy the difference in cost between a PHEV and a regular HEV (because the energy security value and environmental value of plugging in is a societal savings, not a mere private savings). This needs to be done at the automaker or vehicle dealership level so that consumers do not have to foot the bill waiting for the tax credit comes through.

2) Utilities need to heavily subsidize the recharging cost, and eat the seperate meter costs. If government pays, so be it.

3) Government needs to underwrite the vehicle warranty for battery, to remove the risk to the automaker. Battery needs replaced? Take it to your dealer. No cost to consumer, no cost to automaker. Again, it is a public benefit, so public funds should be spent. Part of this is, of course, spurring the battery makers to solve some of their problems.

4) Automakers, governments, utilities, and advocates need to get some public charging locations out there where I can plug in (get a headstart on plug-out infrastructure while you're at it!)

5) Government, auto dealerships, and large corporate fleet managers have to ask for it on purchase orders. A couple of hundred consumer advocates don't sell a lot of cars.

6) Consumers may have to accept slightly less luggage space, or other feature losses.

And in the long run

7) Every PHEV needs to come with a solar panel or windmill installed somewhere, otherwise we're still trading gasoline for coal and have not done the world so big of a favor as we think we have.

Just beating up automakers and demanding PHEVs won't work. If it is necessary for society, and it makes sense, then society should do it.

Thanks,

James

The article link you posted was intriguing. I cannot imagine why Toyota would cite older Lithium ion overheating problems as an obstacle, when ZAP and Tianjin Qingyuan are both using Lithium Polymer technology in their Li-ion batteries. Also, Valence Technologies seems to have developed a Lithium Phosphate variant and is ready for commercial marketing.

Again, we have omitted the NiMH technogy developed by Ovonics, today held proprietary by Cobasys. It was working technology 10 years ago!

i still do not understand why battery technology is being cited as an obstacle?

With respect,

Eric

With respect:

…..His estimations of battery life (unknown) and cost ($5k to $7k) and safety (fire concerns) are all valid and based on known research…….

Is this any different than the trial period of the original HEV's?

…. There are exactly zero PHEVs with 5 years experience on them, let alone the 15 years/150,000 miles……

Again, is this any different than the trial period of the original HEV's?

…..There are no conversion PHEVs with a full trunk and a spare tire…..

Are you suggesting that a PHEV necessarily could not have room for a trunk or spare tire?

…. There are no conversion PHEVs that have been through a full slate of FMVSS/NHTSA or IIHS crash tests and safety evaluations……

… None of the conversion vehicles are fully certified by a government agency…..

Well, the crash tests pertain to occupant safety and the structural safety of the chassis. As long as the batteries do not exceed the GVW rating of the vehicle, am I to understand you would have the drivetrain configuration evaluated by the FMVSS, too? is there any vehicle on roads today subjected to such testing?

…..There are no SAE standards for lithium ion battery conversions…..

SAE does not impose regulations on the automotive industry; furthermore, many SAE conventions are ignored by auto manufacturers.

…it is disingenuous for anyone to tell the public that it is "today's technology," because it's not quite true………….

well, thats correct in the US. However, there are 100% EV's being built in China by at least one automaker (Tianjin Qingyuan Electric Vehicle Co.)

……….So the automakers have a lot on their plate as they attempt to solve this one, and it is not really surprising that none of them have issued production contracts yet………

Well, actually Miles Automotive Group (Tianjin Qingyuan Electric Vehicle Co.) and ZAP have both issued contracts. Unfortunately, both groups were forced to contract with Chinese companies. Why is that? Can we really not create the jobs and revenue from L-ion technology here in the US?

Also, you haven't mentioned Nickel metal hydride batteries, the technology of which was developed by the USABC (United States Advanced Battery Consortium), sponsored by the EPRI and the DOT in research grants to universities and researchers, and in conjuction with the big three automakers. The best of that technology, developed by a company called Ovonics, was used by GM in the EV1. That technology appears to have been successful – in acceleration, range, packaging, and price – 10 years ago, in a 100% EV vehicle – but it appears that the technology resides now in the hands of Texaco-owned Cobasys, and is no longer available for purchase – certainly not to the taxpayers who helped fund the research grants for the technology.

….We need a couple of generations of PHEV vehicle technology before we see the real environmental benefits………

Again, how is this any different than the first wave of original HEV's?

…………we need another solution beyond gasoline. PHEV is only a step in the right direction; it is not an end in itself………

Would you suggest that we not implement current technology, but rather we should wait for the end solution to be developed? In 1995, the end solution was advanced technology batteries. In 2000, the end solution was fuel cells. In 2005, it was Hydrogen. What is the end solution now?

I seek only to understand.

Again, with respect-

Eric

I think for clarity it would have been useful to have prefaced Dr. Anderman's analysis with some of the system boundaries that he considered:

His analysis is for a 20mile All Electric Range large, full power (140+kW, 75+mph) PHEV sedan (like a Camry).

I don't think any of the Prius PHEV conversions on the road right now go more than the 35mph limit of the Prius in EV mode. Dr. Anderman's intent is to show the difficulty faced with building a full function long range EV Mode PHEV (like GM's Volt is trying to be).

So his assessment is for a much different system than Mr. Kramer or Mr. Andrea have experience with. But that does not mean that these people's experience is invalid at all! It just means we are comparing vastly different systems here. (Dr. Anderman might like to try his analysis on the types of systems that are seeing some success today, such as the current conversion vehicles, for low power EV and blended mode operation.)

But Dr. Anderman still has valid points:

His estimations of battery life (unknown) and cost ($5k to $7k) and safety (fire concerns) are all valid and based on known research. There are exactly zero PHEVs with 5 years experience on them, let alone the 15 years/150,000 miles that automakers want to be able to guarantee. There are no conversion PHEVs with a full trunk and a spare tire. There are no conversion PHEVs that have been through a full slate of FMVSS/NHTSA or IIHS crash tests and safety evaluations. There are no SAE standards for lithium ion battery conversions. None of the conversion vehicles are fully certified by a government agency. So it is disingenuous for anyone to tell the public that it is "today's technology," because it's not quite true, yet. Hopefully soon, but not quite yet.

Maybe Lithium Iron Phoshate batteries solve some of the safety concerns, as Mr. Andrea points out. Forgive me if I wait to see the FMVSS crash tests. Do they solve the life concern? Still unknown. Manufacturer data for 1000 cycles at carefully controlled conditions is no match for a real world full environmental durability test over real time. Do they solve the cost concern? Probably not. Do they solve the packaging space concern? It is difficult. But even Dr. Anderman said in his multi-client report that LiFePO4 was probably the best bet for the types of PHEVs that Mr. Kramer and Mr. Andrea are working with, but the challenges for a full function long EV range PHEV are not inconsiderable.

So the automakers have a lot on their plate as they attempt to solve this one, and it is not really surprising that none of them have issued production contracts yet.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the Prius PHEV (low EV range) if produced in volume will still live on gasoline for most of its miles for most real users (appologies in advance to Mr. Kramer). Yes, the EPRI study shows that a lot of miles can be covered by PHEVs, but not the kind that are being converted today. We need a couple of generations of PHEV vehicle technology before we see the real environmental benefits, but the end result is the same – we need another solution beyond gasoline. PHEV is only a step in the right direction; it is not an end in itself. And government and automakers need to plan beyond the next step.

For tomorrow's PHEVs, it will be interesting to see how the range extender aspect plays out, and what combination of fuels and technologies will work the best. But I think it's clear that the grid will be an important part of the transportation energy mix, and everyone, automakers, government, utility companies, should plan on taking the steps to prepare for it.

Thanks,

James

(sorry about the longwindedness)

We're not able to give you a point-by-point response to your questions, but I do have a link to a WSJ article from last week that you might find interesting. It talks about how Toyota is delaying its introduction of hybrids using lithium-ion batteries because of safety problems.

1) What happened to the Ovonics batteries that powered the all-electric GM EV1? Why isn't that battery technology being used to power PHEV's? After all, it was successful 10 years ago…..

2) Miles Automotive Group is currently marketing 100% electric cars. They are marginally available for purchase in the United States, but have been limited to 25mph by the DOT. It's not an unsafe car – it passes European and Asian safety standards; so why is a 200mph Ferrari granted exemption to DOT certification, while an entry level all-electric car is not?

3) The miles car has a 100+ mile range in all-battery mode, but only in the Chinese version. Why does this car use different batteries when imported into the US? Why can this technology not be used in PHEV's?

4) In 1995 Ford and the DOT sponsored a collegiate Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge. Similar competitions were sponsored in 1996 and 1997 by GM and by Chrysler. All of the vehicles entered in those competitions were plug-in hybrid vehicles. What has happened to the research and knowledge generated by these competitions over 10 years ago?

In summary, I don't understand how battery technology is an obstacle today, when those problems seemed to have been overcome more than 10 years ago by college students and by GM. Further, I don't understand how a Chinese company is able to mass-produce an all-electric car, and yet we are unable to find batteries to power PHEV's?

with respect,
Eric