![]() | Europe Forum Lucerne: Energy – A Conflict Area, Trends and Horizons | The Oil Drum | Drumbeat: May 5, 2009 | ![]() |
![]() | Europe Forum Lucerne: Energy – A Conflict Area, Trends and Horizons | The Oil Drum: Europe | The 'Peak' Summit: An Informal ASPO & Oil Drum Gathering | ![]() |
198 comments on Minerals scarcity: A call for managed austerity and the elements of hope
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
198 comments on Minerals scarcity: A call for managed austerity and the elements of hope
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
- Aleklett's Energy Mix Global Energy Systems, Peak Oil, etc
- www.SamassaVeneessä.info Finnish peak oil site
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.




GAIA Host Collective
I understand where you are coming from. And I agree with your assessment. However, the alternate way of looking at it is the technology.
LG Chem uses lithium-manganese oxide (LiMn2O4) chemistry while A123 uses lithium-iron phosphate (LiFePO4) chemistry. LiMn2O4 has a limited cycle life and operates poorly as the temperature goes higher. The energy density is getting better as they incorporate more elements into the overall setup. But it isnt yet there comparable with LiFePO4 yet.
Why is this so? Better battery management system to avoid short-circuiting. BMS helps to extend battery cycle life by avoiding any over-charge or discharge. But that doesnt mean that LiFePO4 is the best. It is limited by its working voltage and the maximum charge voltage which isnt high. But it makes up with a lot more charging cycles of over 2500 and a slower rate of capacity loss.
As for Tesla, they use lithium-cobalt-oxide (LiCoO2). LiCoO2 have slow charge and discharge rates. They also breakdown at high temperatures (thermal runaway).
I see research happening in Lithium Nickel Cobalt Manganese Oxide Li(NiCoMn)O2 and lithium titanate (LiTiO3) (for Eestor batteries) in addition to LiFePO4. Thats why the cost of these batteries are still high and they will be until you get the chemistry right. I dont see PHEV/EV becoming cost-effective until they get this chemistry nailed.
See an ANL study here: Cost of lithium for Electric Vehicles
Regarding the lithium presence in a battery, it varies according to the chemical composition. Find out the exact anode, cathode and electrolyte as Li will be present in all three. Find out the Li % in each and you get the amount of Li in the battery for that chemistry combination.
Sorry if this post comes as a pitch for a particular company. I do not work for any of these companies or promote their products. But as an analyst, I just wanted to clarify on what I know from talking to some of these guys in the industry.
The ANL study is quite old - the data in it is 10 years old, which is an eternity in this business. Here are some thoughts on battery cost:
A recent study Carnegie Mellon University argued that "plug-in" hybrid-electric vehicles, like the Chevy Volt, are too expensive. Are they right?
No. They assumed that the battery would cost $16,000 (or 1,000/KWH). As GM says, that's way too high. (Oddly, they also conclude that a plug-in with a 10 mile range would be better, because drivers would stop and charge every 10 miles!)
Similarly, $10,000 for the Volt's battery has been widely reported in the media, but we shouldn't rely on mass media! Really, no one knows how much the batteries cost. The $10K figure is purely speculation. Here's an example, in the CS Monitor. We see that it doesn't say $10K. Here's what the article says: "the race isn't over making a Chevy Volt battery designed to run 40 miles on a single charge that could (emphasis added) cost as much as $10,000." We can see that the reporter doesn't have a firm source for this cost figure.
Elsewhere, the article says: "Still others say that the cost of new battery power for PHEVs may drop faster and already be lower than what has been widely reported at perhaps $500 per kilowatt-hour or even less, says Suba Arunkumar, analyst for market researcher Frost & Sullivan.
"I do expect the price will come down to perhaps as low as $200 per kilowatt-hour when mass production begins in 2010 and 2011," she says."
Tesla's cost is $400/KWH - it's very likely that GM will pay $200-$300 in volume. The batteries won't be produced in large volumes for several years. They'll use less expensive materials than 1st Gen batteries; the larger format is much less expensive; and they'll have very, very large production volumes relative to most 1st-gen li-ion. Large production volumes reduce costs very quickly.
GM is pricing the Volt high purely to capture the early-adopter premium and the federal rebate - their official justification is that they're pricing in 100% replacement of the battery under warranty, which really isn't credible. We can expect the Volt to cost less than $30K with large volume production.
Is the battery too large?
Yes, they're only using 50% of the battery - a 50% depth of discharge (DOD) is very conservative. That means they have to use a 16 KWH battery to get an effective 8 KWH's. They could be more aggressive (and probably will be in the future), but they're very sensitive to the bad publicity that early battery failures would create.
Could they use a battery that allowed a deeper DOD?
No, there aren't any batteries on the market that are more durable as measured in charge cycles. Tesla's batteries aren't expected to last more than 400 cycles, and the Volt will do 5-10x as many. In theory, the Volt could have a smaller battery. That would mean a shorter range, which would still accomodate many drivers. That might more perfectly optimize costs, but then it wouldn't feel like a big step forward. It wouldn't feel like a real EV, with generator backup - instead, it would feel like an incremental hybrid. Both GM (for PR) and buyers want a large, step forward, I think.
Edit:
LG Chem uses lithium-manganese oxide (LiMn2O4) chemistry while A123 uses lithium-iron phosphate (LiFePO4) chemistry. LiMn2O4 has a limited cycle life and operates poorly as the temperature goes higher. The energy density is getting better as they incorporate more elements into the overall setup. But it isnt yet there comparable with LiFePO4 yet.
Why is this so? Better battery management system to avoid short-circuiting.
Could you expand on this? Are you suggesting that GM could have used a less sophisticated BMS if they had gone with LiFePO4?