All "Future" battery technology thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Found this video on TMC:

The Charge of the Battery Brigade - Autoline This Week 1833

Three experts talking about batteries:
Ann Marie Sastry from Sakti3, LG’s Prabhakar Patil and Brett Smith from the Center for Automotive Research.

In the middle of watching it now, but LG's claiming that since the Volt was introduced, they've already cut the price of the battery almost in half and increased energy density by 40-50% (see 4:20). At 6:50, Prabhakar is also claiming that by 2017 they will have the batteries to support a 200 mile, <$35k EV.
 
http://insideevs.com/nissan-range-is-off-the-table-claims-more-than-400-km-for-leaf-in-a-few-years/

Host: Is Nissan working on new batteries?

Ghosn: “Yes.”

Host: Can you tell us more?

Ghosn: “No.”

Host: Will the range double?

Ghosn: “Yes.”


http://www.hybridcars.com/ceo-ghosn-nissan-has-affordable-250-mile-range-ev-battery/

Following an unintentional disclosure by CEO Carlos Ghosn, Nissan has confirmed it will “very soon take the issue of range off of the table.”
 
kikngas said:
http://insideevs.com/nissan-range-is-off-the-table-claims-more-than-400-km-for-leaf-in-a-few-years/

Host: Is Nissan working on new batteries?

Ghosn: “Yes.”

Host: Can you tell us more?

Ghosn: “No.”

Host: Will the range double?

Ghosn: “Yes.”


http://www.hybridcars.com/ceo-ghosn-nissan-has-affordable-250-mile-range-ev-battery/

Following an unintentional disclosure by CEO Carlos Ghosn, Nissan has confirmed it will “very soon take the issue of range off of the table.”
Ah, yes, the range will double from the 200 km (124 mile) range LEAFs customers have been driving for the past four years. And the 500k EVs that Ghosn said Nissan-Renault would sell by 2013. Let me guess, the new batteries will be here in 18 months - 3 years, the same time frame every previous new battery tech has been promised going back over a century. Less talk, more actual product, thank you very much.
 
And meanwhile back in 1997


http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/25/us/it-s-a-world-record-249-miles-without-an-extension-cord.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
mikesus said:
And meanwhile back in 1997


http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/25/us/it-s-a-world-record-249-miles-without-an-extension-cord.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hypermiling and 30 mph average speeds don't reflect reality.
 
JRP3 said:
mikesus said:
And meanwhile back in 1997


http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/25/us/it-s-a-world-record-249-miles-without-an-extension-cord.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hypermiling and 30 mph average speeds don't reflect reality.


And that isn't what happened. They were using the "new" Ovonic NIMH batteries.

Here is a bit of history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In an interview in the 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, Ovshinsky stated that in the early 1990s, the auto industry created the US Auto Battery Consortium (USABC) to stifle the development of electric vehicle technology by preventing the dissemination of knowledge about Ovshinky's battery-related patents to the public through the California Air Resources Board (CARB).[5]

According to Ovshinsky, the auto industry falsely suggested that NiMH technology was not yet ready for widespread use in road cars.[6] Members of the USABC, including General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, threatened to take legal action against Ovshinsky if he continued to promote NiMH's potential for use in BEVs, and if he continued to lend test batteries to Solectria, a start-up electric vehicle maker that was not part of the USABC. The Big Three car companies argued that his behavior violated their exclusive rights to the battery technology, because they had matched a federal government grant given to Ovonics to develop NiMH technology. Critics argue that the Big Three were more interested in convincing CARB members that electric vehicles were not technologically and commercially viable.[5]

In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacture, including patents controlling the manufacture of large NiMH batteries. The original intent of the equity alliance was to develop NiMH batteries for GM's EV1 BEV. Sales of GM-Ovonics batteries were later taken over by GM manager and critic of CARB John Williams, leading Ovshinsky to wonder whether his decision to sell to GM had been naive.[5] The EV1 program was shut down by GM before the new NiMH battery could be commercialized, despite field tests that indicated the Ovonics battery extended the EV1's range to over 150 miles.[5]

Chevron and Cobasys[edit]

By 2001, the Ovonics technology was owned by the oil company Chevron.
In 2001, oil company Texaco purchased General Motors' share in GM Ovonics. Texaco was itself acquired by rival Chevron several months later. The same year, Ovonics filed a patent infringement suit against Toyota's battery supplier, Panasonic, that ultimately succeeded in restricting the use of its large format NiMH batteries to certain transportation uses.[7] In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between ChevronTexaco and Ovonics, now known as Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[8] Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron held a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics as of a public filing made January 15, 2003.[9] In a later filing on May 17, 2005,[10] Energy Conversion Devices announced that they had exercised an option to purchase back 4,376,633 shares of stock from a Chevron subsidiary, and would cancel and return them to authorized-unissued status. This is the exact number of shares that was listed as owned by ChevronTexaco in the January 15, 2003 filing.

ChevronTexaco also maintained veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology.[11] In addition, ChevronTexaco maintained the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics did not fulfill its contractual obligations.[11] On September 10, 2007, ChevronTexaco (now known as simply "Chevron") filed suit claiming that ECD Ovonics had not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputed this claim.[12] The arbitration hearing has been repeatedly suspended while the parties negotiated with General Motors over the sale of Cobasys back to GM. As of March 2008, no agreement had been reached with GM.[13]

And

"I think we at ECD made a mistake of having a joint venture with an oil company, frankly speaking. And I think it's not a good idea to go into business with somebody whose strategies would put you out of business, rather than building the business."

Can't imagine why a battery company would EVER want to have a JV with an oil company...

The good news is that the patent runs out 2014 :D
 
I'm well aware of the history of the Ovonic battery. I'm also well aware that it's a lower energy density than lithium chemistry, which means the car cannot have enough kWh's of NiMH battery onboard to allow such long distances without hypermiling and low average speeds. As for the patents running out, NiMH is outdated and irrelevant at this point.
 
JRP3 said:
I'm well aware of the history of the Ovonic battery. I'm also well aware that it's a lower energy density than lithium chemistry, which means the car cannot have enough kWh's of NiMH battery onboard to allow such long distances without hypermiling and low average speeds. As for the patents running out, NiMH is outdated and irrelevant at this point.

Not sure where you got your info. The record was a mix of city and highway, not hypermiling low speed.

http://www.acterra.org/ev/archive/solectria_record.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NiMH irrelevant? Lower cost and better temperature working range? How is that irrelevant?

Yes the density is lower but it doesnt have the fire hazards that dealing with lithium batteries has.

for lower priced ev's, having NiMH available as a power source might allow us to realize the "people's car". There is a reason the tech was purchased by an oil company, they saw it as a real threat.
 
"Mixed city/highway driving" does not tell us the average speeds, and people I've spoken to who had first hand knowledge of the event said hypermiling techniques and low speed were used to achieve the results. The simple fact is that NiMH is not magic and has worse efficiency and density than lithium, so whatever range was achieved would be surpassed in the same conditions in the same vehicle with lithium. The Solectria Sunrise was a very aerodynamic lightweight composite vehicle, driven by an expert hypermiler. I believe the car was designed to hold 26kWh of NiMH, which means average wh/mi for the 375 mile run is 70 wh/mi, incredibly low. Remember the EV1 with NiMH had about 140 mile range in normal conditions, and that was also a very aerodynamic, small vehicle. I'm quite sure you won't see any modern EV's switching to NiMH, because they'll be slower, heavier, have less range, and I'm not even sure NiMH has a cost benefit any longer.
 
When I owned a Solectria the legends of high mileage were repeated often and I suspect not repeated accurately. The fact is that with the ev1 150 miles was totally doable this has only been achieved by Tesla since then.

Without anyone trying to make nimh traction, there is little deciding what is or isn't possible.
 
NiMH has been in continuous production and development since then by Toyota and Panasonic. The Prius and every non plugin hybrid has used NiMH. If NiMH were viable for plugins it would be in use. It's not.
 
JRP3 said:
NiMH has been in continuous production and development since then by Toyota and Panasonic. The Prius and every non plugin hybrid has used NiMH. If NiMH were viable for plugins it would be in use. It's not.

It is not in use because the size has been limited by patent. Not because it is not viable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chevron maintained control up to very recently, so now they no longer hold the keys to NiMH tech, we might see progress again.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/02/ovonic-20120214.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
The size of the pack has no bearing on the continued progress of the chemistry, if there were any. You really think Toyota and Panasonic stopped trying to improve the characteristics of NiMH cells used in millions of hybrids? Of course not. The chemistry is limited by physics.
 
Pff no school like the old school lead acid for me! Going to buy a used army truck to convert. 15 tons of batteries is reasonable no?
 
JRP3 said:
The size of the pack has no bearing on the continued progress of the chemistry, if there were any. You really think Toyota and Panasonic stopped trying to improve the characteristics of NiMH cells used in millions of hybrids? Of course not. The chemistry is limited by physics.


Obviously you have not read what occurred with the ovonics patents... As ANY attempt to create a large NiMH pack was met with immediate lawsuit, it removed a lot of incentive to try.

You easily dismiss a technology that has HUGE proven success with a better track record than Lithium. (How many NiMH packs were replaced because of capacity loss?) Add in the fact that the new low self discharge coupled with the advances that were made (Sanyo achieving 108wh/kg) the lower cost for BMS and NiMH starts looking very attractive. (Lithium self discharge rates are much higher than the new Low self discharge NiMH) Not everyone can afford a Tesla, heck not everyone can afford a Leaf. Having the ability to have a lower cost EV will benefit EVERYONE.

Hopefully now that the patent expired they will at least try to see if NiMH could be used (again)
 
Elephanthead said:
Pff no school like the old school lead acid for me! Going to buy a used army truck to convert. 15 tons of batteries is reasonable no?

Your exaggeration is ridiculous. When we had vehicles 17 years ago that were capable of more range than our current state of the art lithium batteries, why not explore it? (Excluding Teslas mega buck battery) Do you work for an oil company perhaps?

Thanks to Chevron, battery development was put back almost 20 years why not try to take advantage of the lower cost, safer battery tech? (When did you EVER hear of a NiMH battery fire?)

With the FAA thinking about adding more restrictions on shipping lithium batteries, I suspect it will get harder, not easier to make large lithium packs.
 
If I could opt for an EV with NiMH with a cheaper pack but at +100kg, I'd pick the NiMH. It is robust to abuse (over and under charging) and evidently degrades more slowly in automotive applications.

Just one vote......

But I also agree that I don't really see the argument not to use smaller NiMH cells to build up a bigger pack. What's wrong with a Tesla that does this?

In fact, having many parallel cells (Tesla) rather than just pairs (all other EVs) helps even out the overall serial loading and helps mitigate the outlier-capacity cells.

Likewise, I'd prefer to have an option to buy Li-titanate batteries, albeit slightly more expensive and slightly lower specific capacity than some Li. I might struggle on a toss-up between LiTiO and NiMH, but it'd be one of those over LMO for sure.
 
donald said:
If I could opt for an EV with NiMH with a cheaper pack but at +100kg, I'd pick the NiMH. It is robust to abuse (over and under charging) and evidently degrades more slowly in automotive applications.

Just one vote......

But I also agree that I don't really see the argument not to use smaller NiMH cells to build up a bigger pack. What's wrong with a Tesla that does this?

In fact, having many parallel cells (Tesla) rather than just pairs (all other EVs) helps even out the overall serial loading and helps mitigate the outlier-capacity cells.

Likewise, I'd prefer to have an option to buy Li-titanate batteries, albeit slightly more expensive and slightly lower specific capacity than some Li. I might struggle on a toss-up between LiTiO and NiMH, but it'd be one of those over LMO for sure.

Just like we have multiple fuel sources, there is nothing stoping the development of both. For folks doing lots of highway needing a lot of juice, lithium. For folks that need the durability of NiMH for temp range and longevity NiMH is hard to beat.

Remember, there are rav4 ev's with over 100k on their original pack and with less degradation than we see on lithium batteries.
 
mikesus said:
Obviously you have not read what occurred with the ovonics patents... As ANY attempt to create a large NiMH pack was met with immediate lawsuit, it removed a lot of incentive to try.

Obviously you don't understand that energy density advances start at the cell level, and it doesn't matter in the least how many cells you put together. Tesla is obvious proof of that, using laptop sized cells to build the biggest EV packs and cars with the longest range. That's only possible because they are using chemistry with a cell level density of 250Wh/kg.
You easily dismiss a technology that has HUGE proven success with a better track record than Lithium. (How many NiMH packs were replaced because of capacity loss?)
I don't have figures but a number of the RAV4 packs were, as well as some hybrid packs. Other than Nissan's poor choice of chemistry for a non temperature controlled pack how many lithium packs have been replaced?
Add in the fact that the new low self discharge
NiMH has HIGHER self discharge and lower charge/discharge efficiency than Lithium.
coupled with the advances that were made (Sanyo achieving 108wh/kg)
Lithium is already at 250Wh/kg as a viable product, much higher in the lab, and still has a lot of room to increase.
the lower cost for BMS and NiMH starts looking very attractive.
BMS costs are not that high for lithium.
(Lithium self discharge rates are much higher than the new Low self discharge NiMH)
I doubt it since lithium self discharge is almost non existent.
Not everyone can afford a Tesla, heck not everyone can afford a Leaf. Having the ability to have a lower cost EV will benefit EVERYONE.
The poor energy density and high nickle content of NiMH will not lower cost for ANYONE. Limited range EV's will not sell well, a LEAF with 24kWh of NiMH will be slower, worse handling, have less range, and won't be any less expensive than the existing LEAF.

Hopefully now that the patent expired they will at least try to see if NiMH could be used (again)
Anyone who knows anything about the actual parameters of NiMH chemistry vs lithium chemistry has no need to try because it's already known.
 
mikesus said:
Your exaggeration is ridiculous. When we had vehicles 17 years ago that were capable of more range than our current state of the art lithium batteries, why not explore it?
Because what you are saying is not really true. The original RAV4EV did not have more range the the current RAV4EV. Don't use anecdotal references to try and claim otherwise. Again, NiMH is not magic, the same number of kWhs of NiMH or Lithium in the same vehicle under the same conditions will not get you more range, and because of the greater weight you'll end up with less range.

With the FAA thinking about adding more restrictions on shipping lithium batteries, I suspect it will get harder, not easier to make large lithium packs.

You think OEM's are shipping their battery packs by plane? Really?
 
Back
Top