EC launches €10M EIC Horizon Prize for innovative batteries for EVs; EU Battery Alliance progressing

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.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via GCC: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/02/20180226-eu.html

. . . The prize will be awarded for the development of a prototype battery that can power an electric vehicle with similar performance in terms of range and charging time as a conventional petrol/diesel powered small family vehicle. The battery should also be of relatively low cost, durable, safe and fully recyclable.

The Prize aims to tackle the challenge of the slow uptake of zero emission electric vehicles so far, mainly due to the limitations of existing batteries, which are expensive and have limited ranges and long recharging times. . . .
Along that line, also GCC:
New study provides overview of challenges, requirements for large-scale production of all-solid-state Li-ion and Li-metal batteries
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/02/20180226-assb.html

SQL errors when I try to cut and paste, but there's this conclusion:

"To meet the demands of automotive applications in 2025, energy densities of 800 Wh l-1 and specific energies above 300 Wh kg-1 will be required." I assume these are at the pack rather than the cell level.
 
Here are the specific requirements:
EC said:
The prize will be awarded to the entry that best addresses the following cumulative criteria:

1. Provides high standards for safety, sustainability and recyclability
2. Provides the same experience and user convenience, in terms of range and time required to recharge, as a conventional gasoline/diesel car)
3. Has whole-life costs (in terms of battery materials and its functionality) equivalent or better than gasoline/diesel car
4. Demonstrates reliable power delivery without significant loss of performance for an economically acceptable life time (power delivery to be demonstrated for a life time higher than batteries currently available)
5. Ensures that other performance criteria (car acceleration, safety, etc.) are maintained in comparison to a combustion engine powered vehicle
6. Demonstrates a significant advance in new material technologies while avoiding dependence on import materials (e.g. expensive, rare, and unsustainable materials)

Both primary, (non-rechargeable) and secondary, (rechargeable), battery system solutions will be evaluated. The prize will be awarded to the entry that best addresses the following cumulative criteria. Where a criterion does not explicitly mention the battery system, this is applicable to both battery system solutions.

1. Provides high standards for safety, sustainability and recyclability;
a. The battery must be intrinsically safe for the producer, user and the environment. Any issues such as, for example, thermal runaway leading to fire or explosion of the battery should be addressed and eliminated. Any health threat to users, or to workers during the production of the battery, through contact with toxic materials, must be eliminated and this has to be reasonably well demonstrated.
b. Battery materials should be recyclable and easily dismantled. They should be in line with the framework of a circular and green economy, considering recyclability, durability and sustainability.
c. The battery must comply with any regulatory framework in place at the closing date for submission.

2. Provides the same experience and user convenience, in terms of range and time required to recharge, as a conventional gasoline/diesel car;
a. The new battery should allow a driving range of at least 600 km for a standard, state of the art, electric motor driven Euro NCAP small family car.
b. The battery r-eenergizing time should be less than 5 minutes. For a secondary battery “re-energizing” means recharging the battery to full capacity at a recharging point (i.e. not during continuous charging as for example through induction or overhead-line charging in the street). Re-energizing should not adversely affect the life time and quality of the battery. For primary batteries re-energising means replacement of the spent battery with a fully charged one at a re-charging station (similar to the process of refuelling a vehicle at a petrol station forecourt)
c. The battery should allow a performance envelope of the electric powered vehicle that is similar (or better) than a combustion engine powered vehicle, in terms of acceleration, noise, usable temperature range (about -20 to +50 degrees Celsius), use in dry and/or humid conditions, comfort, reliability, under normal road conditions. The battery operating temperature should not hamper the comfort of passengers and should not need the use of energy consuming cooling devices.

3. Has whole-life costs (in terms of battery materials and its functionality) equivalent or better than gasoline/diesel car;
a. The whole life cycle cost, including consideration of CAPEX and OPEX for the battery, should be market competitive. This has to be shown by respective market studies and market forecast. (For a primary battery the analysis should include battery production, distribution, fitting and recycling/disposal costs)

4. Demonstrates reliable power delivery without significant loss of performance for an economically acceptable life time (power delivery to be demonstrated for a life time higher than batteries currently available);
a.For a secondary battery, the life time and quality of the battery should guarantee at least an operation of 5 years under normal operating conditions, with a minimum of maintenance and repair. (Normal operating conditions correspond to e.g. the NEDC (new European Driving Cycle) or similar). Life time should be estimated as well as possible, through modelling, calculations and laboratory based accelerated ageing test procedures according to the state of the art available in 2020. Ageing of the battery should be documented/proven according to the best available methods in 2020 and its result should be in line with the aforementioned requirements. The battery must allow a cyclability (which is understood as a cyclic phase of discharge and full recharge) during normal use that permits the attainment of the quality and life time mentioned above. The battery should have a negligible "memory effect" (deterioration of maximum storage capacity over time) and should be able to be recharged from any point of State of Discharge. The European Commission reserves the right to carry out its own testing by an independent laboratory (e.g. the battery testing laboratory of the JRC) to verify durability/lifetime claims made by the proposers.
b. For a primary battery, a shelf-life of minimum 2 months with negligible leakage of charge should be demonstrated and the swapping mechanism (to be installed in the vehicle) should guarantee a safe and reliable operation for at least 5 years.

5. Ensures that other performance criteria (car acceleration, safety, etc.) are maintained in comparison to a combustion engine powered vehicle,
a. The battery should be reasonably lightweight, in order to allow the mounting in a standard state of the art electric driven Euro NCAP small family car, without necessitating cost intensive weight reduction measures to be applied to the car body, or significant upgrades to breaking and suspension systems to compensate for the additional battery weight.
b. For a secondary battery, it should be demonstrated that when necessary, this is easily accessible and/or dismountable from the electric vehicle for repair

6. Demonstrates a significant advance in new material technologies while avoiding dependence on import materials (e.g. expensive, rare, and unsustainable materials);
a. The battery should, to a great extent, be made of materials available in Europe, using as few as possible rare earths and critical raw materials, or materials that are non-abundant, and not easily available in the EU, in order to avoid materials supply shortage. The materials should be helping to implement a competitive European battery value chain and allow vertical integration in the value chain from the materials to the final electric vehicle
b. The CO2 balance of the production of the battery should be as low as possible and provided through a detailed analysis.
While I doubt anyone will undertake additional effort just to win this price, it will be interesting to see how many companies/organizations/individuals submit an application for the prize. I'm sure many will.
GRA said:
Along that line, also GCC:
New study provides overview of challenges, requirements for large-scale production of all-solid-state Li-ion and Li-metal batteries
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/02/20180226-assb.html

"To meet the demands of automotive applications in 2025, energy densities of 800 Wh l-1 and specific energies above 300 Wh kg-1 will be required." I assume these are at the pack rather than the cell level.
Those are imaginary requirements. The only thing that is required is to meet customer product expectations within customer price expectations. The challenge for ANY challengers to Li-ion battery technology that wish to to penetrate beyond niche applications will be to exceed some critical specifications of available Li-ion batteries WITHOUT raising the price of the battery.
 
RegGuheert said:
Here are the specific requirements:
EC said:
The prize will be awarded to the entry that best addresses the following cumulative criteria: <snip>
Thanks for posting those.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Along that line, also GCC: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/02/20180226-assb.html

"To meet the demands of automotive applications in 2025, energy densities of 800 Wh l-1 and specific energies above 300 Wh kg-1 will be required." I assume these are at the pack rather than the cell level.
Those are imaginary requirements. The only thing that is required is to meet customer product expectations within customer price expectations. The challenge for ANY challengers to Li-ion battery technology that wish to to penetrate beyond niche applications will be to exceed some critical specifications of available Li-ion batteries WITHOUT raising the price of the battery.
I wouldn't call them imaginary, as something of that order will be needed to meet the 'comparable to conventional ICEs' performance requirement as above. As you note, it will have to be at comparable or lower cost as well. Atually, those numbers are probably still too low to meet that threshold.
 
GRA said:
I wouldn't call them imaginary, as something of that order will be needed to meet the 'comparable to conventional ICEs' performance requirement as above.
Sorry, but specific energy and energy density are already where they need to be. Or are you trying to tell us that most people would not be thrilled to have a Tesla Model S, X or 3 to replace their current car?
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
I wouldn't call them imaginary, as something of that order will be needed to meet the 'comparable to conventional ICEs' performance requirement as above.
Sorry, but specific energy and energy density are already where they need to be. Or are you trying to tell us that most people would not be thrilled to have a Tesla Model S, X or 3 to replace their current car?
Reg, If they were where they needed to be, everyone would be buying them, instead of less than 1% of the public, and that with subsidies. People are unlikely to give up capabilities they now have without some extra something that THEY value. So far, BEVs haven't achieved that capability, although the acceleration performance of the Teslas has come closest. But the cars remain very heavy, and that plus battery volume needs to be reduced (and costs have to come down) while range needs to increase. And now, time to watch the Warriors.
 
GRA said:
Reg, If they were were they needed to be, everyone would be buying them, instead of less than 1% of the public, and that with subsidies.
Time to whip out a straw-man argument? Here is what I actually said:
RegGuheert said:
Those are imaginary requirements. The only thing that is required is to meet customer product expectations within customer price expectations. The challenge for ANY challengers to Li-ion battery technology that wish to to penetrate beyond niche applications will be to exceed some critical specifications of available Li-ion batteries WITHOUT raising the price of the battery.
Trying to claim that battery specific energy and/or energy density are too low to meet modern automotive requirements in today's world which includes the production Teslas is pretty ridiculous, IMO.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Reg, If they were were they needed to be, everyone would be buying them, instead of less than 1% of the public, and that with subsidies.
Time to whip out a straw-man argument? Here is what I actually said:
RegGuheert said:
Those are imaginary requirements. The only thing that is required is to meet customer product expectations within customer price expectations. The challenge for ANY challengers to Li-ion battery technology that wish to to penetrate beyond niche applications will be to exceed some critical specifications of available Li-ion batteries WITHOUT raising the price of the battery.
Trying to claim that battery specific energy and/or energy density are too low to meet modern automotive requirements in today's world which includes the production Teslas is pretty ridiculous, IMO.
Current batteries can't provide comparable to ICE range or longevity even in large cars yet, and they certainly can't do it in small cars. All the evidence indicates that the general public insists that they must at a comparable price before they're willing to switch. That's the fact.
 
GRA said:
Current batteries can't provide comparable to ICE range or longevity even in large cars yet, and they certainly can't do it in small cars.
Apparently the EPA got close to 500 miles in the Tesla Model 3, but Tesla asked them to put a lower number on the sticker. And how about the Tesla Roadster 2 which uses current Li-ion battery technology to travel an estimated EPA range of 620 miles? Do you mean smaller than that?
GRA said:
All the evidence indicates that the general public insists that they must at a comparable price before they're willing to switch. That's the fact.
Back to your straw man? With whom are you arguing? Read what I wrote and then repeated. That's precisely what I wrote. But price is neither specific energy or energy density. Again, those "requirements" for those parameters that someone came up with are not real requirements for automotive application. Nice to have? Sure, improving any specification is a good idea. But it is NOT required.

In transit buses, BEVs have traveled over 1100 miles in a demonstration of a production bus which claims to put less weight on the rear axle than a diesel bus. So they can meet the needs of the vast majority of routes in most climates using the specific energy and energy density of Li-ion batteries today. In that case, they do it with a lower TCO.

Where improvements in specific energy of Li-ion batteries are absolutely needed are in Class 8 semi trucks. Without that, they will not be able to travel farther than about 500 miles while hauling as much cargo as other trucks on the road. They may also require improvements in energy density to travel farther distance, but we don't know how much more space is available for batteries. But if BEV Class 8 trucks are able to achieve 400 miles of range on a 30-minute charge, then I wouldn't be too surprised to see them deployed on longer routes using today's Li-ion battery capabilities. We'll see.

I welcome Li-ion batteries with solid-state electrolytes if they can increase specific energy and/or energy density (and specific power) without significant increase in price. Even with no specifics, I think we need to pay close attention to what John Goodenough has recently been claiming.

Li-metal batteries, OTOH, have so many major drawbacks when compared with Li-ion batteries that they likely will not see the light of day in even the medium future, if ever.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Current batteries can't provide comparable to ICE range or longevity even in large cars yet, and they certainly can't do it in small cars.
Apparently the EPA got close to 500 miles in the Tesla Model 3, but Tesla asked them to put a lower number on the sticker. And how about the Tesla Roadster 2 which uses current Li-ion battery technology to travel an estimated EPA range of 620 miles? Do you mean smaller than that?
Much smaller, all the way down to mini-compacts. I haven't seen anything about 500 miles with the Model 3: While Tesla supposedly accepted less than they achieved, the official HWY range for the $45k base Model 3 LR (which is where range matters) is 295.5, and that's full to empty in ideal conditions when new. In my 15 year-old ICE I plan on at least 400 with a 30 mile reserve in anything other than lousy conditions, the same range it got when new, and it cost me around $24.5k out the door with AWD and various cold weather enhancements (not to forget the full size spare), with a curb weight of 3,095 lb. Without my special requirements I could buy a car like a new Civic for around $20k OTD today that would do the same for the same period of time.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
All the evidence indicates that the general public insists that they must at a comparable price before they're willing to switch. That's the fact.
Back to your straw man? With whom are you arguing? Read what I wrote and then repeated. That's precisely what I wrote. But price is neither specific energy or energy density. Again, those "requirements" for those parameters that someone came up with are not real requirements for automotive application. Nice to have? Sure, improving any specification is a good idea. But it is NOT required.
Regquired, no, but It's certainly expected by the public who are used to having that capability, and feel no need to settle for less. Alternatively, shorter range combined with much quicker recharging would be acceptable - my '69 Datsun 2000 only had a 10.4 gal. tank IIRR, ,and would go 250 to a maybe 320 miles on a tank depending, but since gas stations were everywhere and it took less than 5 minutes to refuel, I didn't much care. Neither ICE comparable range, refueling time or longevity is yet offered by BEVs at comparable prices, and they will need to do so barring a massive switch to mobility services as above.

At the moment, the only way to provide guaranteed BEV range over the long term is to oversize the battery and limit the % initially usable, gradually opening up the SoC range to maintain usable capacity the same as new. This is heavy, volume intensive and expensive. Either batteries with major improvements in energy density and specific energy along with lower prices will be needed to meet the go-anywhere vehicle requirement, or else a battery with far better longevity and a 100% usable SoC without degradation (along with some improvements in energy density/specific energy) is needed.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
In transit buses, BEVs have traveled over 1100 miles in a demonstration of a production bus which claims to put less weight on the rear axle than a diesel bus. So they can meet the needs of the vast majority of routes in most climates using the specific energy and energy density of Li-ion batteries today. In that case, they do it with a lower TCO.
That is certainly the hope, although I'd say we're still gathering cost and performance data - Proterra's own tests in highly favorable conditions hardly count as objective, which is why there are lots of dem/val tests, and we're seeing cases where they do and don't meet requirements - Park City may be a case of the latter, and we'll see how things go in e.g. Oslo or Anchorage. But buses can be chosen for specialized routes far more than a go-anywhere family car. Now, if the public is willing to move to mobility as a service, then they too can specialize their vehicle choices to a much greater extent than they are currently willing, but it remains to be seen whether that will happen.

RegGuheert said:
Where improvements in specific energy of Li-ion batteries are absolutely needed are in Class 8 semi trucks. Without that, they will not be able to travel farther than about 500 miles while hauling as much cargo as other trucks on the road. They may also require improvements in energy density to travel farther distance, but we don't know how much more space is available for batteries. But if BEV Class 8 trucks are able to achieve 400 miles of range on a 30-minute charge, then I wouldn't be too surprised to see them deployed on longer routes using today's Li-ion battery capabilities. We'll see.
No argument from me on this.

RegGuheert said:
I welcome Li-ion batteries with solid-state electrolytes if they can increase specific energy and/or energy density (and specific power) without significant increase in price. Even with no specifics, I think we need to pay close attention to what John Goodenough has recently been claiming.

Li-metal batteries, OTOH, have so many major drawbacks when compared with Li-ion batteries that they likely will not see the light of day in even the medium future, if ever.
I regard all potential battery improvements as speculative (the same goes for fuel cells) until someone commercializes them. People have been working on Li-Si, Li-S, Li-metal along with solid-state batteries for years, and I have no idea which if any will succeed, but what I am sure of is what we have now does not have enough capability to fully replace liquid fossil-fueled ICEs. You seem to agree with this, judging by your truck comments. In the meantime, Class 8 trucks like the 300 mile Tesla would seem to be adequate for port drayage, P&D and distribution, and P&D vehicles up to Class 7 straight trucks are likely winners now, assuming they can actually hit their predicted TCO numbers. Until they've been in service long enough to demonstrate they can, all these claims are tentative.
 
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
And how about the Tesla Roadster 2 which uses current Li-ion battery technology to travel an estimated EPA range of 620 miles? Do you mean smaller than that?
Much smaller, all the way down to mini-compacts.
Yeah, I don't think I know anyone who owns a car smaller than a Tesla Roadster. Sorry, but I cannot imagine wanting to drive hundreds of miles in something the size of a Smart car. In other words, you are again imagining a requirement that does not exist to try to make an absurd point.
GRA said:
Required, no, but It's certainly expected by the public who are used to having that capability, and feel no need to settle for less. Alternatively, shorter range combined with much quicker recharging would be acceptable - my '69 Datsun 2000 only had a 10.4 gal. tank IIRR, ,and would go 250 to a maybe 320 miles on a tank depending, but since gas stations were everywhere and it took less than 5 minutes to refuel, I didn't much care. Neither ICE comparable range, refueling time or longevity is yet offered by BEVs at comparable prices, and they will need to do so barring a massive switch to mobility services as above.
Feel free to name an ICE (non-hybrid) car with over 600 miles of range. I have a hybrid with that kind of range. I've owned it for 16 years and have driven 600 miles without stopping precisely once in all the time I have owned it. Sitting for ten hours is something that many doctors recommend against since it can and does lead to DVT.

Please don't continue to confuse specifications like cost and specific power with specific energy and energy density. Those are different requirements.

Meanwhile, Li-ion-based BEV cars and buses with sufficient battery capacity to FULLY meet their customers requirements are being built and sold TODAY. These vehicles will continue to experience exponential growth as their capabilities improve and their costs come down. In the near future, Li-ion-based BEV Class 8 trucks and other delivery vehicles will join the fray.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
And how about the Tesla Roadster 2 which uses current Li-ion battery technology to travel an estimated EPA range of 620 miles? Do you mean smaller than that?
Much smaller, all the way down to mini-compacts.
Yeah, I don't think I know anyone who owns a car smaller than a Tesla Roadster. Sorry, but I cannot imagine wanting to drive hundreds of miles in something the size of a Smart car. In other words, you are again imagining a requirement that does not exist to try to make an absurd point.
Having driven hundreds of miles at a time in my Datsun Roadster as noted in my previous post, a car far smaller and lighter than the Tesla Roadster, I obviously disagree, nor is the U.S. the entirety of the world. Can you put a pack meeting the range requirements I describe below into a car the size of the Bolt or Honda Fit now? No, you can't, and those are entirely reasonable sizes for a car that will be used primarily in an urban environment, but can also be used for trips.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Required, no, but It's certainly expected by the public who are used to having that capability, and feel no need to settle for less. Alternatively, shorter range combined with much quicker recharging would be acceptable - my '69 Datsun 2000 only had a 10.4 gal. tank IIRR, ,and would go 250 to a maybe 320 miles on a tank depending, but since gas stations were everywhere and it took less than 5 minutes to refuel, I didn't much care. Neither ICE comparable range, refueling time or longevity is yet offered by BEVs at comparable prices, and they will need to do so barring a massive switch to mobility services as above.
Feel free to name an ICE (non-hybrid) car with over 600 miles of range. I have a hybrid with that kind of range. I've owned it for 16 years and have driven 600 miles without stopping precisely once in all the time I have owned it. Sitting for ten hours is something that many doctors recommend against since it can and does lead to DVT.
Many diesel Golfs or Jettas. Actually, ISTR some could go over 700. Now, I'm not saying there are large numbers of people who need to be able to drive 600+ miles non-stop, although some people obviously can use that. My dad's '76 Peugeot 504 Diesel would go 1,200 miles without refueling (that includes the 25 gallon aux. tank he had installed in the trunk, plus the 15 gal. regular tank, so normal range was 450), and he was perfectly capable of driving 600 miles non-stop (i.e. 640 miles Oakland to Portland). I always thought he must have an iron ass, but maybe that's a requirement for truckers.

What I have said from the get go is that BEVs need at least 4 hours at any U.S. freeway speed limit (preferably 5 miles over that, to reflect how most people drive, so up to 85 mph) plus a reserve, in any conditions (which includes HVAC use, a variety of temps and moderate headwinds) that will allow them to drive that speed safely, for the life of the car, with no more than 45 minutes and preferably 20 minutes or less (fast food stop time) to recharge and do it again, and that doing so won't cause any degradation. That means a freeway range of 300-340 miles (for speeds of 75-85 mph) plus at least a 30 mile reserve at the same speed, guaranteed for the life of the car.

Alternatively, a shorter range is acceptable provided that much quicker recharging is also possible, no more than 10 minutes but preferably <=5, conditions and longevity as above. That is what I mean by comparable to ICE performance.

RegGuheert said:
Please don't continue to confuse specifications like cost and specific power with specific energy and energy density. Those are different requirements.
I'm well aware of the differences; where have I confused them? I've said that costs need to be less, specific energy and energy density have to be higher, and haven't mentioned specific power; that's an issue for FCEVs.

RegGuheert said:
Meanwhile, Li-ion-based BEV cars and buses with sufficient battery capacity to FULLY meet their customers requirements are being built and sold TODAY. These vehicles will continue to experience exponential growth as their capabilities improve and their costs come down. In the near future, Li-ion-based BEV Class 8 trucks and other delivery vehicles will join the fray.
Sure, but as long as those customer's requirements remain niches, they won't be able to go mainstream and replace all ICEs. We've never disagreed that they can meet SOME customer's requirements now, but they also have to meet mainstream customer's wants (which they obviously don't yet, given limited sales absent major subsidies and perks). Businesses are different, as they look almost wholly at the bottom line.

Private consumers are as yet not convinced in anything other than small numbers, and I have always believed and stated it will take capabilities like those I enumerate (again) above plus the necessary charging/fueling infrastructure before they'll opt for any AFV, as they're unwilling to give up capabilities they have now for other advantages that mostly don't matter to them. When an AFV gives them the same capabilities they're used to PLUS other advantages will be when ICEs are doomed. Of course, a radical increase in the price of fossil fuels could speed up the transition, which is why I've always thought it would happen sooner in countries other than the U.S. Those same countries also tend to have smaller cars and better high speed mass transit than we do, but they still take road trips.
 
GRA said:
I'm well aware of the differences; where have I confused them? I've said that costs need to be less, specific energy and energy density have to be higher,...
That's the place where you've confused them. You seem to think we need cars with more than 600 miles of autonomy.

Here's another:
GRA said:
...and haven't mentioned specific power; that's an issue for FCEVs.
Sure you did (but it seems you didn't even know it):
GRA said:
Neither ICE comparable range, refueling time or longevity is yet offered by BEVs at comparable prices, and they will need to do so barring a massive switch to mobility services as above.
It seems you don't understand that specific power is the battery specification which limits recharging time. Specific power is not only for H2 FCVs. To achieve a 5-minute recharging time, you need specific power (in W/kg) to be about 12X the value of specific energy (in Wh/kg).
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
I'm well aware of the differences; where have I confused them? I've said that costs need to be less, specific energy and energy density have to be higher,...
That's the place where you've confused them. You seem to think we need cars with more than 600 miles of autonomy.
I specifically said we don't in that very post, we need 300-340 miles plus at least a 30 mile reserve at 75-85 mph while using HVAC etc guraranteed. Now, at the moment it might take 600 miles max. to maintain the needed range for the life of the vehicle, but that's a matter of increasing longevity so that is no longer required.

RegGuheert said:
Here's another:
GRA said:
...and haven't mentioned specific power; that's an issue for FCEVs.
Sure you did (but it seems you didn't even know it):
GRA said:
Neither ICE comparable range, refueling time or longevity is yet offered by BEVs at comparable prices, and they will need to do so barring a massive switch to mobility services as above.
It seems you don't understand that specific power is the battery specification which limits recharging time. Specific power is not only for H2 FCVs. To achieve a 5-minute recharging time, you need specific power (in W/kg) to be about 12X the value of specific energy (in Wh/kg).
No, I understand that BEVs have generally adequate specific power now. Larger capacity batteries will allow them to be recharged in adequate periods of time at smaller C rates. Now, if batteries which can use 100% or nearly so of their SoC without degradation can be developed, they will need higher Ps, as they will have smaller total capacity (and thus need to be capable of higher C rates while charging) for the same guaranteed range in the required charging time.
 
GRA said:
No, I understand that BEVs have generally adequate specific power now. Larger capacity batteries will allow them to be recharged in adequate periods of time at smaller C rates.
Nope. There, again, you are trying to gin up requirements for specific energy by saying we need higher specific energy to compensate for issues with specific power and/or durability. You will say just about anything to try to make your point, I suppose. In reality, if you further increase specific energy, you need to FURTHER increase specific power in order to achieve a 5-minute charge rate.
GRA said:
Now, if batteries which can use 100% or nearly so of their SoC without degradation can be developed,...
Durable Li-ion batteries already exist today. A specific example is the battery used by Enphase in the AC Battery. Unfortunately that battery has specific energy and specific power capabilities which are too low.

I also suspect that the Li-ion battery in the Tesla Model S, which meets the specifications for range put forth by the EC, may already be sufficiently durable. But in that case, it does not have a high enough specific power to meet the 5-minute charging requirement which both you and the EC have said in this thread is required.
GRA said:
...they will need higher Ps, as they will have smaller total capacity (and thus need to be capable of higher C rates while charging) for the same guaranteed range in the required charging time.
Sorry, but the requirement for fast charging does not go away with higher-capacity batteries. You can see that by reading the specifications put forth by the EC for the subject of the thread that you created but are arguing the opposite:
EC said:
2.b. The battery re-energizing time should be less than 5 minutes. For a secondary battery “re-energizing” means recharging the battery to full capacity at a recharging point (i.e. not during continuous charging as for example through induction or overhead-line charging in the street).
As such, the battery MUST achieve the 12X ratio of specific power (in W/kg) to specific energy (in Wh/kg) that I explained above. No battery which does not achieve a ratio of at least 12X for specific power (in W/kg) over specific energy (in Wh/kg) over the full charging range) will meet those specifications.

At the same time you should note that the Li-ion chemistries in virtually every BEV made today can easily meet the specification the EC provided just above that one which relates to specific energy and energy density:
EC said:
1.b. The new battery should allow a driving range of at least 600 km for a standard, state of the art, electric motor driven Euro NCAP small family car.
So, again, please stop confusing these various requirements to try to support your assertion that Li-ion batteries do not have sufficient specific energy or energy density. That is simply not true today.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Current batteries can't provide comparable to ICE range or longevity even in large cars yet, and they certainly can't do it in small cars.
Apparently the EPA got close to 500 miles in the Tesla Model 3
You are mixing up apples and oranges. EPA measured 324 'window sticker' miles, and Tesla asked for 310 miles.

The much higher number is the raw result from the ~ 48 mph average speed EPA test.
 
SageBrush said:
You are mixing up apples and oranges. EPA measured 324 'window sticker' miles, and Tesla asked for 310 miles.

The much higher number is the raw result from the ~ 48 mph average speed EPA test.
You are correct. My bad. Here is a link with more details. I had misunderstood that article when I first read it.

Am I correct now in saying that the EPA drives their tests on a dynamometer?
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
No, I understand that BEVs have generally adequate specific power now. Larger capacity batteries will allow them to be recharged in adequate periods of time at smaller C rates.
Nope. There, again, you are trying to gin up requirements for specific energy by saying we need higher specific energy to compensate for issues with specific power and/or durability. You will say just about anything to try to make your point, I suppose. In reality, if you further increase specific energy, you need to FURTHER increase specific power in order to achieve a 5-minute charge rate.
I specifically said that the 5 minute charge was one alternative, not a requirement for BEVs to become mainstream. It will be necessary if BEVs are to completely replace the capabilities of ICEs. See below.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Now, if batteries which can use 100% or nearly so of their SoC without degradation can be developed,...
Durable Li-ion batteries already exist today. A specific example is the battery used by Enphase in the AC Battery. Unfortunately that battery has specific energy and specific power capabilities which are too low.

I also suspect that the Li-ion battery in the Tesla Model S, which meets the specifications for range put forth by the EC, may already be sufficiently durable. But in that case, it does not have a high enough specific power to meet the 5-minute charging requirement which both you and the EC have said in this thread is required.
As above. See below.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
...they will need higher Ps, as they will have smaller total capacity (and thus need to be capable of higher C rates while charging) for the same guaranteed range in the required charging time.
Sorry, but the requirement for fast charging does not go away with higher-capacity batteries. You can see that by reading the specifications put forth by the EC for the subject of the thread that you created but are arguing the opposite:
EC said:
2.b. The battery re-energizing time should be less than 5 minutes. For a secondary battery “re-energizing” means recharging the battery to full capacity at a recharging point (i.e. not during continuous charging as for example through induction or overhead-line charging in the street).
As such, the battery MUST achieve the 12X ratio of specific power (in W/kg) to specific energy (in Wh/kg) that I explained above. No battery which does not achieve a ratio of at least 12X for specific power (in W/kg) over specific energy (in Wh/kg) over the full charging range) will meet those specifications.

At the same time you should note that the Li-ion chemistries in virtually every BEV made today can easily meet the specification the EC provided just above that one which relates to specific energy and energy density:
EC said:
1.b. The new battery should allow a driving range of at least 600 km for a standard, state of the art, electric motor driven Euro NCAP small family car.
So, again, please stop confusing these various requirements to try to support your assertion that Li-ion batteries do not have sufficient specific energy or energy density. That is simply not true today.
Reg, you're conflating what the EC said and what I wrote. Here's what I wrote:
What I have said from the get go is that BEVs need at least 4 hours at any U.S. freeway speed limit (preferably 5 miles over that, to reflect how most people drive, so up to 85 mph) plus a reserve, in any conditions (which includes HVAC use, a variety of temps and moderate headwinds) that will allow them to drive that speed safely, for the life of the car, with no more than 45 minutes and preferably 20 minutes or less (fast food stop time) to recharge and do it again, and that doing so won't cause any degradation. That means a freeway range of 300-340 miles (for speeds of 75-85 mph) plus at least a 30 mile reserve at the same speed, guaranteed for the life of the car.

Alternatively, a shorter range is acceptable provided that much quicker recharging is also possible, no more than 10 minutes but preferably <=5, conditions and longevity as above. That is what I mean by comparable to ICE performance.
The EC requirements are for full replacement of ALL ICEs; my requirements are for mainstream acceptance, while agreeing with the EC requirements for full replacement. Re: charge rates, going to higher voltage packs such as the 800V Porsche is adopting for the Mission E will enable meeting the 20-45 minute charging time (@350kW) using current batteries, and halve the power density required to achieve 5 minute rates (but will still fall well short of what's needed for that, as you note). The German brands are adopting this approach, and I expect others will follow:
IONITY Debuts 350 kW Ultra-Fast Charging Station
https://insideevs.com/ionity-debuts-350-kw-ultra-fast-charging-station/

. . . BMW, Daimler, Ford, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche (Volkswagen Group) intends to place 400 such stations into use in Europe by 2020. . . .
However, no existing battery in any car has the specific energy and energy density to provide ICE range across the auto spectrum, from say Fiat 500-size cars (140" long) on up; that will require improvements in those areas as well as longevity (and cost, of course). To get to 5 minute charge rates for 300+ miles of range will require very large improvements in power density/specific power, especially if battery longevity increases so that people don't have to carry around over-sized battery packs for the life of the car. But while 5 minute charges are desired to completely replace ICE capabilities, I don't believe they are necessary to achieve mainstream acceptance. I think the first alternative (ICE range plus 20-45 minute charging to repeat, for the life of the car) will be enough to do that.
 
Back
Top