Nissan : EV batteries must deliver 300 km (186 m) to compete

[Nubo]

So what is the speculation for how Nissan is going to achieve a 300km pack? Probably not by tripling the size and weight of the existing chemistry.

What might the new chemistry be, or is it possible to enhance the existing LiMNO Spinel design to that extent?

 

[dgpcolorado]

So what is the speculation for how Nissan is going to achieve a 300km pack? Probably not by tripling the size and weight of the existing chemistry.

What might the new chemistry be, or is it possible to enhance the existing LiMNO Spinel design to that extent?

Well, the LEAF already has a 200 km pack according to periodic statements from Nissan (and the Japan testing protocol?). So they only need to increase it by 50% to get 300 km in "Nissan kilometers™"...

 

[mkjayakumar]

You can't argue with the fact that HEV is a lot of Gas !

 

[jlv]

If evs can get to 200+ miles, given how much cheaper stations are, it would be hard to make a credible fuel cell argument for passenger cars. A 30 minute refill is acceptable on road trips and for many the commuter refills happen at night, so already not a burden.

I don't know about you, but my wife does not consider a 30 minute refill as acceptable on a road trip.

 

[walterbays]

I don't know about you, but my wife does not consider a 30 minute refill as acceptable on a road trip.

That tells me that you're doing the driving, not her

Give her turns behind the wheel. Stop for 20 minutes (charging 20% to 80%) and by the time you finish a drink and visit the restroom the car will be ready. That could make short (2 recharge) road trips more palatable.

 

[AndyH]

Can we keep the H2 discussion in the appropriate thread instead of de-railing yet another one?

You'll have to clear that with evnow, drees, as he's both a moderator and the topic founder. He brought fuel cell vehicles into the discussion from the start.

 

[evnow]

You're welcome to your views but you might want to double-check the status of the H2 infrastructure (hint: there is one).

I'm talking about mass infrastructure - with thousands of producers, 100s of millions of consumers and 100s of millions of power lines. Electricity is the most ubiquitous infrastructure in the US - beating gasoline and may be even roads handily. Afterall it is more than a century old.

I think it's too funny that you use a renewable energy strawman to again suggest FCEV/FCHV won't work because of 'efficiency'. Have you really looked at the efficiency of the US power grid?

Yes, I've. We are talking about may be 10%. FCV compared to BEV is 3 times less efficient. Here is the famous diagram by Prof Bossel, a pre-eminent expert on fuel cells and founder of the "EUROPEAN FUEL CELL FORUM".

http://phys.org/news85074285.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[evnow]

So what is the speculation for how Nissan is going to achieve a 300km pack? Probably not by tripling the size and weight of the existing chemistry.

What might the new chemistry be, or is it possible to enhance the existing LiMNO Spinel design to that extent?

I think we are going to see in 2017

Leaf :

100 EPA miles $25k
150 EPA miles $30k

Infiniti :

150 EPA miles $35k
200 EPA miles $40k

Tesla :

200 EPA miles $40k
300 EPA miles $50k

Toyota :

250 EPA miles $45k, FCV, available only in CARB states to meet the quota. Not one vehicle more.

It will be achieved through a combination of higher density and bigger packs, if need be.

 

[jhm614]

I think we are going to see in 2017

Leaf :

150 EPA miles $30k

Infiniti :

150 EPA miles $35k

Man, I hope so. I am in for one of these!

 

[AndyH]

With the cost of 200+ mile BEVs on a downward trajectory, I just don't see a strong need for H2 in passenger cars. I have no problem with H2 being an option, however, and letting consumers decide, as I agree that H2 is generally preferable to gasoline/diesel.

Yes, BEV prices are falling, but FCEV prices are falling faster - and are expected to continue to fall faster than BEV. I think that's really important as there don't appear to be any revolutionary battery developments waiting in the wings.

For consumers, it seems clear that infrastructure and "fuel" costs will favor BEVs over H2 for the foreseeable future. With a BEV, I can "refuel" anywhere I can get permission to use an electrical outlet, and the cost is low.

Hmmm...maybe for the already converted, and especially the already converted on the west coast. I can assure you that the consumer choice in the central and southern US is not electric - especially as about 90% of the advertising and development effort is for natural gas, not EVs.

Of course, H2's trump card is fast refueling, an essential selling point to some fraction of consumers.

Agreed - that's a point. There are others, however. Longer range, no range penalty when using cabin heat, and no significant range loss over time are three that are more critical. I live on the outer edge of the country's 7th largest city. The only car that can get me to my son's homeschool park day every week is a Model S. The LEAF can get me there and back the first year, but not in year number 2. Home charging is nice as long as one isn't going far from home. Sure, that'll change when there's more infrastructure, but we're not there yet for either BEVs or FCEVs.

We need a way to transition to electric transportation and replace all ICE vehicles. To do this, we need vehicles that can replace an ICE everywhere in the country - not just in the places with moderate climates. Don't get me wrong - I'm a mad fan of efficiency and have completely overhauled my life in the past 5 years to reduce my carbon footprint. But the only way I can function today with only an EV is to ignore my family, only go out for groceries, and do the rest of my shopping on Amazon. Things will have to get pretty bad on this planet for even 50% of Americans to agree that the current BEV crop is the 'best' choice.

We need more and lower priced carbon fiber; and lighter weight, more aerodynamic vehicles - that'll allow current batteries to provide longer range. Doubling battery size/mass with a corresponding price will likely reduce, not increase, BEV marketability - at least for the 'other 70%' of consumers in this country...

 

[Stoaty]

Yes, BEV prices are falling, but FCEV prices are falling faster - and are expected to continue to fall faster than BEV. I think that's really important as there don't appear to be any revolutionary battery developments waiting in the wings.

Andy Palmer of Nissan doesn't agree with you, as he called the advancements in battery technology "jaw dropping". Wait 2-3 years until Nissan brings out their next gen BEV before reaching a conclusion.

 

[AndyH]

You're welcome to your views but you might want to double-check the status of the H2 infrastructure (hint: there is one).

I'm talking about mass infrastructure - with thousands of producers, 100s of millions of consumers and 100s of millions of power lines. Electricity is the most ubiquitous infrastructure in the US - beating gasoline and may be even roads handily. Afterall it is more than a century old.

I think it's too funny that you use a renewable energy strawman to again suggest FCEV/FCHV won't work because of 'efficiency'. Have you really looked at the efficiency of the US power grid?

Yes, I've. We are talking about may be 10%. FCV compared to BEV is 3 times less efficient. Here is the famous diagram by Prof Bossel, a pre-eminent expert on fuel cells and founder of the "EUROPEAN FUEL CELL FORUM".

http://phys.org/news85074285.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmmm...thanks for the look back to 2006. As we're now in mid-2014 and have not only a profitable wind to H2 plant in operation and 17 more under construction, but we also have Audi's renewables to fuel plant, wind to H2 and wind to ammonia plants in the US. Since 2006 we've also have the adoption of the Third Industrial Revolution plan in Germany, Denmark, the entire EU, China, and San Antonio; and RMI's Reinventing Fire program that's also underway in the US and China. All this has been linked on this site.

This is why BEV manufacturers are evaluating vehicle range for future vehicles - they accept the reality and viability of hydrogen.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.

Audi: Wind to Fuel:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOn1FkwPjMA[/youtube]

Rifkin's Saturday keynote 1: http://www.eomega.org/online-workshops/where-we-go-from-here#-workshop-description-block

Background...
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333790#p333790
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=334783#p334783
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335083#p335083
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335266#p335266

At-home H2 refueling - off the shelf:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335561#p335561

Back squarely on topic:

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...l-cell-vehicle-for-14-u-s-debut#axzz2kSvS7ytH

Kwon Moon-sik, Hyundai Motor Group's president of r&d, discussed the plans during a recent media event here, saying that cost factors are pointing the company toward electric vehicles powered by hydrogen rather than batteries, where several automakers say the potential for economies of scale are drying up.

"There is no problem with the technology -- only with the cost and profitability," Kwon said of battery EVs. "We cannot make a profit with them."

Kwon says that the advanced lithium ion batteries used in modern electric cars remain expensive, and few opportunities for cost reductions are on the horizon.

On the other hand, he said, hydrogen fuel cells offer more hope for volume savings.

Kwon's comments highlight the global auto industry's increased attention to hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles, whose only waste product is water.

 

[abasile]

I can assure you that the consumer choice in the central and southern US is not electric - especially as about 90% of the advertising and development effort is for natural gas, not EVs.

To the extent that natural gas is favored there, it appears to me it's because natural gas is a much less expensive fuel compared to gasoline or diesel. Why would those consumers switch to H2 if it's not significantly cheaper than petroleum?

If the cost of 300+ km of EV range drops as expected in the next few years, there will be more interest in EVs everywhere. I'd say bring on the H2, though, as competition between technologies can be a good thing.

 

[Stoaty]

Yes, I've. We are talking about may be 10%. FCV compared to BEV is 3 times less efficient. Here is the famous diagram by Prof Bossel, a pre-eminent expert on fuel cells and founder of the "EUROPEAN FUEL CELL FORUM".

Hmmm...thanks for the look back to 2006. As we're now in mid-2014 and have not only a profitable wind to H2 plant in operation and 17 more under construction, but we also have Audi's renewables to fuel plant, wind to H2 and wind to ammonia plants in the US. Since 2006 we've also have the adoption of the Third Industrial Revolution plan in Germany, Denmark, the entire EU, China, and San Antonio; and RMI's Reinventing Fire program that's also underway in the US and China. All this has been linked on this site.

You didn't address the issue of efficiency. Perhaps you can point out where the fuel cell expert is wrong about the low efficiency of FCV compared to BEV.

 

[pkulak]

Have you really looked at the efficiency of the US power grid?

Between 6%-8% for transmission and distribution losses. Source

Yup. Extra-high-voltage transmission lines (~750,000 volts) are one of the most efficient ways to transport energy. Oil pipelines may beat it, but at a huge environmental cost.

 

[AndyH]

You didn't address the issue of efficiency. Perhaps you can point out where the fuel cell expert is wrong about the low efficiency of FCV compared to BEV.

I've already talked about efficiency, Sloaty - it's still red herring. The 'expert' isn't necessarily 'wrong' based on the 2006 date and the pretty poor bounds - but we have new electrolyzers, new fuel cells, and new assumptions - and that completely changes the picture. Revisit Reinventing Fire and the Third Industrial Revolution, or the links in my post above.

We've run these numbers before since the beginning of this forum - there's nothing new here. I cannot drive a Leaf 300 miles regardless of the relative efficiency of either the grid or a rooftop PV system. I cannot get 80 miles of range in a Leaf in the winter during the 2nd year of ownership. I cannot refuel an EV to 100% in 5 minutes. My electric motorcycle cannot get close to the original 45 miles of range after 4000 miles. The real impediment to mass adoption of BEVs isn't efficiency.

 

[AndyH]

I can assure you that the consumer choice in the central and southern US is not electric - especially as about 90% of the advertising and development effort is for natural gas, not EVs.

To the extent that natural gas is favored there, it appears to me it's because natural gas is a much less expensive fuel compared to gasoline or diesel. Why would those consumers switch to H2 if it's not significantly cheaper than petroleum?

If the cost of 300+ km of EV range drops as expected in the next few years, there will be more interest in EVs everywhere. I'd say bring on the H2, though, as competition between technologies can be a good thing.

It's not about the price of fuel - it's about the ability to refuel quickly and range/run-time. Lawn services are converting to CNG mowers - they can run all day and 'refuel' as quickly as changing a tank on a gas grill.

The outer loop around San Antonio is 95 miles. When I was on the road visiting clients and delivering supplies, it would take one day to do the work with an ICE and 2-3 days in a Leaf (no DC charging, most L2 downtown). That's why businesses are choosing one over the other - and that's why, if BEVs cannot gain some range and the ability to run the heater in the winter, FCEV will be the ICE replacement in many areas.

 

[abasile]

It's not about the price of fuel

If hydrogen fuel is no cheaper than petroleum-based fuel, I think it's going to be a pretty hard sell. My point was that the success of natural gas as a fuel has been very much tied to its lower cost relative to petroleum.

Compared to petroleum, natural gas, or H2, "refueling" time works against EVs in the market, but generally this becomes less of a factor as range improves.

 

[DaveEV]

Compared to petroleum, natural gas, or H2, "refueling" time works against EVs in the market, but generally this becomes less of a factor as range improves.

And once you have 200 miles of range, 20-30 minute QC time is basically a non-issue except in very limited use-cases. The rest of the time you wake up with as much charge as you need.

The farthest I might drive in a single day is around 450 miles. I typically stop around 3 times on such a trip for 20 minutes each stop, even with a car that only needs a single fuel stop to make the trip. A 200 mile EV (like a 60 kWh Model S) can do that trip today on 100% renewable energy.

Yeah, the car is a bit expensive ($73k starting price for a 60 kWh w/SuperCharging). But it can be done today.

But do you really need 200 miles of range? Only for road trips. For just about everything else, a real 100 mile range (120 mi EPA) would be far less expensive and far more efficient.

 

[donald]

This whole thread is based on a false predication, imho.

Palmer declined to offer a target range. But EV batteries must deliver up to 300 kilometers, or 186 miles, for the cars to present an everyday alternative to the hydrogen fuel cell cars that rivals are developing, he said.

So this guy is saying BEVs don't currently offer a viable alternative to hydrogen cars that don't yet exist??

Something has gone wrong with this guy's sense of reality!

I'd have to point out to him that on-board hydrogen storage must deliver 100,000 mile range before FCEV's offer an an everyday alternative to nuclear powered cars that won't need refueling for 20 years!!! :lol:

Build your F*** car first, fella, before having the balls to declare others aren't a viable alternative!