Battery costs, like the cost of any manufactured item, depend heavily on volumes.
We see that here:
""If (Tesla's battery structure) works, we won't have to wait for a breakthrough in battery technology to develop a relatively cheap electric vehicle," Executive Vice President Takeshi Uchiyamada, who heads Toyota's research and development, told Reuters in an interview at the Detroit auto show on Tuesday.
"It could be as low as one-third of the cost of batteries being developed by car makers, because (laptop) batteries are produced in massive volumes." Source
That 67% cost reduction includes a sophisticated liquid cooling and battery management system, and extensive internal thermal isolation, which should be at least as expensive as the Volt's battery systems, and rather more expensive than those of the much simpler Leaf systems.
The batteries being developed for vehicles should cost less than laptop batteries very soon, because it's much less expensive to manufacture larger batteries than the equivalent in the form of hundreds of tiny laptop batteries. EV volumes will grow to the point of economies of scale very quickly: if an EV like the Leaf uses the equivalent of 3,100 laptop batteries1, it only takes 85,000 EVs2, to equal the volume of about 260,000,000 laptops...
1 the Tesla has 6,813 batteries for about 53kWh - that suggests about 3,100 for the 24kWh Leaf!
2 The planned deliveries for the Volt and Leaf in 2011
We see that here:
""If (Tesla's battery structure) works, we won't have to wait for a breakthrough in battery technology to develop a relatively cheap electric vehicle," Executive Vice President Takeshi Uchiyamada, who heads Toyota's research and development, told Reuters in an interview at the Detroit auto show on Tuesday.
"It could be as low as one-third of the cost of batteries being developed by car makers, because (laptop) batteries are produced in massive volumes." Source
That 67% cost reduction includes a sophisticated liquid cooling and battery management system, and extensive internal thermal isolation, which should be at least as expensive as the Volt's battery systems, and rather more expensive than those of the much simpler Leaf systems.
The batteries being developed for vehicles should cost less than laptop batteries very soon, because it's much less expensive to manufacture larger batteries than the equivalent in the form of hundreds of tiny laptop batteries. EV volumes will grow to the point of economies of scale very quickly: if an EV like the Leaf uses the equivalent of 3,100 laptop batteries1, it only takes 85,000 EVs2, to equal the volume of about 260,000,000 laptops...
1 the Tesla has 6,813 batteries for about 53kWh - that suggests about 3,100 for the 24kWh Leaf!
2 The planned deliveries for the Volt and Leaf in 2011
55 comments:
The DB report (http://bioage.typepad.com/files/1223fm-05.pdf) gives some numbers:
650$/KWh in 2009
450$/KWh in 2010
250$/KWh in 2020
That would make a PHEV with a 10 KWh battery quite cost effective by 2015. Personally, i don't believe that current battery technology (Li-Ion) can allow for practical EVs unless they are only used in city trips. A Volt like vehicle though is quite practical and economical.
Yes, thank you.
I find the DB report credible. In fact, I think costs will drop even a little faster than that. They see a 30% decline in costs from 2009 to 2010, and laptop battery costs declined by 14% per year over 15 years, yet they project declines of only 7.5% per year for EV batteries going forward.
Oddly, the DB report doesn't include other savings from EVs, such as the elimination of engine peripherals (fuel pump, carburetor, catalytic converter, etc, etc) and reduction in maintenance costs.
I'm looking for good data on annual repair costs, by component area, for conventional vehicles for, say, 10 or 15 years out. Have you seen any?
So then according to the DB report, the Leaf's battery will clock in at $8,400 in 2015. If it lasts 7 years that will be $1,200 bucks a year in battery costs.
Also, you made this claim in Sept 2009
"We see that current Lithium cells are about $350/kWh for individual purchases. We can expect that an OEM can get them for around 50% of that (no more than $200/kWh),"
http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/09/volt-battery-costs-part-5.html
DB says $650/khw in 2009. If DB is credible as you just wrote, what does that make you?
If you read my remarks carefully, you'll see that when I say "credible" I mean informative and not wildly wrong. I don't mean "authoritative".
Battery costs are a very, very important competitive trade secret. Manufacturers have a very large incentive to exaggerate their costs so as to discourage their competitors, or lull them into over-confidence.
The only thing we can be reasonably confident about is that almost all cost figures from both manufacturers and analysts are too high.
I deleted the last comment, because it's tone was angry, and my reply would have been a series of "No, that's not what I said, and here's why." It didn't seem worth my time.
Honestly, do you really believe that an EV with 100 - 200km range can be a practical replacement for an ICE car? I 'm placing my bets on the Volt idea, not on pure EVs.
As for repair cost data i don't think you 'll easily find any. They depend heavily on the model, usage and country. Your best option is to find the scheduled service costs during a vehicle's lifetime.
That was a very unfair deletion.
All I did was to call your credibility into play. I just quoted what you wrote in the past and juxtaposed it with what you've written now.
You claimed in the past the Volt's battery was electronically limited to 40 miles when this is clearly not the case.
You claim an absurdly low price for the Volt's battery (ignoring the caveats in the article) when its clear that's not the case.
You might think its "No, that's not what I said, and here's why." But its not. Its a challenge to your credibility.
No anger involved.
You seem to have no problem engaging in debates over a series of days on TOD. But can't seem to muster a half hearted defense of your own credibility on your own blog.
Disappointing really.
For anyone curious as to what I was referring to just read over Nick's old blog posts. Such as this one
http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/09/volt-battery-costs-part-5.html
Kostas,
I agree that pure EVs will be a niche market for a long time, and that EREVs like the Volt and PHEVs like the plug-in Prius will be much more popular.
Battery costs will fall, and pure EV ranges will expand, and that niche will expand. At some point there's it's likely that battery capacity will be large enough and charging easy enough that a liquid fuel infrastructure will no longer be worth it, but that may be quite a long time off.
Regarding fuel costs: the data is out there. Entities like the US IRS, Consumer Reports and Edmunds publish summary cost data, sometimes by model and year of life. The question is, how to get access to it?
Anonymous,
Please use a handle of some sort. It will help simplify conversations (especially if there are multiple conversations, like now), it will provide some incentive to civility, and it will allow continuity if we have debated before, as I would guess we have.
"All I did was to call your credibility into play."
And that doesn't seem personal and angry?
You can use other language, like "aren't that post inconsistent with the one on x date?"
-----------------------------
Now, on to details:
"You claimed in the past the Volt's battery was electronically limited to 40 miles when this is clearly not the case."
If you read the post carefully, you'll see that I said that GM limited the battery discharge, not the miles. At that point GM planned to limit discharge to 50% - they've raised the limit to about 62% now.
more later...
"If you read the post carefully, you'll see that I said that GM limited the battery discharge, not the miles. "
You wrote
"The range in the Volt is electronically limited"
If that's not what you intended to say you wrote very poorly.
You also seem to have written very poorly about the cost of the Volt's battery pack.
Again, not angry or personal, just the facts.
Let me be more specific on the battery cost issues.
You quote this article about AT and CE cost differences.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html#more
"All four of these items together justify a 2.5x premium for the AT application (or approximately $ 1,000/available kWh) compared to the $350/stated kWh of a CE system, CPI says."
Then a short time later in this post
http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/09/volt-battery-costs-part-5.html
You quote the wholesale costs ($350/kwh)for individual cells and then discount that by a unsourced percentage to imply a unrealistically low cost for the Volt battery pack.
That wouldn't be so bad if you weren't answering a question you yourself posed at the beginning of the post "Are li-ion battery costs really dropping?"
"The range in the Volt is electronically limited" - If that's not what you intended to say you wrote very poorly.
It's possible to criticize the piece of writing without criticizing the author (one way to do that is to avoid the word "you"). Heck, it's also possible to point out possible problems with the ideas without criticizing the writing. Finally, the very next sentence explains that what is meant is depth of discharge, not miles driven, so I think that's reasonably clear.
You also seem to have written very poorly about the cost of the Volt's battery pack.
It was a very short blog post - it's not easy to cover every detail and possible interpretation.
Keep in mind that what we're doing here is somewhat informal, and based on very incomplete information - it's a bit of a detective game, with an evolving picture.
Nick, Let me be very clear. I am trying to criticize you.
I don't mean to criticize you on a personal level but on a professional level. You are a very intelligent guy who writes very intelligently but seems to have lapses where you play fast and loose with facts and figures.
Take for instance this post.
http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-electric-vehicles-cost-effective.html
It was pointed out to you in the comments you left out a very big cost factor in your analysis. But you've never corrected your post.
Its sloppy, like using wholesale costs of battery cells to misrepresent the cost of a battery pack.
I'm not saying you are a bad guy. I'm saying your work is sloppy, biased clearly in one direction. And yes, this does effect your credibility at least in my eyes.
Yes, I could have made "part 5" a little clearer.
I was talking about the costs for small format li-ion batteries. Those costs are different from the large-format batteries used by car maker, but eventually those costs will converge - small format cells have the advantage of larger unit volume, but large formats are inherently cheaper (think economy size detergent).
"I was talking about the costs for small format li-ion batteries. Those costs are different from the large-format batteries used by car maker"
So why then bring up those unrelated costs when discussing the Volt's battery packs? Isn't that misleading?
comment edited by moderator
Yes, it could be a little clearer.
Small format battery costs are closely related to large format costs over time. I was trying to say that these costs give us a good indication of what GM's costs will be. Probably I should edit that post to clarify it.
Keep in mind that current battery costs aren't really the question. We know the MSRPs for the Volt and Leaf, and GM and Nissan will sell all they can make. The real question is: what will battery costs be in roughly 2-4 years, when the next generation of Evs comes out?
I'm confused. You quote the sourced article saying that laptop batteries will be much cheaper than the large format cells traditionally used by car makers.
"It could be as low as one-third of the cost of batteries being developed by car makers, because (laptop) batteries are produced in massive volumes."
Ok, fine. That makes sense.
But then you go ahead and make this claim
"The batteries being developed for vehicles should cost less than laptop batteries very soon,"
What's the point of sourcing an article if you are going to make the exact opposite claim?
And this claim makes no sense
"if an EV like the Leaf uses the equivalent of 3,100 laptop batteries1, it only takes 85,000 EVs2, to equal the volume of about 260,000,000 laptops..."
Where do you get economies of scale from "equivalent" battery size? Just because y large cells has the equivalent size of x smaller cells doesn't mean your economy of scale grows by x. You are still making only y cells.
Lets do these numbers correctly.
The Leaf has 192 cells in its battery pack. A laptop typically has 12 cells.
1 Leaf is equal to 16 laptops. 85k Leafs is 1.36 million laptops equivalent scale. Or 2.7% of the 49.4 million laptops sold in just the 1st quarter 2010.
There's your scale equivalency.
Let's see if I can clarify:
the sourced article saying that laptop batteries will be much cheaper
The article says that laptop batteries are much cheaper. Heck, Tesla was paying $400 per kWh 3 years ago - they're probably paying $300 now.
Large format batteries are more expensive because they're so new. That will change quickly, as volumes will rise quickly. Keep in mind: companies like LG Chemical that are making EV batteries are also the largest manufacturers of laptop batteries, so the manufacturing engineering knowledge will transfer. Toyota is experimenting with the idea that laptop cell prices will keep some of their lead over large format batteries, but they're only risking $50M on the idea.
Just because y large cells has the equivalent size of x smaller cells doesn't mean your economy of scale grows by x. You are still making only y cells.
Yes, unit volume matters, but total kWh produced matters more. Cumulative manufacturing experience for the internal components is proportional to capacity produced.
Regarding laptop to EV comparison:
Here's an article that suggests that the average laptop battery capacity is about 55 Watt hours: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/notebook-extended-battery,review-1310-4.html
That means that a 25kWh Leaf is equivalent to about 455 laptops. I believe current laptop sales volume is about 200M per year, so that's about 440k EVs per year. It won't take long to get to that level.
"Cumulative manufacturing experience for the internal components is proportional to capacity produced."
Do you have any sources for this?
It seems to be contrary to what the National Academies of Science is saying.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536242934528502.html
"But researchers such as Mr. Whitacre, the National Academies of Science and even some car makers aren't convinced, mainly because more than 30% of the cost of the batteries comes from metals such as nickel, manganese and cobalt. (Lithium makes up only a small portion of the metals in the batteries.)"
"Prices for these metals, which are set on commodities markets, aren’t expected to fall with increasing battery production—and may even rise as demand grows, according to a study by the Academies of Science released earlier this year and engineers familiar with battery production."
forgot the rest of the quote.
"Cumulative manufacturing experience for the internal components is proportional to capacity produced."
In short. There is nothing fundamentally different between a large or small sized battery cell. The only difference is size.
Whatever gains in economy of scale made by the smaller laptop cells has already been applied to the larger car cells. And as the article points out those gains have largely stopped increasing.
But size does matter, as the National Academies of Science pointed out, the larger cells/batteries of the EVs have a larger percentage of their costs influenced by commodities such as metals that are only expected to rise in cost with increased demand.
That's an interesting article. On the one hand, it provides a little new information, and I'll have to take some time to analyze it.
On the other.....it shows how the Wall Street Journal editorial policies are deterioriating under Rupert Murdoch's ownership.
30% of the cost of the batteries comes from metals such as nickel, manganese and cobalt.
Cobalt is somewhat pricey, and it's found primarily in 1st-gen cells like those in the Tesla. These are the cells that are much, much cheaper right now, as we saw in the article that started this post. Small batteries don't use more metal per kWh than large batteries - metal prices aren't a barrier to large format batteries in the range of $350/kWh.
I agree, it took me by surprise when I found it too.
But I'd hesitate to blame WSJ for it. Seems the info came form the National Academies of Science.
If you suspect the journalism just email the author here
michael.ramsey@wsj.com
Or the researcher quoted in the article here
http://www.epp.cmu.edu/people/bios/whitacre.html
The article has a wide range of sources, with conflicting claims. Whitacre is quoted as saying that the DOE's goal of a 70% cost reduction from 2010 costs will take 10 years. On the face of it, that appears not unreasonable to me.
One of the problems with this kind of analysis is sorting out the disinformation caused by competition between car companies. In particular, Toyota has a big incentive to "dis" li-ion, because it made mistakes in developing it's li-ion batteries which delayed their deployment for Toyota. So, Toyota has been "dissing" EVs and li-ion for several years (including in this article).
It is interesting to note that Whitacre is a developer and seller of batteries, and is partially funded by Toyota: both of these create conflicts of interest.
Nick,
Why speculate on their motives? It smacks of ad hominem.
Just email them and find out for yourself.
There is a crucial difference between an ad hominem attack and an identification of a conflict of interest.
It is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is always appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is always a problem.
In this case, the lack of objectivity of Toyota is obvious: their flagship symbol of green/high tech uses NIMH, and they're still some time away from selling a PHEV that will use li-ion. They have an extremely high stake in discrediting the value of their competition: EVs and EREVs like the Leaf and Volt (both of which use li-ion), and their attempts to do so over the last several years have been pretty transparent.
I'm not singling out Toyota: bashing the competition is common in both the car industry and in most other industries. GM engaged in a lot of equally transparent Prius-bashing until they had their own entry in the green/high tech competition.
Honda is an interesting contrast. It's alway been devoted to perfecting internal combustion engines in a variety of applications, and was scornful of EVs until recently. Then, they publicly admitted they had changed their minds about EVs, and were developing their own entry in the EV competition.
You don't know anything about the author or the researcher in question.
Its very easy to contact either of them. Yet you refuse to do so.
Look at this guy's CV
Education
B.A. With Honors (Physics) 1994, Oberlin College
M.S.E. (Materials Science) 1997, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Ph.D. (Materials Science) 1999, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Positions Held
Carnegie Mellon, 2007 - Assistant Professor
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2000-2007, Senior Member Technical Staff
California Institute of Technology, 1999-2000, Postdoctoral Scholar (at JPL)
He's a professor at Carnegie Mellon. He's an expert on Li-ion batteries with 20+ peer reviewed article.
But you claim he has (unsubstantiated) ties to Toyota and dismiss his work.
This is classic Ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
If his research is flawed then say so. Don't attach the man.
Shame on you Nick.
In three pages of awards and announcements you can find Toyota's name by doing a ctr-f
Congrats Nick, you are now in full fledged ad hom mode.
Its really disappointing considering how often you criticize others of Ad hom attacks for much much smaller violations.
If you keep reading that website, you'll see:
"For more information, visit the Whitacre Research Group website."
Click on the embedded link: http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/whitacre/whitacre.html , you'll see:
"CMU Spin-Off Aquion Energy (formally 44 Tech) based on Whitacre Group results is gearing up to produce electrochemical batteries for stationary applications: A fully outfitted R&D center was established in Lawrenceville, PA (2 miles from CMU) in 2010 to scale aqueous sodium Ion energy storage technology. "
Whitacre is an entrepreneur, selling batteries. That means he's a competitor of the companies he's commenting on. A classic conflict of interest.
Second, look below to:
"Toyota Award: In partnership with J. Michalek of Mechanical Engineering, Toyota has funded an in-depth study on PHEV performance and driver behavior. A 2009 Prius with an aftermarket 5 kWh Li-ion battery pack has been purchased and is being outfitted with sensors and computer equipment."
So, Whitacre has accepted funding from Toyota, a competitor of the companies he's commmenting on. Another classic conflict of interest.
Actually, if you read my comment carefully, you'll see that I didn't actually attack Whitacre or his work, I simply noted the conflict of interest, which is perfectly obvious with just a little digging. It's an example of the kind of problem common with such articles.
Have you read the article about Ad Hominem?
It's not Ad Hominem to point out conflicts of interest.
I have to say, this is getting repetitive.
You haven't followed my request to use a handle of some sort; you often don't seem to be really reading my comments for real content or thinking about them; you often drag in your unhappiness about things elsewhere (comments on TOD); and your tone is often hostile.
I've given you quite a bit of leeway, but please confine your comments the more thoughtful sort, or I'll be forced to start deleting them.
So he has had contact with Toyota. Point taken. Can you address what he said in the article?
So he has had contact with Toyota. Point taken.
Well, I hate to beat a dead horse, but that's not my point. The point is that his company has accepted funding from Toyota.
Conflicts of interest aren't the end of the end of the world: they're very common - they just need to be disclosed (or the person looking for an authority should keep looking...).
Can you address what he said in the article?
uhmmmm....I did. I said:
" Whitacre is quoted as saying that the DOE's goal of a 70% cost reduction from 2010 costs will take 10 years. On the face of it, that appears not unreasonable to me. "
70% reduction in 10 years is a 11.3% reduction per year. That's roughly a 50% decline in 5 years. That's roughly in the range of the 14% annual decline seen historically with lap top batteries, as reported by Deutche Bank.
"Whitacre is quoted as saying that the DOE's goal of a 70% cost reduction from 2010 costs will take 10 years."
"The batteries being developed for vehicles should cost less than laptop batteries very soon,"
So if you mean "very soon" to be at least 2020 then I'll buy that.
I'd still like if you could provide some support for this assertion.
"Cumulative manufacturing experience for the internal components is proportional to capacity produced."
Nick I went a head and email Prof Whitacre and asked him about any possible conflicts of interest. This was his reply and he gave me permission to reproduce it here.
"The batteries that I am developing are for grid-level energy storage only, they are water based and have an energy density much much lower than Li-ion and will never compete with Li-ion for vehicle battery packs - so my comments in the journal are in no way in conflict with the technology I am developing, since it is actually impossible that my products would ever be considered for any kind of electric vehicle (nor would I ever consider marketing my product for use in vehicles).
Indeed it is true that I have a relationship with Toyota. I also have similar relationships with GM, the Department of Energy (NETL, ARL, NREL), NASA, multiple venture capital firms that fund the likes of Tesla and Fisker, and multiple top tier battery companies.
As such, I have no vested personal financial interest in any particular outcome; I simply report the results of my work. In this case I have spent several years examining the techno-economics of Li-ion battery production and have very well supported data backing the statements that I have made. I am happy to share these data with any concerned party.
(Furthermore, given Toyota's recent deep investment in Tesla, I would think that they would want someone to be much more positive and bullish than I am about Li-ion batteries. . .)
Lastly, my quoted work is not an opinion - I said what my analysis says the truth is, as supported by hard data obtained and processed to best of my abilities. These claims are also deeply supported by work published by others in the field in various venues.
"
So there you go, no conflict of interest.
He also went on to read this thread that I linked for him. He made this comment to me
"Also, of all this things Nick says, I think his assumption that all battery companies have an individual and mutual interest in quoting cell and pack prices that are higher than production costs is most misguided. That would be collusion and would also be against the way our markets work.
In fact, I'd say that in many cases, battery/pack companies are taking substantial lead losses right now - they are selling and price quoting significantly below their all in manufacturing cost point - they must do this to get into the market and establish share. Then they cross their fingers and hope to achieve substantial cost down in the next 5 years. Also, lets not forget that the lowest celll-level cost values quoted by Nick are from Asia, where production is heavily government subsidized; this is not scalable or sustainable.
Lastly, the DB report is not nearly as well resolved as the recent Boston Consulting Group report (among others). I'm pretty sure it is free on the Web, but See attached - and see exhibit 3 for real current state of the art."
My last comment seems to have have gone missing. Must be a server bug, let me try again.
The BCG report has this to say about battery costs.
"We conclude, therefore, that the cost target of $250 per kWh is unlekely to be achieved at either the cell level or the battery pack level by 2020"
That cost target was set by The United Stated Advanced Battery Consortium.
Anonymous,
That's interesting - thanks for the research.
I would gently disagree with Prof Whitacre about conflicts of interest. He states that he has multiple funding sources, and therefore those influences balance out. I'm willing to take him at his word. Let me try to clarify again: I wasn't saying that I disagreed with Prof Whitacre, or that I doubted his integrity. I was noting conflicts of interest on the part of a source for the WSJ article. My point: articles like these are superficial, and don't include all of the information needed for careful analysis.
But...the conflicts I discussed are indeed conflicts. Li-ion batteries will be competing with stationary batteries such as those he is planning to sell, either because costs for new ones drop sharply, or because of used ones being reused after their primary life is over. Accepting money from a company about which one is commenting is a classic conflict of interest. These are pretty normal ones, for someone like him and, again, not the end of the world. Ideally, they should be disclosed - he does so on his website and he has just done so for us at greater length, but that's something which the journalist did not do.
Clearly, I have a different perspective - I've been watching the corporate behavior of the car companies for a while, and to suggest that Toyota would be influenced in their attitude towards batteries and EV/EREV/PHEVs by their $50M investment in Tesla seems to me unrealistic. The Prius is enormously important to Toyota, and protecting their image as a green/tech leader is far more important than promoting a single venture like the one with Tesla. I give Toyota credit for the Tesla venture, but it's a relatively cheap way to "cover the bases", something all of the car companies are doing with multiple technologies (e.g., fuel cells).
As far as what Prof Whitacre says about battery suppliers taking a loss: that makes sense. I'll be curious for more information.
I'll ask Prof Whitacre for his comments. He seems to have made other comments about my blog - if you could reproduce his email in full that would be great.
I don't feel comfortable reproducing his emails beyond what I've already excerpted.I don't have permission to do so and don't feel comfortable asking him for it either. His comments were made in private.
But I'm sure he'd be more than willing to discuss things with you. He was more than forthcoming in answering my requests.
Please share what you learn.
BTW, I still don't see how bad mouthing Li-ion batteries protects the Prius. According to your logic they are trying to sink their plug in Prius before it even launches.
And trying to implement Prof Whitacre in some sort of Toyota funded anti Li-ion conspiracy is making you look just a little bit silly.
Gee, all this debate about the future cost trends of batteries - no wonder Nick hasn't had time to post on TOD lately.
Trying to quantify the future of battery prices is like trying to quantify the future of the stick market index - why bother?
It is reasonable to assume that batteries will get cheaper in the future, though a tightening of the market for their component metals could change that.
I am sure the Toyota spokesman, in making comparisons to laptop batteries is well aware, though he chose not to comment, on the differences in duty cycle between laptop and vehicle applications - laptops do not need to have extreme current loads for accelerations, operate in cold weather etc etc.
The real issue with EV's, is that, if their drivers want more range, the cars themselves need to change, and become smaller/lighter.
The technology is there today to have long range EV's - they just need to be smaller. It is the attitude that we can have it all that is holding things back. Give up some size and the whole equation changes.
Sure that will mean EV's start out as a niche product, but then, so were "horseless carriages" when they were introduced. Once people get used to them, and their limitations, they will gain acceptance quickly enough.
We do not need to replace all ICE's tomorrow, just some of the ones in the cities, and then more over time - but we'll never get them all.
After all, the Amish are still driving horse powered carriages, and no one is losing sleep over that.
Paul, did you read the BCG report?
Anonymous,
I'll find out more from Prof Whitacre when I have the time. I wonder what he's published in the area?
BTW, I still don't see how bad mouthing Li-ion batteries protects the Prius. According to your logic they are trying to sink their plug in Prius before it even launches.
Toyota planned to use li-ion batteries well before now, but their battery supplier (a member of their tightly linked group of companies known as a keiretsu) committed to 1st-generation cobalt-based li-ion. Then...this kind of battery became known for catching fire (due to manufacturing quality problems). At the same time, Toyota's highly prized reputation for quality was damaged, and Toyota, unwilling to take any risks with more bad PR, killed that project. Suddenly they had to prolong the life of the NIMH battery design. This gave them an incentive to criticize the viability of li-ion batteries.
At the same time, Toyota has invested a great deal in the "parallel-hybrid" system used in the Prius, and planned for the plug-in Prius.
Now arrives GM with a more advanced EREV design, with the clear goal of taking away Toyota's reputation as the leader in green/high tech. That has caused Toyota to feverishly bash EREVs and EVs, as well as the larger li-ion batteries they use.
GM did the same thing to the Prius, before they had their own entry in the green/high tech race: they told anyone who would listen that the Prius was far too expensive, and was just an impractical toy.
And trying to implement Prof Whitacre in some sort of Toyota funded anti Li-ion conspiracy is making you look just a little bit silly.
Sigh. Read what I said once more. I never said that - I was making the point that this kind of topic is very complex, and that journalists tend to oversimply and leave out important information. Like...conflicts of interest. The fact that Prof Whitacre has conflicts of interest doesn't tell us anything by itself, and in fact I said I found his opinions not unreasonable.
The point: a good analyst of this topic (or any difficult area, for that matter) can't take reports at face value - they have to be taken apart and compared to other sources, the calculations have to be replicated, the sources checked, etc, etc.
Paul,
I agree that pure EVs will be a niche product for quite a while. At the moment, the plug-in Prius would probably be at the sweet spot in the trade-off between EV range and cost (if Toyota were to ever bring it to market...).
Of course, that's based on current gas prices; current battery tech; and the current minimal economies of scale experienced by electric drive trains. If oil prices wre to jump, or if our society were to decided to price external costs properly, EREVs like the Volt would be at that point of optimum balance.
Nick,
Toyota has already publicly announced plans to use Li-ion batteries in its next gen Prii and plug in prius.
There is no incentive for them to bash li-ion or to fund anti li-ion studies.
As to what Prof Whitacre has published all you have to do is look here
http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/whitacre/Publications.html
Toyota has already publicly announced plans to use Li-ion batteries in its next gen Prii and plug in prius.
Yes. Someday. Eventually. At the moment, they're fielding a demonstration fleet, several years after their target date. Please, reread what I said.
There is no incentive for them to bash li-ion
There certainly is. GM and Nissan are ahead of them. Their market share in the US has lost momentum against Korean rivals, and even against Detroit. They've suffered a number of well publicized quality problems. Their prized reputation for green/high tech leadership is in serious trouble. They've been EV, EREV and large battery bashing for years, and the stakes are only rising.
or to fund anti li-ion studies.
Again, that's not at all what I said. Have you ever reviewed medical research? Or the process of FDA approval of new drugs? Important questions include interpretation of results, selective choice of evidence, selective publication of favorable research results, etc, etc. These are all subtle things that can be affected by researcher's desires to please their sources of funding. Questions of conflict of interest are basic.
Look at the disclaimer at the beginning of this article:
"DISCLAIMER: The author holds no positions in the oil/energy market that may be affected by the content of this post."
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7385
It's standard practice for financial analysts to provide such disclaimers. Have you noticed that?
Nick you claim the Prius is very important to Toyota. And it is. They have staked the entire future of the prius line, The new hatchback, minivan and plug in Pii, on Li-ion. Additionally Toyota has planned its RAV4-EV on Li-ion technology.
They have done this publicly and loudly.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/13/us-toyota-lithium-idUSTRE70C04U20110113
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20030072-48.html
http://www.metal-powder.net/view/15461/toyota-to-manufacture-lithium-batteries/
And this is not a new phenomenon, they have been talking up Li-ion for a long time.
Why would they be investing so heavily in Li-ion and at the same time bash it? They would be in effect bashing themselves.
If Toyota has any bias, it would be pro Li-ion.
Its true in the past that some execs have publicly stated that Li-ion is too expensive. And, frankly, they are correct. But at the same time Toyota committed the entire future of their hev, ev, and plug in hev to the tech.
Its true in the past that some execs have publicly stated that Li-ion is too expensive.
Exactly. Toyota is bashing li-ion on the basis of cost, and bashing it's rivals who are planning to use larger li-ion batteries. That's what this is all about.
Now, let's look at the articles. The first one says:
" Toyota spokeswoman declined to comment on the article, saying the company was checking the report."
That's hardly a ringing endorsement. It's not even an official announcement - it appears to be some kind of leak, which the company doesn't want to confirm.
The second article says:
"Toyota soon will use lithium ion batteries in a standard hybrid vehicle for the first time, as it slowly moves from older nickel metal hydride technology.
Here's more: "Despite Toyota's plans to equip the hybrid with a lithium ion battery, the source reconfirmed Toyota's basic stance that nickel metal hydride packs will remain the mainstay of its hybrid fleet.
Toyota says hybrid cars require batteries that rapidly discharge and recharge, something better suited to nickel metal batteries."
This is misleading: 2nd generation li-ion power density can match NIMH, and power density isn't a big concern with pure EVs and EREVs, which use larger batteries.
And:
"Shinzo Kobuki, senior managing director in charge of Toyota's battery technology, said late last year that Toyota could be using nickel metal technology for as long as another decade. "
Finally, their plans are indefinite, and far in the future:
"The lithium ion batteries will debut "in the very near future" in a Japan-market hybrid, a person familiar with the matter said. He declined to name the model or give a launch date. "
No plans for the US. No model name, or launch date!
The battle lines are clearly drawn: Toyota is committed to hybrids, and a very, very slow transition to plug-in hybrids and EVs (using first generation li-ion!). They will move from NIMH to 2nd-gen li-ion very slowly.
Why? As best I can tell, Toyota is committed to Panasonic (their keiretsu partner) as a battery supplier, and Panasonic is having trouble developing 2nd-gen li-ion batteries. Further, Toyota has a lot invested in their parallel-hybrid tech. Finally, they might have trouble competing with GM in the EREV space, because GM has aggressively patented their tech (just as Toyota did with their hybrid tech, forcing Ford to cross-license Toyota tech even though Ford developed their hybrid tech independently).
Nick,
This conversation is getting silly. I'm not sure why you think Toyota is so anti Li-ion when they are betting their Prius line up on it and the Rav4Ev. You admit as much.
Yes, They are keeping their Nimh equipped hybrids. But then GM also has Nimh battery hybrids right along side of the Volt. Does that make GM anti li-ion too?
The plug in prius will go on sale next year
http://readme.readmedia.com/Something-New-for-Toyota-Prius-Variety/1983246
Its been in the works for a long time. Its not a secret Toyota wants Li-ion in its new Prius.
But how you go from Toyota is cautious about transitioning to li-ion batteries to any researcher with any Toyota connection is instantly suspect is a bit beyond me.
This conversation is getting silly.
Sure - we seem to be progressing....slowly. I hate to leave questions unanswered, though - that's kind've the point of the blog.
I'm not sure why you think Toyota is so anti Li-ion when they are betting their Prius line up on it
That's exactly the point - they're not. They're inching towards plug-ins with li-ion. That's not betting the line-up on it. More importantly, the Prius plug-in will have a relatively small battery, which goes to the heart of this whole debate over the cost of batteries.
more later...
How in the world is betting the future of your flagship line "inching"?!? They are rolling out the plug in prius next year in 14 markets. That's a bigger roll out than GM did with the Volt.
As to small batteries, the Rav4 EV gen 1 had a 27kwh battery. That's bigger than the Leaf and much much bigger than the Volt.
There is no conflict of interest for prof Whitacre.
Nor is Toyota spreading "disinformation" as you claimed above.
Did you even read the BCG report?
What is silly is you turning Toyota into some sort of boogeyman.
Well, you seem to be repeating your questions/ideas, and not providing much new information.
But, I'll try again.
How in the world is betting the future of your flagship line "inching"?!?
"inching" refers to a pace, a rate: change over time. Toyota is moving to plug-ins and li-ion very, very slowly. They promised to release them before now, and maybe we'll see them at the end of 2012. Toyota is well behind the EV curve (for the reasons I described above), and they know it.
As to small batteries, the Rav4 EV gen 1 had a 27kwh battery. That's bigger than the Leaf and much much bigger than the Volt.
The RAV4 EV was a good vehicle. It's too bad that Toyota and GM were so eager to scrap their EVs. Both companies produced EVs only because CARB forced them to...
There is no conflict of interest for prof Whitacre.
Ahem. You need to expand your arguments beyond simple claims like that.
Again - I wasn't saying Prof Whitacre did anything wrong. Conflicts of interest are perfectly normal for busy entrepreneurs like him. If someone asks him for his opinion, he's free to give it as long as he discloses his conflicts of interest, as he did.
My point: figuring out complex issues requires looking beyond simplistic popular articles, into the details of the arguments.
Nor is Toyota spreading "disinformation" as you claimed above.
When was the last time you saw a major company issue a press release that said that their competition's product was superior?? Companies use public relations as an element of corporate strategy. Their shareholders would sue them if they didn't.
Did you even read the BCG report?
Sure. Here's a pretty good critical analysis: http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/1055.html
turning Toyota into some sort of boogeyman.
No, just a normal corporation in a highly competitive market, using PR as a strategic tool. I'm not picking on Toyota - I've noted examples of GM doing it, as do all car companies.
You say Toyota is inching when in fact they are planning a larger role out for the plug in prius (14 states) than GM did with the volt.(3 states)
You say they are only using small batteries when in fact the Rav4EV will have a very large li-ion battery. (27kwh)
You complain Toyota is phasing in Li-ion along side of Nimh when that is exactly what GM is doing as well. (Tahoe, Yukon, Silverado, Sierra, Escalade)
You claim that Toyota is moving very slowly to Li-ion when in fact they are doing so just as fast or even faster than what GM is doing. (plug in prius, rav4 ev, prius v and prius c)
You claim Toyota is stuck with one battery supplier (panasonic) when in fact they went out and brought in another (tesla)
You claim Toyota's plans are "indefinite, and far in the future" and "No plans for the US. No model name, or launch date!
" when in fact they are bringing out the plug in Prius in 2012 and in 14 states and its prominently featured on their website.
http://www.toyota.com/upcoming-vehicles/prius-family/?srchid=K610_p372324257
I'm sorry, what you are saying just doesn't hold water.
hmm. I seem to have made you feel personally criticized, as suggested by the repeated use of "you say", or "you claim" to make your comments a bit pointed and personal. I didn't mean to get personal - my point was that you didn't seem to really be processing and thinking about what I was saying. I'd like our debate to be a bit more..productive.
But, I'll try again. I forget that communicating new information often requires repetition.
okay, here goes:
You say Toyota is inching when in fact they are planning a larger role out for the plug in prius (14 states) than GM did with the volt.(3 states)
The important parameter to "inching" is time - how fast they're moving. A plug-in Prius is pretty easy to do: just add a plug and a larger battery. People have been doing it since 2004, and there are several commercial companies that will do it for you. The plug-in is still about 1.5 years away, planned for mid-2012. Meanwhile, the Volt and Nissan have been engineered from scratch and are being delivered as we speak.
You say they are only using small batteries when in fact the Rav4EV will have a very large li-ion battery. (27kwh)
First, the Rav4EV is still a concept vehicle, planned for 2012. 2nd, the battery size hasn't been finalized, 3rd, it's a 1st generation laptop type li-ion battery. 4th, Toyota hasn't invested much in it yet - $50M in Tesla - that's not much.
You complain Toyota is phasing in Li-ion along side of Nimh when that is exactly what GM is doing as well. (Tahoe, Yukon, Silverado, Sierra, Escalade)
I don't mind that Toyota is using NIMH. I mind that they've been "dissing" li-ion (at first they "dissed" it in general, and lately they've just been "dissing" large li-ion batteries).
You claim that Toyota is moving very slowly to Li-ion when in fact they are doing so just as fast or even faster than what GM is doing. (plug in prius, rav4 ev, prius v and prius c)
The Prius V and C both use NIMH. The plug-in and Rav4EV are still concept vehicles planned for 2012.
You claim Toyota is stuck with one battery supplier (panasonic) when in fact they went out and brought in another (tesla)
That was the history. Now, they're showing a bit more flexibility, which is nice. Of course, they're still relying primarily on Panasonic, and their investment in Tesla is small - they seem to be trying to cover their bases.
You claim Toyota's plans are "indefinite, and far in the future" and "No plans for the US. No model name, or launch date!
That was what the article you provided said. I agree, they seem to have firmed up their plans somewhat. Of course, they're still pretty far in the future, and Toyota's plans for the plug-in have slipped badly in the past - I hope it doesn't this time.
Post a Comment