Will GM Revive the Electric Car? Part 2
Johnson Controls-Saft CEO Mary Ann Wright explains the critical success factors for automotive lithium-ion batteries
As I noted last week, General Motors new Chevy Volt concept vehicle has received quite a bit of fanfare around the green blogosphere; as we also saw from some of the comments that post received, the company’s claim that it must develop an automotive lithium-ion battery to move the Volt to production has met with its share of skepticism. The media event I attended last Monday was aimed, in part, at skeptics — the company wanted to make its case for choosing this particular path, including the reasons for developing new battery technology instead of taking advantage of current nickel metal hydride batteries common to most hybrid vehicles.
While our breakfast meeting with Larry Burns was small and relatively casual, GM had a thorough formal presentation planned for the larger group of reporters and writers that gathered later in the morning. Joining Beth Lowery, GM’s VP of Energy and Environment, were Denise Gray, Director of Hybrid Energy Storage Systems for GM, and Joe LoGrasso, the Engineering Group Manager in that same division. Also present were representatives of the companies GM has contracted with in developing li-ion batteries for its “E-Flex” concept: Mary Ann Wright, CEO of Johnson Controls-Saft, Ed Bednarcik, VP and General Manager of A123Systems, and Scott Lindholm, VP of Systems Engineering for Cobasys. The presentations by all of these executives came together around two common themes: 1) the li-ion automotive battery is necessary for the E-Flex concept; 2) the combination of talent and experience GM had brought together can make it happen.
LoGrasso and Wright tackled the main question on everyone’s mind: why lithium-ion when nickel metal hydride is a battery technology that, according to LoGrasso, is “nearing maturity in cost and performance.” According to LoGrasso, GM had decided upon the following needs for a battery for the Volt:
- Energy: 40+ miles all-electric in city driving
- Recharge: While driving and with plug-in
- Power: EV driving full vehicle performance
- Life: 10 years/150k miles life
The advantages of li-ion batteries include:
- Superior specific discharge power & energy
• ~40% less mass than NiMH
• ~20% less volume than NiMH - Excellent cycle life
- Long term cost potential
- Relatively low self-discharge
- Easier to control (determine SOC & power available)
To put this in terms that apply to most people’s driving, a NiMH battery in the space alloted for a battery in the Volt would provide a 25-30 mile range in electric-only mode, and not provide the power most consumers want — according to engineers that addressed this for me later by email, “The 0-60 would be unacceptable. The owner would also have issues with being able to drive up hills.” An li-ion battery, on the other hand, could provide a 40-mile electric-only range with the power most car owners expect. Wright also noted that lithium-ion batteries provide more power with less space and weight, which translates into cost savings. Challenges still exist, of course, including cold temperature performance (mentioned here), as well as life span, robustness & abuse tolerance, the more sophisticated electronics needed to maintain li-ion cells, and the initial costs of the batteries and battery packs before production can be ramped up to a scale that will bring prices down.
The questions asked here at Green Options also came up during the Q&A period — why not go with the technology currently available and upgrade as necessary? The company stuck to its story — li-ion is necessary to create a plug-in hybrid that meets the power and energy expectations of most consumers.
So, is it? GM and its partners made a complex case for this technology — we’d love to hear why you think they’re right or wrong.
For other takes on this presentation, visit Autoblog Green, Evolution Shift, and EcoWorld.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:18 am
RE: Examination and rebuttal of GM’s attack on NiMH EVs
I was not aware of any attempt by GM at an answer, least of all in the Detroit Free Press. No one addressed a response to me. I’ll look for it, and rebut it. Of course, the Freep is not likely to
print my answer in a free forum, just as no GM person has spoken truthfully about the issue of NiMH vs. Lithium.
Here are your claims, contradicted, sadly, by simple facts:
1. GM claims “NiMH is too expensive” for an Electric car
Nickel Metal Hydride (”NiMH”) is cheaper than Lithium per kWh, as I’ve detailed ($225 to $350 per kWh, according to the California Air
Resources Board) while the very cheapest 18-650 Lithium cylinders, with all the economies of scale and all the dangers of thermal runaway, is over $400 per kWh. Altair nano quotes $2400 per 1.3 kWh
module.
2. GM claims “NiMH is too heavy”.
NiMH battery packs are not too heavy for putting in an EV. A 780 lb. battery pack in a 3000 lb. SUV (RAV4-EV) is not excessive, that gives over 100 to 200 mile range; the Volt would only need a 300 lb.
NiMH pack. A slightly smaller pack carried the over-3000 lb. 1999 NiMH EV1 up to 160 miles on a charge, faultlessly. While NiMH in
our RAV4-EV may last over 200,000 miles, amortizing its CARB-estimated $13,000 cost at 6.5 cents per mile, no Lithium battery pack has so far exceeded 50,000 miles in a production car. While
Lithium is lighter, you have to consider life-cycle costing, and Lithium’s slight advantage in weight is not worth the shorter life,
thermal and toxic dangers, and wildly more expensive life-cycle cost. Perhaps some day these problems will be solved; but Lithium is not here yet and may never arrive, as even Bob Lutz admits freely.
3. GM claims on a “wells to wheels” basis NiMH is a “really bad choice” for CO2.
I’d like to see the “well-to-wheel” calculations you claim; I wonder if you consider the upstream costs of oil exploration and extraction, oil wars, etc. I doubt that you have considered NiMH
EVs that are powered by off-peak charging paid for by on-peak excess generation of electric by rooftop solar systems. This effectively
eliminates the “wells” part of the “wells to wheels”, since our NiMH RAV4-EV don’t need any supply of petroleum beyond that required to
make the solar cells and EV itself. This is actual, in-practice, verifiable experience visible right now at the homes of hundreds of
NiMH RAV4-EV owners, not fantasy. So far this year, we generated over $200 in excess electric after powering two NiMH RAV4-EV; last
year, we donated $89, the year before $99 in excess electric production credits. That’s not generating CO2 at all for over 30,000 miles per year, avoiding (at our fleet averge of 20 mpg)
burning 1,500 gallons of gasoline, and avoiding releasing more than 30,000 lbs. of CO2 per year. You are welcome to visit our solar home and take a test drive in one of our all-electric RAV4-EV.
Bring Bob Lutz, if you wish.
4. GM claims NiMH EVs have “Worse performance”.
Performance of the primitive NiMH used in the 1999 EV1 was GREAT; the current better NiMH still in use in the RAV4-EV is even more satisfying. The EV1, with these better Panasonic NiMH, would, it is
estimated, have a 200 mile range (or only need a 400 lb. battery pack for 100 mile range). The 1999 EV1 scampered up and down hills like a billy goat, and beat anything off the line except some big
Mercedes.
5. GM claims “No long-term hope to get much cheaper”.
This does not answer the question “why not rely on NiMH now, and do research into the future?”. This is a critical need we are talking about, oil dependence, GM’s reputation, air, land and water
pollution, oil wars, energy independence, industrial future of America, and more. Perhaps some day Lithium will be practical; but NiMH is the standard.
6. GM claims “If you think NiMH is so good, build a NiMH EV yourself!”.
This is the same old cheap shot that EV deniers (like GM) have used for decades. Why don’t [fill in name here] go build an EV if you think it’s so easy, they say. The real argument behind this kindergarten ploy is that the auto makers have the right to decide what cars to make, and don’t want to be told what to do. I’d merely rephrase
what David Freeman stated, in WKtEV: “making clean cars should not be entrusted to the auto makers”. We in the General Public have subsidized and trusted the auto industry for decades, built up and
supported companies like Ford, GM and Toyota with government handouts and emoluments. Now, there’s a public interest, which GM has recognized, in selling cars to the general public that can run
oil-free for at least a thousand miles of driving per month. The question is whether GM is serious about its pretense of fulfilling this need, or whether it’s just lying. Nothing, no diversion, no
trick, can change the subject from that. GM seems to be headed for failure on the Volt, inexplicably ignoring the standard EV battery; is GM just fooling us again?
GM has not yet provided an answer to the issues and numbers raised here. GM is still ignoring the existing NiMH used in the RAV4-EV, still running and still wonderful.
The biggest problem with the idea of GM needing Lithium to release the serial plug-in Volt is that Lithium might not work. Even Bob Lutz now qualifies the program by claiming a “10% chance of
failure”, as if failure to develop Lithium vitiates the entire program. With NiMH, there’s a record of success. It’s the most researched, most proven, and the standard EV battery, studied in the
millions of EV miles.
GM’s problematic quest for Lithium prior to using existing NiMH puts in question GM’s entire Volt program. Moreover, GM’s ignoring existing, working, standard NiMH batteries is baffling, especially since GM should know about NiMH — having sold control of the battery patents to Texaco (after Oct. 16, 2001, Chevron) on Oct. 10,
2001.
Finally, personal motives or attacks have nothing to do with the issues; there is an answer, I’d like to see the numbers.
The numbers I’ve given, and the existing NiMH used in the RAV4-EV, are real, valid and demonstrable. If you wish to raise motives and past misdeeds, I might ask why GM went to all the trouble of vindictively crushing our two EV1 vehicles, refusing to sell them to us for cash, then billing us for “scratches” and “excessive wear” on the EV1 cars that GM crushed, which ran as well when crushed as they did when new. When our lawyer advised us to demand that GM prove the claim, GM sold its false claim to a credit bureau (”GC Credit”) which harassed us with phone calls each week. Behind our back, GM reported us as “charge-offs” (instead of “disputed claim”) to the
three credit agencies, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and damaging our credit. When forced to remove the false mark on our credit, GM made multiple inquiries on our credit, apparently trying
to knock down our FICO score. But let’s stay away from GM’s past failures and misdeeds.
Let’s concentrate on the issues that are important to GM, to America, and to those who want to buy an oil-free car that helps address our global warming, pollution and energy-independence issues.
Lastly, GM is suing the State of Vermont for, basically, the continued “RIGHT TO POLLUTE” with Internal Combustion (”IC”) cars. Does this sound like a company that ruefully and honestly is reversing course, changing its spots, and “going green”? No, it sounds like the SAME OLD GM, FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO POLLUTE, and keeping the newspapers out of the courtroom based on phony “proprietary information” secrecy grounds.
If GM is not conning the public, explain yourself.
Doug
——————————-
>At 09:29 AM 3/19/2007 -0400, [GM's Chris Pruess] wrote:
>Doug,
>We responded to your question to the Free Press, you simply didn’t
like the answer.
>What, are you heavily invested in NiMH batteries and upset you’re
on the wrong train?
>To restate it, NiMH is heavy,
>expensive and on a wells to wheel CO2 basis, a really bad choice
for global climate change.
>It’s also got worse performance and
>no long term hope to get much cheaper.
>The fact no car company in any market is using nickle batteries for
pure EVs is the answer to the question. If you feel differently,
please get an investment group together and go into the NiMH battery
car business and prove the entire global auto industry wrong. Please
also consider this the last response to your question and give Katie
a break.
>Kindly,
>Chris Preuss
>GM PR
March 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I see that Doug Korthoff has appeared once again
as the champion of NiMH batteries, for some strange reason known only to (presumably) him and God, continues to pump these technologically inferior batteries as saviors. As the GM respondent said (GM used NiMH batteries in their crappy EV-1 electric car fiasco in 1998), NiMH batteries are HEAVY and not long lasting and a dead end in terms of future devlopment. The only
rational reason anyone would pump NiMH batteries
is because they own stock in a company that makes them. There is no other earthly reason anyone with any knowledge of battery technology would ever even mention NiMH batteries. They’d be laughed out of the room. Korthoff’s position presents a real mystery. Tell us Doug, why the silly arguments in favor of a clearly inferior battery?
March 20th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I’m wondering why Altair’s Battery wasn’t considered, or if it was, what about it made it inappropriate for the Volt. It’s specs seem to solve all of those issues, albeit with a seemingly high cost/volt ratio
March 20th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I don't know, but I can ask… I know Altair was mentioned in conversations among the reporters there… mostly from the automotive press, of course…
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
March 20th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
This anonymous poster, like GM, utters vague terms like “too heavy” without quantifying or providing truth.
NiMH on the Volt would weigh one-third of 780 lbs., or 260 lbs., giving 40 miles of oil-free range and over 200,000 miles life. That weight would be offset by the reduction of clutch, transmission,etc., and the cost offset by the recycle value of Nickel.
Altair’s Lithium, like A123, like all Lithium, is NOT PROVEN to last as long as even 100,000 miles of driving. Moreover, it has a shelf-life issue, so that even if you don’t drive the car, you may have to replace the battery after a few months.
A CHALLENGE TO GM TO PROVE THEY ARE NOT JUST LYING!
The EV1 was a great car, and the Toyota RAV4-EV is still running every day on the great NiMH batteries. What reason is there for GM to ignore this, and LIE?
http://drivingthefuture.com/#Challenge
March 21st, 2007 at 4:51 am
I leased an EV-1 for a few years. Also got dinged for mystery dents as unpaid charges on my credit report. GM fixed that without a problem. Weirder is how GM reports 80 mile range on the EV-1? I had a Gen II car with the NIMH batteries and always got over 120 miles per charge. Wife and I live in SoCal and drove around with the AC on too. Sure it was probably hard to lease that car during the height of the SUV craze when gas was cheap. But now? With gas at $3/gal in California and after 9/11 and Global Warming? It would be a very different story. For Volt, I hope GM just relaxes its range requirement, say -50%, then builds up from there instead of shooting for the whole electric enchilada at once. Otherwise a 40 mile LiIon Volt may cost as much to build as a fuel cell car…
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Responding to Chris Preuss of GM PR:
For someone who’s job is in Public Relations and who’s function is to promote GM’s products, you come across as pretty heavy-handed, petulant and obnoxious.
Chris Preuss (responding to another person’s commentary): >>>What, are you heavily invested in NiMH batteries and upset you’re on the wrong train? To restate it, NiMH is heavy, expensive and on a wells to wheel CO2 basis, a really bad choice for global climate change. It’s also got worse performance and no long term hope to get much cheaper. The fact no car company in any market is using nickle batteries for pure EVs is the answer to the question. If you feel differently,
please get an investment group together and go into the NiMH battery car business and prove the entire global auto industry wrong.<<<
So are we to take it that you mean any customer gullible enough to purchase a new Saturn Green Line Vue, Saturn Aura Green Line, your newly announced Hybrid Malibu, Cadillac, or Tahoe—all with NiMH batteries—are buying underpowered, expensive, heavy, and environmentally harmful products? Should we just put off purchasing a GM vehicle for 3 or 4 years until the Volt MIGHT be ready? Nice.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:11 am
while reading about ChallengeX I ran across UC Davis’s entry Trinity. the teams website is http://www.team-fate.net.
Trinity seems to have found a lithium battery solution that meets these specs and more. they are using Lithium Technology Corp “GAIA” cells.
40+ electric range
robust performance, and everything else mentioned here and in other discussions.
read their technical report here: http://www.team-fate.net/technical/UCDavis_Spring2007_TechReport.pdf
looks like we could have a volt in 2008-09 if all it is is the battery GM is waiting for.
i checked for doug and LTC is public so GM could just buy them … if need be.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Nickel metal hydride batteries may well have the durability and longevity and energy density to be viable for 100% electric cars. But battery energy is measured in more ways than just kilowatt-hours per kilogram. The ability of a battery to provide surge power is also a vital requirement for a 100% electric vehicle - and in this area lithium ion batteries are superior. In any case, why knock the lithium ion battery? They have many promising chemistries and companies such as ABAT are beginning to manufacture them in significant volumes.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
[...] Keeping an Eye on the Big Boys [...]