All "Future" battery technology thread

[JRP3]

I wouldn't expect that the price of oil will fall much below $70 for very long, as a significant fraction of supply comes from deep offshore, as that is about what it costs to drill and pump a barrel from deep offshore fields.

I'm not suggesting a lack of price fluctuation, I'm just saying I don't think we are going to see the extremes that some are predicting for quite a while. Peak oil is not playing out the way many expected, including myself.

 

[evnow]

I'm not suggesting a lack of price fluctuation, I'm just saying I don't think we are going to see the extremes that some are predicting for quite a while.

One of the reasons for wild fluctuations was uninhibited speculation. That has been curbed somewhat after 2008 meltdown.

 

[GRA]

Eventually doubling current range for the same battery weight/volume may well be possible with incremental improvements, but not much more. And that's not enough - a 150 mile range Leaf (in ideal conditions) is certainly more useful than a 75 mile one, but it's a long way from the requirement for >= 300 miles in any conditions that will be needed to replace the mass of ICEs.

The future is rather unknown. It isn't just battery or car prices that matter, or range. For example, $400 per bbl dollar oil meaning $10+ per gallon gasoline would likely move a lot of BEVs, even if it only lasted a month. Not that I expect that or hope for that, but I'm not sure that will not happen. The perceived risk of buying gasoline would rise, as it has in the past. While I''m somewhat dubious that the USA will get serious about the greenhouse threat, that could happen, and one way that this might take effect would be a rising tax, which might lead to a similar and long lasting perceived fear of gasoline prices.

Note that it is not always a careful calculation of cost that matters. The perceived risks matter as well. If a new car shopper in a few years (or even today) was looking at a BEV for $16,000 and an ICE for $15,000, the risk of the BEV is the whole unknown of driving with a lower range and slower recharge, the unknowns of batteries such as lifetime, and just general unknowns. On the other hand, the risks of the ICE are fairly well understood, so are less scary even if they were higher. Even with a calculated break even time of a few years, most people might not pick the BEV. After a decade of BEVs being a niche product, then the perceived risk of the BEV will be lower. Gas price or tax increase might increase the perceived risk of the ICE. Even if the BEV is a bit more expensive, if it looks lower risk it might be the choice of the majority.

What I hope for is that BEVs maintain a substantial niche so that the technology keeps improving, and so that the perceived and unknown risks of owning one decreases. I'm less concerned about breaking into the mainstream soon, than in laying the foundations for an eventual change. Gasoline has a limited future, BEVs do not.

I'm in agreement with all of this, except for the claim that $10/gal gas by itself will move a lot of BEVs. It will tip people over the edge who were already interested if there's a short term price spike, but the Europeans have shown that you can get used to $10 gal. gas and still not buy large numbers of BEVs. What would definitely happen if gas prices here went to $10/gal. is that people would make even more adjustments to their life and driving styles than they already have, and the sales of HEVs would take off while SUV sales would crater. As it is, our society is getting older and already moving back in from the suburbs to urban areas, and that trend will only continue given higher fuel prices. And car sales look on track to decrease long term as well, as fewer people feel the need to own a car - autonomous cars will hasten that trend.

 

[GRA]

Actually it probably will. A change in even 1% of world production can easily influence pricing. Increased production in a stable country such as the US will likely stabilize pricing to some degree.

As can a change of 1% in world consumption.

The reason for this is well known, both the pumping oil and the burning of oil isn't very price sensitive in the short term. To pump more oil requires drilling more holes which takes time. So even doubling of the price will only slowly increase pumping of oil. Usage of oil is also can't change very fast. If you drive a BelchFire8 getting 10 miles to the gallon, price doubles and you still have to get to work. Sure, a few will carpool, and a few will park the car and walk or ride the bike or take the bus. And some trips might be not taken, such as the weekend trip to the beach. But most will not change much, and many can not change much in the short term.

Longer term of course, maybe you can buy a more fuel efficient car or move closer to work.

Political stability will lead to price stability only if much of the supply is from stable countries or if there is so much supply that the loss of a source doesn't matter. If 10% of world supply comes from unstable countries a 10% reduction in oil supply will lead to a large price increase.

To predict oil prices spikes requires predicting the politics and potential wars in the Middle East, West Africa and former Soviet Union. Yes, maybe nothing will happen. I'd suggest not betting the house.

Right now, Iran's exports are down by roughly 50% due to the embargo. I'd expect a large negative price spike, maybe down to $35 per barrel, if the embargo ends. A short war or revolution in any of the less stable large oil producing countries might double the price of oil.

I wouldn't expect that the price of oil will fall much below $70 for very long, as a significant fraction of supply comes from deep offshore, as that is about what it costs to drill and pump a barrel from deep offshore fields.

For those who couldn't read the wsj article, here's Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-oil-production-idUSL1E9C87T920130108" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Consider, though, that diesel engines for ships were state of the art by the end of WW1, had taken about 25% of the market by the eve of WW2, and yet steam-powered ships were still being built into the '70s for special applications (military and some others) despite diesels having undeniable life-cycle and operating advantages. Full transitions are slow.

Some are faster than others. Consider the conversion from steam locomotives to diesel-electric. From less than 10% at war's end, to a crossover point in about 6 years. When a technology is indisputably better, it can flash over pretty quickly.

Marine diesels were just as indisputably better, but things get in the way (like the Depression and WW2). As it is, your chart shows a 32 year transition from minimal (about where we are now with BEVs) to dominance, and you could backdate them about ten years to first production examples - see:

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

 

[Reddy]

Has anyone hear of this company/technology before?

http://www.sustainablebusinessoregon.com/articles/2013/01/pnnl-strikes-licensing-deal-for.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This article has more details: http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Recently, PNNL researchers collaborated with Vorbeck to develop a method for building tiny titanium oxide and carbon structures and then demonstrated that small quantities of Vor-X® graphene — a good electronic conductor made from ultra-thin sheets of carbon atoms — can dramatically improve the performance of the batteries, especially with respect to how rapidly the batteries can be charged.

Interesting article. Thanks for the links. Nope, I hadn't heard of them. I don't think this will increase energy density, only conductivity and the ability to more rapidly charge/discharge.

Reddy

 

[Luft]

I'm in agreement with all of this, except for the claim that $10/gal gas by itself will move a lot of BEVs. It will tip people over the edge who were already interested if there's a short term price spike, but the Europeans have shown that you can get used to $10 gal. gas and still not buy large numbers of BEVs. What would definitely happen if gas prices here went to $10/gal. is that people would make even more adjustments to their life and driving styles than they already have, and the sales of HEVs would take off while SUV sales would crater. As it is, our society is getting older and already moving back in from the suburbs to urban areas, and that trend will only continue given higher fuel prices. And car sales look on track to decrease long term as well, as fewer people feel the need to own a car - autonomous cars will hasten that trend.

I'm not sure how much you can base the acceptance of $10/gal gas by the US on the acceptance of $10/gal gas by the Europeans.

Here in the States we have enormous sprawl. Has there been any studies done comparing average distance driven by Europeans vs the distance travelled by people here in the United States?

I think you may be right about a spike in HEVs and in range extended vehicles like the Volt. People are still too afraid of being stranded. It may turn out that the Volt will provide a stepping stone for people like that. Once they drive a Volt or similar they learn that they mostly don't even need the full 40 mile electric range. And if they don't need the full range of the batteries they for sure don't need the expensive on board ICE. What they will need is just a bit more range and DC QC stations to cover the days that the ICE would have been needed.

 

[gsleaf]

Here is another interesting one...

http://news.usc.edu/46778/cheap-strong-lithium-ion-battery-developed-at-usc/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

I'm in agreement with all of this, except for the claim that $10/gal gas by itself will move a lot of BEVs. It will tip people over the edge who were already interested if there's a short term price spike, but the Europeans have shown that you can get used to $10 gal. gas and still not buy large numbers of BEVs. What would definitely happen if gas prices here went to $10/gal. is that people would make even more adjustments to their life and driving styles than they already have, and the sales of HEVs would take off while SUV sales would crater. As it is, our society is getting older and already moving back in from the suburbs to urban areas, and that trend will only continue given higher fuel prices. And car sales look on track to decrease long term as well, as fewer people feel the need to own a car - autonomous cars will hasten that trend.

I'm not sure how much you can base the acceptance of $10/gal gas by the US on the acceptance of $10/gal gas by the Europeans.

Here in the States we have enormous sprawl. Has there been any studies done comparing average distance driven by Europeans vs the distance travelled by people here in the United States?

Yes, lots. Americans drive further, although that's coming down. Here's a couple of links:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/12/america-motor-car-transport" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think you may be right about a spike in HEVs and in range extended vehicles like the Volt. People are still too afraid of being stranded. It may turn out that the Volt will provide a stepping stone for people like that. Once they drive a Volt or similar they learn that they mostly don't even need the full 40 mile electric range. And if they don't need the full range of the batteries they for sure don't need the expensive on board ICE. What they will need is just a bit more range and DC QC stations to cover the days that the ICE would have been needed.

 

[GRA]

Via Green Car Congress:

OSU team demonstrates concept of potassium-air battery as alternative to lithium-air systems

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/02/ren-20130218.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Via Green Car Congress:

"ARPA-E RANGE: $20M for robust transformational energy storage systems for EVs; 3x the range at 1/3 the cost"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/02/range-20130217.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Stoaty]

I like the RANGE acronym:

"The Robust Affordable Next Generation EV-Storage (RANGE) program’s goal is to enable a 3X increase in electric vehicle range (from ~80 to ~240 miles per charge) with a simultaneous price reduction of > 1/3 (to ~ $30,000)."

 

[Sublime]

"ARPA-E RANGE: $20M for robust transformational energy storage systems for EVs; 3x the range at 1/3 the cost"

Reading through their requirements, it almost looks like it was created to fund the Prieto Battery. They talk about the solution needing to be solid state (so impact protection isn't a concern) and being able to put the battery anywhere.

That always seemed to be the most interesting aspect of their technology. The fact that you could take an A-pillar, door, front fender, etc and fill it with a battery.

 

[JRP3]

High voltage in the car exterior never seemed like a good idea to me, no matter how safe the chemistry. Besides, if the energy density is good enough there should be no need to stick batteries everywhere.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/lithium-air-battery-gives-ibm-hope-of-power-without-fires.html?cmpid=yhoo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting article on gradual progress being made with lithium air. I wouldn't want to be the owner of a chain of gas stations if they can successfully commercialize this.

 

[GRA]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/lithium-air-battery-gives-ibm-hope-of-power-without-fires.html?cmpid=yhoo

Interesting article on gradual progress being made with lithium air. I wouldn't want to be the owner of a chain of gas stations if they can successfully commercialize this.

Lithium-Air is the Holy Grail, but expect a decade or two to commercialization, assuming that's possible. Meanwhile, saw this at Green Car Congress:

"CalBattery licenses Argonne silicon-graphene material for high-energy Li-ion batteries; targeting commercial availability in 2014"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/02/calbattery-20130226.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically just the typical press release of a start-up trolling for funds, and I'd take that 2014 date with a huge pile of salt. Still, we need something like this to make BEVs viable in the mainstream market.

 

[Reddy]

Yes, Li-Air is still in the research phase. If you're interested and near Denver, you could attend this June 2013 :ugeek: conference for an update of Battery tech.
http://www.beyondlithiumion.org/web/program.php

 

[LEAFfan]

Yes, Li-Air is still in the research phase. If you're interested and near Denver, you could attend this June 2013 :ugeek: conference for an update of Battery tech.
http://www.beyondlithiumion.org/web/program.php

Impressive list of speakers...wonder if they'll stream it.

 

[Reddy]

Streaming? Probably not. However, I do remember seeing slides from a previous year's conference.

 

[mkjayakumar]

the much hyped Envia Systems, still remains just that. There is zero new information on their website in the last 12 months. I think they have spent all their effort this past year in jazzing up their website with more flash animation spotlighting their hype.

If even a fraction of what they claim is true, I am sure there would been over a half dozen JV agreements would be in place by now, not to mention scores of news articles.