Who killed the electric battery?
- 6 Comment
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed so you don't miss anything or Follow me on Twitter
I watched “Who Killed the Electric Car” some time ago. Ever since I’ve been intrigued by electric cars and electric car conversions.
While doing my online research, I realized that the battery and the drive are the two most important components. The battery is where the real cost adds up. Range, cost, and weight are the 3 important factors that batteries dictate for an electric vehicle project. It turns out that 10 years ago we had a very good if not perfect battery to jump-start the electric car. It was the Ovonic NiMH. It had 70wh/kg capacity, 1,750 cycles to 100% depth of discharge. Discharge ability is important for EV’s. Energy Conversion Devices quoted them at $150/kWh for a production run of 20,000 cars.
General Motors didn’t wish the electric car to compete with their main-stream gas cars and trucks and sold the patent to Chevron Texaco. Chevron Texaco vigorously protects this battery technology and even sued Toyota for making a similar design. Further with the oil company winning that case, it was able to win a restriction on the maximum AH size of the batteries to 10AH. This prevents them from ever being used in a road EV. Further Chevron Texaco is responsible for about half the price premiums on today’s hybrids. They charge $1,200/kWh for the battery when it could be $150. How well do they control NiMH technology? Well every NiMH battery has to be licensed from a company - Cobasys, wholly owned by Chevron. Manufacturing is limited to consumer electronics size batteries. This explains why Tesla Motors is using thousands of small consumer-grade batteries in its electric vehicle.
These batteries could last 300,000 miles, but is unavailable. It would allow EV’s with a 200-300 range and make EV conversions with 150 mile ranges a possibility. It is such a shame that we developed the technology right here in the U.S.A. to lead the world in the next phase of automotive systems.
I have found some promising companies such as 123 Systems making Lithium Ion batteries that are quite expensive now. Unfortunately I see many references of them “partnering” with Cobasys. I can only believe that there will be some sort of collusion to keep battery prices high. I see the Cobasys link time and time again. If I were a battery startup, I would say the way to make big bucks if you don’t give a damn about society is simple. Build a better battery. Advertise your technology. If you don’t violate oil company patents, then sell out to big oil. Sad to say the least.
I recently came across a battery startup using high capacity capacitors in Austin called EEstor. There is a consumer screwdriver that uses similar technology. Unfortunately the EEstor technology is exclusively licensed to a Canadian electric car maker - Zenn Motors. What’s the play here? Well if I was a gambling man I’d say Zenn Motors will get bought out the moment EEstor’s batteries are proven. Big oil has the bucks. I hope the EEstor battery story does not become a story that was never heard.
My research continues, but boy does this tick me off! Batteries seem to be the key to any potential project. So the question is this… do I do a conversion with a small range of 50 miles (enough to get to work and back) and wait for battery technology to advance? or do I spend $10,000 to get a 150 mile range?
Note: The creater of the Ovonic battery now makes solar panels. The engineer/founder of the company truely is a pioneer in environmental engineering. It is sad that his technology was sold to an oil company.
6 Comments on this post
Trackbacks
-
Thiseye said:
This annoys me to no end. Grr … there’s so much innovation locked up in unused patents like this.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm -
Andy said:
You know, I saw that “documovie” not too long ago too. It has really been on my mind since I saw that. We have the technology now more than ever, I just don’t understand why we are still making cars that get 20mpg. The Volkswagen 1.8 L turbo diesel commonly got over 50 MPG but they pulled it from the market to due to some “emission issues.” The big oil lobby is very strong.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:56 pm -
Dax Desai said:
@Andy - Yeah I think I’m making the transition from “environmentally aware” to “environmentally conscious”. I make the distinction in that before I was aware of issues and was a bandwagoner of “yeah they should do that to save the earth.” Now I feel guilty for driving a gas car that only gets 23mpg. I definitely have seen a difference. I lower my thermostat at home. I’m not a lead-foot in the car. Now I’m contemplating an EV conversion. My formula is this: 1. Buy a salvage title car. Salvage cars usually have a book value of half of a non-salvage titled car. Since I won’t need the engine, it makes the economics workout better. 2. EV conversion 3. Sleep better knowing I’m not just a talker. 4. Think about tomorrow and what’s possible.
While it is easy to blame, you have to be part of the solution and move forward. I was kicking around the idea that their should be a coalition to protect/acquire patents that could be breakthroughs, license them openly to anyone that wants to use them at nominal cost, roll the licensing fees into acquiring more game-changing patents. The goal in my mind would be to make sure that this important IP doesn’t get suppressed.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:21 pm -
Andy said:
My most recent vehicle is an E-85 Flex Fuel unit. I ordered that specifically due to all the ethanol plants they are putting up here in Iowa. However, come to find out that corn isn’t the best source of ethanol. In fact, the energy gained from corn is just a bit more than the energy used to make the ethanol. Sugar beets are a more suitable source and they will grow just about anywhere. I guess we can only do what 1 man can.
Thanks Dax
December 24th, 2007 at 11:37 am -
Viraj said:
I’ve heard about that program but never really got round to researching about it, but thanks for the information.
It’s amazing that oil companies have so much power (or money) that no one can challenge their anti-competitiveness. I mean if it were Microsoft in Chevron’s place, they would have been ripped apart on the grounds of anti-competitiveness and whatnot, especially by European Courts who seem to detest Microsoft!
January 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am -
Dax Desai said:
@Viraj - Yeah that battery had the ideal characteristic for EV’s in that it could be discharged all the way down 100% without degrading the performance of the battery. Many other cheap battery technologies (lead-acid) can’t be discharged to that level. Doing so reduces its life expectancy. So even if a pack of lead-acid batteries has enough power to go 100 miles, the reality is you would only discharge maybe half or 50 miles to optimize battery life.
Thanks for your comment. I’m looking into an EV conversion so if you find some battery tech I’m not aware of let me know.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
