This is drivin98's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following drivin98's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
According to BNEF, CATL produced 4,610 GWh in 2017, which is 11.85 MWh, leading me to believe the above graph is MWh, not GWh.
Boggles the mind how big a waste of money and energy this is.
Ah, nuclear power. A wet dream for engineer types. A nightmare for everyone else.
Disappointed that this crap has been posted on Green Car Congress.
So, basically, in 3 years from now they'll be where Panasonic is today. I think I could come up with a better use of $43 million.
Stan, You had me (skipping down to the next comment, looking for signs of intelligent life) at propaganda. REEL$$, There's a reason why your world is very dark and smells like something died. Hope you figure it out one day.
Hello, flash charge! I'm thinking these kind of discharge properties would allow for 500 miles < 1 minute charging and make EVs workable for all street parkers.
That paper from Meridian Research was authored by William Tahil. In my book, this guy has zero credibility. (He is the progenitor of the "Peak Lithium" hysteria rampant in the press a few years back. I won't even get into his 9/11 theories.} The figure of "2 kg to 3 kg of technical grade lithium carbonate per nominal kWh" sounds rather high. It would be nice to have a more accurate figure from a manufacturer of a specific chemistry, since different formulations need widely varying amounts. I might also add that as battery tech progresses and energy density increases, the amount of lithium per kWh ought to decrease over time.
The ranges are based on the hugely optimistic Japanese cycle. For the lower spec version 40 miles may be more like it. Pretty useless, IMO. If you'll remember our exchange in the previous post about the i-MiEV using SCiB batteries, this was kind of my point. Their energy density is so low that they can't not provide the range that the Yuasua's do, making them less attractive for many. That said, the smaller battery fits my particular driving profile better and I would definitely buy it over the longer range one because of the price difference.
drivin98: I'm not sure which bit of: 'The only batteries having significantly higher density are NMC batteries, but OTOH they cannot safely be discharged down to the same level as lithium titanate.' you do not understand. They can make relative statements all they want. Let them throw down their energy density numbers if they're so great. I know you think they are 150Wh/kg but I doubt it. The batteries in the Leaf, according to the Nissan rep I spoke to, can be discharged about as far. I don't know what battery Toshiba refers to with their "typical lithium-ion battery" statement. Perhaps they're talking about Winstons. Who knows? The lithium titanate batteries are certainly not bad for energy density when compared to those in current cars like the Leaf. In addition the Panasonic batteries you refer to have problems even hitting a 500 cycle life, as against 6,000 for lithium titanate: I don't know what the cycle life of the Panasonics are but I do know even if they are only 500 it's not nearly as bad as you seem to think. Unless you are discharging them as much as possible each charge (ie, a full cycle) they'll last a long time. If a car has a 160 mile range and it's mostly only driven 50 miles or less before it's plugged in again, it will last a long long time. 6,000 cycles is really overkill for a BEV. How many people put a million miles on their car? Now the easiest way to stretch cycle life is to use less of the battery, as they really do not like deep discharge. That is why the GS Yuasa ones the Toshiba's are replacing needed 16kwh to do the same job as the 10kwh of the Toshiba. It's not going to do the same job as the 16 kWh Mitsu iMiEV. Mitsubishi is using it for a shorter range, more affordable model. The SCiB is a great battery for some applications but for a practical BEV with real world range of 150 miles or more, it's not so great. The 240Wh/kg cells from Panasonic kills it.
Sorry but their energy density is crap. The Panasonics going into the Tesla Model S I believe are 240Wh/kg. Fine if you want crappy range but I'm not impressed.
The reason a battery buyer might ask about a product's $/kWh first is because they know how many kWhs they will need in their vehicle and how much they can afford to spend on that amount of storage. If a product is too expensive, it can be ruled out quickly and said buyer won't have to listen to a long-winded spiel about the many wonders of a certain cell. I think the vast majority of people who are putting many thousands of dollars into batteries know enough to ask about all the other pertinent metrics for their needs. Also, specific gravity is more often expressed in Wh/kg rather than kWh/kg.
They already have a hybrid drivetrain for RVs.
What's not to get? Over 200 MPGe. Over 200 miles of range at 75 mph. Blistering quick 0-60. Less important, but interesting nonetheless, is it's (if ungoverned) top speed of 200+ mph. You could set land speed records with this at Bonneville for cryin' out loud. Hopefully the assembly in America will help bring the price down.
If it's used as a work vehicle, which it's designed to be, and driven only 5 days a week, it only needs to average 38.46 miles a day to break 10,000.
@Reel$$ Let he (or she) who doesn't shop at Wal-Mart cast the first stone.
"Some extreme ecomentalists would rather we live like North Koreans." Name one.
Yes, it would be so much better if rich people pollute as much as they possibly can. Let's get back to business as usual. /sarcasm
Harvey, BMW is currently building a plant in Moses Lake whose entire carbon fiber output will go into the MegaCity vehicles which are due to arrive in 2013. It's not a PR effort.
Sorry Davemart, didn't mean to hurt your fanboy feelings (excuse the dig) but the fact remains that 100wh/kg just isn't that impressive when others, Panasonic, Boston Power and others have 80% to 100+% more. SCib might be good for some applications (if they are cheaper than A123)but what the Mitsubishi needs (in their i MiEV, at least)is increased range that comes from more energy dense cells. Sorry for being down on Mitsubishi, and I understand the reasons behind their lack of market aggressiveness, but I'm just calling it as I see it. Your mileage may vary.
Meh. Many have some good performance numbers but it lacks the one thing next-gen batteries need – energy density. Mitsubishi continues to disappoint.
Not really a need to combine the ultra-caps in this case. Proterra uses the Altairnano battery which is great at this type of application. Except for the poor energy density, that is.
I don't see how warming of this sort could benefit them. Sounds a lot more disruptive and destructive to me.
There's playing it safe and then there's playing it stupid. Personally, I don't care that Toyota is giving away a big chunk of market that it should own to Nissan and others but it's just so ironic since Toyota is the only company to build a decent EV (Rav4EV).