Advanced Batteries for Electric Vehicles: An Assessment of Performance, Cost, and Availability

DRAFT

June 22, 2000

Prepared for tate of California Air !esources Board acramento, California

By "he #ear 2000 Battery "echnolo$y Advisory Panel %enahem Anderman

&rit' !( )alhammer *onald %acArthur

*+ C,A+%E! The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of California Air Resources Board. The mention of commercial products in connection with the material presented herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products.

ii

E-EC."+VE

.%%A!#

When the California Air Resources Board began to consider battery-powered E s as a potentially ma!or strategy to reduce "ehicle emissions and impro"e air #uality$ it did so with the "iew that the broadest mar%et would be ser"ed by electric "ehicles with ad"anced batteries$ and it structured its &E credit mechanisms to encourage the de"elopment and deployment of E s with such batteries. Consistent with this "iew$ the Air Resources Board defined the scope of wor% for the first Battery Technical Ad"isory 'anel study to focus on ad"anced batteries. (i"e years after the modification of the )**) &ero Emission ehicle regulation$

and after a period of intensi"e effort to de"elop$ deploy and e"aluate ad"anced electric "ehicles$ one %ey remaining #uestion is whether batteries can be a"ailable in +,,- that would ma%e electric "ehicles acceptable to a large number of owners and operators of automobiles. The answer to this #uestion is an important input to the California Air Resources Board.s year +,,, Biennial &E Technical Ad"isory 'anel /BTA' +,,,0. The 'anel concentrated its in"estigation on candidate E -battery technologies that promise ma!or performance gains o"er lead-acid batteries$ appear to ha"e some prospects for meeting E -battery cost targets$ and are now a"ailable from low-"olume production lines or$ at least$ laboratory pilot facilities. 1n the "iew of the 'anel$ other types of ad"anced batteries not meeting these criteria are highly unli%ely to be introduced commercially within the ne2t 3-4 years. While the focus of BTA' +,,, li%e the first battery panel was to be on ad"anced batteries because of their basic promise for superior performance and range$ ARB as%ed the 'anel to also briefly re"iew the lead-acid battery technologies used in some of the E s deployed in California. This re#uest recogni5ed that E s with lead-acid batteries were introduced in the )**,s by se"eral ma!or automobile manufacturers beginning with 6eneral 7otors8 E )$ and that E s e#uipped regulation re"iew. The authors of this report were as%ed to assist ARB in de"eloping an answer$ wor%ing together as a new Battery

iii

with recently de"eloped lead-acid batteries were performing significantly better than earlier E s.

The 'anel8s approach was similar to that of the )**3 BTA'9 "isits to the leading de"elopers of ad"anced batteries and to ma!or automobile manufacturers engaged in electric-"ehicle de"elopment$ E deployment$ and in the e"aluation of E batteries: follow-on discussions of the 'anel8s obser"ations with these organi5ations: 'anel-internal critical re"iew of information and de"elopment of conclusions: and preparation of this report. To assist the 'anel members with the de"elopment of !udgment and perspecti"e$ they were gi"en business-confidential technical and strategic information by nearly all of the 'anel8s information sources. This report$ howe"er$ contains unrestricted material only. The 'anel8s findings and conclusions are as follows. The impro"ed lead-acid E batteries used in some of the E s operating in

California today gi"e these "ehicles better performance than pre"ious generations of lead acid batteries. ;owe"er$ e"en these batteries remain handicapped by the low specific energy that is characteristic of all lead-acid batteries. 1f E truc%s or representati"e <-3 passenger E s could be e#uipped with lead-acid batteries of sufficient capacity to pro"ide a practical range of 43-),, miles on a single charge$ batteries would represent 3,= or more of the total "ehicle weight. The specific costs of these batteries produced in "olumes of ),$,,,-+3$,,, pac%s per year are pro!ected to be between >),,?%Wh and >)3,?%Wh$ about -,-3,= of the cost pro!ected for ad"anced batteries produced in comparable "olume. @n the other hand$ the life of lead-acid batteries remains a serious concern because the high cost of battery replacement might well offset the ad"antage of lower first costs.

Aic%el-metal hydride /Ai7;0 batteries$ employed in more than ),,, "ehicles in California$ ha"e demonstrated promise to meet the power and endurance re#uirements for electric-"ehicle /E 0 propulsion. Bench tests and recent technology impro"ements in

i"

charging efficiency and cycle life at ele"ated temperature indicate that Ai7; batteries ha"e realistic potential to last the life of an E $ or at least ten years and ),,$,,, "ehicle miles. Se"eral battery companies now ha"e limited production capabilities for Ai7; E batteries$ and plant commitments in +,,, could result in establishment of manufacturing capacities sufficient to produce the #uantities of batteries re#uired under the current &E regulation for +,,-. Current Ai7; E -battery modules ha"e specific energies of B3 to 4,Wh?%g$ comparable to the technologies of se"eral years agoCreported in the BTA' )**3 report /)0Cand ma!or increases are unli%ely. 1f Ai7; battery weight is limited to an acceptable fraction of E total weight$ the range of a typical <?3-passenger E in realworld dri"ing appears limited to appro2imately 43 to ),, miles on a single charge. Despite e2tensi"e cost reduction efforts by the leading Ai7; E -battery de"elopers$ Ai7; battery cost remains a large obstacle to the commerciali5ation of Ai7;-powered E s in the near term. (rom the cost pro!ections of manufacturers and some carma%ers$ battery module specific costs of at least >-3,?%Wh$ >-,,?%Wh and >++3-+3,?%Wh can be estimated for production "olumes of about ),%$ +,% and ),,% battery pac%s per year$ respecti"ely. To the module costs$ at least >)$+,, per battery pac% /perhaps half of that sum in true mass production0 has to be added for the other ma!or components of a complete E -battery$ which include the re#uired electrical and thermal management systems. @n that basis$ and consistent with the 'anel8s estimates$ Ai7; batteries for the E types now deployed in California would cost E manufacturers between >*$3,, and >)-$,,, in the appro2imate #uantities /),%-+,% pac%s per year0 re#uired to implement the year +,,- &E regulation$ and appro2imately >4$,,, to >*$,,, at production le"els e2ceeding one hundred thousand pac%s per year. Eithium-ion E batteries are showing good performance and$ up to now$ high

reliability and complete safety in a limited number of E s. ;owe"er$ durability test data obtained in all ma!or lithium-ion E -battery de"elopment programs indicate that battery operating life is typically only +-< years at present. Ei 1on E batteries e2hibit "arious degrees of sensiti"ity when sub!ect to some of the abuse tests intended to simulate battery beha"ior and safety under high mechanical$ thermal or electrical stresses. Resolution of these issues$ the production of pilot batteries and their in-"ehicle e"aluation$ and fleet "

testing of prototype Ei 1on batteries meeting all critical re#uirements for E

application

are li%ely to re#uire at least three to four years. Another two years will be re#uired to establish a production plant$ "erify the product$ and scale up to commercial production. Based on se"eral /albeit not all0 of the cost estimates pro"ided by de"elopers and on the 'anel8s own estimates$ these batteries will be significantly more e2pensi"e than Ai7; batteries at a production "olume of around ),$,,, pac%s per year. E"en in much larger production "olumes$ Ei 1on E batteries will cost less than Ai7; only if substantially less e2pensi"e materials become a"ailable$ and after manufacturing technologies combining high le"els of automation$ precision and speed ha"e been de"eloped. Eithium-metal polymer E batteries are being de"eloped in two programs aimed

at technologies that might cost >+,,?%Wh or less in "olume production. ;owe"er$ these technologies ha"e not yet reached %ey technical targets$ including most notably cycle life$ and they are in the pre-prototype cell stage of de"elopment. 1t is unli%ely that the steps re#uired to achie"e commercial a"ailability of Ei 'olymer batteries meeting the performance and life re#uirements$ as well as the cost goals for E completed in less than 4 to F years. Battery de"elopers$ GSABC$ and the si2 ma!or automobile manufacturers ser"ing the California mar%et ha"e in"ested e2tensi"e financial and talent resources in de"eloping a di"ersity of E batteries and e"aluating them in electric "ehicles. Battery performance and reliability has been e2cellent in many$ and generally ade#uate in nearly all$ of the more than )<,, E s deployed to date with ad"anced batteries$ most of them of the Ai7;-type. ;owe"er$ ad"anced battery costs will e2ceed by about >4$,,, to >*$,,, in the nearer term$ and about >3$,,, at automoti"e-mass-production le"els$ the cost goals deri"ed for E batteries by postulating comparable life-cycle costs for broadly comparable electric and 1CE-powered "ehicles. These cost pro!ections assume reductions arising from incremental technological ad"ances as well as cost reductions resulting from the economies of scale of materials procurement and high-"olume manufacturing. 1n the 'anel8s assessment$ ma!or technology ad"ances or brea%throughs would be re#uired to reduce ad"anced battery propulsion$ can be

"i

costs substantially below current pro!ections: the 'anel considered this unli%ely for the ne2t B-F years. 1n addition$ the practical range pro"ided by the batteries of current E s is limited. (or applications where increased range is desired$ the resulting larger-capacity batteries would aggra"ate the ad"anced-battery cost problem in proportion$ and they would raise increasingly serious "olume and weight issues. All ma!or carma%ers are now acti"ely pursuing other ad"anced-technology "ehiclesCsuch as hybrid and mini E sCto achie"e emission reductions. Ei%e con"entional E s$ ;E s and mini-E s depend on impro"ed batteries for their technical and cost feasibility. ;owe"er$ they re#uire only a fraction of an E 8s battery capacityC between 3= and 3,=$ depending on ;E technology and application. Battery cost is thus substantially reduced$ and thereby one of the largest barriers to the commercial "iability of these new automoti"e products. The 'anel was made aware of the impressi"e battery technology progress achie"ed in this area by se"eral of the E -battery de"elopers. There is little doubt that the de"elopment of Ai7; and Ei 1on battery technologies for ;E and mini-E applications has benefited directly and substantially from E -battery de"elopment. Con"ersely$ the successful commerciali5ation of ;E s$ and possibly miniE s$ in the coming years can be e2pected to result in continued impro"ements of ad"anced battery technologies. @"er the longer term$ these ad"ancesCtogether with li%ely ad"ances in electric dri"e technologies and reductions in "ehicle weightCmight well increase performance and range$ and reduce costs$ to the point$ where electric "ehicles could become a widely accepted product.

"ii

"AB,E /& C/0"E0"

E-EC."+VE .%%A!#(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((+++ "AB,E /& C/0"E0" ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((V+++ ,+ " /& "AB,E ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((+,+ " /& &+1.!E (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((AC)0/2,E*1E%E0" (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((-+ EC"+/0 +( +0"!/*.C"+/0(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3 1.). 'GR'@SE AAD SC@'E.....................................................................................................................1.+. STGDH A''R@AC;..........................................................................................................................< EC"+/0 ++( BA""E!+E &/! E,EC"!+C VE4+C,E (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((5 11.). BATTERH TAR6ETS?REIG1RE7EATS ......................................................................................4 11.+. CAAD1DATE BATTER1ES.............................................................................................................)3 11.-. E -BATTERH C@ST (ACT@RS....................................................................................................)* EC"+/0 +++( &+0*+01 ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((26 111.). 111.+. 111.-. 111.<. A1CJEE-7ETAE ;HDR1DE.........................................................................................................+3 E1T;1G7-1@A ...............................................................................................................................<E1T;1G7-7ETAE '@EH7ER ....................................................................................................B, AGT@7@B1EE 7AAG(ACTGRERS...........................................................................................4)

EC"+/0 +V( C/0C,. +/0 (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((73 APPE0*+- A((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((76 EEECTR1C E;1CEE BATTERH 1A(@R7AT1@A IGEST1@AAA1RE.................................................................*3 ). IGEST1@AS (@R BATTERH DE EE@'ERS AAD SG''E1ERS.....................................................................*3 +. IGEST1@AS (@R AGT@7@B1EE 7AAG(ACTGRERS.................................................................................*F 1. EK'ER1EACE W1T; BATTER1ES 'RESEATEH 1A 'GBE1C AAD?@R RESTR1CTED GSE 1A EEECTR1C E;1CEES 7AAG(ACTGRED BH H@GR C@7'AAH........................................................................................................*F 11. BATTER1ES GADER E AEGAT1@A @R C@AS1DERAT1@A (@R E A''E1CAT1@A.....................................** 111. C@ST @( BATTER1ES...........................................................................................................................** 1 . TEC;A1CAE AAD C@ST 1SSGES AEED1A6 RES@EGT1@A (@R E BATTER1ES......................................** .BARR1ERS AAD STRATE61ES (@R E -BATTERH C@77ERC1AE1&AT1@A...............................................),, APPE0*+- B((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((303 @R6AA1&AT1@AS 1S1TED BH BTA' +,,,...............................................................................................),) AC 'R@'GES1@A.......................................................................................................................................),) AER@ 1R@A7EAT$ 1AC.............................................................................................................................),) AR6@AAE AAT1@AAE EAB@RAT@RH........................................................................................................),) AR6@-TEC;..............................................................................................................................................),) DA17EERC;RHSEER.................................................................................................................................),) (@RD 7@T@R C@7'AAH..........................................................................................................................),+ 6EAERAE 7@T@RS...................................................................................................................................),+ 67 @ @A1C E.E.C..................................................................................................................................),+ G.S. AD AACED BATTERH C@AS@RT1G7................................................................................................),+ B@EE@RL .................................................................................................................................................),SA(T........................................................................................................................................................),-

"iii

ARTA....................................................................................................................................................),;@ADA RMD A7ER1CAS$ 1AC..................................................................................................................),NA'AA ST@RA6E BATTERH C@7'AAH$ ETD.............................................................................................),S;1A-J@BE EEECTR1C 7AC;1AERH C@7'AAH........................................................................................),< 'AAAS@A1C E EAER6H C@7'AAH........................................................................................................),< A1SSAA 7@T@R C@.$ ETD........................................................................................................................),< T@H@TA 7@T@R C@R'@RAT1@A..............................................................................................................),< APPE0*+- C((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((306 C;ARACTER1ST1CS @( 7@A EEECTR1C
E;1CEES...................................................................................),3

APPE0*+- *(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((308 RE'RESEATAT1 E BATTERH ABGSE TESTS..............................................................................................),4 A. 7EC;AA1CAE.......................................................................................................................................),4 B. T;ER7AE.............................................................................................................................................),4 C. EEECTR1CAE.........................................................................................................................................),4 APPE0*+- E((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((309 E -BATTERH C@ST TAR6ET AEE@WAACE..............................................................................................),F APPE0*+- &((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((307 EEAD-AC1D AAD A1CJEE-CAD71G7 E BATTER1ES...............................................................................),* ). EEAD-AC1D BATTER1ES.......................................................................................................................),* +. A1CJEE-CAD71G7 BATTER1ES............................................................................................................))< APPE0*+- 1(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((335 EEECTR@(GEE 7AAG(ACTGR1A6 C@7'AAH...........................................................................................))B APPE0*+- 4(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((338
ARTA

A6...............................................................................................................................................))4

!E&E!E0CE (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((337 A."4/! : B+/1!AP4+E ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((320

,+ " /& "AB,E

"AB,E ++(3( REIG1RE7EATS (@R E BATTER1ES /AD@'TED (R@7 GSABC0O.OO...4 "AB,E +++(3( C;ARACTER1ST1CS @( A17; E 7@DGEESOOOOOOOOOO...-4 "AB,E +++(2( SA(T8S 'R@NECTED E1-1@A 7@DGEE C@STSO.OOOOOOOO.O3) "AB,E +++(;( C;ARACTER1ST1CS @( E1-1@A BATTER1ESOOOOOOOOOOOO3B "AB,E C(3( S'EC1(1CAT1@AS @( CAE1(@RA1A 7@A E ),3 "AB,E C(2( EAER6H-GSE AAD RAA6E EST17ATES (@R CAE1(@RA1A 7@A E
S W1T; SOOO.OOOOOO..O

AD

AACED

BATTER1ES OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.),B

"AB,E *(3( ABGSE TESTS (@R E CEEES AAD 7@DGEESOOOOO..OOOOO ),4 i2

"AB,E E(3( AET 'RESEAT ),F

AEGE

/A' 0 @( E EAER6H C@ST SA

1A6SOOO.O

"AB,E &(3( C;ARACTER1ST1CS @( REA E -BATTERH 7@DGEESOOOOO.. O.)))

,+ " /& &+1.!E

&+1.!E ++(3. BATTERH AAD EEECTR1C)B &+1.!E ++(2( 7AN@R C@ST STA6ES 1A T;E 'R@DGCT1@A @( E -BATTERH 'ACJSO....+, &+1.!E ++(;( C@ST C@7'@AEATS @( E -BATTERH 'ACJSOOOOO.OOOO. O.+&+1.!E +++(3( E1(E TEST DATA (@R A17; E 'ACJSOOOOOOOOOOO.O -F &+1.!E +++(2( C;AR6E ACCE'TAACE
S. E;1CEE-DE EE@'7EAT

T17EE1AEOOOO

TE7'ERATGRE @( 17'R@

ED

A17;

BATTER1ESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOO-* &+1.!E +++(;( C@ST EST17ATES (@R A17; E 7@DGEESOOOOOOOOOO..<) &+1.!E +++(<( C@ST A66RE6AT1@A (@R A17; 7@DGEESOOOOOOOOOO...<+ &+1.!E +++(6( C@ST EST17ATES (@R E1-1@A E 7@DGEESOOOOOOOOOO..3F &+1.!E +++(5( C@ST A66RE6AT1@A (@R E1-1@A 7@DGEESOOOOOOOOOO...3* &+1.!E +++(8( BATTERH AAD E 1ATERACT1 E DE EE@'7EAT T17EE1AE AAD T;E STATGS @( T;E AD AACED BATTER1ES @( T;1S STGDH...OOOO...OO. OOOO..4,

AC)0/2,E*1E%E0"
This report was submitted in fulfillment of the State of California Air Resources Board /ARB0$ Agreements Aos. **-B,*$ **-B),$ **-B))$ and **-B)+ with the members of the BTA' +,,, Battery Technical Ad"isory 'anel$ 7enahem Anderman$ (rit5 R. Jalhammer /Chair0$ and Donald 7acArthur. Thomas E"ashen% was the ARB coordinator for the study pro!ect: his understanding and support is gratefully ac%nowledged. The 'anel members gi"e special than%s to consultant Dr. Names 6eorge for his "aluable assistance in important phases of the study$ including preparation of appendices and re"iew of the entire report for technical accuracy and clarity. East but not least$ the 'anel e2presses its gratitude to the participating organi5ations without whose assistance this report would not ha"e been possible. Eeading battery de"elopers and manufacturers$ automobile manufacturers$ and a number of other organi5ations and indi"iduals associated with electric "ehicle battery and battery materials de"elopment and e"aluation freely pro"ided information on their technologies$ plans and perspecti"es. 7ost of them also assisted by re"iewing the 'anel8s findings to ensure accuracy of this report. The final presentation of the 'anel8s findings and conclusions$ howe"er$ is the responsibility of the authors.

2i

EC"+/0 +( +0"!/*.C"+/0
Bac=$round. When the California Air Resources Board began to consider battery-powered E s as a potentially ma!or strategy to reduce "ehicle emissions and impro"e air #uality$ it did so with the "iew that the broadest mar%et would be ser"ed by electric "ehicles with ad"anced batteries$ and it structured its &E credit mechanisms to encourage the de"elopment and deployment of E s with such batteries. Consistent with this "iew$ the Air Resources Board defined the scope of wor% for the first Battery Technical Ad"isory 'anel study to focus on ad"anced batteries. 1n December )**3$ that panel presented its report on the P'erformance and A"ailability of Batteries for Electric ehiclesQ /)0. The report concluded that$ despite encouraging de"elopment progress$ ad"anced batteries capable of pro"iding electric "ehicles with substantially increased performance and range were unli%ely to be a"ailable in the #uantities and at the costs re#uired to implement the early-year pro"isions of the )**, &ero Emission ehicle /&E 0 regulation. This conclusion was among the factors regulations. The regulations$ re"ised to allow considered in the )**B re"iew of the &E

additional time for de"elopment and in-"ehicle e"aluation of ad"anced batteries$ now call for introduction of significant numbers of electric "ehicles by the si2 largest suppliers to the California automobile mar%et beginning in +,,-. @"er the past fi"e years$ leading E -battery de"elopers worldwideCse"eral with cost-sharing support from the Gnited States Ad"anced Battery Consortium /GSABC0C ha"e continued to in"est large resources /estimated at more than >3,, million dollars0$ and ha"e made important progress in the de"elopment of the ad"anced E batteries that were e2amined in the )**3 BTA' report. Additional E -battery de"elopers ha"e surfaced$ and leading automobile manufacturers in Napan and the G.S. ha"e become hea"ily in"ol"ed in both the de"elopment and deployment of early commercial electric

"ehicles /primarily in California0$ and in the e"aluation of ad"anced E in these "ehicles.

batteries for use

@n the other hand$ se"eral important E -battery programs were discontinued during the last few years$ in good part because their sponsors were losing confidence that a mar%et would de"elop for E batteries with the currently pro!ected performance and cost characteristics. The e2perience of the past decade ma%es it clear that the de"elopment of batteries for electric "ehicles is facing ma!or technical and cost barriers$ and that only those organi5ations willing to ta%e substantial financial ris%s and capable of pro"iding e2tensi"e resources o"er a number of years ha"e a realistic chance of o"ercoming these barriers. After fi"e years of intensi"e effort and significant progress in de"eloping and e"aluating E batteries$ a %ey #uestion in the electric "ehicle debate is still whether ad"anced batteries can be a"ailable in +,,- that would ma%e electric "ehicles acceptable to a large number of owners and operators of automobiles. The answer to this #uestion is an important input to the California Air Resources Board.s &E regulation re"iew re#uired this year. The authors of this report were as%ed to assist ARB in de"eloping an answer$ wor%ing together as a new Battery Technical Ad"isory 'anel /BTA' +,,,$ termed the 'anel in the following0. While the focus of BTA' li%e the first battery panel was to be on ad"anced batteries because of their basic promise for superior performance and range$ ARB as%ed the BTA' +,,, 'anel to also briefly re"iew the lead-acid battery technologies used in some of the E s deployed in California. This re#uest recogni5ed that E s with lead-acid batteries were introduced in the )**,s by se"eral ma!or automobile manufacturers beginning with 6eneral 7otors8 E )$ and that E s e#uipped with recently de"eloped lead-acid batteries were performing significantly better than earlier E s.

+(3( P.!P/ E A0* C/PE

The purpose of the study summari5ed in this report was to e2amine the current state of the leading ad"anced E -battery technologies and to assess the prospecti"e costs and commercial a"ailability of these technologies in the year +,,- or soon thereafter. As in the )**3 BTA' report$ the 'anel defines Pcommercial a"ailabilityQ as commercially a"ailable for electric "ehicle applications$ with the performance and reliability of the battery ha"ing been demonstrated$ the battery ha"ing been engineered into a "ehicle$ and the battery?"ehicle combination sub!ected to "alidation testing . The word PcommercialQ implies that the cost of the batteries to E manufacturers and owners allows the introduction of E s into economically "iable mar%ets. The main focus of the 'anel8s study was the in"estigation of the battery technologies that in )**3 were leading candidates to achie"e ma!or performance gains o"er lead-acid batteries$ appear to ha"e some prospects for meeting E -battery cost targets$ and are now a"ailable from low "olume production lines or$ at least$ laboratory pilot facilities. 1n the 'anel8s "iew$ ad"anced batteries not meeting these selection criteria are highly unli%ely to be a"ailable for commercial introduction within the ne2t fi"e years. Although the focus of the BTA' +,,, study thus was on ad"anced batteries$ the 'anel briefly re"iewed the impro"ed lead-acid E battery technologies used in E s operating in California today. As discussed in Appendi2 ( of this report$ the 'anel found that these batteries are indeed impro"ed but remain handicapped by the low specific energy characteristic of all lead-acid batteries$ and that lead-acid battery life remains an important concern. The scope and time hori5on of the in"estigation reported here thus were different from those of the )**F?** study by one of the 'anel members /+0 which emphasi5ed candidate E -battery systems with future /e.g.$ ten-year or longer-term0 prospects for significantly higher specific energy and lower costs. (or the nearer-term E -battery technologies included in the )**F?** study as benchmar%s$ the present in"estigation adds

not only a timely update$ but also a strong focus on cost and commercial "iability in +,,or soon thereafter.

+(2(

".*# APP!/AC4
As in the first BTA' study$ the present study employed the following means of

obtaining and e"aluating information9 Gse of a #uestionnaire /see Appendix A.10 to solicit pertinent information

from Aorth American$ Napanese and European de"elopers and manufacturers of ad"anced E -battery technologies with potential for commercial a"ailability in +,,- or soon thereafter. A similar #uestionnaire / Appendix A.20 was submitted to the si2 automobile manufacturers /in the G.S. and Napan0 currently under obligation to offer E s for sale beginning in +,,-. These manufacturers ha"e acti"e programs to integrate and e"aluate ad"anced batteries in the state-of-the-art electric "ehicles de"eloped by them in recent years. The main purpose of these #uestionnaires was to alert the organi5ations to the scope of the 'anel8s interests and the topics to be discussed during the 'anel8s "isits. isits to all these organi5ations /see Appendix B0$ to discuss E -battery technology de"elopment status and issues$ current and prospecti"e costs$ and in"ehicle e"aluation$ as well as strategies$ plans and issues for the commercial introduction of E s and E of battery and E batteries. The li%ely future costs of ad"anced batteries$ and possible strategies and schedules for establishing increasing le"els production$ were central topics in these "isits. 1n addition$ 'anel members made many contacts with indi"iduals from organi5ations engaged in "arious aspects of electric-"ehicle technology and operation$ including batteries$ battery materials and E gaps$ de"elopment$ battery and E testing$ and the promotion and demonstration of E s. Critical re"iew of the information collected$ identification of %nowledge solicitation of additional information from battery and E

de"elopers?manufacturers$ and re"iew of report draft material with information

<

sources$ to assure accuracy and a"oid inad"ertent publication of data and other information gi"en to the 'anel in confidence. 'anel-internal wor%shops to re"iew the findings and de"elop conclusions$ and preparation of this report. Section 11 below discusses %ey re#uirements for E batteries$ with emphasis on

costs$ and it identifies the ad"anced-battery systems included in the 'anel8s in"estigation. The Section also includes a discussion of the most important factors contributing to battery costs. Section 111 details the 'anel8s findings from the discussions with battery de"elopers?manufacturers /Sections 111.)$ 111.+$ and 111.-0 and automobile manufacturers /Section 111.<0. (inally$ Section 1 presents the 'anel8s conclusions from the information collected$ discussed with its sources$ and sub!ected to 'anel-internal critical discussions.

EC"+/0 ++( BA""E!+E &/! E,EC"!+C VE4+C,E

Bac=$round( The )**3 BTA' assessment found that se"eral ad"anced battery types with the potential to meet the mid-term performance and cost targets of the Gnited States Ad"anced Battery Consortium /GSABC0 had reached the pre-prototype stage. That 'anel also concluded that e"en the leading candidates among these were unli%ely to be commercially a"ailable before +,,,?+,,)$ and this only in a complete success scenario that re#uired$ in particular$ firm commitments to battery production plants no later than )**F?**. 1n the absence of historic precedent$ the )**3 BTA' study had to lea"e open the #uestion of whether a"ailability of batteries meeting or$ at least$ coming close to GSABC mid-term targets would lead to successful commerciali5ation of electric "ehicles /E s0. The study8s battery-cost sur"ey indicated R/)0$ Table II.4S that the costs of the batteries being de"eloped were li%ely to be well abo"e GSABC mid-term targets$ e2cept possibly in large-scale production$ adding to the uncertainty about the prospects of E s. @"er the past fi"e years$ battery de"elopers and automobile manufacturers de"oted large efforts to the continued ad"ancement of E -battery technology and the de"elopment of a new generation of electric "ehicles. Gnder the 7oA between the si2 leading automobile manufacturers and the California Air Resources Board$ a substantial number of these "ehicles has been deployed. Ae"ertheless$ since they are produced in limited "olume only$ the "ehiclesCincluding their batteriesCare e2pensi"e$ and "ehicle leases had to be subsidi5ed hea"ily to attract early users. As the time approaches for critical decision on actions needed to implement the current &E pro"isions$ the #uestion again arises whether batteries with the re#uired performance and cost characteristics could be a"ailable in time for commerciali5ation of broadly mar%etable E s by +,,-. The most important re#uirements that must be met by E batteries are re-e2amined below from today8s perspecti"e$ and they are used in batteries that were e2amined more closely by Section 11.+ to identify the candidate E

the 'anel. The 'anel8s findings on E -battery performance$ cost$ and prospects for a"ailability in the coming years are summari5ed in Section 111.

++(3( BA""E!# "A!1E" >!E?.+!E%E0"

Table II.1 summari5es the most important targets established for the battery de"elopment program of GSABC /)0.

"able ++(3 !e@uirements for EV Batteries AAdopted from . ABCB Battery Characteristic PE!&/!%A0CE pecific Ener$y Ener$y *ensity PoDer *ensity *.!AB+,+"# > ,+&E Cycle ,ife A90E *o*B3 "otal %iles Calendar ,ife A&E"# C/0VE0+E0CE !echar$e "ime ?uic= Char$e to <0E /peratin$ "emp( !an$e C/ " > EC/0/%+C Capital Cost2 >?%Wh )3, ),, )3, /+3$,,, pac%s?year0 ;ours 7inutes VC UB )3 --, to WB3 --B )3 -<, to WF3 Cycles ,,,8s Hears Abuse tests B,, <, 3 'ass ),,, ),, T), 'ass ),,, ),, ), 'ass Wh?%g Wh?liter W?liter F,-),, )-, +3, )3,-+,, -,, B,, )3, +-, <B, .nits 0earCterm ,on$Cterm Commerciali'ation

) +

20% power and capacity degradation Price to OEM !"#$% &or10 000 pac#'"year

A technical team drawn primarily from the ma!or G.S. automobile manufacturers deri"ed the long-term battery targets in Table II.1 nearly a decade ago from the postulate that$ to be competiti"e$ an E intended for the same purpose as an internal combustion engine /1CE0-powered "ehicle had to match that "ehicle with respect to all %ey characteristics9 performance$ durability$ safety$ con"enience and cost. The target 1CE "ehicle assumed in that deri"ation was a mass-produced /<?3-passenger0 family sedan with characteristics similar to the Che"rolet Eumina$ (ord Taurus or Chrysler Concorde. Recogni5ing the difficulty of emerging E -battery technology meeting the "ery demanding long-term targets$ GSABC also defined a less se"ere set of near-term targets /see Table II.10 for the batteries of E s that might find limited applications. Recently$ GSABC defined a set of battery PCommerciali5ationQ targets that$ if met$ should permit E s to begin entering the mar%et. As shown in Table II.1$ the commerciali5ation targets for performance fall generally between the near and long-term "alues. The commerciali5ation targets for cycle and calendar life are as demanding as the long-term "alues$ while the cost target is rela2ed to the near-term "alue of >)3,?%Wh. The most important re#uirements for E batteries are re"iewed below from today8s perspecti"e and compared to the GSABC targets.

II.1.1. Performance
pecific Ener$y( As shown in Appendix ($ today8s state-of-the-art <?3-passenger "ehicles /Table (.10 ha"e practical ranges of about 43-),, miles /Table (.2 line' 4B and 4(0 with +*--+ %Wh batteries. These batteries weigh between <3,%g /Ai7;0 and -B,%g /Ei 1on0$ and they represent appro2imately -,= and +,=$ respecti"ely$ of "ehicle curb weights. The specific energy of the Ai7; batteries used "aries from about 3, to B< Wh?%g: it is nearly *, Wh?%g for the Ei 1on battery. Gtility "ehicles and "ans /see Table (.10 attain about B3-F3 miles /Table (.20 with Ai7; batteries ha"ing appro2imately the same capacity$ and battery weights represent about +3= of the utility "ehicles8 +3--3= higher curb weights. @nly the lightweight$ aerodynamically "ery efficient +-seat E ) has a practical range substantially

in e2cess of ),, miles$ approaching )3, miles albeit only with a Ai7; battery that represents nearly <,= of the "ehicle curb weight. To attain a )3,-mile Preal worldQ range$ the capacities of the Ai7; batteries for the <?3-passenger E s would need to be increased to at least <3%Wh and their weight to about 4,,%g. This is clearly "ery undesirable since the battery would then represent more than <,= of curb weight$ and in all probability is not feasible with current "ehicle designs. 1f the battery weight were %ept at around <3,%g$ battery specific energy would need to be increased to around *3Wh?%g$ appro2imately the GSABC near-term target). Thus$ unless E s of much lower specific energy consumption /i.e.$ much higher efficiency0 under realistic dri"ing conditions can be de"eloped$ the GSABC near-term target of ),,Wh?%g appears to be the minimum specific energy re#uirement$ should a )3,-mile minimum range pro"e to be re#uired for widespread acceptance of E s. PoDer *ensity( The GSABC targets for power density /see Table II.10 were set to gi"e an E acceptable acceleration from a battery that meets the minimum specific energy re#uirements. These targets need to be met by a battery discharged to +,= of its capacity at the lowest design operating temperature$ and until the end of battery life when power capability is substantially degraded. /(ully charged$ new batteries typically ha"e much higher power capability than needed by E s.0 Since the mass-produced 1CE "ehicles of today generally ha"e higher acceleration capability than those of 3-), years ago$ the GSABC commerciali5ation target for power density probably should also be considered a minimum re#uirement. 1n the longer term$ ad"ances in automobile technologyCespecially substantial reductions of weight and aerodynamic dragCcould result in decreased E -battery power and capacity re#uirements and?or increases in E performance$ as has been demonstrated by 678s E ).

To attain a 1)0*+ile ,real world- range capability &or a 4")*pa''enger E. wit% a repre'entati/e lead acid battery %a/ing a 'peci&ic energy o& 0)*40$%"#g wo1ld in all li#eli%ood re21ire a battery weig%ing +ore t%an 1 200#g w%ic% wo1ld be +ore t%an )0% o& t%e E.3' c1rb weig%t.

II.1.2. Durability/Battery Life

The useful ser"ice life of a battery is limited by loss of its ability to meet certain minimum re#uirements for deli"ery of energy and power. (or E batteries$ the minimum re#uirements are nominally set at F,= of both the new battery8s energy storage capacity and the E 8s power capability specification. Eoss of power capability /Ppower fadingQ0 and energy capacity is caused by cycling batteries. 1t can also occur while batteries are not being cycled$ as a result of chemical processes that o"er time transform battery acti"e materials irre"ersibly into inacti"e forms$ and?or reduce the current carrying capability of the battery. 1f these processes are relati"ely rapid$ battery life can become unacceptably short. Typically$ power fading is the limiting factor in E -battery life. As will be discussed in more detail below$ the li%ely cost of nic%el-metal hydride and other ad"anced E batteries is such that$ for acceptable life cycle costs$ these range of ),, miles per charge$ the ),,%-)+,% mile batteries need to last for at least ),,-)+, % miles$ the nominal ser"ice-life of the "ehicle. (or a battery that can deli"er an E life re#uirement is e#ui"alent to the GSABC long-term target of at least ),,, deep cycles o"er its ser"ice life. A B,, deep cycle$ 3-year life capabilityCthe near-term GSABC targetCis almost certainly insufficient in "iew of the high cost of battery replacement.

II.1. . !afety
Today8s automobile safety re#uirements are "ery stringent$ and the assurance of a "ery high le"el of safety will be a critical re#uirement for electric "ehicles deployed as a broadly a"ailable new automoti"e product. As a high-energy system$ the battery is the main safety challenge associated with electric "ehicles. ;owe"er$ no statistically "alid e2perience base e2ists for defining and #uantifying ade#uate safety for the ad"anced batteries used in E propulsion. 7oreo"er$ the safety issues differ substantially from one type of battery to another$ and e"en within a battery type from one design to another. 6i"en this difficulty$ GSABC and the battery and E de"elopers ha"e resorted to characteri5ing candidate ad"anced E batteries in terms of their tolerance to a series of

),

PabusesQ$ as a pro"isional indication of the batteries8 le"el of safety. Representati"e battery abuse tests that E -battery de"elopers apply routinely to cells and modules are summari5ed in Appendix 4( 1t needs to be emphasi5ed$ howe"er$ that there are as yet no data correlating test results and failure criteria with safety-related incidents e2perienced by "ehicles e#uipped with ad"anced E batteries. Remar%ably$ such incidents are e2tremely rare or altogether absent. Thus$ while some of the abuse tests probably represent a realistic failure mode$ others may not simulate li%ely occurrences$ and an E battery failing to meet one of the standard abuse tests could concei"ably be safe under all but the most e2traordinary and unli%ely conditions. Con"ersely$ it is noted that unsafe situations may not be fully captured by the e2isting abuse tests but could surface in the future.

II.1.". Con#enience
Se"eral battery characteristics that may offer particular ad"antages /or$ con"ersely$ pose limitations0 in E applications can be grouped under the broad term Pcon"enienceQ9 for e2ample$ #uic% charging capability$ low self-discharge rate$ and wide battery-operating-temperature range. The GSABC targets for these characteristics form a reasonable set of re#uirements$ but none of these are as critical to the acceptability of batteries for E ser"ice as are the targets for performance$ durability and safety. The numerical "alues listed in Table II.1 thus appear to be desirable$ rather than re#uired$ characteristics although some of them may pro"e to be important for acceptance of an E in the mar%et. /Aot mentioned among the re#uirements but also important is the stipulation that E batteries must be chemically and mechanically maintenance-free to a"oid the cost of s%illed maintenance labor and?or the incon"enience to the owner?operator. This re#uirement does not e2tend to electrical maintenance Rsuch as cell balancing$ etc.S that can be pro"ided automatically as part of the battery8s electricalcontrol functions during charging or other phases of operation.0

))

II.1.$. Cost
Bac=$round( By general agreement$ the costs of ad"anced E the potential to meet the other critical re#uirements for E batteries ha"ing

ser"ice are a ma!or barrier to

the competiti"eness and widespread introduction of E s. (or e2ample$ the actual costs of the ad"anced batteries in the E s introduced in limited numbers o"er the past se"eral years range from nearly >-,$,,, to more than >F,$,,, per pac%$ re#uiring hea"y subsidies by the E manufacturers to attract "ehicle lessees. A ma!or focus of the 'anel thus was to in"estigate li%ely costs of "olume-produced ad"anced batteries and to assess their acceptability against E -battery target costs. 7ost E and E -battery de"elopers as well as other sta%eholders in the

commerciali5ation of E s ha"e de"eloped E -battery cost targets?re#uirements to guide their de"elopment strategies and policies. Among these$ the GSABC cost targets$ shown in Table II.1$ are by far the best %nown and ha"e been widely used in past assessments. 1t is the 'anel8s understanding that the GSABC battery long-term cost target was deri"ed from the assumption that the life-cycle /total ownership0 costs for E s need to be comparable to those for the corresponding con"entional "ehicles. ;owe"er$ no details of that deri"ation and the underlying assumptions ha"e been published. 1n addition$ the GSABC cost targets for E batteries are nearly a decade old$ e2cept for the recently adopted commerciali5ation cost target of >)3,?%Wh. 1n "iew of the considerable uncertainty that surrounds this important sub!ect$ a current loo% at what might constitute appropriate cost targets for E batteries appears !ustified. Cost "ar$ets>!e@uirements( 'ostulating cost e#ui"alence of E s with their counterpart 1CE "ehicles is a rational starting point for establishing battery cost targets. To con"ert this general postulate into specific cost target/s0 re#uires se"eral assumptions and a cost-estimating methodology. @ne %ey assumption is that the total ownership cost of a "ehicle o"er its life /life cycle cost0 is the most appropriate measure of cost$ another is that the cost of the E minus battery in mass production will be comparable to the cost of the 1CE "ehicle. Although there is no uni"ersal agreement on the latter assumption$ )+

se"eral carma%ers mentioned it as a possibility if E s were e"entually produced in numbers comparable to those for popular 1CE models. Based on these assumptions$ the 'anel used a simple methodology to de"elop an independent perspecti"e on target battery costs. 1n this approach$ the battery is amorti5ed o"er the life of the E $ and the amorti5ation cost is lumped with electricity cost into the E 8s cost of Pelectric energyQ. Together with the assumption abo"e about basic "ehicle costs$ the assumption of life-cycle cost-e#ui"alence between an electric and a con"entional "ehicle then reduces to the e#ui"alence of lifetime costs of the electric energy and the motor fuel consumed by these "ehicles$ respecti"ely. 1n Appendix E$ target battery costs are calculated with this methodology as the net present "alue of the E 8s energy cost sa"ings o"er its assumed ),-year life for a range of "alues of the %ey parameters. The PTypical Current 'arametersQ segment of Table E.1 presents target battery costs calculated for energy efficiencies and costs typical for today8s 1CE and electric "ehicles: the E Table (.2 line 50). The calculations indicate target battery costs of appro2imately >-$3,, to ><$,,, for 3X?%Wh electricity and efficiencies in the +.+ to -.+ miles per %Wh range that are typical for today8s <?3 passenger E s with Ai7; batteries /Appendix ( Table (.20: the corresponding 1CE "ehicle was assumed to ha"e a +< mpg fuel efficiency. Aote that these costs translate to a specific cost range of about >)+,-)-3?%Wh for a typical -,%Wh E battery$ somewhat less then the >)3,?%Wh GSABC commerciali5ation target. Target battery cost is higher for commercial E s because of the lower fuel economy of such "ehicles: this factor dominates as long as electricity costs are relati"ely low /see Table E.1$ line 20. A highly efficient E
)

efficiencies are ta%en from Appendi2 C /see

deli"ering < miles?%Wh /such as the

T%e 6o/erall7 E. energy e&&iciency 6in +ile'"#$%7 i' calc1lated a' &ollow'8 T%e E.'3 te't cycle energy 1'age in $%"+ile 6Table C.+$ line -7 i' +1ltiplied by a &actor o& 1.) to acco1nt &or t%e total a+o1nt o& electric energy 1'ed in c%arging t%e battery and t%e re'1lting total energy 1'age per +ile i' in/erted to t%e 1nit' o& +ile' per #$%. T%e &actor 1.) i' t%e approxi+ate a/erage ratio o& total energy 1'ed in c%arging and t%e energy deli/ered by t%e battery 6'ee Table C.+$ line B7. E/idently t%e /ery e&&icient 9i Ion batterie' a' well a' air*cooled :iM; batterie' %a/e 'igni&icantly +ore &a/orable 6i.e. '+aller7 &actor' t%an :iM; batterie' t%at are cooled wit% c%illed li21id' d1ring c%arge.

)-

E )$ see Appendix ( Table (.20 does not ha"e a higher target battery cost if the anticipated higher motor-fuel efficiency of a broadly corresponding 1CE "ehicle is ta%en into account. As e2pected$ motor-fuel cost is the single most important factor. (or e2ample$ increasing fuel cost by +3= from >).--?gal to >).B4?gal increases target battery cost for the commercial "ehicle by -4 =. @n the other hand$ the data of Table E.1 show that target battery costs are substantially reduced at higher electricity costs /e.g. ),X?%Wh0. This general picture does not change greatly with increased annual mileage and for impro"ed electric and 1CE "ehicle efficiencies$ as shown in Table E.1 under the YAearer-Term Scenarios (a"orable to E sY. The impact of E efficiency impro"ements is predictably small) at low electricity costs$ and e"en further increases in motor-fuel cost raise target battery costs for <?3-passenger E s only moderately to appro2imately >3,,,. The effect of yet higher annual "ehicle mileage$ higher motor-fuel costs$ and higher 1CE efficiencies$ as well as higher E -efficiencies$ is shown in the third segment of Table E.1. 1t is e"ident that a doubling of today8s motor-fuel cost would be re#uired to increase target battery costs "ery substantially. @ne interesting calculation is the last line in Table E.1$ which displays data consistent with current parameters in Western Europe. Due to the much higher cost of motor-fuel there$ the calculated target battery-cost of Z>B4,, is almost double that of California. 1t appears$ therefore$ that at current 1CE efficiencies and motor-fuel costs$ target E -battery costs range from about >+$,,, to ><$,,,-3$,,,$ depending primarily on the costs of electricity$ and secondarily on E o"erall /including charging0 energy efficiencies. This cost range is broadly consistent with the target battery costs mentioned by ma!or automobile manufacturers. (or a battery of +F--- %Wh capacity$ battery costs of ><$,,,-3$,,, translate into target battery costs of >)+,-)F, per %Wh of capacity$ which is compatible with the GSABC commerciali5ation target of >)3,?%Wh and other$ somewhat higher estimates /+0.
)

I+pro/ed E. e&&iciency i' %owe/er /ery i+portant beca1'e it extend' E. range in direct proportion.

)<

1t is important to note that >3$,,, is the upper end of the target battery cost range in the nearer term$ "alid only if essentially all assumptionsCparticularly basic "ehicle cost e#ui"alence$ and battery lifeCare fa"orable to E s. The specific costs target for ad"anced batteries would be substantially higher only if motor-fuel costs increased drastically abo"e >+?gal$ or if the needed E -battery capacities were to decrease substantially below +F%Wh because of much-reduced range re#uirements and?or greatly increased E long term. efficiencies. Aone of these possibilities seems li%ely in the foreseeable future$ at least in the Gnited States$ although some of them might materiali5e o"er the

++(2( CA0*+*A"E BA""E!+E

The primary focus of the 'anel8s in"estigation was to assess the de"elopment status and li%ely future costs of the ad"anced batteries that appeared to ha"e reasonable prospects for meeting performance re#uirements and cost goals for electric "ehicle propulsion$ and for becoming commercially a"ailable by +,,- or soon thereafter. 1n the "iew of the 'anel$ this assessment could be limited to battery technologies that$ at the outset of the study$ appeared to meet a number of screening criteria9 performance that met or at least approached the near-term targets in Table prospecti"e mass-production costs that$ on the basis of the battery

II.1$ abo"e$ with some prospects for impro"ements beyond these targets: materials and fabrication techni#ues in"ol"ed$ might fall into the acceptable range discussed abo"e: and de"elopment status and plans that held out realistic prospects for battery

commercial a"ailability within the ne2t --3 years$ according to the generic timetable illustrated in <ig1re II.1.

)3

&i$ure ++(3( Battery and Electric Vehicle +nteractive *evelopment "imeline

BATTERY DEVELOPMENT
R&D Cell Design & testing Module Design; ilot ro!ess de"elo #ent $ilot $rodu!tion; #odule testing; $a!% design $a!% &ield 'rial ( #anu)a!turing de"elo #ent &a!tor* +nstallation & ,tartu -olu#e $rodu!tion

Year:

10

Basic cell desi$n established Commit to Pilot Plant

Commit to Production Plant

VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT
De"elo !on!e t

Year )ro# -e.i!le /aun!.:

10

'est $rotot* e 0atteries1 De"elo , e!i)i!ation 'est -e.i!les 2internall*3 4it. $rotot* e 0atteries &leet &ield 'est 4it. $ilot 0atteries Design & 0uild -e.i!le $rodu!tion $lant $rodu!tion

Commit to &leet "est Commit to Vehicle Production

)B

Application of these criteria eliminated a number of candidate battery systems from the 'anel study. 1n this regard$ lead-acid and nic%el-cadmium batteries represent a special case. Aeither of these batteries passes the screening test abo"e since they are fundamentally incapable of meeting the %ey performance targets for specific energy and energy density$ see Table II.1. @n the other hand$ both battery types are used in electric "ehicles currently on public roads$ including E s deployed under the California8s 7oA as well as thousands of nic%el-cadmium-powered E s in (rance. ;owe"er$ with the e2ception of the lightweight E ) carrying <<= of its weight in batteries$ the lead-acidpowered 7oA E s ha"e ranges of only <,-B, miles /see Appendix ( Table (.10 because of the inherently low specific energy of lead-acid batteries. Also$ lead-acid batteries are li%ely to re#uire at least one and perhaps se"eral replacements o"er the life of an E $ which tends to negate their lower cost ad"antage. Aic%el-cadmium batteries$ although capable of long cycle life$ are not only rather e2pensi"e but /at least in the G.S.0 considered undesirable because of the percei"ed health ha5ard of cadmium. Despite these reser"ations$ the 'anel conducted a limited sur"ey of the lead-acid batteries used in California8s 7oA E s. The results are summari5ed in Appendix < that also addresses briefly the status of nic%el-cadmium E batteries. A number of ad"anced-battery systems ha"e been proposed$ e2plored and de"eloped for E propulsion. Systems that promise ma!or performance gains o"er leadacid batteries were re"iewed briefly in /+0. Among the a#ueous batteries with potential to meet the near-term specific energy targets in Table II.1$ only nic%el-metal hydride /Ai7;0 is seen as ha"ing good prospects for meeting the power density and cycle life re#uirements listed in Table II.1. Ai7; batteries for E applications ha"e been under de"elopment for more than a decade$ and are being manufactured on a limited scale by se"eral battery companies. They are used in the ma!ority of the E s made by fi"e of the si2 ma!or automobile manufacturers that ha"e signed 7oAs. The commercial prospects of Ai7; E batteries depend in large measure on their ultimately achie"able cost structure$ which became a ma!or focus of the 'anel8s in"estigation. Encouraged by the commercial success of lithium-ion batteries in the consumer electronics mar%et$ this battery system has been under de"elopment for E )4 applications

for more than fi"e years by a number of companies in Napan and Europe. The system8s promise of high specific energy was a ma!or attraction$ and its specific power and cycle life also offered reasonable prospects of meeting E -battery re#uirements. While Sony and ARTA$ two of the technology leaders$ terminated Ei 1on E -battery de"elopment in recent years$ se"eral other e2perienced de"elopers of con"entional and ad"anced batteries ha"e continued their programs. E#ually important$ ma!or funding continues to be pro"ided by GSABC for %ey aspects of Ei 1on battery de"elopment$ including achie"ement of ade#uate durability and safety$ and reduction of battery costs. 1n "iew of the promising prospects and ongoing de"elopment efforts$ and because a number of AETRA E s /See Table (.10 powered by pre-prototype Ei 1on batteries operate successfully in California under Aissan8s 7oA$ lithium-ion batteries were selected by the 'anel as the second candidate E -battery technology to be in"estigated in some detail. 1n addition$ the 'anel selected lithium-metal polymer batteries for an e"aluation of their prospects of becoming commercially a"ailable by +,,- or soon thereafter. 1n part$ this selection was made because of the basic potential of the Ei polymer system for higher specific energy and lower cost than those of other ad"anced batteries. The 'anel was also aware of the significant technical progress achie"ed o"er the last se"eral years in two important programs that appear committed to de"elopment of commercially "iable Ei polymer E batteries in the relati"ely near future. (inally$ the 'anel e2amined a specific lithium-ion polymer technology for which claims of high specific energy and energy density are being made: its findings are summari5ed in Appendix =. 1n the main$ howe"er$ the 'anel8s in"estigation focused on the status and prospects of nic%el-metal hydride$ lithium-ion$ and lithium-metal polymer batteries as the systems with the best prospects of meeting the performance and cost re#uirements for E applications. The 'anel8s findings are summari5ed in Section 111.

)F

++(;( EVCBA""E!# C/ " &AC"/!

(rom the outset of this study$ it was clear that battery costs were not only important issues with the ad"anced systems currently used in E s$ but were recogni5ed as a ma!or economic barrier to the widespread mar%et introduction of electric "ehicles. Ac#uisition and analysis of battery-cost information$ therefore$ became important aspects of the 'anel8s wor%. This section re"iews the ma!or factors that contribute to battery cost. 1t is intended to support the discussion of system-specific costs in subse#uent sections and to gi"e the reader of this report /as it did earlier for the 'anel0 a framewor% for assessing the batterycost information ac#uired in this study. The basic unit of a battery is the cell$ which has a low unit "oltageCtypically )-< "oltsCdetermined thermodynamically by the electrochemical processes of the battery system. (or use in E s$ cells with capacities in the range of <,-)+, Ah are assembled into modules that comprise a number of identical cells connected electrically in series or$ in some cases$ series?parallel$ to form a con"enient unit building bloc% with an energy storage capacity typically in the range of )-- %Wh. The E -battery pac%$ in turn$ consists of an assembly of modules$ also connected in series or series?parallel$ to pro"ide the desired system "oltage /typically )3,--3, 0 and energy-storage capacity. Additionally$ an E -battery-pac% will ha"e a thermal management system for heating$ cooling$ or both$ as well as electrical and electronic controls to regulate charge and discharge$ assure safety$ and pre"ent electrical abuse. The le"el of sophistication and comple2ity of the needed controls depends on the re#uirements of specific battery systems. The ma!or steps in E -battery-pac% production are shown in <ig1re II.2. While production acti"ities up to the le"el of modules are e2clusi"ely the pro"ince of the battery manufacturer$ pac% assembly$ electrical-control integration$ and reliability testing are operations fre#uently carried out by the E -battery customer$ the "ehicle manufacturer. ;ow these responsibilities are di"ided affects the selling price of the battery. Thus$ while the specific cost /in >?%Wh0 of the battery pac% ready for installation in the "ehicle is the

)*

most important battery cost characteristic$ most of the cost data gathered and reported in this study are for module costs. To arri"e at the pac% price$ we ha"e added a fi2ed amount to the module cost$ using the appro2imate numbers pro"ided by battery de"elopers and GSABC.

&i$ure ++(2( %aFor Cost ta$es in the Production of EVCbattery Pac=s

%A+0 /PE!A"+/0 7i2ing Coating ? 'asting Drying Winding ? Stac%ing Wetting Closing 7odule assembly (ormation "A1E +0 P!/*.C"+/0 E,EC"!/*E &AB!+CA"+/0 %AJ/! %A"E!+A, Acti"e material Current collection matri2 Separator Electrolyte Terminals 'ac%aging 'ac%aging Thermal management Electronic management /7odule le"el0

CE,, A

E%B,#

%/*.,E A

E%B,#

Company @"erhead

%/*.,E "!A0 &E! "/ PAC) A E%B,#

'ac% assembly Warranty

PAC) A E%B,# A0* "E "+01

'ac%aging Electrical management Thermal management /'ac% le"el0

The costs of cells and their assembly into modules ma%e up the largest portion of an E -battery pac% costCtypically about 4,= to F3=$ as discussed further below. 7aterials$ in turn$ are the largest single cost item in manufacturing cells and modules. (or large-si5e batteries with relati"ely e2pensi"e materialsCthe situation with ad"anced E batteriesCmaterials costs usually e2ceed 3,= of the total manufactured cost in "olume production. (inally$ cell and module materials costs are dominated by the cost of the functional materials re#uired for cell operation9 the electrochemically acti"e electrodematerials$ the electrolyte and the electrolyte-filled separator$ the materials of the electrode

+,

matri2 collecting the current$ and the pac%aging of the cell and module. The unit costs of these materials and components decline as the #uantities purchased increase. 1n general$ sa"ings will be "ery substantial for custom-made parts$ but much smaller for commodity materialsCfor e2ample primary metals or common plasticsCthat ha"e other substantial uses. As in all manufacturing operations$ #uestions arise as to whether to ma%e or buy certain components or partially processed materials. The decision depends on the scale of production$ with internal sourcing being fa"ored as production "olumes increase. A second important cost-category is direct labor /including fringe benefits0$ with labor rates being similar in the countries where the E batteries in"estigated by the 'anel are under de"elopment. Direct labor costs$ as a percentage of total costs$ decline with increasing capital in"estment in labor-sa"ing manufacturing e#uipment that becomes progressi"ely more producti"e as battery production "olume rises. At any gi"en production le"el$ there is a tradeoff between the costs of direct labor and the ownership costs of automated production e#uipment. The inherently greater efficiency and precision that automation enables in most manufacturing operations ma%e large contributions to the decline in costs as production "olume increases. The third ma!or contributor to costs is manufacturing Po"erheadQ$ a category that includes the ownership and operating costs of plants and e#uipment$ as well as the costs of manufacturing support ser"ices /manufacturing engineering$ material handling$ #uality assurance$ etc.0. The sum of materials and component costs$ labor costs and manufacturing o"erhead is usually termed the YCost @f 6oodsY /C@60 for battery production. To arri"e at a battery-selling price /the cost to the E manufacturer0$ estimates

must then be added for general$ selling and administrati"e /6SA0 e2penses$ RMD and engineering e2penses$ cost of financing the re#uired capital in"estments$ profit$ and ta2es. While the e2act contributions of the items abo"e can "ary considerably for different types of products and manufacturers$ their combination$ often termed Ygross marginY$ typically accounts for +,= to <,= of the sale price for a high "olume$

+)

manufactured product. Somewhat arbitrarily$ the 'anel has chosen to use a gross margin of +3=$ lower than the )**F G.S. a"erage of --.F= for industrial companies$ and fa"orable to battery costs. Ta%ing all of these factors into account$ the 'anel arri"es at pro!ected per-%Wh battery module cost /selling price to @E7s0 by multiplying the estimated unit /per %Wh0 manufacturing cost /C@60 by a factor of ).-- /<?-0. The fabrication of battery pac%s from modules in"ol"es integration of the modules with other subsystems /structural$ electrical and thermal0 into a single pac%$ as well as final testing. These other subsystems as well as the assembly into a single pac% contribute additional costs. (inally$ E buyers will e2pect a substanti"e warranty for such a critical and e2pensi"e component. Whether the warranty is pro"ided by the battery or the "ehicle manufacturer$ its cost must be included in the price of the battery. The cost increment for the assembly of pac%s from modulesCwhich is "ery high at the present$ low E production ratesCis difficult to estimate inasmuch as it can be e2pected to "ary manufacturers and the GSABC$ the 'anel assumed a somewhat substantially with battery and "ehicle types. Based on informal information from battery de"elopers$ E optimistic figure of ><,?%Wh />)$+,, for a -, %Wh battery0 for production "olumes in the order of ),$,,,-+,$,,, pac%s?year. (or true mass production rates$ this cost item is un%nown$ but the assumption was madeCagain probably optimisticallyCthat it will decline by 3,= from that of the intermediate production "olumes. <ig1re II.0 illustrates /on a relati"e scale$ with 7aterials Cost [ ),,0 how pac% costs aggregate from the cost components identified abo"e through the "arious steps in"ol"ed in manufacturing batteries on a commercial scale. When using this approach$ it must be %ept in mind that the current cost of nic%el-metal hydride and$ e"en more so$ lithium-ion batteries reflect the relati"ely small-scale operations under which they are produced. The relati"e numbers in <ig1re II.0 do not apply to this scale of production$ which is characteri5ed by "ery high costs of labor$ materials and o"erhead and$ conse#uently$ "ery high battery costs.

++

1n the larger manufacturing facilities that could be operational by +,,- if plant commitments were made in the near future$ costs and prices would be considerably lower than present le"els. Economies of scale will result from discounts on bul% purchases of materials and components$ higher efficiencies in the use of labor and e#uipment and$ especially$ use of custom-designed automated manufacturing e#uipment with high production rates and product yields. Although depreciation charges related to this e#uipment will contribute significantly to the factory costs of the batteries$ they will be more than offset by the sa"ings in labor costs reali5ed.

&i$ure ++(;( Cost Components of EVCbattery Pac=s

250

Relati"e Cost 2#odule8s #aterial 9 1003

200

$a!% >; & ?arrant* $a!% $eri .erials Material & /a<or $ro)it 'a: & Cost o) Ca ital R&D 5,; Manu)aturing ,u ort /a<or 7=ui #ent De re!iation

150

Module ,ale $ri!e

100
;!ti"e Materials Current Matri: Cell $a!%aging 7le!trol*te ,e arator Module $a!%aging Module 7le!troni!s 6t.er

C65

50

0 Module Cost o) 5oods 2C653 Module Cost 2$ri!e to 67M3 $a!% Cost 2$ri!e to 67M3

Battery production on a true mass production scale by automobile-industry standards can be e2pected to result in further reduction of specific battery costs. Such reduction would be due to producti"ity increases from additional automation of manufacturing operations$ incremental impro"ements in battery design$ and process technology refinement based on accumulated production e2perience. ;owe"er$

+-

automation$ the %ey to cost reduction$ re#uires substantial capital in"estments. Such in"estments can only be !ustified if the battery de"elopers are con"inced that a sustained mar%et will permit capital reco"ery o"er a large product "olume$ produced o"er an e2tended period. Also$ the cost-reduction benefits from increasing automation will become relati"ely less important in true mass production$ and further battery cost reductions will be possible only if materials costs also decline significantly. @f the three battery systems in"estigated in the 'anel8s study$ nic%el-metal hydride de"elopers are already manufacturing at the pilot-plant le"el and are prepared to implement plans for larger-scale production. Eithium-ion E batteries are currently produced in relati"ely small pilot-scale operations$ while lithium-metal polymer batteries are assembled on a small scale with the help of laboratory fabrication e#uipment. Accordingly$ these systems will reach the stage where the 'anel8s battery cost estimating approach can reasonably be applied at different times in the future. Additionally$ the uncertainties in the estimates increase with the e2tent of material and manufacturing de"elopment still ahead. Ae"ertheless$ the 'anel undertoo% to apply its approach as a general chec% on the cost information collected from Ai7; and Ei 1on battery de"elopers. These considerations are presented in Sections 111.) and 111.+ below.

+<

EC"+/0 +++( &+0*+01 +++(3( 0+C)E,C%E"A, 4#*!+*E III.1.1. Intro%uction

The Ai7; battery was first brought into production in the late )*F,s$ as an en"ironmentally more acceptable replacement for Ai-Cd batteries in consumer applications. Ei%e the Ai-Cd battery$ the Ai7; battery uses a nic%el-o2yhydro2ide positi"e electrode and an al%aline electrolyte$ but the acti"e material in the negati"e electrode is a hydrogen-absorbing metal alloy instead of cadmium. A discussion of the fundamental nature of the technology can be found in the )**3 BTA' report /)0 and in other re"iew papers /<0. Ai7; batteries ha"e been able to replace Ai-Cd batteries in many portable applications$ due to their higher specific energy and energy density$ as well as for en"ironmental reasons. Worldwide shipments for )*** are estimated at o"er <,, million cells /30. 7ost of the products for the portable-battery mar%et are spiral-wound cylindrical cells in si5es ranging from AAA /appro2imately 3,, mAh0 to D /F-* Ah0$ sold singly or in pac%s of up to )+ cells in series. They typically use nic%el-foam current collectors for the positi"e-electrode structure and nic%el-plated steel foils as support for the negati"e. Small prismatic cells using the same electrode structures$ but in parallelplate configuration$ are also produced in significant #uantities$ although not on the same scale as cylindrical cells. Both types of small portable cells are pac%ed in steel containers and generally operate at abo"e-atmospheric pressure$ with hydrogen pressure and cell temperature increasing as the cell approaches end of charge. Aearly all consumer Ai7; cells utili5e the AB3 alloy /<0 as the acti"e material for the negati"e electrode. This alloy$ a lanthanum?nic%el compound %nown as Y7ischmetalQ$ is "ery stable during repetiti"e cycles of hydrogen absorption and

+3

desorption$ and it has a practical charge storage capacity of about -), mAh?g. The principal alternati"e alloy$ AB+$ is composed of nic%el and a number of transition metals including "anadium$ titanium$ and 5irconium in "arious proportions. This alloy8s charge storage capacity is somewhat greater at -3, mAh?g$ and it is claimed to ha"e potential for further impro"ement. ;owe"er$ the production of AB + alloys is more comple2$ the alloy itself is more susceptible to corrosion$ and it "ery probably operates at higher hydrogen pressure than an AB3 alloy at the same state of charge /degree of hydrogen saturation0 and temperature. Small Ai7; cells typically deli"er B, to F, Wh?%g. They ha"e sufficient power for most portable battery applications and can operate at temperatures as low as -),VC. Their nominal cycle life of 3,, cycles and operating life of o"er - years are satisfactory for most consumer applications. ;owe"er$ o"er the last < years Ai7; batteries ha"e lost mar%et share in consumer applications to the newer Ei 1on battery whose main ad"antages are higher specific energy and superior charge acceptance at moderately ele"ated /T-3C0 temperatures. The E application presents significant additional challenges for the Ai7; batteries

battery designer. 1n particular$ the much higher capacities and "oltages of E the ad"ent of Ai7; E

put increased demands on thermal management and pressure containment. 1n fact$ before batteries there was no e2perience in the battery industry with large$ high-"oltage sealed battery systems sub!ected to deep cycling. Beyond these technical challenges$ the E battery mar%et poses demanding re#uirements for lower cost and longer life. Ai7; batteries for E E applications ha"e been under de"elopment for more than

fi"e years at three battery companies9 67@"onic /67@0 in Troy$ 7ichigan$ 'anasonic Energy /'E E0 in Josai City$ Napan$ and SA(T in Bordeau2$ (rance. All three de"elopers use spherical nic%el hydro2ide powder pasted into a nic%el foam as the positi"e electrode$ and polypropylene separators treated to impro"e wetting by the J@;based electrolyte. The composition of the negati"e electrode "aries with the de"eloper9

+B

'E E and SA(T rely on the AB3 alloy that is widely used in consumer Ai7; batteries$ while 67@ has de"eloped the AB+ alloy. The de"elopers also ha"e different modulepac%aging schemes9 67@ contains indi"idual cells in a metal case$ 'E E pac%ages indi"idual cells in a thermoplastic case$ while SA(T inserts cells in a plastic monobloc%. The Ai7; battery system is capable of "ery long cycle life. The main failure mode is negati"e-electrode corrosion that causes cells to dry out and gradually lose both capacity and power capability. The corrosion rate increases with temperature$ significantly shortening operating life at temperatures abo"e <3\C. AB 3 alloys are more corrosion resistant than AB+ alloys$ but wor% to impro"e the corrosion resistance of both alloys is continuing. A significant difficulty with current Ai7; E batteries is the rather rapid drop in nic%el hydro2ide electrode charge efficiency when temperatures e2ceed -3 C. The inefficient portion of the charging current results in the e"olution of o2ygen that is subse#uently reduced to water at the negati"e electrode. This process generates heat that raises the cell temperature and further reduces the charge-acceptance of the positi"e electrode and of the cell. Also$ the hydrogen e#uilibrium pressure of the negati"e electrode increases with cell temperature and state-of-charge$ and hydrogen o"erpressure can result in "enting of hydrogen and o2ygen$ constituting a second mechanism for loss of electrolyte "olume and cell dry-out. Thus$ managing cell temperature while charging at temperatures much abo"e +3VC is critical to achie"ing good charging efficiency$ high reliability$ and long life in Ai7; batteries. This presents a ma!or challenge for Ai7; E -battery system designers.

+4

III.1.2. &i'( Battery Com)anies

1% /V/0+C Company /vervieD( 67@ is a limited liability company that was founded in )**B. 1t is B,= owned by 6eneral 7otors Corporation$ and <,= by @"onic Battery Company /@BC0. 67@ de"elops$ manufactures$ and mar%ets Ai7; batteries. 1ts current focus is on ad"anced electric propulsion applications$ and the company wor%s closely with the AT /Ad"anced Technology ehicles0 6roup in 67 that has in"ested more than >B, million in the 67@Co"er >+, million in )*** alone. The 67@ Ai7; technology was de"eloped and is still being impro"ed by the @"onic Battery Company in Troy$ 7ichigan. @BC is a subsidiary of Energy Con"ersion De"ices$ a public company with an emphasis on the de"elopment of energy-related materials. @BC has a strong patent position in Ai7; technology and has licensed a number of Ai7; battery manufacturers. Gsing its uni#ue production capabilities for AB + hydride alloys$ @BC supplies 67@ with processed material for the negati"e plates. @BC has also de"eloped and installed a pilot-production facility for spherical nic%el hydro2ide$ the acti"e component of the nic%el electrode. 1n addition to supplying 67@ with %ey Ai7; battery materials$ @BC supports 67@ with materials de"elopment and in cell and module design. 67@ is de"eloping Ai7; battery-manufacturing processes$ and has pilot facilities for Ai7; battery fabrication in Troy$ 7ichigan. A new 67@ facility in Jettering$ @hio$ is being de"eloped into a battery manufacturing plant. EVCBattery *esi$n and Performance( 67@8s P6eneration-)Q E cell$ rated at

*, Ah$ is a con"entional parallel-plate prismatic design with a metal case. Ele"en cells connected in series ma%e up a )-.+ $ ).+%Wh module with a specific energy of 4, Wh?%g and an energy density of )4, Wh?l. As noted abo"e$ the negati"e-electrode chemistry is based on the AB+ alloy that has higher specific capacity and$ therefore$ contains a smaller #uantity of e2pensi"e metals than the more commonly used AB 3 alloy. The other ingredients of the 67@ cell are essentially the same as those of other Ai7; +F

technologies9 nic%el-hydro2ide positi"e electrodes pasted on a nic%el-foam current collector$ al%aline electrolyte$ and polypropylene separators. 'erformance data for 67@8s 6eneration-) E batteries$ which is now installed in many of 678s E s are included in Table III.1. The best module cycle life at F,= DoD /to loss of +,= of initial capacity0 is about F,, cycles. @nly limited in-"ehicle life data are a"ailable at this time. 67@ estimates that the in-"ehicle operating life of the 6eneration-) design is between - and B years. The main fading /i.e.$ gradual failure0 mode during cycling is an increase in cell impedance$ as described abo"e. Charge acceptance abo"e -3C has been problematic and has re#uired acti"e cooling of the batteries. ;owe"er$ li%e other Ai7; de"elopers$ @BC is ma%ing significant impro"ements in this area by the use of additi"es to the nic%el hydro2ide paste in the positi"e electrodes. 67@ has been de"eloping a 6eneration-+ module with a higher energy density target of +)3Wh?l$ and "alidation testing has started. The company is also engaged in the preliminary de"elopment of a li#uid-cooled 6eneration-- module pac%ed in a plastic casing. The 6eneration-- targets include impro"ed specific energy$ a wider range of operating temperatures$ impro"ed power$ and lower cost. 67@ estimates that the 6eneration-- design could be ready for production in +,,<-+,,3. Production Capability, Cost and Business Plannin$( 67@ has produced 4,, E pac%s since )**4 and shipped most of them to 67. The current manufacturing capability is 43, pac%s per year$ but production for the ne2t few years is e2pected to be much lower due to lac% of new orders. When fully furbished$ the Jettering plant will be able to produce appro2imately B,,, pac%s per year. 67@ plans to produce and ship to its customers fully assembled and tested pac%s$ thereby adding "alue to the modules. 67@.s present operation is still labor-intensi"e due to the continual integration of technological impro"ements and design changes. Also$ the company has been reluctant to increase capital in"estment for automation in a business with an uncertain return.

+*

The present pac% cost is about >)$,,,?%Wh. 67@8s pro!ection for fully burdened costs of the 6eneration-+ product is >-,,?%Wh at the pac% le"el$ for a production "olume of +,$,,, pac%s per year. 67@ is now e"aluating additional mar%ets for the technology$ such as hybrid "ehicles and scooters$ to increase production "olume beyond the E mar%et demand and thus achie"e incrementally lower costs. With encouragement from 678s AT and from GSABC$ 67@ is also e2ploring the possibility of reali5ing residual "alue for Ai7; batteries at the end of their useful life in E rural$ ' -based electrification in de"eloping countries. The operating life and ele"ated-temperature performance of 67@8s Ai7; technology still need to be fully pro"en. ;owe"er$ the main obstacle in the de"elopment of 67@8s E -battery businessCthe problem common to all de"elopers of ad"anced E batteriesCis the high product cost compared to the costs that are considered acceptable if E s are to be mar%etable. With few orders and a high rate of operating and capital e2penditure$ continued support from 67 is not assured. A specific barrier mentioned by 67@ is battery warranty. 67@ surmises that the warranty re#uirements of "ehicle manufacturers might include as much as - years with ),,= replacement$ followed by a prorated warranty for up to ), years. 1n 67@8s own words$ Pa business using reasonable ris% analysis would not be able to pro"ide such a warranty by the year +,,-Q. ser"ice. This effort is focusing on secondary usage of such batteries in less demanding applications such as

PA0A /0+C EV E0E!1# Company /vervieD( 'anasonic E Energy /'E E0$ owned B,= by 7atsushita

and <,= by Toyota$ was formed in )**B to manufacture and mar%et Ai7; batteries for E s. The company is engaged in engineering and manufacturing de"elopment and in small-scale production of Ai7; batteries. The 'E E plant in Josai City$ Napan$ manufactures modules with three different cell capacities for E but all use the same basic Ai7; materials technology. and ;E applications$

-,

EVCBattery *esi$n and Performance( A *3Ah prismatic cell in a thermoplastic case is the basic element of 'E E8s Ai7; battery for full-si5e E s. Ten such cells in series are strapped together in a molded plastic enclosure to ma%e up a )+ and ).)%Wh module /designation9 E -*30. The energy ratings of the E -*3 module are B- Wh?%g and )3, Wh?liter$ and specific power is rated +,, W?%g at F,= DoD. The module design and performance characteristics are included in Table III.1 below. (eatures of the cell include the following9 AB3 alloy-based negati"e pasted on nic%el-plated steel current collector: Spherical nic%el hydro2ide-based positi"e with cobalt$ 5inc$ and yttriumSulfonated-polypropylene separator and J@;-based electrolyte with

compound additi"es$ spray-impregnated into a nic%el-foam current collector: Ei@; additi"e. Charge acceptance and cycle life at ele"ated temperatures of 'E E8s Ai7; technology$ concerns until the recent past$ are now ade#uate for temperatures up to at least <3C. This impro"ement$ mostly associated with positi"e-electrode additi"es$ is important not only for impro"ed battery efficiency and life$ but because it may ma%e aircooling acceptable for most E applications. 'E E and its car-company customers ha"e demonstrated well o"er )$,,, cycles at ),,= DoD on the test stand$ and battery impedance rise at around +3\C is less than -,= o"er )$,,, cycles. Therefore$ it seems #uite possible that )$,,, to +$,,, cycles at ),,= DoD can e"entually be achie"ed$ depending on the battery8s initial power "ersus the car8s re#uirements. The failure mode is$ again$ increase in cell impedance$ which accelerates at temperatures abo"e -3VC. The current warranty for the battery is - years$ but a longer warranty period may be considered. 1n the Josai plant$ 'E E is also producing a +FAh cell that is used in )+ $ ,.-< %Wh modules for mini-E s. While it is based on the same electrode formulations and basic mechanical design as the E -*3$ the E -+F module has higher specific power

-)

/-,,W?%g0 but somewhat lower specific energy /3FWh?%g0. 1n the same plant$ 'E E is assembling B.3Ah$ 4.+ modules consisting of B cylindrical D-si5e$ ultra-high-rate 'anasonic cells. These modules are used in the batteries of the Toyota 'R1GS$ and the ;onda 1AS16;T hybrid electric "ehicles. 7ost recently$ 'E E has de"eloped a B.3Ah module comprising B prismatic cells with yet higher specific power for the new "ersion of the 'R1GS$ and a production line for it is currently being completed. Production Capability, Cost and Business Plannin$( 'E E.s production facility has a capacity of +,, E -pac%s per month$ each comprising +< ),-cell /*3Ah or +FAh0$ )+ modules. The manufacturing process is semi-automatic$ with considerable hand labor still used in module assembly and in the formation step. 'E E has been the main supplier of Ai7; batteries for the E s produced by ;onda$ Toyota$ and (ord under their California 7@As. 'roduction pea%ed in )**F when 'E E supplied o"er *,, pac%s to these companies. The production of E modules has decreased since then$ and 'E E and ;onda.s PCity 'alQ$ is does not anticipate substantial new orders in the near future. The production "olume of the +F Ah module$ designed for Toyota8s Pe-comQ city E increasing$ but it is still at a "ery low le"el. 'E E8s production capacity for full-si5e E batteries could be scaled up to se"eral thousand pac%s per year in )+ to )F months$ but there are currently no plans to e2pand capacity. 'E E8s module cost /sale price to @E7s0 is appro2imately >)$),,?%Wh at the current production "olume of around B, pac%s?month. This price is pro!ected to decrease to appro2imately >3,,?%Wh at a production "olume of 3,, pac%s?month. At the latter le"el$ materials account for appro2imately B3= of total manufacturing cost$ direct labor for about ),=$ and o"erhead e2penses for about +3=. At a production "olume of +$,,, to 3$,,, pac%s?month$ the module cost is pro!ected to decrease to appro2imately >-,,?%Wh. (inally$ at production rates e2ceeding -,$,,, pac%s?month 'E E sees a possibility for further price reductions to appro2imately >+3,?%Wh. 'E E8s business focus is now clearly on ;E s. The company has two steady customers in Napan9 ;onda$ which uses cylindrical modules in the 1AS16;T$ and Toyota$

-+

which will now be supplied with the new$ higher-power prismatic modules for the 'R1GS. Currently$ ;E pac%s are being produced at a rate of about +$,,, per month. 'E E has great confidence in the performance of its Ai7; technology for E and ;E applications. The operating temperature limit for efficient charge and long life has reached at least <3\C$ and 'E E belie"es that air cooling will be ade#uate for its batteries. The company also considers the low temperature /-+,\C0 power to be acceptable. Cycle life is e2cellent$ and the feedbac% from the car companies on battery reliability and life is "ery positi"e. ;owe"er$ 'E E does not ha"e immediate plans for further capital in"estments in the E "ersion of its 7i7; technology. 'resent costs are "ery high and not pro!ected to drop below >-,,?%Wh in "olumes re#uired for &E compliance$ nor below >+3,?%Wh in true mass production. As a result$ 'E E does not e2pect a large mar%et to de"elop for the technology$ and the company sees no business !ustification for increasing in"estments in E -*3 production. 'E E.s assessment of the mar%et potential of Ai7; hybrid-E different. With two ma!or car companies already in ;E batteries is #uite batteries$

production$ and with the

e2pectation of performance impro"ements and cost reductions for ;E commerciali5e Ai7; technology for E opportunity.

scenarios for a profitable business do e2ist. The company$ originally founded to applications$ has now become a leading producer of Ai7; batteries for ;E s$ and it is mo"ing forward to e2ploit the

A&" Company /vervieD( SA(T$ a wholly owned di"ision of the (rench Alcatel group$ is a ma!or producer of industrial$ military and consumer batteries$ with a dominant international position in industrial and aircraft nic%el-cadmium batteries. 1ts manufacturing facilities are located in (rance$ Sweden$ and the Gnited States. SA(T is an established manufacturer of E batteries$ producing appro2imately )$3,, pac%s?year of con"ersions of 'eugeot and Renault small cars )+ %Wh "ented Ai-Cd batteries for E

--

and "ans /see Appendix <0. SA(T.s ad"anced E -battery capabilities include pilot-le"el Ai7; production as well as early pilot cell and module fabrication facilities for Ei 1on batteries. All these acti"ities are carried out at SA(T.s Bordeau2 facilities. EVCBattery *esi$n and Performance( SA(T.s prismatic-cell *BAh Ai7; E battery technology is in pilot production in two different configurations9 a ),-cell$ )+ module$ and a +,-cell$ +< module. 1n the DaimlerChrysler E'1C "an$ twenty-eight )+ modules are assembled to form a --%Wh$ --B battery pac%. The cell design includes the following9 'ositi"e electrode9 nic%el-foam collector pasted with a slurry of spherical Aegati"e electrode9 7ischmetal-deri"ed AB3 powder slurry$ pasted with 'olypropylene separator treated for impro"ed wetting$ with an al%aline

Ai/@;0+ powder containing Co$ &n and other additi"es: binder on nic%el-plated$ perforated steel current collector:

J@;-based electrolyte that contains additi"es. SA(T.s module uses a polypropylene monobloc% case with con"entional o"erthe-top cell connections and @-ring terminal seals. The modules are designed to allow fast charge through a combination of features that include a high-charge-efficiency positi"e electrode formulation$ e2cess negati"e capacity$ and effecti"e thermal management. The monobloc% is li#uid-cooled /on the narrow side of the cells0$ %eeping temperature "ariance among cells during normal operation to U - C and permitting daylong operation with se"eral fast recharges. The thermal management system also allows pre-warming of the battery to a"oid a decline in power capability which becomes significant at temperatures below ,VC. SA(T.s module deli"ers BB Wh?%g and )<, Wh?liter: specific power and power density /),-sec pulse at F,= DoD and +3C0 are +,, W?%g and <), W?liter$ respecti"ely. As many as )+3, cycles at ),,= DoD ha"e been demonstrated at room temperature$ and

-<

more than B,, cycles at <,C: the normal failure mode is impedance increase. Aewly de"eloped additi"es gi"e substantially impro"ed charge-acceptance and efficiency at ele"ated temperaturesCfor e2ample$ **= efficiency at -3C$ and *3= at <,C. The module can be charged from <, to F,= SoC in )+ minutes /+C rate0$ and it has passed all SAE-specified abuse tolerance tests /see Appendix 40. The %ey characteristics of SA(T.s e2isting module are included in Table III.1. A higher capacity ),*Ah cell using the same module case is under de"elopment. At the module le"el$ this impro"ed design is e2pected to increase the specific energy to 4Wh?%g$ energy density to )B, Wh?liter$ pulse specific power to ++, W?%g$ and power density to 3,, W?liter. Production Capability, Cost and Business Plannin$( 1n )***$ the Bordeau2 line produced appro2imately B,,, Ai7; modules /Z+,, pac%s0 for the DaimlerChrysler E'1C "an. The current capacity of the Ai7; line is 4,, battery pac%s per year. With a relati"ely small in"estment$ the plant capacity can be increased to about +$,,, pac%s per year. A plant with a capacity of ),$,,, pac%s per year would re#uire an in"estment of appro2imately >B, million. At the ),$,,, pac%s-per-year production le"el$ the price of the module is e2pected to be around >-3,--4,?%Wh. @f this$ appro2imately >+,,?%Wh is for direct materials and labor$ with SA(T buying all %ey materials from ma!or commercial suppliers. Appro2imately >B,?%Wh is for e#uipment depreciation$ while o"erhead and margin account for the >*,-)),?%Wh balance. SA(T.s module-price pro!ection at high "olume$ e2cluding depreciation$ is >+3,?%Wh. SA(T noted that lower prices might be possible but that they do not ha"e a confident basis for such pro!ections.

III.1. . !ummary
"echnical. Representati"e data for the Ai7; E batteries of the three leading

de"elopers are shown in Table III.1 below. The comparison with the GSABC near-term -3

targets /see Table II.1 abo"e0 shows that these batteries appear to meet most of the %ey E re#uirements$ with the e2ception of specific energy and cost. The Ai7; module8s presently demonstrated specific energy of B- to 4, Wh?%g$ corresponding to appro2imately 33-B,Wh?%g at the pac% le"el$ falls well short of the GSABC goals /Table II.10 and will limit the range of a <?3-passenger E to 43 to ),, miles /see Appendix (0. Carma%ers and most battery de"elopers pro!ect incremental impro"ement in specific energy$ generally in the range of ), to )3=. 67@$ on the other hand$ e2pects that specific energies higher than *, Wh?%g at the module le"el might be achie"able if the ad"anced alloys with higher specific capacity$ currently under de"elopment at @BC$ will pro"e practical for Ai7; batteries. 1n the 'anel.s opinion$ this e2pectationCcommunicated to the )**3 BTA' fi"e years agoCmust be considered rather speculati"e. 1n particular$ the 'anel notes that the negati"e alloy accounts for less than -,= of the weight of the cell. Thus$ e"en a 3,= impro"ement in the specific capacity of the alloy$ an e2tremely ambitious target$ will only result in an impro"ement of Z)3= in the specific energy of the cell.

-B

"able +++(3( Characteristics of 0i%4 EV modules .nit Desi*n Characteristics 0ominal Capacity Anode Chemistry 0ominal %odule Volta$e 0umber of cells in module 0ominal %odule Ener$y Performance Characteristics pecific ener$y C>; Ener$y density C>; pecific poDer A90E *o*, 26GC, ;0 sec(B PoDer density A90E *o*, 26GC, ;0 sec(B Cycle ,ife A300E *o* to 90E of initial capacityB at +,VC to +3VC at -3 to <,VC Cycles Cycles ZF,, /F,= DoD0 ZB,, T)+,, Z )),, Z )+3, B,, ] JWh Wh ? %g Wh ? liter W ? %g W ? liter Ah *, AB+ )-.+ )) ).+ 4, )4, +,, <F3 *3 AB3 )+ ), ).+ B)3, +,, <4B *B AB3 )+ or +< ), or +, ).+ or +.< BB )<, )3, -)3 1%/ PEVE A&"

Cycle life and reliability ha"e been satisfactory for Ai7; batteries based on AB3 alloy negati"es. Data for the AB+ alloy designs are less conclusi"e$ particularly at ele"ated temperatures. <ig1re III.1 includes E -pac% laboratory and field-test cycle life data gi"en to the 'anel by one of the E manufacturers. Based on the laboratory data$ the manufacturer pro!ects more than )$+,, cycles and ),,$,,, miles at +3 C$ )$),, cycles and F,$,,, miles at -3C$ and around B,, cycles and F,$,,, miles at <3 C. The field data collected from "ehicles that ha"e reached 3,$,,, miles closely match the trend line
&i$ure +++(3( ,ife "est *ata for 0i%4 EV Pac=s 90E *o* Cycle Profile

-4

of the laboratory data. Based on these and similar data$ the car companiesCand$ understandably$ the de"elopers of AB3 alloy-based Ai7; batteriesCare optimistic that a battery with a life of T),,$,,, miles can be de"eloped. 1n almost all cases$ the end of life will be caused by a gradual rise in battery impedance until the battery is no longer able to pro"ide the minimum performance specified for the "ehicle. All three battery de"elopers are ma%ing good progress in impro"ing the charge acceptance of the positi"e electrode by use of additi"es to the Ai/@;0+ paste. Data on impro"ed cells are illustrated in <ig1re III.2. Such cells$ not yet incorporated into "ehicle pac%s$ show significant impro"ement$ with efficient charging possible at temperatures up to about <3C and perhaps higher. Two E performance in laboratory testing. manufacturers ha"e confirmed the impro"ed

-F

&i$ure +++(2( Char$e Acceptance vs( "emperature of +mproved 0i%4 Batteries

Improved
120

Conventional

100

Ca a!it* A o) Bo#inal

80

60

40

20

0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

'e# erature @C

Se"eral pac% designs depend on li#uid cooling while others utili5e air cooling. The trade-off between battery performance$ efficiency$ life and cost for the two cooling approaches is a comple2 optimi5ation problem that will depend on the ambient temperatures in which E s are operated$ and will change with further technical impro"ements in battery-temperature characteristics. Both battery de"elopers and E manufacturers need to be in"ol"ed in the e"aluation of the preferred cooling approach. Ai7; E batteries ha"e ade#uate specific power at temperatures ranging from

^),C to 3,C. While Ai7; batteries e2hibit somewhat higher self-discharge rates and lower charge efficiencies than other candidate E -battery systems$ these effects are sufficiently small as to be only minor disad"antages. (inally$ car companies and battery de"elopers are confident that the Ai7; battery does not create ha5ards in any of the specified abuse tests and meets the safety re#uirements of the E application. -*

Commercial. The three de"elopers of Ai7; E -battery pac%s "isited by the 'anel ha"e reached an ad"anced pilot-le"el?early-production stage. All three will re#uire )F to +<-months prior notice to build the manufacturing plant/s0 that would be re#uired to meet the estimated demand generated by the +,,- &E mandate. Ai7; manufacturing processes are well understood$ and scaling up production does not represent a significant technical ris%. ;owe"er$ the three de"elopers /and other potential suppliers0 will only scale up production if they recei"e orders from car companies that are large enough to co"er the plant in"estment costs. At present$ car companies are delaying such orders due to the uncertain prospects of the E mar%et. 'ro!ected costs /sale price to @E7s0 for nic%el-metal hydride E batteries as a

function of production "olume ha"e been independently estimated by the ma!or de"elopers and their potential customers. The results are presented in <ig1re III.0 and are generally in good agreement$ an indication of the technology.s relati"e maturity. The current price of o"er >)$,,,?%Wh is pro!ected to fall to about >-3,?%Wh at the production "olumes necessary to meet the California +,,- &E mandateCan implied re#uirement for ),$,,, to -,$,,, pac%s per year. At higher "olumes$ the lowest pro!ected module price is abo"e >++3?%Wh$ which translates to more than >+3,?%Wh at the pac% le"el. The 'anel re"iewed Eipman.s1 data on ad"anced E -battery costs and compared them to the data presented in <ig1re III.0. @f all the data in Eipman.s report$ the case that is most rele"ant to this study is that of the 67@ 6eneration-- battery at a production "olume of ),,$,,, pac%s per year /-$ page -30. Eipman.s material-cost estimates range of >)-< to >)34?%Wh appears optimistic+. Gsing Eipman.s material cost estimate ne"ertheless$ and assuming /again somewhat optimistically0 that materials represent 44=

T%e 9ip+an 't1dy 607 wa' cond1cted in early 1>>> w%en t%e 9ME 69ondon Metal Exc%ange7 price o& nic#el?a +a@or &actor in t%e co't o& :iM; batterie'?wa' !) to !A per #g lower t%an it %ad been in o/er 10 year'. In t%e &ir't 21arter o& 2000 t%e 9ME price o& nic#el %ad ri'en to between !>.)0 and !10 per #g. + In addition to 1'ing a lower nic#el price 9ip+an +ade no allowance &or engineering yield +an1&act1ring 'crap and prod1ct de*rating d1e to +an1&act1ring /ariation'. Toget%er t%e'e latter &actor' can add ) to 20% to +aterial 1'age per #$% and t%1' to t%e !"#$% e'ti+ate' o& battery co't.

<,

&i$ure +++(;( Cost Estimates for 0i>%4 EV %odules

Estimates of Batter !rod"#ers $1,200 $1,100 $1,000 $900 $800 $700 C ( D?E $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 100

Estimates of Car Companies

1,000

10,000 $a!%s er *ear

100,000

1,000,000

of the Cost of 6oods /C@60$ and that the gross margin is +3=$ we obtain a C@6 in the range of >)4< to >+,<?%Wh for the module$ and module selling prices to @E7s of >+-+ to >+4+?%Wh. These figures are in general agreement with the data from the battery de"elopers and car manufacturers /<ig1re III.00. The 'anel.s low-end estimate$ based on Eipman.s material cost assumptions$ is illustrated in <ig1re III.4. Adding >+-?%Wh for the steps re#uired to produce pac%s from modules and for the cost of the warranty$ the low-end @E7 price is >+B3?%Wh$ or about >F$,,, for a -,%Wh E pac% at a production "olume of ),,$,,, pac%s per year. Although claims can be made for some scrap-battery credits$ it seems highly unli%ely that lower prices can be achie"ed gi"en the generally optimistic assumptions made abo"e.

<)

&i$ure +++(<( Cost A$$re$ation for 0i%4 %odules Abased on ,ipman 300,000 pac=s > year H1enerationC;I material pricin$B
250

200

Margin

150 C ( %?.

6t.er Manu)a!turing Costs

0alan!e

100

Cell and #odule a!%aging

7le!trol*te ,e arator Current !olle!tion Matri:

C65

Materials

50
;!ti"e #aterials

0 Materials Module Cost o) 5oods 2C653 Module Cost 2$ri!e to 67M3

<+

+++(2( ,+"4+.%C+/0 III.2.1. Intro%uction

;istorically difficult issues with cycling and safety of metallic lithium ha"e led to the de"elopment of carbon host materials for lithium as negati"e electrodes in organicelectrolyte batteries. This de"elopment was %ey to the successful commerciali5ation for consumer applications of small Ei 1on batteries that use lithiated /i.e.$ lithium-containing0 metal-o2ide-positi"e and lithiated-carbon-negati"e electrodes. The host material of Ei 1on negati"e electrodes is made from special grades of graphitic or co%e carbons$ or from combinations of such carbons. The generic composition of the positi"e electrode is Ei7@+$ with cobalt o2ide /7[Co0 commonly used in small commercial cells. ;owe"er$ due to its high cost$ EiCo@+ is precluded from consideration for E batteries that would need substantial amounts of that material. De"elopers of large Ei 1on cells currently employ a manganese compound$ Ei7n +@<$ or a partially substituted Ai compound$ EiAi27.y7../)-2-y0@+$ where 7. is typically Co and 7.. can be aluminum or any of se"eral other metals. The battery electrolyte is a solution of a fluorinated lithium salt /typically Ei'( B0 in an organic mi2ed ester /carbonate0 sol"ent. Separators are usually microporous membranes made of polyolefinic materials /polyethylene or polypropylene$ either alone or in combination0. The cell operating "oltage range is appro2imately +.43 to <.+ "olts$ with most of the capacity deli"ered between <., and -.3 "olts. At the C?- discharge rate$ the a"erage discharge "oltage is about -.4 "olts. Because of the low conducti"ity of the electrolyte$ ade#uate power can be reali5ed only with electrodes and separators that are much thinner than those used in a#ueous-electrolyte batteries. The need for thin electrodes has led to the spirally wound configuration as the preferred design for Ei 1on cells.

<-

Ei 1on technology was first commerciali5ed by Sony in )**) /B0. @"er the last F years$ small cylindrical and prismatic cells ha"e become the first choice as portable power sources for laptop computers$ cellular phones and similar de"ices. About -F, million small cells with an estimated "alue of more than >+ billion were sold worldwide in )***. The top se"en producers are all Napanese companies: between them$ they account for more than *F= of the )*** world production /30. A %ey attraction of the Ei 1on system is its high cell "oltage. Aot only does this translate to high specific energy$ but it also ma%es it possible to use a smaller number of cells per battery$ for reduced cost and increased reliability. Specific energies as high as )3, Wh?%g ha"e been achie"ed at the cell le"el. Among the other attracti"e attributes of the Ei 1on battery are high power$ high energy efficiency /including essentially ),,= coulombic efficiency0$ low self-discharge$ and potential for good cycle life regardless of the depth of discharge /40. Due to its attracti"e energy and power characteristics$ Ei 1on technology has become an important candidate for E de"elopment of E and other applications re#uiring large cells. The "ersions of the battery began at Sony Corporation around )**-.

;owe"er$ Sony and se"eral other ma!or battery companies discontinued Ei 1on E battery de"elopment in recent years$ mostly because they percei"ed future E -battery mar%ets to be highly uncertain. The three currently leading de"elopers of E Napan.s ;itachi group$ and SA(T$ a di"ision of the (rench Alcatel group. The de"elopment of Ei 1on technology for E applications presents significant batteries using Ei 1on technology are Napan Storage Battery /NSB0$ Shin-Jobe$ a company of

challenges beyond those of consumer batteries. The top three of these are the achie"ement of acceptable le"els of cost$ safety and operating life.

<<

Cost( At least four factors ma%e ma!or contributions to the cost of Ei 1on batteries9 Acti"e materials$ Electrolyte and separator$ 7anufacturing$ dri"en by the high cost of the precision e#uipment

re#uired to achie"e high yields of a reliable and safe product$ in the face of the "ery tight process margins for thin-film cell technology$ Thermal and electrical module and battery management$ made necessary by the great sensiti"ity of the Ei 1on chemistry to o"ercharge and o"erheating. afety > Abuse !esistance( @rganic-electrolyte batteries permit the use of highspecific-energy electrochemical couples but generally are more sensiti"e to abuse. The Ei 1on battery employs two "ery energetic electrodes separated by a thin organic separator soa%ed in an organic electrolyte. @"ercharge can create conditions that are e"en more energetic$ with Ei metal deposited on the negati"e electrode$ and with the positi"e electrode becoming chemically unstable at ele"ated temperatures /T+,,C0. (urther$ the energy released by combustion of the battery materials is substantially higher than the energy stored electrochemically in the battery. (inally$ the electrolyte sol"ents normally used can create ha5ardous conditions since they ha"e significant "apor pressure at moderately ele"ated temperatures and are flammable. Despite these potential safety problems$ consumer Ei 1on batteries are en!oying rapid growth$ with "ery few$ relati"ely minor safety incidents reported. The industry has been able to pro"ide ade#uately safe products by combining appropriate cell designs with electronic protection of modules and pac%s against o"ercharge$ e2cessi"e current drain$ and o"erdischarge. The de"elopment of a safe E Ei 1on battery presents greater challenges$ due to

the much higher energy content of cells$ modules$ and pac%s$ and because of the difficulty of dissipating heat from a larger mass with a lower surface-to-"olume ratio. Standards for the safety #ualification of consumer cells ha"e been determined by

<3

Gnderwriters Eaboratory and other groups$ and these are accepted as sufficient. ;owe"er$ the abuse-tolerance standards for E batteries ha"e only been formulated recently /SAE N +<B<0$ and their correlation with battery safety has not yet been "alidated. While it is beyond the scope of the 'anel8s study to analy5e safety design considerations in detail$ it is worth noting that of all the different positi"e electrode materials$ Ei7n +@< is the most forgi"ing$ due to two factors9 )0 it has "ery little e2cess Ei in the fully charged state. Thus$ lithium metal deposition on the negati"e electrode in o"ercharge is minimal: and +0 the threshold of thermal decomposition of the charged material is at a considerably higher temperature than that of the alternati"e EiAi?Co@+-based positi"e electrodes. 6el-based organic electrolytes are under de"elopment and ha"e recently been introduced into some consumer batteries. These electrolytes ha"e lower "apor pressure than the more con"entional li#uid organic electrolytes$ and should thus offer impro"ed abuse tolerance. /peratin$ ,ife( The electrochemical cycling of the Ei 1on battery in"ol"es transferring /Proc%ingQ0 Ei ions between two host materials. 'ro"ided these host materials are stable at the le"els of intercalation used$ the electrode reactions are re"ersible and can be repeated many hundred times. 1ndeed$ o"er )$,,, cycles at ),,= DoD ha"e been demonstrated in se"eral types of portable batteries. ;owe"er$ e2isting Ei 1on systems suffer from significant calendar-life limitations. Se"eral factors are thought to contribute to this problem9 )0 The charged negati"e electrode is thermodynamically unstable with respect to the electrolyte sol"ent and salt. 1n fact$ the battery can operate only because of the presence on the electrode of a passi"e film that is formed during initial charge. This film$ howe"er$ is not totally passi"e$ and slow degradation reactions with the electrolyte ta%e place continuously. +0 Small amounts of metal ions from the positi"e electrode can dissol"e in the electrolyte. Aot only does this process degrade the positi"e electrode capacity and

<B

power capability$ but the metal ions are %nown to interfere with the operation of the negati"e electrode. This problem is particularly serious for Ei7n+@<-based positi"e electrodes. @ther degradation processes$ including electrolyte o2idation by positi"e electrodes at high state of charge$ are also %nown to ta%e place /particularly at ele"ated temperatures0 but the reactions in"ol"ed are not yet fully understood. Whate"er the actual mechanisms of degradation$ there is as yet no e"idence to support a ),-year life pro!ection for a Ei 1on E -battery.

III.2.2. Li Ion Battery Com)anies

JAPA0 "/!A1E BA""E!# C/( Company /vervieD( Napan Storage Battery Co. /NSB0 is a ma!or Napanese manufacturer of automoti"e starter$ industrial and portable batteries$ including lead-acid$ Aic%el-Cadmium$ Aic%el-metal hydride$ sil"er-5inc$ and Eithium-ion. Small prismatic Ei 1on cells for the cell phone mar%et are manufactured in "olumes of se"eral million cells per month by the 6S 7elcotech !oint "enture with 7itsubishi Electric Corporation. NSB8s Corporate RMD in Jyoto supports a substantial effort in large Ei 1on battery de"elopment for prospecti"e mar%ets that include industrial G'S$ space$ and military applications$ as well as electric and hybrid "ehicles. EVCBattery *esi$n and Performance( NSB.s Ei 1on E series to form a )3 $ ).- %Wh E E and ;E cell is an elliptically

wound structure contained in a metal case. (our FFAh cells are connected electrically in module. NSB is also de"eloping -, Ah cells for miniapplications$ as well as -Ah and B.3Ah cells for power assist-type ;E s.

The positi"e electrode material is Ei7n+@<$ chosen for impro"ed cost and safety o"er the alternati"e Ai?Co-based positi"e materials. @ther ma!or components of the cellCthe

<4

negati"e electrode$ electrolyte$ and separatorCare typical for Ei 1on technology. (or longer life and greater safety$ the cell charging "oltage is limited to <.) . NSB8s design features e2cess initial power to ensure sufficient power /particularly at low temperatures0 as the cell impedance rises o"er the life of the battery. At room temperature$ the module8s specific energy at the C rate is *3 Wh?%g$ the energy density is )BF Wh?l$ and life e2ceeds 43, cycles in laboratory tests. The company has made significant progress in stabili5ing the battery chemistry at ele"ated temperatures$ an area that has been the Achilles. heel of the Ei7n +@< positi"e electrode. ;owe"er$ it is premature to predict battery life under field ser"ice conditions. Jey performance characteristics are gi"en in Table III.0 below. NSB8s system appears to tolerate temperatures up to ),,C but safety at temperatures higher than )<,C is not pro"en. The company8s de"elopment wor% focuses on three areas9 modifying the chemistry to reduce high temperature fading and impedance rise$ safety testing and enhancement$ and cost reduction. NSB.s Ei 1on E -battery is aircooled with a "ariable flow system. A sophisticated electronic controller measures and processes se"eral battery parameters to monitor the state of charge$ calculate the remaining dri"ing range$ and assess safety. A successful +$,,,%m road test$ which included battery fast charge$ was conducted last year$ in collaboration with 7itsubishi 7otors. As installed$ the battery used in this test deli"ered F, Wh?%g. Production Capability, Cost and Business Plannin$ . NSB does not ha"e a pilot line for the production of Ei 1on E modules. Ao significant orders for E -type batteries are anticipated in the near future$ nor does the company appear to ha"e a business plan that would establish an E -battery production capability by +,,-. ;owe"er$ NSB claims that it would be able to install and start up an E -battery production plant in )+ months in response to an appropriate order. Whether and when a production plan will emerge is li%ely to depend on the course of the NSB-7itsubishi collaboration. 6i"en the rapidly growing interest in hybrid electric "ehicles$ it seems reasonable to e2pect that 7itsubishi 7otors. main business interest will be in hybrid rather than in pure electric "ehicles$

<F

particularly since 7itsubishi is not one of the si2 large car companies affected by the +,,- mandate. NSB8s cost goal for E -battery modules in large production "olumes is around >+4,?%Wh or less.. NSB is e2pending significant resources in large Ei 1on cell de"elopment and is establishing a technology base in the field. As an important industrial battery company and a ma!or participant in the "olume production of portable Ei 1on batteries$ NSB is in a good position to de"elop a competiti"e Ei 1on E -battery product. ;owe"er$ due to the large mar%et ris% and a series of unresol"ed technical challenges$ the company is de"eloping its Ei 1on E -battery technology "ery cautiously and without a definite commerciali5ation plan. NSB sees the Ei 1on mar%et for large cells as de"eloping first for specialty ? military applications$ then for ;E s and$ possibly$ e"entually for E s.

A&" Company /vervieD. An o"er"iew of SA(T was presented abo"e /see Section 111.)0. As noted there$ early pilot-cell and module-fabrication facilities for Ei 1on batteries are in operation at SA(T8s Bordeau2 plant. SA(T is also de"eloping Ei 1on cells for the space$ military$ telecom and ;E mar%ets. Especially in the space and military large-cell mar%ets$ SA(T already holds a position through the sale of its other battery products. EVCBattery *esi$n and Performance. SA(T.s Ei 1on E o2ide of the following general formula9 EiAi27.y7../)-2-y0@+1 is used as the positi"e-electrode acti"e material. The balance of SA(T8s E cell design is con"entional9 graphite negati"e electrode$ Ei'( B salt electrolyte in a mi2ed-carbonate sol"ent$ and a multi-layer porous polyolefin separator. (or the E application$ SA(T has de"eloped a li#uid-cooled B-cell module within which cells can be arranged in "arious series?parallel configurations. The preferred module configuration for a *, Ah E -battery has - sets of + parallel cells in series$ to yield a *,Ah$ ),.3 module.
_

cell is cylindrical and

spirally wound$ with a nominal capacity of <3 Ah. A partially substituted lithiated Ai-

$%ere M3 i' typically (o and M33 al1+in1+ or any o& 'e/eral ot%er +etal'

<*

The performance characteristics of the *,Ah$ ),.3

module are gi"en in Table

III.0 below. They include energy performances of )-F Wh?%g and +), Wh?liter$ and specific power of -4* W?%g for -, seconds at F,= depth of discharge. The operating temperature range is appro2imately -3VC to 3,VC: below about -3VC$ the battery re#uires e2ternal heating. Demonstrated cycle life is currently 33, cycles$ but cycling tests are still running. Cycle life is charge-rate dependent$ with faster charge resulting in diminished cycle life due to the increased ris% that metallic Ei is deposited on the graphite negati"e electrode surface. Therefore$ a minimum charge time of 3 hours is specified. Calendar life is under study$ with a best current estimate of more than 3 years based on e2trapolation of data from ongoing tests. 1n the current configuration$ SA(T8s module has not yet passed some of the o"ercharge and crushing ? nail penetration tests. SA(T is also de"eloping cells with capacities of +3 to -, Ah and modules composed of these cells for small E s and ;E s as well as BAh cells and modules for power assist-type ;E s. @"er the last three years$ SA(T has installed )3 Ei 1on battery pac%s in e2perimental "ehicles. 'roduction Capability$ Cost and Business 'lanning. Earlier this year$ SA(T established a pilot-le"el facility for manufacturing <3Ah Ei 1on cells$ with all e#uipment housed in a low-humidity room. The facility8s current capacity of ),, pac%s per year can be e2panded to about <,, pac%s per year with only a small additional in"estment. SA(T.s Ei 1on module cost$ currently in e2cess of >+$,,,?%Wh$ is pro!ected to decline as a function of production "olume as shown in the following table9

3,

"able +++(2( olume /pac%s?year0 ),, <,, 3$,,, +,$,,, ),,$,,,

A&":s proFected ,i +on module cost 7odule Cost />?%Wh0 T+,,, +,,, 3,, +<4 )43

Hear +,,,-+,,) +,,+-+,,< +,,3 based on orders Beyond +,,3 Beyond +,,3

The estimates for production "olumes of 3$,,, pac%s and abo"e appear highly optimistic. 1n response to the 'anel8s #uestioning$ SA(T noted that the calculations were based on "ery high product yields and on the assumption of significant reductions in the cost of se"eral %ey materials. 1n the 'anel.s opinion$ these ad"ances will be "ery difficult to accomplish in a --B year time frame$ particularly since SA(T is unli%ely to be supported by a high "olume Ei 1on production base in the consumer battery sector. SA(T.s E -battery wor%$ partially funded by GSABC$ uses the same pilot production line to produce prototype Ei 1on cells for other potential applications. 1n SA(T8s "iew$ the Pbest-caseQ scenario assumes successful resolution of safety issues and demonstration of ade#uate calendar life by +,,-. This could lead to a decision to build a manufacturing plant and begin battery production in +,,3. Clearly$ SA(T will not be in a position to manufacture commercial #uantities of Ei 1on E -battery pac%s in +,,-. 1n a complete success scenario$ SA(T could begin to produce E pac%s by +,,3. ;owe"er$ safety and life e2pectancy are presently unpro"en$ and it is unli%ely that module costs could be reduced to less than >+3,?%Wh in the foreseeable future. These issues appear to put ma!or near-term in"estments in production facilities at high ris%. Current uncertainties notwithstanding$ SA(T is positioning itself to supply Ei 1on pac%s to the E mar%et if and when such a mar%et does de"elop. 4+0C)/BE E,EC"!+C %AC4+0E!# C/(, ,"*

3)

Company /vervieD. Shin-Jobe is a ;itachi group company with ma!or business units in batteries$ electrical e#uipment including rectifiers$ G'S$ golf carts$ and plastics. Shin-Jobe8s products include lead-acid batteries for automobile SE1$ industrial /traction and stationary0 and portable applications$ as well as portable Ai-Cd batteries. Shin-Jobe discontinued production of portable Ei 1on batteries in )**F due to pressures from se"ere price competition in that mar%et. ;owe"er$ a Ei 1on cell and module-de"elopment program for utility load-le"eling and E ?;E producing Ei 1on E applications is maintained at the company8s Saitama facility$ and the program has a small pilot plant for cells and modules. These efforts recei"e technical support form the ;itachi Corporate Research Eaboratory. EVCBattery *esi$n and Performance( Shin-Jobe8s Ei 1on E cell is cylindrical and spirally wound$ with a nominal capacity of *,Ah. A typical E module has eight cells in series to yield a -,-"olt$ +.4 %Wh module. Shin-Jobe8s cell chemistry features a hard-carbon /co%e0 negati"e electrode$ and a Ei7n+@< positi"e electrode. The composition of this positi"e is lithium-rich to enhance stability at high temperatures$ while the electrolyte is optimi5ed for ade#uate power at low temperature. The module is air-cooled. Shin-Jobe8s module design has good specific energy /*- Wh?%g0 but only moderate energy density /))< Wh?liter0$ because of the significant "olume re#uired to permit effecti"e air-cooling. ;owe"er$ a new module design is e2pected to impro"e energy density by up to +,=. The cell design features e2cess initial power to ensure sufficient power at low temperature and o"er an e2tended operating life. The pac% can deli"er <F%W at --,C$ presumably sufficient to permit "ehicle operation while Noule heating warms up the battery. At the one-hour discharge rate$ F<= of room temperature capacity can be reali5ed at temperatures as low as --,C. A life of )$<3, cycles /to F,= of initial capacity0 has been achie"ed at room temperature and <,= DoD. At <,C and <,= DoD$ life is 3,, cycles. ;owe"er$ at 3+

ele"ated temperatures battery capacity fades relati"ely rapidly e"en when the battery is idle$ a common wea%ness of Ei 1on technologies using lithium-manganese spinel-based positi"e electrodes. The 'anel suspects that operating life under these conditions is li%ely to be rather short$ possibly only one year. The primary failure mode at room temperature is a rise in cell impedance$ mostly caused by growth of the passi"ating film at the negati"e electrode-electrolyte interface. At <,C$ fading is accelerated by dissolution of manganese from the positi"e electrode. The performance characteristics of the Shin-Jobe module are presented in Table III.0. Shin-Jobe and its E customer$ Aissan$ ha"e performed a significant number of

safety tests on Ei 1on batteries$ mostly in"ol"ing modules. According to Shin-Jobe$ the company8s modules ha"e passed standard electrical abuse tests including o"ercharge$ o"erdischarge$ and e2ternal short-circuit. Shin-Jobe also noted that the modules ha"e passed the T-series GA tests$ as well as mechanical and en"ironmental abuse tests that included crushing. Shin-Jobe stated that its battery is safe at temperatures up to ),,C. Abo"e ),,C$ passing abuse tolerance tests is more difficult$ and beyond )<, C the flammable organic sol"ent can "ent$ a significant safety concern. ;owe"er$ Shin-Jobe noted that no safety-related incident has been e2perienced to date in the E s powered by its Ei 1on batteries. Production Capability, Cost and Business Plannin$( After the withdrawal of Sony from de"elopment and fabrication of Ei 1on E cells and modules$ Shin-Jobe became the sole battery supplier for Aissan8s AETRA and ;H'ER-71A1 E s. Aissan is responsible for battery assembly from the modules and battery integration in the "ehicles$ including thermal management$ and it carries out all in-"ehicle battery testing and operation.

Shin-Jobe8s current pilot line can produce about )B, modules /)- E Z-+%Wh Ei 1on E

pac%s0 per pac%s

month: no scale-up is currently planned. At that production le"el$ the cost of Shin-Jobe8s pac% is "ery high. Shin-Jobe8s cost pro!ection for ),$,,, E 3-

per year is >B,, to >4,, per %Wh$ or >)F$,,, to >+)$,,, per E pac%. At ),,$,,, pac%s per year$ the pro!ected battery specific cost falls to >+3,--3,?%Wh$ with materials accounting for as much as 43= of the total. According to Shin Jobe$ the cost pro!ections for high production "olumes contain a large element of uncertainty$ in part because their materials suppliers are not pursuing cost reduction "ery aggressi"ely due to a general lac% of con"iction that a substantial E mar%et will materiali5e. Shin-Jobe and Aissan$ its main customer for Ei 1on E batteries$ see the high

cost of these batteries as a ma!or barrier to the commerciali5ation of E s. Thus$ there appears to be no business case for Shin-Jobe to establish an E -battery production capability. Conse#uently$ Shin-Jobe is now focusing on Ei 1on ;E batteries in the belief that a "iable mar%et for ;E s and their batteries will de"elop and that the company can produce a battery capable of meeting the needs of that mar%et. Because Shin-Jobe is not planning to in"est in the E -battery business$ the company is not a realistic candidate for the production of E probably beyond. pac%s in the +,,--+,,B time frame and

3<

III.2. . !ummary
"echnical( The design and performance characteristics of the E modules of the

three leading Ei 1on E -battery de"elopers are summari5ed in Table III.0. The NSB and Shin-Jobe technologies utili5e Ei7n+@< positi"e electrodes that lead to specific energies of currently around *, Wh?%g$ with an incremental impro"ement of less than +,= pro!ected. Energy densities$ between )), and )3, Wh?liter$ are relati"ely modest. 7odule designs feature air-cooling$ and specific power is ade#uate for E applications. The main challenge for this technology is to achie"e an acceptable operating life$ in particular at <,C and abo"e. Both companies$ as well as other RMD organi5ations worldwide$ are spending significant resources to study and mitigate the relati"ely rapid fading of the Ei7n+@<-based Ei 1on battery at ele"ated temperatures. ;owe"er$ the time re#uired to resol"e this issue is difficult to predict because it in"ol"es substantial RMD. E"en after impro"ements are de"eloped and implemented$ it will ta%e se"eral years to confirm their "alidity through e2tended-duration life tests. The SA(T technology differs from those of other de"elopers in that it uses a nic%el-based positi"e-electrode material with higher charge-storage capacity. Energy parameters at the module le"el are an impressi"e )<, Wh?%g and +), Wh?liter$ with up to +,= further impro"ement pro!ected. Also$ in contrast to the Napanese designs$ SA(T has de"eloped a higher-energy but lower-power technology that is li#uid-cooled and has pro"isions for heating the battery to impro"e power capabilities in low temperature en"ironments. The main technical challenge for the SA(T technology is abuse tolerance$ a conse#uence of its choice of positi"e-electrode material. SA(T e2pects to focus on this issue o"er the ne2t se"eral years. Abuse tolerance aside$ the operating life of SA(T8s Ei 1on technology is also still un%nown. The company pro!ects a life of more than 3 years for its current cell design. ;owe"er$ only 33, cycles ha"e been demonstrated to date for modules at room temperature$ and cycle-life as well as operating life at higher temperatures appear to be open #uestions.

33

"able +++(;( Characteristics of ,i +on Batteries

.nit *esi$n Characteristics 0ominal Cell Capacity Cell *esi$n Positive Electrode Chemistry 0ominal %odule Volta$e 0umber of Cells in %odule 0ominal %odule Ener$y Performance Characteristics pecific Ener$y C>; Ener$y *ensity C>; pecific PoDer Acell levelB at +,VC or +3VC at low temperature Cycle ,ife A300E *o* to 90E of initial CapacityB at +,VC or +3VC at <,VC +rreversible Capacity ,oss on stora$e 300E oC at +,VC or +3VC = ? *, days at <,VC = ? *, days 60E oC at +,VC or +3VC at <,VC elfCdischar$e at 300E oC at +,VC or +3VC at <,VC = ? *, days = ? *, days = ? *, days = ? *, days , 3 /<3VC0 ), ++ 4 /B3= SoC0 )+ /B3= SoC0 , , ), ), * /<3VC0 F )3 , + W ? %g W ? %g Ah ] JWh Wh ? %g Wh ? liter J B FF 'rismatic Ei7n+,< )3 < ).-+ *4 )BF 3,= DoD$ +, sec. F), )+3 /-+,VC0 hinC)obe *, Cylindrical Ei7n+,< -, F +.4 *))< /)-B0`` 3,= DoD$ ), sec 43, /+3VC0 -+F /-)3VC0 A&" *, Cylindrical EiAi7.7Y@+ /`0 ),.3 B ) )-F +), F,= DoD$ -, sec. <-, +*B /,VC0

Cycles Cycles

43, /+3VC0 +-, /<3VC0

B,, U3,,

T33, 3),

/`0 78 is typically Cobalt$ and 788 one of se"eral possible third metals /``0 E2cluding terminals Commercial( Ei 1on E -battery technology de"elopment is presently in the early pilot stage /see also <ig1re II.10. Shin-Jobe$ which has produced more modules than the other two de"elopers$ has shifted its focus to ;E s and has no plans to scale up the

3B

production of E batteries. SA(T and NSB are continuing to wor% on product and process de"elopment but at present do not ha"e definite plans for "olume production. The basic chemistry and design of Ei 1on E cells are #uite similar to those of batteries

small consumer cells$ suggesting that the basic manufacturing processes for E

should be well understood. ;owe"er$ the 'anel notes that the manufacture of Ei 1on cells re#uires a higher le"el of process control and precision than most other types of battery manufacturing and$ as a result$ scrap rates tend to be higher. 7ost$ if not all producers of small Ei 1on batteries ha"e e2perienced product recalls and?or production shut down due to reliability issues and?or safety incidents. 'ro!ecting this e2perience to the much larger E cell$ it seems li%ely that scaling up the production of E cells from the current early pilot le"el will be slow and costly. 'resent costs for small-lot production /),,-+,, pac%s?year0 are "ery highCin the order of >+$,,,?%WhCsince they do not capture the economies of large-scale production. Battery costs are pro!ected to decrease as production "olume increases$ as shown in <ig1re III.) that presents a composite pro!ection of estimated future costs /selling prices to E manufacturers0 as a function of production "olume. The data in the (igure were deri"ed by the 'anel from pro!ections pro"ided by the de"elopers. 1n contrast to Ai7;$ the spread of pro!ected costs at high production "olumes is relati"ely large. The two Napanese companies are pro!ecting costs around >+43?%Wh at production "olumes of Z),,$,,, E -battery pac%s?year$ while SA(T.s pro!ections are as low as >)43?%Wh. The large spread is most li%ely related to the difficulty of ma%ing accurate pro!ections for all %ey cost factors at this rather early stage of E -battery materials and manufacturing de"elopment. 1n this conte2t it should be noted that the two companies with more e2tensi"e commercial production e2perience in Ei 1on batteries /and which are using the less e2pensi"e Ei7n+@< cathodes0 offer the less optimistic cost pro!ections.

34

&i$ure +++(6( Cost Estimates for ,i +on EV %odules

$eveloper %

$eveloper B

$eveloper C

C700

C600

C500 C ( %?.

C400

C300

C200

C100 0 201000 401000 601000 $a!%s er Year 801000 1001000 1201000

1n an attempt to shed light on these discrepancies$ the 'anel de"eloped a simplified material cost estimate for the future production of ),,$,,, E -battery pac%s per year$ based on the first-hand e2perience of Ei 1on technology by one of its members. The 'anel8s estimates are illustrated in <ig1re III.A. The low-end module material costs were estimated at >)3B?%Wh). Assuming /as in the 'anel8s analysis of Ai7;-module costs0 that materials represent 44= of the Cost of 6oods /a high percentage that translates into the lowest realistic cost0$ and with a low gross margin of +3=$ a module cost of >+4,?%Wh was calculated$ in good /if perhaps somewhat fortuitous0 agreement with the estimates of Shin-Jobe and NSB.

T%e Panel obtained co't pro@ection' &ro+ e'tabli'%ed '1pplier' &or t%e ) large't co't dri/er' o& t%e 9i Ion cell at a &1t1re 6a''1+ed to be 200A7 prod1ction /ol1+e e21i/alent to 100 000 00*#$% E. pac#' per year. T%e Panel t%en a''1+ed a 00% red1ction in t%e co't o& t%e po'iti/e and negati/e acti/e +aterial' to anticipate 17 &1rt%er co't lowering in 9i:iM3M-O2 pre'ently +ade in relati/ely '+all 21antitie' and 27 t%e 1'e o& lower*co't nat1ral*grap%ite negati/e'. Ot%er a''1+ption' incl1ded !20"#$% &or cell and +od1le ca'ing and ter+inal' !10"#$% &or +od1le electronic' and !5"#$% &or +i'cellaneo1' +aterial'.

3F

&i$ure +++(5( Cost A$$re$ation for ,i +on %odules AloDCend estimatesJ 300,000 pac=s > yearB
300

250

Margin

200
6t.er Manu)a!turing Costs

C ( %?.

150

Ele#troni#s & 't(er )erminals & pa#*a+in+

C65

100

7le!trol*te1 ,e arator & &oils

Materials

50 ;!ti"e #aterials 0 Materials Module Cost o) 5oods 2C653 Module Cost 2$ri!e to 67M3

The 'anel notes that the E

business will not be large enough to dri"e Ei 1on

material costs$ e"en at production "olumes of ),,$,,, pac%s?year ). While RMD in this area remains "ery acti"e$ due to the rapid e2pansion of the technology in the consumer products sector and its growth potential in other mar%ets$ ma!or inno"ations that could lead to materials costs significantly below those estimated by the 'anel appear unli%ely in the near term. Thus$ the 'anel tends to agree with the Napanese de"elopers that Ei 1on E module prices much below >-,,?%Wh cannot be e2pected in the foreseeable future. 1f Ei 1on E batteries are to become commercially "iable$ operating life and abuse tolerance issues will need to be resol"ed first$ and then the cost of the technology will ha"e to be reduced$ at least to the le"els pro!ected for Ai7; batteries. When considering
)

Ba'ed on an e'ti+ated 1>>> prod1ction o& 2 +illion #$% o& '+all 9i Ion batterie' 6400 +illion cell' at an a/erage o& ) $%7 and a pro@ected ann1al growt% rate o& at lea't 20% 6)7 t%e prod1ction o& '+all batterie' in 200A '%o1ld exceed t%e e21i/alent o& 5 +illion #$%. Prod1ction o& 100 000 00*#$% E. pac#' in t%at year e21i/alent to 0 +illion #$% wo1ld be le'' t%an )0% o& con'1+er 1'age.

3*

the prospects for achie"ing these ob!ecti"es$ it must be %ept in mind that any less e2pensi"e$ new materialsCespecially acti"e materials and electrolytesCthat might be introduced$ will ha"e to comply with the life and abuse tolerance re#uirements of the E battery.

+++(;( ,+"4+.%C%E"A, P/,#%E! III. .1. Intro%uction

(orty years of research to de"elop rechargeable batteries with lithium-metal negati"e electrodes has established that achie"ing a practical cycle life for lithium electrodes in li#uid electrolytes is e2tremely difficult. With continued cycling$ the lithium deposited during charging becomes finely di"ided and$ therefore$ highly reacti"e as well as increasingly una"ailable to the cell reaction. This process creates substantial safety ha5ards and se"erely limits cycle life. About +, years ago$ the disco"ery that polar polymers of the polyethylene-o2ide /'E@0 family can dissol"e lithium salts prompted systematic in"estigation of the use of such polymers as film electrolytes in rechargeable lithium batteries /F0. 1t was found that lithium electrodes cycled while in contact with 'E@-based solid electrolytes appears to maintain a smoother surface$ ma%ing longer cycle life possible. Also$ polymer electrolytes are more stable in contact with lithium than are organic sol"ents$ and they ha"e "ery low "apor pressures. All these characteristics contribute to the chemical stability and safety of the Ei polymer systems compared to lithium-metal-based cells and batteries with organic-li#uid electrolytes. Due to the "ery low lithium salts solubility and ion mobility in 'E@-based solid electrolytes$ lithium-metal polymer batteries must operate abo"e room temperature$ typically between B,C and *,C. This constraint tends to limit these batteries to

applications for which thermal insulation and management can be pro"ided within the applications8 physical and cost constraints. This e2cludes the portable battery mar%et but is not considered a ma!or issue for E batteries that$ in any case$ re#uire thermal

B,

management for reasons of battery life and safety. Accordingly$ for more than two decades$ se"eral organi5ations ha"e been attempting to de"elop Ei polymer batteries for electric "ehicles. Two programs are still acti"e today9 those of Argo-Tech?;ydro-Iuabec near 7ontreal$ Canada$ and Bollora?ED( in Iuimper$ (rance. The 'anel "isited both organi5ations to discuss their de"elopment status and plans. Argo-Tech8s and Bollora8s Ei polymer batteries use thin lithium-foil negati"e electrodes$ and positi"e electrodes that contain "anadium o2ide /
+

@/3-20$ with 2U)0 as the

acti"e material. The electrolyte /which also ser"es as the separator0 is a 'E@ polymer with other polymeric additi"es into which a fluorinated lithium salt /typically lithiumtrifluoromethanesulfonimide0 is dissol"ed. When in contact with a source of lithium ions$ the
+ 3

, compound can re"ersibly intercalate and release up to ,.* Ei ions per "anadium
+ 3

atom. The specific capacity /for ).F Ei ion per

, 0 is +<B mAh?g at a discharge "oltage

ranging between -.+ and +., $ and a"eraging +.B per cell. The main construction features of the Argo-Tech lithium-metal polymer battery are as follows9 the electrolyte film is laminated to the positi"e electrode that is coated on an aluminum foil. A thin /for e2ample$ less-than-3,-micron thic%0 lithium foil is then calendered onto the laminate film structure$ and the whole Pstac%Q is spirally wound on a rectangular mandrel. 1n the language of the Ei polymer battery de"elopers$ the resulting multi-layer structure is called an element$ with a "oltage of about +.B and a typical capacity of + to +, Ah. Se"eral elements connected electrically in parallel ma%e up a PcellQ$ with a capacity of 3, to )+, Ah for E applications. (inally$ se"eral such cells are configured in a series or a parallel-series combination to form a module. The elements and cells are pac%ed in an aluminum-laminated plastic pouch$ with sputtered electrical contacts and terminals placed on opposite sides of the cell. The module design includes mechanical compression of the cell stac% to enhance dimensional stability of the electrodes. This promotes cycling ability$ facilitates thermal insulation and management$ and permits electrical monitoring of indi"idual cells$ for protection against o"ercharge and o"erdischarge conditions.

B)

The Ei polymer system8s theoretical specific energy of B<, Wh?%g is mar%edly higher than that of Ei 1on systems /between -F, and <3, Wh?%g depending on the choice of positi"e acti"e material0 and more than double that of the nic%el-metal hydride systems. 1t is not clear$ howe"er$ whether the Ei polymer technology can achie"e significantly higher practical specific energy and?or energy density than the best lithiumion systems in a fully pac%aged battery. (our factors must be ta%en into account9 )0 the amount of e2cess lithium needed to achie"e ade#uate cycle life: +0 the practical e2tent to which the positi"e electrode material can be utili5ed: -0 the weight and "olume needed for thermal insulation$ and the energy re#uired to %eep the battery hot during stand-time: and <0 the somewhat less "olume-efficient stac% design of the thin film technology. An attracti"e feature of the Ei polymer system is its potential for lower cost than Ei 1on or Ai7; systems because of its lower acti"e materials cost per %Wh. ;owe"er$ it is again unclear whether this fundamental ad"antage can lead to the production of a less e2pensi"e battery. The high cost of the electrolyte salt$ the comple2 and as yet unpro"en manufacturing processes for the large areas of "ery thin structures re#uired per %Wh of battery capacity$ and a relati"ely complicated electrical and thermal management system are all factors that appear li%ely to inflate the total cost of the Ei-polymer battery system.

B+

III. .2. Li Polymer Com)anies

A!1/C"EC4 Company /vervieD( The 1nstitut de Recherche d8;ydro-Iuabec /1REI0$ the research organi5ation of the large Canadian electric utility$ has been engaged in Ei 'olymer Battery research since )*4*. 1n )**<$ Argo-Tech 'roductions 1nc. was set up as a sister company of 1REI to further de"elop and commerciali5e 1REI.s Ei 'olymer Battery /E'B0 technology. Argo-Tech has a dedicated facility located in Boucher"ille$ Canada$ near 1REI with o"er ),, employees engaged in bench-le"el E'B fabrication and process de"elopment. Both 1REI and ;ydro-Iuabec8s ETEE Eaboratory support this de"elopment with ad"anced material and analytical RMD. Argo-Tech8s main sources of outside re"enue are its de"elopment contracts$ the largest by far being with GSABC. 1n addition to E batteries$ Argo-Tech is de"eloping low-power batteries for the PoutdoorcabinetQ telecommunication mar%et as well as a high power battery for ;E applications. EVCBattery *esi$n and Performance( The basic construction of the Ei 'olymer battery is discussed abo"e. 1n Argo-Tech8s technology$ the thic%ness of the E -battery stac% is about ),, microns. The cathode and the electrolyte films are made by slurry-coating the functional materials using an organic sol"ent$ and the films are laminated together into a single thin sheet. A thin lithium foil of U<, microns is e2truded and calendered in a dry room to achie"e optimum surface control. Ei film thic%ness is determined by the amount of lithium needed to pro"ide current collection with a Preser"eQ of the metal for impro"ed cycle life. The E pac% is designed to operate at temperatures between B,C and F3C$

with the thermal management function di"ided between the module and the pac%( Argo-Tech8s design goal is a ))*Ah cell for the E will form a -F%Wh$ -)3 applications. Eight such cells

will be assembled in series to create a +) $ +.3%Wh module$ and )3 modules in series battery pac%. Argo-Tech8s E'B design is still e"ol"ing$ and performance data are conse#uently incomplete. 7ost of the a"ailable cycle life data were obtained from cells with lower capacity than those being de"eloped for the ))*Ah cell. B-

Without the benefit of complete data$ the 'anel8s best estimates of the current performance of Argo-Tech8s battery module are as follows9 pecific ener$y: Ener$y density: Cycle life, 90E *o*, * ": pecific poDer: Calendar life: *evelopment and Commercial Argo-Tech8s E stage. A full-si5e E )), to )-, Wh?%g )-, to )3, Wh?liter +3, to B,, cycles Z-,, W?%g /F,= DoD$ -, seconds0 Gn%nown$ but probably more than - years tatus, Business Plannin$ and Prospects(

element$ cell$ and module production processes are in the pre-pilot pac% has been assembled$ and Argo-Tech plans to install it in a

"ehicle later this year. As the design and the manufacturing processes are still e"ol"ing$ the organi5ation8s capability for pilot production is difficult to assess. The cost of Argo-Tech8s E -battery de"elopment is being shared by GSABC. The GSABC contract for the now completed 'hase + program had been awarded to a !oint "enture between -7 /7innesota 7ining and 7anufacturing Co.0 and Argo-Tech$ in which -7 was responsible for the de"elopment and fabrication of the positi"e electrodeelectrolyte PlaminateQ structure. While the !oint "enture was discontinued in )***$ -7 is still continuing to manufacture and supply the half-cell laminate. ;owe"er$ Argo-Tech is now see%ing alternati"e supplier/s0 with a longer-term commercial commitment. Argo-Tech8s current module production cost is estimated to be se"eral thousand dollars per %Wh. The company pro!ects a reduction to >-,,?%Wh at a production "olume of about -,$,,, E pac%s per year. To bring the cost down to less than >+<,?%Wh$ significant changes in materials$ design$ and processes are necessary. Since the Argo-Tech E'B fabrication processes are uni#ue in the battery industry$ scaling up is a ma!or challenge. 1n the 'anel8s "iew$ it is still an open #uestion whether the manufacturing processes can be scaled up to operate at an economical speed while at

B<

the same time pro"iding high product yield and meeting the stringent design and #uality specifications re#uired to guarantee reliable performance. Despite the progress achie"ed in the last se"eral years$ the potential of Argo-Tech8s technology to meet the re#uirements of the E application is still largely unpro"en. 1mpro"ements in cycle life and energy density are needed$ and ade#uate calendar life and safety ha"e not yet been demonstrated. Design changes are still being made to impro"e energy density$ cycle life and manufacturability$ and efforts to reduce the prospecti"e cost of the product are underway. 'ilot production of E en"isage that in"estment in an E manufacture E this decade. As mentioned abo"e$ Argo-Tech has also de"eloped a E'B module /*, Ah$ <F 0 for telecommunication applications. To Argo-Tech$ this mar%et appears to offer lower ris%$ less stringent technical re#uirements$ and prospects for a higher mar%et price$ which should add up to a better near-term opportunity. 1n all li%elihood$ successful commerciali5ation of a telecommunications "ersion of the E'B battery should ad"ance the technology8s long-term prospects as an E -battery. pac%s is not planned until +,,<. Thus$ it is difficult to production plant could occur before +,,B or +,,4.

Conse#uently$ the 'anel concludes that Argo-Tech is unli%ely to be in a position to batteries in commercial #uantities and at competiti"e costs until late in

B3

B/,,/!K, E,EC"!+C+"K *E &!A0CE AE*&B, C40E+*E! E,EC"!+C Company Bac=$rounds. ED( is the largest electric utility company in the world and the dominant utility company in (rance$ with large corporate RMD facilities and substantial e2pertise in the field of battery management and testing. ED( has had an interest in E technology for o"er +, years$ and it owns and operates se"eral thousand electric "ehicles. 1ts commitment to E s led ED( to start the lithium-polymer battery pro!ect in the early )**,s. Bollora is a (rench industrial conglomerate with sales e2ceeding >-.3 billion in se"eral industrial fields. Bollora8s battery de"elopment is carried out by the company8s plastic films and specialty papers group in Iuimper$ (rance. The group has e2tensi"e e2perience and e2pertise in the precise e2trusion and metali5ation of plastic films for capacitors and holds about <,= of the world mar%et for such products. Schneider Electric$ a ma!or (rench manufacturer of electrical and electronic e#uipment and owner of S#uare D in the G.S.A.$ is the third partner in this de"elopment pro!ect. All three partners ha"e made long-term commitments to Eithium-metal polymer Battery /E'B0 de"elopment$ and the goal of the current pro!ect phase is to establish a pilot plant at Bollora that will be capable of producing pre-prototype +%Wh battery modules by +,,+. EVCBattery *esi$n and Performance. The E'B8s electrochemistry and the functional components of the cell are described abo"e. Bollora8s fabrication method has se"eral distincti"e features in that the positi"e-electrode and electrolyte films are e2truded in a sol"ent-free process$ followed by calendering and lamination steps. These techni#ues$ although presenting difficult de"elopment challenges$ were adopted at the outset of the program because of their potential for high-speed$ low-cost manufacturing. Commercial lithium foil$ the
+

@3 compound$ and the electrolyte salt$ are purchased from

BB

outside "endors. The electrolyte includes 'E@ as well as a second polymer that is added to facilitate film processing and impro"e mechanical properties. According to Bollora$ at the current stage their E'B system is achie"ing a specific energy of )<3 Wh?%g at the element le"el$ corresponding to appro2imately )), Wh?%g$ and an energy density of )+3 Wh?liter at the module le"el. Cycle life at the element le"el is presently about -3, cycles to F,= of initial capacity$ with the main failure mode being low-current dendritic lithium shorts. Cycle life has been found to decrease at higher charge rates. Bollora8s module performance goals for +,,) are a specific energy of )3, Wh?%g and a life of )$,,, cycles at 3,= DoD to F,= of initial capacity. Commerciali'ation "imeline and Plans. Bollora and its partners8 current focus is on module de"elopment for E batteries although they plan to initiate a program for ;E batteries in +,,). The timeline for the program is as follows9 3772 to 37789 Research9 basic cell design 3778 to 20009 De"elopment9 prototype cell and process de"elopment 2003 to 200<9 1ndustriali5ation9 pilot production and field-testing After 200<9 Commercial production

Construction of a pilot-production line is scheduled to start in the first half of +,,,. Successful pilot de"elopment and field-testing could lead to a decision to build an E -battery production plant as early as +,,<. The program8s battery cost goal /price to "ehicle manufacturers0 is less than >+,,?%Wh$ but no Pground-upQ cost model was presented to the 'anel to support this figure. The cycle-life currently achie"ed by Bollora8s E'B elements is not yet sufficient for the needs of the E -battery mar%et. Also$ the technology8s energy density is only moderate$ and ade#uate calendar life and safety performance ha"e not yet been demonstrated at the module le"el. ;owe"er$ the partners estimate that$ because of its large chemical stability temperature margin$ the lithium-metal polymer system holds a

B4

larger potential for safety than other lithium systems. While Bollora e2pressed confidence in its ability to scale up the manufacturing process$ the 'anel considers it unli%ely that$ gi"en the current state of de"elopment and the issues remaining to be resol"ed$ the present effort can result in a technically pro"en$ high-performance and cost-competiti"e lithium-metal polymer battery for the E mar%et$ that will !ustify in"estment in a "olume production plant in less than 3 to B years.

III. . . !ummary
The E'B technology has the highest theoretical specific energy of the three systems re"iewed in this report. ;owe"er$ the actual specific energy and energy density demonstrated to date at the module le"el are not better than those of the best Ei 1on E batteries. 1f E'B battery-le"el specific energy and energy density can achie"e parity with those of Ei 1on batteries$ the technology8s ad"antages o"er the Ei 1on technology are e2pected to be greater safety and lower cost. Regarding safety$ the absence of high"apor-pressure organic sol"ents should gi"e the E'B battery greater tolerance to abuse. While this is a reasonable e2pectation$ it is too early to be #uantified$ as is the potentially ha5ardous presence of metallic lithium in the E'B system. The E'B technology offers the lowest potential cost of unprocessed acti"e materials among the ad"anced batteries presently under de"elopment for E applications. ;owe"er$ this ad"antage might well be offset by the cost impact of the stringent manufacturing re#uirements and the difficulties inherent in assembling a large thin-layer battery. When considering the steps still ahead$ E'B de"elopment does not ha"e the benefit of the %nowledge and e2perience ac#uired in the mass manufacturing of small Ei 1on and Ai7; cells. 7aterial specifications$ cell and module design$ and process parameters are still e"ol"ing for the E'B technology$ and until a more mature design and pro"en manufacturing processes emerge$ cost estimates for high "olume production of E'B E batteries remain uncertain. BF

A limited ability to cycle has always been a wea%ness of rechargeable lithiummetal batteries. While both E'B de"elopers are showing significant impro"ements in this area compared to their status of only )-+ years ago$ the best cycle-life performance demonstrated so far at the module le"el is about <3, cycles. Because the cycle life of the E'B technologies is "ery sensiti"e to manufacturing process "ariations /such as those caused by lac% of surface uniformity or ade#uate compression at the cell le"el0$ reproducing module and battery pac% performance consistently will be a ma!or challenge. Thus$ a reasonably confident prediction of the operating life of complete E'B pac%s in electric "ehicles is not yet possible. E'B E -battery technology is still se"eral years away from a credible field trial in E s. This schedule implies that commercial production of E batteries is "ery unli%ely prior to +,,4 /see <ig1re III.50. Aot surprisingly$ gi"en the present status and uncertainties surrounding the technology$ the cost and performance le"els pro!ected for the E'B are the least well defined of the three ad"anced battery systems in"estigated by the 'anel.

B*

&i$ure +++(8( Battery and Electric Vehicle +nteractive *evelopment "imeline and the tatus of the Advanced Batteries of this tudy
BATTERY DEVELOPMENT
R&D Cell Design & testing Module Design; ilot ro!ess de"elo #ent $ilot $rodu!tion; #odule testing; $a!% design $a!% &ield 'rial ( #anu)a!turing de"elo #ent &a!tor* +nstallation & ,tartu -olu#e $rodu!tion

Year:

10

Basic cell desi$n established Commit to Pilot Plant Commit to Production Plant

Lithium Polymer

Lithium Ion
6 5 4

&i'(
3 2 1 0

VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT
De"elo !on!e t

Year )ro# -e.i!le /aun!.:

10

'est $rotot* e 0atteries1 De"elo , e!i)i!ation 'est -e.i!les 2internall*3 4it. $rotot* e 0atteries &leet &ield 'est 4it. $ilot 0atteries Design & 0uild -e.i!le $rodu!tion $lant $rodu!tion

Commit to &leet "est Commit to Vehicle Production

4,

+++(<( A."/%/B+,E %A0.&AC".!E!

Bac=$round. The )**3 BTA' assessment focused on the battery de"elopers that were engaged in %ey phases of E -battery engineering and prototype de"elopment and thus held the %ey to the possible a"ailability of ad"anced E )**F &E s. 1n its report$ BTA' stressed the batteries in time for use in need for electric-"ehicle

de"elopers?manufacturers to be intimately in"ol"ed in the specification$ testing and in"ehicle e"aluation of E batteries$ as shown schematically in <ig1re II.1. This batteries in in"ol"ement is essential for the earliest possible a"ailability of ad"anced E owners?users. Recogni5ing this need$ se"eral of the ma!or automobile manufacturers ha"e been collaborating with de"elopers of E batteries since the early )**,s. 1n the Gnited States$ this collaboration in"ol"ed all three ma!or carma%ers$ both indi"idually and through their acti"e participation in the GSABC program. Gnder their )**B agreements with ARB$ the si2 largest suppliers of the California car mar%et substantially increased their E in"ol"ement$ focusing their efforts on the de"elopment and introduction of a significant number of state-of-the-art E s and$ also$ on the ad"ancement and e"aluation of E battery technology. The automobile manufacturers8 positions on current and prospecti"e performance$ cost$ and other %ey characteristics of E batteries /such as durability and safety0 clearly are impacting the technical programs and business decisions of battery de"elopers$ and thus ha"e a direct effect on the commercial a"ailability of E batteries in +,,- and beyond. The 'anel$ therefore$ decided to "isit all si2 manufacturers for discussions of their battery-related acti"ities and "iews. The findings from these "isits and from follow-on discussions are summari5ed below.

electric "ehicles with characteristics acceptable to manufacturers and potential

4)

III.".1. DaimlerChrysler
7ore than a decade ago$ Chrysler selected the mini"an as the corporation8s primary electric "ehicle platform. The 3B electric TE ans sold by Chrysler in )**--)**3 were e#uipped with nic%el-iron or nic%el-cadmium batteries$ both of which pro"ed unsuitable. The E'1C electric "an was introduced in )**4 with an ad"anced-design leadacid battery. The E'1C "an remained the main E to e"aluate Ai7; E platform of the newly formed DaimlerChrysler corporation$ but the limitations of lead-acid batteries led the corporation batteries. @n the basis of its e"aluations$ DaimlerChrysler turned to SA(T8s *3Ah Ai7; battery technology /de"eloped with co-funding from GSABC0 for the ma!ority of the E'1C electric "ans produced and deployed under the corporation8s 7oA with the California ARB. Jey characteristics of these "ans are summari5ed in Table (.1: details on the SA(T Ai7; battery technology were presented in Section 111.) abo"e. (ield e2perience with the more than *, E'1C "ans e#uipped with Ai7; batteries indicates that the E'1C electric "an can pro"ide satisfactory function and utility for selected fleet operators. (or e2ample$ the E'1C pro"ed "ery suitable in handling the payload and relati"ely mild duty cycle /+,-<, miles?day0 of a Eos Angeles area post office. With its fast charging capability$ the E'1C also was able to handle the +,,--,, mile?day duty cycle of a Eos Angeles airport shuttle. This e2perience pro"ed Ai7; batteries to be more reliable and predictable than the pre"iously used lead-acid batteries. The electronically controlled$ thermally managed Ai7; battery pac%s performed best when used e"ery day. The e2perience also indicated that self-discharge$ shelf-life$ and battery pac% balance remain significant issues$ and ma%e it difficult to optimi5e battery management systems for different duty cycles and operator beha"ior. @n the basis of that e2perience and SA(T8s efforts to impro"e battery performance /especially energy density and specific energy0$ DaimlerChrysler has stayed with the selection of the SA(T Ai7; technology as the E -battery most li%ely to meet minimum performance re#uirements and be commercially a"ailable by +,,-. 1f needed to address &E re#uirements$ DaimlerChrysler would contract with SA(T to produce

4+

battery pac%s in sufficient numbers to meet DaimlerChrysler8s needs at a fi2ed battery price that is consistent with the module cost le"els in <ig1re III.0 abo"e. SA(T8s Ai7; E -battery technology will ha"e the performance impro"ement and cost reduction features that are currently being implemented at the module le"el. Jey manufacturing processes will be "erified in SA(T8s Bordeau2 Ai7; battery plant$ which is being modified to produce the impro"ed modules and handle an increased production rate. DaimlerChrysler is wor%ing with SA(T to define an approach to Ai7; battery production that$ if needed$ would establish an E -battery manufacturing capability for DaimlerChrysler. This approach utili5es the ad"anced technology and manufacturing e2pertise of a leading battery manufacturer$ limits the financial burden and ris% for the much smaller battery company$ and permits the automobile manufacturer to increase its financial and people resources e2posure in a series of well-defined steps. While DaimlerChrysler thus is ta%ing concrete steps and financial ris%s in preparing to meet &E re#uirements if needed$ the company has serious doubts about the mar%et prospects of electric "ehicles. E"en with the most optimistic cost for Ai7; E modules produced in "ery large "olume$ DaimlerChrysler pro!ects large price increments for electric "ehicles compared to the 1CE-powered counterparts. The corporation belie"es that prospecti"e owners or lessees are "ery unli%ely to pay such a large premium for "ehicles that also ha"e utility limitations$ especially with respect to range. DaimlerChrysler staff e2pressed the opinion that the &E regulation in its early

years had "alue as a Pdri"erQ of technology$ including but not limited to batteries. ;owe"er$ they further stated that now that the most "iable of these technologies ha"e become accepted$ the regulation is seen as di"erting de"elopment resources from potential mainstream automoti"e products /such as fuel cell and battery hybrid electric "ehicles0 that ha"e better prospects than E s to contribute to the reduction of automoti"e emissions.

4-

III.".2. For%
(ord has been engaged in E de"elopment for se"eral decades$ with a historically strong focus on ad"anced electric power train technology de"elopment. Gnder its 7oA with the California ARB$ (ord de"eloped and deployed a battery-powered "ersion of its Ranger truc% with the characteristics included in Table (.1. Appro2imately 3,, Ranger E s were supplied originally with Delphi lead-acid E batteries$ a product that had significant reliability and durability problems. A number failed in less than two years$ and replacement after only ),$,,, miles of ser"ice was re#uired for many of them because of substantially degraded performance. Delphi has since discontinued promotion and the Ranger is now supplied with a battery from East 'enn 7anufacturing Co.$ whose characteristics are shown in Appendix <. A ma!or issue common to lead-acid technology is weight9 to pro"ide a <,-B, mile range for the Ranger E in Preal lifeQ dri"ing /see Table (.10$ a battery weighing nearly *,, %g /<,= of the "ehicle curb weight0 is needed. @ther problems with the battery include decreased performance at lower states of charge /SoC0$ poor performance at temperatures below ,\C$ and reduced battery life at temperatures of 3,\C and abo"e. (inally$ the life-cycle cost of lead-acid batteries probably will be #uite high inasmuch as the batteries8 initial cost appears to be upwards of )43?%Wh$ and two or more replacements are li%ely to be re#uired for e"ery ),,$,,, miles of "ehicle operation. (ord also offered the Ranger E with Ai7; batteries but with a higher monthly

lease. The characteristics of the Ranger E and its Ai7; batteries are included in Table' (.1 and III.1$ respecti"ely. (ord has e"aluated Ai7; batteries with acti"e li#uid cooling from two manufacturers. The acti"e refrigeration cooling used in both systems brings with it cost and energy penalties ). The limited e2perience to date with Ai7; batterye#uipped Ranger E s indicates that these batteries are #uite rugged and durable o"er a limited range of ambient temperatures.
)

T%e i+pro/e+ent' in %ig%er*te+perat1re per&or+ance o& :iM; tec%nology reported in Bection III.1 abo/e +ig%t eli+inate t%e need &or acti/e cooling o& :iM; batterie' in all b1t extre+e te+perat1re en/iron+ent'.

4<

1n (ord8s "iew$ the primary issue with Ai7; batteries is their high cost. @ne leading manufacturer #uoted prices of nearly >3,,?%Wh and about >--,?%Wh$ for guaranteed production "olumes of 3$,,, and +,$,,, pac%s?year$ respecti"ely. E"en true mass production /e.g. ),,$,,, pac%s?year0 would lower this number only to >++3+3,?%Wh. The energy density of about )3,Wh?liter is another serious concern because it limits the Ranger E -battery capacity to less than -,%Wh and the "ehicle range to about F+ miles /under the SAE N )B-< test cycle0$ less than 43 miles at freeway speeds$ and 3,43 miles in real-world dri"ing /see Appendix ( Table (.20. (ord technical staff belie"es that lithium-ion E batteries are se"eral years behind Ai7; and that they are unli%ely to offer significant energy density increases or cost reductions compared to Ai7;$ e"en if current technical issues with calendar life and abuse tolerance are resol"ed. These problems are considered fundamental and$ accordingly$ thought to re#uire ma!or ad"ances or brea%throughs$ primarily in the acti"ematerials area. As a conse#uence$ (ord is not currently wor%ing on the integration and e"aluation of Ei ion batteries in its E s. The company is satisfied with its participation in the GSABC program that is supporting Ei ion E -battery technology de"elopment and ad"anced materials RMD. Similarly$ (ord is not directly in"ol"ed in lithium-metal polymer E -battery technology but relies on its participation in the GSABC program. GSABC has been supporting ;ydro Iuebec?Argo-Tech who are engaged in the world8s largest program to de"elop lithium-metal polymer E batteries /see also Argo-Tech and GSABC subsections under Sections 111.- and 111.<$ respecti"ely0. Ei%e the other ma!or automobile manufacturers$ (ord seriously doubts that E s with the high costs and limited range pro!ected for +,,- can be mar%eted in the numbers called for by the current &E regulation. City cars and similar "ehicles in (ord8s PT;1AJbQ family of small E sCperhaps e#uipped with different /including lead-acid0 battery choices that would allow users to trade off E performance and costCmight find appreciable uses. ;owe"er$ (ord belie"es that despite inclusion of these new small E s$ 43

the aggregate demand for E s in California will fall short of meeting ARB8s &E re#uirements. Conse#uently$ e"en small E s would need subsidies to attract sufficient buyers or lessees. This would result in mar%et distortions that could hurt the longer-term prospects of such "ehicles. 1n (ord8s "iew$ a free-mar%et approach is needed for the introduction of &E and partial-&E "ehicles.

III.". . +eneral 'otors

67 has remained a world leader in electric "ehicle technology o"er the last se"eral decades$ and the de"elopment and introduction of the E ) was originally concei"ed as a demonstration of that leadership. Together with the S-), electric truc%$ the E ) is now ser"ing as 678s E offering under its 7oA with the California ARB. 67 published a complete set of performance$ efficiency and mileage cost data for the E ) and S-), operated with two types of lead-acid and a nic%el-metal hydride battery: some of these data are included in Table' (.1 and (.2( 1n %eeping with 678s strategy to de"elop and introduce E and other ad"anced-

"ehicle technologies in a series of steps to limit cost and ris%$ the second-generation E ) is now being introduced. 1t has a number of technology impro"ements including more compact power electronic controls that represent a 43= cost reduction from firstgeneration control technology. The E ) and S-), E s were originally deli"ered with Delphi lead-acid E batteries. The e2perience with these batteries was disappointing inasmuch as they did not deli"er their rated capacity in typical dri"ing. As a result$ E ) range was limited to 43-F, miles in "arious city and highway test cycles$ 3,-43 miles in Preal worldQ dri"ing. The corresponding ranges for the S-), electric truc% were lower than for the E ) by a factor that e2ceeded the ).B4 ratio of the two "ehicles8 gross "ehicle weights. The substitution of the 'anasonic E -)+B, lead-acid battery in late )*** increased the range of both "ehicles by -,-<,= for a ),= increase in battery weight. E ) range with the 'anasonic lead-acid battery e2ceeds ),, miles in test cycles$ although real-world range is typically less at about B3-*3 miles /see Table (.10$ depending on dri"er beha"ior.

4B

Since fall )***$ both "ehicles are also a"ailable with a 67@ 44Ah$ -<-

Ai7;

battery ha"ing the characteristics outlined in Table III.1. (or a )+= lower weight$ the Ai7; battery permits an a"erage range increase of <,= o"er the best lead-acid batteryC appro2imately the ad"anced battery8s increment in capacity. 1t is noteworthy that the Ai7;-powered E ) deli"ers a range of almost )3, miles$ although it must be noted that the battery accounts for nearly <,= of the "ehicle8s curb weight. According to 67$ in real-world dri"ing$ ranges of 43-)<, miles are e2pected$ depending primarily on dri"er and terrain$ and on the electricity consumption of au2iliary e#uipment$ especially the air conditioner. Recently$ 67 recalled the 6eneration-) E ) "ehicles because of an o"erheating problem with a capacitor in the charging circuit. The problem shows that$ despite e2tensi"e efforts to ensure reliability$ failures are li%ely to occur during mar%et introduction of new products such as E s and E batteries. These can be damaging to mar%et prospects. Considering the technical and financial resources re#uired to introduce a trouble-free new technology to the automobile mar%et placeCincluding product testing before launch$ and follow-up on potential early field failuresConly large organi5ations are in a position to meet the challenge. 678s ma!or concern is the current high cost of Ai7; batteries$ with no real prospects that the technology will e"entually meet 678s cost target of ><$3,, for a -,%Wh battery /specific cost target of >)3,?%Wh0. 67 AT management noted that no de"eloper of ad"anced batteries has shown a credible path to achie"ing this goal. Het$ an ad"anced battery is needed to achie"e the T),, mile real-life range that$ according to 678s mar%et research in con!unction with the E )$ is important to users. E"en increments of range in the T),, mile domain are considered "aluable by operators of the E ). The mar%et importance of factors beyond cost is attested to by 678s finding that dropping the E ) lease rate substantially did not generate many more leases. 67 concludes that$ in addition to see%ing continued battery-cost reductions$ alternati"e strategies are needed to achie"e cost feasibility of battery-powered E s.

44

'ossible strategies include obtaining re"enue from sale of used Ai7; E

batteries$ and

introduction of city cars. 67 belie"es that mandating the introduction of E s is not a constructi"e step towards their commerciali5ation and that Pcon"entionalQ E s are not a solution to the Eos Angeles air-#uality problem. The city car could become part of the solution$ but only with a system-le"el change of transportation in the Eos Angeles air basin.

III.".". ,!ABC
The Gnited States Ad"anced Battery Consortium was formed in )**) as a collaborati"e program of the G.S. (ederal 6o"ernment /represented by D@E0$ the three ma!or G.S. automobile manufacturers /represented by GSCAR0$ and the country8s electric utilities /represented by E'R10. The mission of GSABC is to support and guide RMD programs to de"elop electric "ehicle batteries with the performance$ operating and cost characteristics re#uired for commercially "iable electric "ehicles. The GSABC programs are carried out and cost-shared by industrial organi5ations capable of commerciali5ing successfully de"eloped E -battery technologies. Since the program8s initiation$ GSABC has funded the de"elopment of nic%elmetal hydride$ lithium-ion and lithium-metal polymer E batteries with about >++, million$ supplemented by >F, million worth of in-%ind contributions from the battery de"elopers. GSABC continues to be a ma!or factor in ad"anced E -battery de"elopment because the organi5ation represents the financial commitments of ma!or G.S. sta%eholders in E s and E batteries$ and it benefits from the "iews and guidance of the sta%eholders8 battery e2perts. The 'anel met with GSABC management for a discussion of the program8s current focus and of the management8s future perspecti"e on ad"anced E batteries. GSABC program support played a ma!or role in the e"olution of two of the three Ai7; technologies used in the E s introduced under the California 7oAs. GSABC recently concluded its sponsorship of Ai7; E -battery cost-reduction programs with indications that Ai7; materials costs could be reduced to le"els close to >)<,?%Wh. 1n SA(T8s

4F

analysis$ this materials cost translates to appro2imately >+<,?%Wh for a mass-produced complete battery$ compared to the GSABC commerciali5ation goal of >)3,?%Wh and long-term target of >),,?%Wh /see Table II.10. GSABC program emphasis and support has shifted to the de"elopment of the lithium-ion and lithium-metal polymer battery technologies at SA(T and Argo-Tech$ respecti"ely. The current performance status$ cost pro!ections and outloo% for commercial a"ailability of these systems are re"iewed in Sections 111.+ and 111.- abo"e. (or Ei 1on$ the %ey remaining issues are calendar and cycle-life$ abuse tolerance?safety$ and cost /especially materials cost0. (or Ei polymer$ they are cycle-life and cost$ especially manufacturing cost. These issues need to be resol"ed without compromising the achie"ement of performance targets. Although funding from D@E has been eroding$ the collaborati"e industry?federal go"ernment program of the GSABC remains committed to pursuing the de"elopment of Ei 1on and Ei polymer batteries with the performance and costs re#uired to ma%e E s attracti"e to customers. 1f successful o"er the coming --< years$ one or both of these programs should result in pilot-plant #uantities of pre-prototype batteries that more closely approach the GSABC performance and life targets. 1f achie"ement of cost goals can be pro!ected with confidence at that time$ <ig1re II.1 suggests that commercial battery production could start within another four years$ assuming that all technical and cost issues are resol"ed well before then. GSABC management cautions$ howe"er$ that to date no credible case has been made for battery specific costs below >)43?%Wh.

III.".$. (on%a
With the E 'EGS$ ;onda introduced the world8s first modern$ purpose-designed four-passenger electric "ehicle with an ad"anced battery. The characteristics of the E 'EGS are included in Table (.1: appro2imately +F, of these "ehicles are currently in ser"ice in California. ;onda maintains that the E 'EGS has a highly efficient power train$ with motor-controller efficiency a"eraging abo"e *,= in city dri"ing. ;owe"er$ as with other state-of-the-art E s$ the "ehicle8s range is substantially less in real-life dri"ing 4*

than in typical test cycles due to se"eral factors$ the most important being dri"ing conditions on public roads "ersus dynamometer tests$ dri"er beha"ior$ and the e2tent of air conditioning and?or heating used /see Appendix ( Table (.20. All E 'EGS "ehicles ha"e the 'anasonic E Energy E -*3 Ai7; battery$ with the characteristics presented in Table III.1. The latter all fall within the en"elope of the battery performance cur"es specified by ;onda for the "ehicle. 1n the ;onda E 'EGS$ the battery is li#uid-cooled$ and the coolant loop is integrated with motor cooling. Control of coolant flow is managed to allow for different thermal conditions$ including the relati"e temperatures of components and coolant. The battery has a number of important safety features including charge termination triggered by a hydrogen-detection system$ waterproof electric wiring$ and automatic high-"oltage cut-off in case of a collision. Battery bo2$ water-cooling and other pac% components add more than ),= to battery weight when modules are assembled into the battery installed in the "ehicle. Battery #uality control and reliability ha"e been encouraging for such a radically new automoti"e component$ with a defect rate of about )= for a production run of appro2imately -,, E -'EGS batteries. Battery capacity remained abo"e F,= for customers8 "ehicles used up to -+ months$ but a first replacement was re#uired for one "ery-high-mileage "ehicle after less than two years of operation. A small number of battery pac%s re#uired a special reconditioning procedure to restore capacity. Battery charge management has since been modified to incorporate a reconditioning cycle under operating conditions that can cause a temporary loss of battery capacity. ;onda8s e"aluation of li#uid-cooled *3Ah Ai7; batteries is continuing. 1t is also carrying out testing of impro"ed *3Ah 'E E Ai7; technology$ and e"aluating an air-cooled 3,Ah$ )3%Wh Ai7; battery ha"ing both significantly impro"ed charging efficiency at ele"ated temperatures and a higher operating temperature limit. ;onda has a long history of monitoring candidate E -battery systems that included lead-acid$ nic%el-cadmium$ sodium-sulfur$ nic%el-metal hydride$ lithium-ion and sodium-nic%el chloride /&EBRA0. @f the latter four systems with potential to deli"er good specific energy$ the &EBRA and sodium-sulfur high-temperature F, /-,,--3,\C0

batteries ha"e been eliminated$ since in ;onda8s "iew they do not offer significant ad"antages o"er the other ad"anced technologies. ;onda has wor%ed with se"eral Ei 1on battery de"elopers for almost a decade and e"aluated three different positi"e electrode chemistries. @n that basis$ ;onda does not ha"e an optimistic e"aluation of Ei 1on batteries and belie"es that ma!or impro"ements are needed to ma%e the technology a serious candidate for E propulsion. 1n particular$ ;onda is concerned about capacity degradation with cycling and o"er time$ and it sees issues with safety$ including lea%age of flammable electrolyte during o"ercharge. 1n addition$ ;onda.s in-house analysis suggests that the costs of Ei 1on batteries would be substantially higher than Ai7; costs for comparable production "olumes. Eithium-metal polymer batteries might be e"aluated in the future$ although ;onda has #uestions regarding the ade#uacy of Ei polymer battery power density. (rom its e2perience with the E 'EGS introduction and the interaction with

owners and users of the "ehicles$ ;onda has concluded that cost$ range and battery recharge time are the most important battery-related factors in the acceptance of E s in the mar%et place. The difficulty of the cost challenge is illustrated below$ where ;onda8s estimates of future Ai7; battery module costs /deri"ed from detailed pro!ections of materials costs by %ey materials suppliers$ and from manufacturing-cost estimates pro"ided by battery de"elopers0 are compared with ;onda8s battery cost-goals9 200; proFection: 200; proFection: Cost $oal: >+,% ? +F%Wh$ or >4+, ? %Wh >),% ? +F%Wh$ or >-B, ? %Wh >+% ? +F%Wh$ or Z >4, ? %Wh c )$,,, pac%s ? year c ),$,,, pac%s ? year

;onda8s mar%et research indicates that$ despite a number of attracti"e characteristics$ E s with the current high-cost and performance limitations appeal only to a "ery limited number of customers. To o"ercome this mar%et limitation$ ma!or ad"ances or brea%throughs are re#uired in E costs /primarily battery but also "ehicle costs0$ E range /higher battery specific energy and energy density0$ and charging time /higher

F)

battery charge rate and charger power0. Achie"ement of these ad"ances o"er the ne2t se"eral years is considered highly unli%ely$ and the prospects for E in +,,- accordingly "ery limited. commerciali5ation

III.".-. &issan
Aissan8s engagement in ad"anced technology "ehicle de"elopment$ dri"en by the company8s sustained en"ironmental commitment$ goes bac% to the )*4,s but was accelerated in response to the )**) &E regulation. Test mar%eting of E s began about fi"e years ago$ following a production run of -, 'RA1R1E N@H "ehicles /all deployed in Napan0$ the world8s first lithium-ion battery-powered E . The battery was de"eloped by Sony in a collaborati"e program with Aissan: it ga"e the 'RA1R1E N@H a pro!ected range of about +,,%m. 'roblems included a somewhat more rapid than e2pected loss of Ei ion battery capacity o"er time$ and some controller failures in humid climates. The controller problem has been corrected$ and the capacity loss issue is being addressed in collaboration with Shin-Jobe$ the current supplier of Ei 1on batteries for Aissan8s E s. The AETRA E Cdesigned as a multi-purpose "ehicle with reasonable performanceCwas Aissan8s ne2t step$ ta%en in )**F. 1t is a pre-mass production "ehicle to test E /including battery0 technology and gage customer acceptance. Jey "ehicle characteristics are shown in Table (.1. Similar to operators. e2perience with the E s of other automobile manufacturers$ dri"ers of AETRAs report a real-life range that is substantially less than "ehicle range in a representati"e test cycle /see Table (.20. According to Aissan$ this is primarily a conse#uence of dri"ers maintaining some battery reser"e capacity. 1f an AETRA is dri"en until the battery is fully discharged$ range is typically more than ),, miles. To date$ more than ++,$,,, cumulati"e miles ha"e been dri"en by -, "ehicles in 3-$,,, /mainly short0 trips followed by charging: no significant problems ha"e been encountered. An e2tensi"e database is now being established for the AETRA "ehicles operated in Napan and California. The characteristics of the AETRA8s Ei 1on battery are

F+

summari5ed in Table III.0. Reliability of the battery has been e2cellent to date$ with no failures obser"ed among the thousands of *,Ah cells used in Aissan8s AETRA and ;yper-7ini E s. Aissan belie"es that the %ey challenges in the introduction of lithiumion battery-powered E s are cost reduction$ e2tension of dri"ing range$ and demonstration of satisfactory durability$ especially of the battery. 1n the nearer term and at low production "olumes /e.g. a few thousand units?year0$ AETRA costs will e2ceed those of comparable 1CE "ehicles se"eralfold$ with the battery contributing materially to the high cost. This can be inferred from <ig1re III.) /see Section 111.+ abo"e0 which summari5es Ei 1on battery cost pro!ections from se"eral de"elopers. As can be seen from <ig1re III.)$ at a module cost of around >*,, per %Wh for a production "olume of around -$,,, pac%s?year$ and allowing >)$+,, for the cost of the electrical and thermal management systems$ a -+%Wh-battery would cost about >-,$,,,Cclearly far too much for cost feasibility. 1n mass production$ Aissan belie"es that the costs of E s /e2cluding batteries0 could e"entually approach the cost of higherend 1CE "ehicles. Ta%ing a >+4,?%Wh battery module cost for a production "olume of ),,$,,, pac%?year from <ig1re III.) and a per-pac% cost of roughly >B,, for battery management systems in mass production$ a -+%Wh Ei 1on battery would cost about >*$-,,. This approaches Ai7; battery mass production costs but remains significantly abo"e the highest cost targets discussed in Section 11.+.3 abo"e. Aissan considers that the mar%et for E s with limited performance and pro!ected high costs is nowhere near the <= share mandated by the current regulation for +,,-. With a number of performance and cost brea%throughs$ it belie"es that &E technology based on more ad"anced batteries or on fuel-cell engines might be mar%et-ready in the +,+,-+,-, time-frame. Aissan also e2pressed the "iew that it and the other ma!or carma%ers are wor%ing diligently to ma%e their 1CE "ehicles cleaner. Aissan is of the opinion that regulators should regulate air #uality and emission le"els$ not the technologies to attain them. Regulating technology runs the danger that the realities of the mar%et place and of customer beha"ior are ignored$ and the ob!ecti"es of the regulation are thereby not achie"ed.

F-

III."... Toyota
Ei%e other leading automobile manufacturers worldwide$ Toyota has maintained acti"e electric "ehicle de"elopment programs for decades. 1n the )**,s$ Toyota substantially increased its efforts to de"elop the RA <E electric and 'R1GS hybrid electric "ehicles and$ more recently$ the e-com battery-powered commuter?city car. 1n Toyota8s "iew$ the lac% of suitable batteries has been historically the single largest barrier to the commerciali5ation of competiti"e E s. 1n particular$ Toyota considers the specific energy$ specific power and cycle life of lead-acid E batteries to be inade#uate. E"en if further de"elopment impro"ed specific power and cycle-life to the point where they ceased to be significant drawbac%s$ the range limitation imposed by their inherently low specific energy argues against lead-acid batteries for general E use. Aearly ten years ago$ Toyota selected nic%el-metal hydride as the battery with the most promising combination of performance$ reliability?durability and safety for electric"ehicle propulsion in the then-foreseeable future. Toyota8s solicitation of battery manufacturer interest in E -battery de"elopment led to a close collaboration between Toyota and 7atsushita?'anasonic$ and to the formation of 'anasonic E Energy /'E E0 and ;E as a !ointly owned$ independent company chartered with manufacturing E

batteries. The timeliness and effecti"eness of this collaboration is attested to by the fact that 'E E is now the world8s leading manufacturer of batteries for state-of-the-art E s and ;E s. Gnder Toyota8s 7oA with ARB$ nearly 3,, RA < E s with 'E E Ai7; batteries had been deli"ered by the end of )***. Jey features of the RA < E are included in Table (.1$ and the characteristics of its *3Ah$ +*%Wh battery are shown in Table III.1. E2perience with all RA < E "ehicles and their batteries has been e2cellent. The 'E E *3Ah battery technology is fully de"eloped and has confirmed the positi"e test e2perience with reliability and cycle-life$ although in-"ehicle operating data are not yet sufficient to pro"e that it is a life-of-car /that is$ ),-)+ year and T),,$,,, miles0 battery. The main performance issues ha"e been insufficient power at -),VC and below$

F<

and poor charge acceptance of the nic%el o2ide positi"e at ele"ated temperatures. ;owe"er$ an additi"e to the positi"e is now permitting satisfactory charge acceptance of impro"ed Ai7; batteries tested in the laboratory at temperatures as high as 33-B,VC. Because of the limited number of RA < E "ehicles in the field and the e2cellent durability of their batteries$ good battery failure statistics are not yet a"ailable. The bench test data in <ig1re III.1 show that E -*3 batteries retain TF,= of their capacity and power beyond a simulated ),,$,,,%m /B,$,,, miles0 range. The main battery-failure mode is a gradual rise in cell?battery internal impedance that reduces pea%-power capability. (or Toyota$ the biggest E issue is now battery cost. At current production le"els$ a specific cost of >*,,?%Wh can be estimated for the RA < E -battery from the 'E E battery-cost learning cur"e /see <ig1re III.00, far in e2cess of the GSABC targets in Table II.1. According to 'E E pro!ections$ module cost could decrease to perhaps >-3,?%Wh if they were produced in substantially higher "olume /e.g. ),$,,, pac%s ?year0$ but this is still well abo"e any of the targets or the target costs discussed in Section 11.+.3 abo"e. Toyota is well aware of the potential of lithium-ion batteries for higher specific energy and power than Ai7;. Conse#uently$ Toyota continues to e"aluate Ei 1on technology from se"eral de"elopers?manufacturers and is conducting ad"anced battery materials RMD in-house$ with emphasis on non-cobalt type materials for positi"es. At present$ durability /calendar and cycle life0 and safety of Ei 1on E batteries are considered less than ade#uate. 1n Toyota8s "iew$ their cost will become lower than those of Ai7; only if there is a brea%through in the cost of %ey materials and components$ including the cell-le"el electric control system necessary for Ei ion batteries. At present$ Ei ion batteries are considered at least 3 years$ and perhaps as much as ), years$ behind Ai7; for E applications. With the limitations imposed on E s by the current and near-term pro!ected cost and performance of E batteries$ implementation of the +,,- &E regulation is not

F3

considered feasible by Toyota. E s /and ;E s with partial &E

credits0 should be

produced and offered based on mar%et demand. Toyota will continue to e2plore and in"estigate and$ if feasible$ offer new types of E s for alternati"e mar%ets$ such as city car?commuter "ehicle applications. ;owe"er$ this will be a slow process since the lead times for ad"anced-technology "ehicles and their mar%ets are longer than those for con"entional "ehicles.

III."./. !ummary
The 'anel8s discussions with the si2 ma!or automobile manufacturers supplying the California mar%et re"ealed significant differences in their approaches to the de"elopment and introduction of electric "ehicles$ both historically and with respect to their current E technologies and strategies. The most stri%ing differences are in the manufacturers8 choices of the "ehicles themsel"es$ in"ol"ing se"en "ehicle types. These comprised a "an /DaimlerChrysler E'1C0$ truc%s /(ord Ranger and 67 S-),0$ a sports-car-type two-seater /67 E )0$ a sedan /;onda E 'EGS0$ a station wagon /Aissan AETRA0$ and a small sports-utility <0. These "ehicles also represent a wide range of E -design "ehicle /Toyota RA

philosophies and approaches$ ranging from relati"ely straightforward con"ersions of truc%s /Ranger and S-),0 and e2tensi"e con"ersions of utility "ehicles /E'1C and RA <0 to ground-up designs of substantially different$ purpose-built cars /E )$ E AETRA0. These rather large differences result in substantially different "ehicle characteristics such as weight$ energy efficiency and range as shown in Table (.1$ and the differences in "ehicle purpose translate to significantly different use patterns and duty cycles. As a conse#uence$ cross-comparisons of these E types in terms of performance and utility are not particularly useful. @n the other hand$ comparisons of owner?operator e2perience and responses should be rather re"ealing with respect to the "ehicles8 mar%et acceptance and prospects. While such comparisons were outside the 'anel8s study scope$ 'EGS and

FB

the 'anel noted that for e"ery "ehicle the Preal-lifeQ range was reported to be significantly less than the range achie"ed in simulated test cycles /see also Appendix ( Table (.20. This fact has the important conse#uence that the battery capacity re#uired for a desired E range capabilityCand thus battery weight as well as costCtend to be significantly higher than would be calculated from "ehicle and battery test data. The differences between the se"en "ehicle types abo"e were much smaller with respect to their batteries. The truc%s and the E ) originally used Delphi lead-acid batteries of about )3%Wh which limited the practical range of the truc%s to -,-<, miles$ and the E ) to about 3,-43 miles. 'erformance and durability of these batteries were considered inade#uate$ but an impro"ed lead-acid battery /'anasonic E -)+B,0 is now pro"iding better performance and increased rangeCe2ceeding ),, miles per charge for the E ) under certain conditions. E2cept for the Aissan AETRA$ all "ehicles are a"ailable /the E'1C$ E RA <E 'lus and

e2clusi"ely0 with nic%el-metal hydride batteries$ which ha"e pro"ed generally

satisfactory with respect to performance. These batteries are made by three different manufacturers but ha"e broadly similar characteristics$ as shown in Table III.1. ;owe"er$ if reasonably limited to +3--,= of the "ehicle weight$ Ai7; batteries /with a specific energy e2ceeding that of lead-acid by B,-43=0 can pro"ide no more than *3-))3 miles highway range in test cycles$ and typically at most 43-),, miles in real-world dri"ingC well short of the )3, miles or more that$ according to the suppliers of these "ehicles$ appear to be desired by E owners?operators. The most significant technical issue with currently installed Ai7; E batteries is their reduced charge efficiency at ele"ated temperatures. This$ in turn$ can cause e2cessi"e battery heating and temporary reduction of a"ailable capacity unless counteracted by acti"e cooling of batteries during charging. @peration at significantly abo"e room temperature shortens Ai7; battery life$ although field e2perience appears insufficient to #uantify this problem. As discussed in Section 111.)$ recent impro"ements ha"e the potential to increase the temperature tolerance of Ai7; batteries to as much as

F4

33-B,\C$ a substantial and practically "ery important ad"ance that may permit elimination of acti"e cooling$ impro"e o"erall energy efficiency$ and increase cycle life. The Aissan AETRA is the only E on California roads with lithium-ion batteries. Compared to a typical Ai7; battery$ the Ei 1on battery8s higher specific energy permits a ),,-%g-lighter battery despite a ),= larger battery capacity$ and the AETRA matches the range capability of Ai7; battery-powered E s$ e2cept for the E ) /a two-seater which has an unusually large ratio of battery-to-"ehicle weight of nearly <,=$ as well as superior aerodynamics0. The reliability of the AETRA8s battery to date is noteworthy considering its current state of de"elopment and the limited pre"ious e2perience with Ei 1on E batteries. ;owe"er$ battery durability is not yet established$ and its confirmation appears some time away /see Section 111.+ abo"e0. The other fi"e automobile manufacturers sub!ect to the &E mandate ha"e been

assessing lithium-based E -battery technologies /primarily$ Ei 1on batteries0 for some time$ with the general conclusion that substantial ad"ances in durability and reductions in cost are re#uired before the performance potential of these batteries can be reali5ed. Se"eral of these manufacturers also consider that battery safety under abuse conditions still remains to be established. The G.S. automobile manufacturers rely largely on the GSABC programs to achie"e the ma!or ad"ances considered necessary before Ei 1on and Ei 'olymer battery technologies are ready for deployment in E s. 1n Napan$ Toyota and ;onda are continuing to monitor Ei 1on batteries on se"eral le"els that include supporting laboratory efforts to see% impro"ements in battery acti"e materials. ;owe"er$ none of these fi"e automobile manufacturers appears to ha"e a timetable for estimating the prospecti"e commercial a"ailability of lithium-based$ ad"anced E batteries. All automobile manufacturers stress that Ai7; and other ad"anced batteries are too e2pensi"e to permit introduction of E s with costs acceptable to broad mar%ets. At the current$ limited-production "olumes$ the costs of Ai7; batteries are on the order of >),,,?%Wh$ or nearly >-,$,,, for a battery of representati"e capacity. Ei 1on batteries

FF

cost substantially more$ since they are produced in yet smaller numbers and with less de"eloped fabrication processes. 1n the pro!ections of automobile manufacturers wor%ing with battery de"elopers$ the specific costs of Ai7; battery modules produced in &E regulation-prescribed #uantities are abo"e >-,,--3,?%Wh /T>),$,,,-)+$,,, for a complete -,%Wh including the re#uired electric and thermal management systems$ see Section 111.)0. 'ro!ected Ei 1on battery costs are substantially higher in production "olumes of ),$,,,-+,$,,, pac%s per year. E"en in true mass production by automobile industry standards /e.g.$ annual production of T),,$,,, units0$ the specific costs of modules of either battery type are unli%ely to drop below about >++3-+3,?%Wh$ or appro2imately >F$,,,-*$,,, for a complete -,%Wh battery. These costs greatly e2ceed the >+$,,,-<$3,, range mentioned by carma%ers to the 'anel as the target for E batteries. Based on the high prospecti"e battery costs and the e2perience gathered with the 7oA E s and their owners?operators$ all ma!or automobile manufacturers appear to ha"e come to the same conclusion9 that E s with the battery costs and limitations anticipated for the readily foreseeable futureCat least the ne2t --3 yearsCwill find only "ery limited mar%ets$ well below the numbers of "ehicles called for by the &E regulatory pro"isions beginning in +,,-. As a conse#uence$ these manufacturers consider that their "arious &E -regulation compliance strategiesCsome of them discussed with the 'anel on a confidential basisCare highly undesirable since they misapply limited resources$ do not result in mar%etable E impro"ement ob!ecti"es. An interesting trend in E de"elopment that appears to be gathering momentum products and are$ therefore$ counterproducti"e to air-#uality

among the ma!or automobile manufacturers is the emergence of small city?commuter electric "ehicles. 7ost or all of the leading de"elopers of Pcon"entionalQ E s are wor%ing on such "ehicles that typically seat two persons$ weigh about 3,= less than a con"entional E $ and ha"e batteries that pro"ide ranges of up to B, miles. Se"eral of these /for e2ample$ Toyota8s e-Com0 are being e"aluated in small fleets$ with the number

F*

of authori5ed users e2ceeding the number of "ehicles more than ),-fold. Eead-acid$ Ai7;$ and e"en Ei 1on batteries /Aissan ;yper-7ini0 are used in capacities around F-)3 %Wh to power the city?commuter mini-E s currently being e"aluated. While not specifically e2cluded from counting against a manufacturer8s &E these "ehicles meets the federal 7otor obligations$ none of ehicle Safety Standards. 7oreo"er$ in the "iew

of se"eral automobile manufacturers engaged in this area$ broad mar%et acceptance of such "ehicles in the G.S. is "ery #uestionable for a number of reasons$ including not only their relati"ely high current and prospecti"e cost$ but also their inherent characteristics /small si5e and limited performance0$ and the structure of the transportation systems in G.S. cities.

*,

EC"+/0 +V( C/0C,. +/0

(rom the 'anel8s discussions with battery de"elopers and ma!or automobile manufacturers engaged in the de"elopment and e"aluation of electric "ehicle batteries$ and based on the 'anel8s own analysis of the information collected in these discussions$ the BTA' +,,, members ha"e agreed on the following conclusions9 3( 0ic=elCmetal hydride A0i%4B batteries have demonstrated promise to meet the poDer and endurance re@uirements for electric vehicle AEVB propulsion and could be available by 200; from several manufacturers( "he specific ener$y of these batteries is ade@uate to $ive a practical ran$e of around 86C 300 miles for typical current EVs( (ield e2perience shows that the power capability of the +B--- %Wh Ai7; batteries installed in the "arious types of E s deployed in California by ma!or automobile manufacturers is generally sufficient for acceptable acceleration and speed. Bench tests$ and recent technology impro"ements in charging efficiency and cycle life at ele"ated temperature$ indicate that Ai7; batteries ha"e realistic potential to last for ),,$,,, "ehicle miles. Se"eral battery companies now ha"e limited production capabilities for Ai7; E batteries$ and plant commitments in +,,, could result in establishment of plant capacities sufficient for production of the battery #uantities re#uired under the present &E regulation for +,,-. Current Ai7; E -battery modules ha"e specific energies of about B3-4,Wh?%g /about 33-B+Wh?%g at the pac% le"el0. These numbers represent small increases at best o"er the technology of se"eral years ago$ and fundamental considerations indicate that future increases of more than ),-)3 = are unli%ely with pro"en materials. 1f battery weight is limited to an acceptable fraction of E total weight$ the specific energy of Ai7; batteries limits the range of a typical <?3-passenger E to around 43-),, miles on a single charge in Preal-worldQ dri"ing that includes use of air conditioning$ heating and other electric-powered au2iliaries. This definition of dri"ing also allows for "ariations in

*)

traffic conditions and dri"er beha"ior which reduce practically achie"able range well below the ranges that can be attained in standardi5ed$ simulated dri"ing cycles. 2( .nder the most favorable of the presently foreseen circumstances, and if batteries Dere produced in @uantities of 30=C20= pac=s per year, the cost of 0i%4 batteries Dith sufficient capacity to $ive typical EVLs currently deployed in California a practical ran$e of 86C300 miles Dould be M7,600C M3;,000( Even in true mass production by automotive industry standards, costs Dould not decrease beloD M8,000CM7,000 for 0i%4 batteries of this si'e, eNceedin$ battery cost $oals by about M6,000( E2tensi"e efforts ha"e been underta%en by the leading Ai7; E -battery de"elopers to reduce battery cost$ but high materials cost and limited production /in part still manual0 ha"e %ept current specific costs at around >),,, per %Wh of battery capacity. 7aterials cost pro!ections$ manufacturing process conceptuali5ation$ and engineering cost estimation ha"e been used by battery de"elopers and some carma%ers to pro!ect future Ai7; E -battery production costs for increasing le"els of production. (rom these pro!ections$ appro2imate module specific costs of T>-,,--3,?%Wh and T>++3-+3,?%Wh can be estimated for battery production "olumes of ),%-+3% and ),,% pac%s per year$ respecti"ely. To these module costs$ about >)+,, and >B,,$ respecti"ely$ must be added to account for the remaining components of a complete E -battery which include the integrated electrical and thermal management systems$ the battery tray if needed$ and other hardware. The resulting costs for complete +F---%Wh batteries would be >))$,,,-)-$,,, /),% pac%s?year production0$ >*$3,,->))$,,, /+,% pac%s?year0 and >4$,,,->*$,,, /o"er ),,% pac%s?year0$ compared to the >+$,,,->3$,,, range of E -battery cost goals. This cost range can be deri"ed from the postulate that the target cost for the battery is the difference between the cost of motor fuel for a broadly comparable 1CE "ehicle and the cost of AC electrical energy used in charging the E present. The calculation assumes that the cost of E battery$ discounted bac% to the minus battery in mass production

will be no more than that of a complete 1CE "ehicle. 1t also assumes that the battery will

*+

last the life of the E $ a possibility supported by Ai7; battery e2tended-test data$ but not yet pro"en in the field. ;( ,ithiumCion EV batteries have shoDn $ood performance and, up to noD, hi$h reliability and complete safety in a limited number of EVs( 4oDever, current ,i +on EV batteries do not have ade@uate durability, and their tolerance of severe abuse is not yet fully proven( ,i +on batteries meetin$ all =ey re@uirements for EV propulsion are not li=ely to be available in commercial @uantities before 2006( %oreover, the early costs of these batteries are eNpected to be considerably hi$her than those of 0i%4 EV batteries( Even in mass production volumes on the order of 300,000 pac=s per year, ,i +on battery costs are unli=ely to drop beloD those of 0i%4 Dithout maFor advances in materials and manufacturin$ technolo$y( The Ei 1on batteries in the limited number of E s deployed so far ha"e performed well and shown e2cellent reliability and complete safety. ;owe"er$ the test data of all ma!or Ei 1on E -battery de"elopment programs indicate that the operating life of current technology is limited$ in most cases$ to +-< years. Current Ei 1on E batteries e2hibit "arious degrees of sensiti"ity when sub!ect to some of the abuse tests intended to simulate battery beha"ior and safety under high mechanical$ thermal or electrical stresses. Resol"ing these issues$ producing pilot batteries and e"aluating them in "ehicles$ and fleet-testing prototype Ei 1on batteries that meet all critical re#uirements for E applications is li%ely to ta%e at least --< years. Another + years will be re#uired to establish a production plant$ "erify the product$ and scale up to commercial production. Based on cost estimates pro"ided by de"elopers and the 'anel8s own estimates$ Ei 1on batteries will be significantly more e2pensi"e than Ai7; batteries in production "olumes of about ),$,,, pac%s per year. E"en at much larger "olumes$ Ei 1on E batteries will cost less than Ai7; only if substantially less e2pensi"e materials become a"ailable and after manufacturing technology combining high le"els of automation$ precision and speed has been de"eloped.

*-

<( ,ithiumCmetal polymer batteries are bein$ developed in tDo pro$rams havin$ as their obFectives technolo$ies that Dould meet all re@uirements for EV propulsion and cost M200>=2h or less in volume production( 4oDever, these technolo$ies have not yet reached =ey technical tar$ets, and it is unli=ely that the steps re@uired to actuali'e commercial availability of batteries meetin$ the re@uirements for EV propulsion can be completed in less than 5C9 years of successful pro$rams( Argo-Tech in Canada /co-funded by GSABC0 and Bollora in (rance are de"eloping rechargeable battery systems that$ because of the batteries8 uni#ue polymer electrolyte$ can use metallic lithium as the negati"e electrode and thus might attain higher specific energy and$ possibly$ lower cost than Ei 1on E batteries. The two programs are carried out by organi5ations not originally connected to the battery industry$ and both are de"eloping their own uncon"entional$ thin-film cell?battery manufacturing techni#ues. Both programs ha"e made important progress toward practical battery configurations and performance /including impro"ed cycle life0 and ha"e adopted manufacturing techni#ues that appear to offer potential for low-cost manufacturing. ;owe"er$ cycle life is still a difficult issue$ and the de"elopment of the highprecision$ high-speed manufacturing processes needed for low-cost mass production of reliable thin-film batteries presents many challenges. Achie"ement of ade#uate cycle life$ and completion of the steps from the current pre-pilot cell fabrication stage to a fully tested E -battery produced in commercial #uantities$ are li%ely to ta%e at least B-F years e"en if the programs reali5e rapid ad"ances. While Ei 'olymer E could cost less than Ai7; and Ei 1on E manufacturing processes in the years ahead. batteries potentially systems$ achie"ement of lower costs will

depend critically on the successful de"elopment of low-cost cell designs and

*<

APPE0*+- A

E,EC"!+C VE4+C,E BA""E!# +0&/!%A"+/0 ?.E "+/00A+!E

3( ?.E
"+/0

&/! BA""E!# *EVE,/PE!

A0*

.PP,+E!

'lease pro"ide the best a"ailable data and information on the following aspects of the BTA' +,,, sur"ey. 'lease pro"ide data on full E si5e batteries and for indi"idual modules /including %Wh rating as well as capacity and "oltage of full battery and indi"idual modules0 to which the data below apply. +( Battery ystem Characteristics 3( Cell Electrochemistry a0 Cell composition /cathode Rpositi"e electrodeS$ anode Rnegati"e electrodeS$ electrolyte$ separator0 b0 Electrochemical reactions /charge and discharge: o"ercharge0 c0 Cell "oltage /min$ ma2$ and a"erage during C?- discharge0 d0 Theoretical energy density based on all acti"e materials 2( Cell and Battery Confi$uration a0 Cell configuration /shape and winding?stac%ing arrangement: dimensions0 b0 7odule configuration /smallest unit: i.e. single cell$ <-cell bloc% etc.0 c0 7odule "oltage$ capacity$ "olume$ weight d0 Cooling approach e0 Battery management approach /mechanical: thermal: electrical0 ;( Ener$y and PoDer Characteristics a0 Specific energy and energy density at C?- discharge rate b0 Specific energy and energy density at C? discharge rate c0 7a2imum pulse power for - and +, seconds for new battery /please pro"ide data for +,\C$ ,\C and -+,\C0 d0 7a2imum pulse power for - and +, seconds after deep cycling$ for e2ample after ),, and 3,, F,= DoD cycles /please pro"ide data for +,\C$ ,\C and -+,\C0 <( Additional Performance Characteristics a0 Recommended charge rate b0 7inimum charge time to F,=SoC at <,\C$ +,\C$ ,\C$ and -+,\C c0 Roundtrip energy efficiency at the recommended charge rate for C?) and C?- rate discharges d0 Self discharge rate at ),,= SoC at <,\C and +,\C *3

e0 Self discharge rate at F,= SoC at <,\C and +,\C f0 1rre"ersible capacity loss during ) year storage of fully charged battery /please pro"ide data for different storage temperatures$ e.g. <,\C and +,\C0 g0 1rre"ersible capacity loss during ) year storage at F,= SoC and ,= SoC /please pro"ide data for different storage temperatures$ e.g. <,\C and +,\C0 'lease comment and pro"ide data if a"ailable on the change in any of the abo"e characteristics after ),, and 3,, F,= DoD cycles. 6( Cycle ,ife and !eliability a0 A"erage cycle life achie"ed at the recommended charge rate for a C?discharge rate to F,= of initial capacity$ at +,\C and <,\C. b0 Cycle life statistical data on modules with similar designs. c0 Best cycle life achie"ed for a module discharged to F,= of initial capacity /please state under which conditions this was accomplished0 d0 A"erage battery cycle life pro!ected for calendar years +,,, and +,,+ e0 /please pro"ide supporting data for these pro!ections0 f0 'lease comment on the relati"e importance for your battery technology g0 of each of the following potential failure modes9 Capacity fading of positi"e electrodes Capacity fading of negati"e electrodes 1nternal short circuit @pen cell Cell dryout Cell imbalance within a battery Rise in impedance Drop in charge acceptance Thermal management failure Electrical control failure @ther failure modes /if important0 ++( ). +. -. <. 3. B. ENperience Dith +nCVehicle "estin$ of Batteries Specific energy and energy density of battery as installed in "ehicle Charging rate and methodology 7a2imum power achie"ed for battery as installed A"erage calendar time and mileage to failure for batteries used in "ehicles. 7ost common failure modes obser"ed for batteries used in "ehicles. E2perience with battery management9 a0 Thermal b0 Electrical c0 7echanical *B

+++(

Battery Cost @n a strictly confidential basis$ please pro"ide data and?or best current estimates for9 ). +. -. <. Cost of producing complete E batteries in present /)***0 "olume 'resent production rate in modules and?or pac%s per year 'rospecti"e year +,,- price to @E7 for ),,, and ),$,,, pac%s per year 'rospecti"e year +,,B price to @E7 for ),$,,, and ),,,,, pac%s per year /please e2plain basis for these pro!ections0 3. Eargest <-3 materials cost contributions to battery cost for 111.).$ -. and <. B. Cost of thermal and electrical management systems for 111.).$ -. and <.

+V(

Business Considerations and +ssues

@n a strictly confidential basis$ please pro"ide your perspecti"e on the following #uestions and issues9 ). What technical and cost barrier/s0$ if any$ need to be o"ercome to enable battery production and commerciali5ationd ;ow much time and money will be re#uired to o"ercome these barriersd +. What is your current plan for commerciali5ation of E batteries$ and which timetable for the ma!or commerciali5ation milestones and decisions do you foresee and?or ad"ocated -. What business arrangements with car companies are contemplated and?or desired to mo"e E -battery commerciali5ation forwardd <. What is the battery cost le"el considered necessary for good commerciali5ation prospectsd 3. What is the minimum sales?production "olume needed to achie"e the necessary cost le"eld B. What is the in"estment re#uired for the minimum production "olumed 4. What do you consider the most important impact/s0 of the California &E mandate on the prospects for E -battery commerciali5ationd F. Do you foresee and?or ad"ocate any other go"ernment inter"ention in the GS or elsewhere that could help establish a "iable mar%et for E batteriesd *. Are you now pursuing$ or considering to pursue$ mar%ets for batteries similar in si5e and design to your E batteriesd Do you see a realistic possibility of battery production "olume and cost synergism between this mar%et and the E -battery mar%etd

*4

),. Do you foresee realistic mar%et opportunities for used E batteries if these batteries meet the re#uirements for applications less demanding than E ser"iced Which application could be consideredd

2( ?.E

"+/0 &/!

A."/%/B+,E %A0.&AC".!E!

'lease pro"ide the best a"ailable data and information on the following aspects of the BTA' +,,, sur"ey9

+( E-PE!+E0CE 2+"4 BA""E!+E

P!E E0",# +0 P.B,+C A0*>/! !E "!+C"E* . E +0 E,EC"!+C VE4+C,E %A0.&AC".!E* B# #/.! C/%PA0#

Electric ehicle Characteristics a0 Weights /without payload: with representati"e payload0 b0 'erformance /acceleration$ top speed$ hill climbing capability0 c0 Efficiency /%Wh consumption for representati"e dri"ing cycles$ with and without space conditioning e#uipment operating0 d0 Special characteristics /if any0 affecting battery specifications Battery Specifications a0 Battery type and weight b0 %Wh capacity$ module capacity$ cell si5e c0 'erformance /specific energy and energy density at different rates: specific power as function of depth of discharge0 d0 Charging characteristics /typical %Wh consumption for full charge: normal charging rate and efficiency: ma2imum charging rate: efficiency at ma2imum rate0 e0 Thermal characteristics /battery temperature limits for charging and for discharge: cooling and heating re#uirements and implications for battery weight$ "olume and cost0 f0 Control and safety systems g0 Reliability and abuse tolerance h0 Calendar and cycle life Batteries Characteristics /during and after use in electric "ehicles0 a0 Gsable battery capacity b0 'erformance /specific energy and energy density at different rates: specific power as function of depth of discharge0 /when new: after e2tended operation$ e.g.$ T),, cycles and Te year0 c0 Charging characteristics /efficiency at normal charging rate: ma2imum charging rate: efficiency at ma2imum rate0 d0Thermal characteristics /practical temperature limits for charging *F

and for discharge: e2perience with cooling and heating re#uirements and implications for battery weight$ "olume and cost0 e0 Control and safety systems e2perience f0 Reliability and abuse tolerance /%ey factors and e2perience0 g0 Calendar and cycle life e2perience

++( BA""E!+E APP,+CA"+/0

.0*E!

EVA,.A"+/0 /! C/0

+*E!A"+/0 &/!

EV

Battery types currently under e"aluation in "ehicles and?or on test stands Ratings and performance R#uestions 1.-. a0-b0$ abo"eS Charging and thermal characteristics R#uestions 1.-. c0-d0$ abo"eS Control and safety systems Reliability and abuse tolerance Calendar and cycle life 'lans for demonstration of these batteries Batteries under consideration for future e"aluation
" /&

+++( C/

BA""E!+E

Cost goal/s0 /as functions of battery capacity and life: for different purchase "olumes0 Cost of batteries used in recently and currently produced E s9 a0 for actual numbers purchased b0 if purchased in ),,,s per year Costs pro!ections for purchases of batteries under consideration for +,,- model year E s9 a0 in ),,,s per year b0 in ),$,,,s per year Costs pro!ections for large-scale purchases of batteries after +,,-9 a0 in ),$,,,s per year b0 in ),,$,,,s per year
"

+V( "EC40+CA, A0* C/ BA""E!+E

'erformance Reliability Abuse Tolerance Controls and Safety

.E

0EE*+01 !E

/,."+/0 &/!

EV

/prospects for achie"ing goals0 /prospects for achie"ing goals0 /prospects for achie"ing goals0 /prospects for achie"ing goals0

**

Testing and Demonstration /resources and time re#uired0 7anufacturing De"elopment /resources and time re#uired0 7anufacturing /schedules$ decision points$ needed in"estments0 Costs /prospects for achie"ing goals: cost learning cur"es: etc.0
A0* "!A"E1+E &/!

V( BA!!+E!

EVCBA""E!# C/%%E!C+A,+OA"+/0

E mar%et si5e as function of performance and cost 'ossible strategies for o"ercoming commerciali5ation barriers Role of$ and prospects for formation of alliances between automobile manufacturers and de"elopers?suppliers of E batteries 'rospects for a"ailability of mar%etable E batteries and E s for implementation of &E regulations in the +,,- model year 'rospects for E -battery and E commerciali5ation beyond +,,-

),,

APPE0*+- B

/!1A0+OA"+/0 V+ +"E* B# B"AP 2000

1. &orth America AC Propulsion
<<) Borrego Court San Dimas$ CA *)447r. Tom 6age ice 'resident$ 'lanning Tel9 *,*-3*+-3-**

Aerovironment, +nc(
F+3 7yrtle A"e. 7onro"ia$ CA *),)B Dr. Da"id Swan$ 7anager$ Energy Storage Systems Tel9 B+B--34-**F-$ E2t. 3B4

Ar$onne 0ational ,aboratory

*4,, South Cass A"enue ^ Bldg. +,3 Argonne$ 1E B,<-*-<F-4 Jhalil Amine$ 'h.D. 7anager$ Ad"anced Cell 7aterials Tel9 /B-,0 +3+--F-F

Ar$oC"ech
)3B, de Coulomb Boucher"ille$ Ic N<B 4+4 Canada 7r. Christian St.-'ierre 7ar%eting 7anager Tel9 <3,-B33-*+*4

*aimlerChrysler
F,, Chrysler Dri"e Auburn ;ills$ 71 <F-+B 7r. (rederic% 7aloney Senior 7anager$ Alternati"e (uel ehicle 'rograms Tel9 +<F-34B-F,

),)

Electrofuel, +nc(
+) ;anna A"enue Toronto$ @ntario 7BJ)W* CAAADA 7r. Da"id 7urdoch ice 'resident$ 7ar%eting Tel9 <)B-3-3-)))<$ E2t. +-

&ord %otor Company

World ;ead#uarters The American Road$ Room +-4 Dearborn$ 71 <F)+)-)F** 7r. Richard Bell California Eiason$ ehicle Engineering Tel9 -)---*,--,4-

1eneral %otors
Ad"anced Technology ehicles )**B Technology Dri"e Bo2 4,FTroy$ 71 <F,,4-4,FDr. 7ar% erbrugge$ Chief Engineer Tel9 +<F-BF,-33-B

1% /vonic ,(,(C(
4B,) East FFth 'lace )--< 7aplelawn Dri"e Troy$ 71 <F,F< 7r. Nohn Adams$ 'resident Tel9 +<F-B-4-4<),

.( ( Advanced Battery Consortium

Dr. 7ar% erbrugge$ Chairman$ 7anagement Committee 67 Ad"anced Technology ehicles )**B Technology Dri"e Bo2 4,FTroy$ 71 <F,,4-4,FTel9 +<F-BF,-33-B

),+

2. 0uro)e BollorP
Di"ision (ilms 'lasti#ue @det B'B,4 +*33) Iuimper Cede2 * (RAACE 7. Didier 7arginedes$ Directeur 7ar%eting Recherche et Da"eloppement Tel9 ---+ *F BB 4+ ,,

A&"
)))?))- Bd. Alfred Daney --,4< Bordeau2 Cede2 (RAACE Dr. Noel Brunarie$ 'ro!ect 7anager Tel9 ---3 34 ), B3 B*

VA!"A
Am Eeineufer 3) D--,<)* ;anno"er 6ER7AAH Dr. Gwe Jfhler ;ead of De"elopment Department Tel9 /<*0 3 )) * 43 ^ )F -,

. 1a)an 4onda !Q* Americas, +nc(

)*,, ;arpers Way Torrance$ CA *,3,) 7r. Ben Jnight$ ice 'resident$ Technology Tel9 -),-4F)-33)+

Japan tora$e Battery Company, ,td(

Corporate Research M De"elopment Center E System De"elopment Center Aishinosho$ Jisshoin$ 7imami-%u Jyoto$ B,)-F3+, NA'AA 7r. Tsutomu Jawahara$ 6eneral 7anager Tel9 F)-43--)B--,**

),-

hinC)obe Electric %achinery Company

Saitama Research Eaboratory ++,, @%a @%abemachi$ @hsato-gun Saitama-%en$ -B*-,+*< NA'AA 7r. Tatsuo ;oriba$ 7anager$ Ei 1on E Battery De"elopment Tel. F)-<F-3<B-)),4

Panasonic EV Ener$y Company

333$ Sa%i!u%u$ Josai-shi Shi5uo%a$ <3)-,<3NA'AA 7r. Tadashi (u!i%ado$ 7anager$ 7ar%eting and 'lanning Tel9 F)-3--344--)-*

0issan %otor Co(, ,td(

Technical center 3B,-+$ @%!atsu%o%u$ Atsugi City Janagawa$ +<-- ,)*+ NA'AA 7r. Ei!i 7a%ino$ 7anager$ En"ironmental Engineering Tel9 F)-<B-+4,-)+3B

"oyota %otor Corporation

Engineering Administration Di"ision )$ Toyota-cho$ Toyota Aichi$ <4)-F34+ NA'AA 7r. (uminori Ho%oyama$ 6en. 7anager$ 6o"ernment M Regulatory Affairs Dept. Tel9 F)-3B3-+--BB-,

),<

APPE0*+- C

C4A!AC"E!+ "+C /& %/A E,EC"!+C VE4+C,E

"able C(3(
EP+C Daimler Chrysler "an ++4, +F4 Ai7; Air -B,, 4,-F3

pecifications of EVs *eployed in California

!A01E! EVR (ord small truc% /+)3,0: )*B, +F/'bA0: Ai7; Water /)F.40: +F.3 /F4,0: <F3 /<,-B,0: B,-F, EVC3R 67 sports car /)<,,0: )-3, +3, /'bA0: Ai7; Air /)*.40: +B.< /3*<0: 3+, /B3-*30: 43-)<, C30 EVR 67 small truc% /+-<,0: +-<, +4< /'bA0: Ai7; Air /)*.40: +4.< /B++0: 34F /<,-330: B3-F, EV P,. ;onda family hatchbac% )B+, +3+ Ai7; Water +F.F <<*```` B,-F, A,"!A Aissan family hatchbac% )4,, +F, Ei 1on Air -+ -B, F,W !AV<E V Toyota small SG )3B, +<, Ai7; Water +F.F <<*```` 4,-*,

'anufacturer
Vehicle type Curb mass A=$B 2heelbase AcmB Battery type Battery coolin$ Capacity A=2hB Battery mass A=$BRRR !an$eRR AmilesB

` Aumbers in parentheses are for lead-acid "ersions which are technically not 7oA ehicles ``E2pected Preal-worldQ range according to E manufacturers ```Battery weights pro"ided by E manufacturers include the weights of modules and module thermal M electrical control?management systems. ````Does not include hardware re#uired for installation of battery in the "ehicle

),3

"able C(2( Ener$y .se and !an$e Estimates for California %oA EVs Dith Advanced Batteries
7$+C 7Ranger 7&ord Cit* E4* Cit*

7-1
5M E4*

,F10
5M Cit* E4*

7- $/G,
Eonda Cit* E4*

;/'R;
Bissan Cit* E4*

R;-4 7'o*ota Cit* E4*

Manufacturer:
1 Bo#inal <atter* !a a!it* 2%?.3 2 ;R0 test !*!le range 2#iles3H 3 ;R0 2e:!e t )or Bissan3 test !*!le energ* usage 2?.(#ile3

Dai#lerC.r*sler Cit* E4*

33 92 359 97 340 94

28,5 86 331

26,4 143 185 152 174 92

27,4 99 277

28,8 125 230 105 274 120 238

32 107 263 142 203

28,8 116 248

303

298

4 $ra!ti!al IrealF4orldI range: a %ss"min+ 80- of test # #le.. / %ss"min+ 70- of test # #le... # Carma*er data 5 ;C usage 2?.(#ile3: a Cal#"lated ass"min+ %C 2 1,5 3 $C Ener+ 539 n4a 526 1,47 1,85 1,55 1,95 510 455 485 434 1,60 2,2 1,47 2,0 1,78 3,6 497 278 330 n4a 1,90 3,8 1,88 2,2 261 447 560 n4a 2,02 2,4 416 345 n4a 384 1,67 2,9 1,40 2,45 411 297 400 1,25 2,5 1,21 2,25 1,64 3,3 n4a 319 305 333 400 1,34 2,7 372 74 64 78 68 70080 75 66 69 60 114 100 122 106 74 64 79 69 100 88 84 74 96 84 801 86 75 114 99 93 81

50075

750140

65080

60080

70090

/ Carma*er data # 5o"t(ern California Edison data 6 Cal!ulated a!tual ;C to DC ratioHHHH

7 7- e))i!ien!* 2#iles(%?.3

. 5o"r#e6 %7B !reliminar $raft 5taff 7eport, 8a 31 9or*s(op, :E; 2000 Biennial 7evie9, p,14 .. %ss"mes 10- ran+e red"#tion for a"3iliar po9er #ons"mption, 10- red"#tion for driver4traffi# fa#tors ... %ss"mes additional 10- ran+e red"#tion to provide reserve .... Cal#"lated / dividin+ lines 5/ or 5# / line 3

),B

APPE0*+- *

!EP!E E0"A"+VE BA""E!# AB. E "E "

Table 4.1 below summari5es the abuse tolerance tests that are typically applied to E cells$ modules and pac%s. (or many of these tests$ more specific parameters are still e"ol"ing$ as are pass?failure criteria. 1n the ideal scenario$ the battery will remain intact$ will not emit any effluent /gas or li#uid0$ and will not catch fire. ;owe"er$ under many mechanical tests$ mechanical deformation /but no Pflying piecesQ0 is allowed$ and smo%e$ li#uid$ and gas emission /but no fire0 are acceptable under se"eral other abuse conditions. "able *(3( "ypical Abuse "ests for EV cells and modules

T0!T A( %EC4A0+CA,
Drop Roll o"er Static crush Shoc% half-sine Steel rod penetration Sea water immersion

C2&DITI2&!

),-meter onto cross-wise )3,-mm cylinder *, increments with )-hour hold To F3= and 3,= of original dimension +3 to -3 g for -, to B, msec --mm into cell or +,-mm into module Complete immersion for + hours

B( "4E!%A,
Radiant heating Thermal control failure Thermal heating Thermal storage Thermal shoc% Eow temperature /electrolyte free5e0 ),-minute to F*,C @"erheat after disabled thermal control Slow heat to +,,C Two months in up to F,C -<,C to F,C fi"e cycle @perate down to -<,C

C( E,EC"!+CA,
E2ternal Short-circuit 1nternal Short-circuit @"ercharge @"erdischarge With or without passi"e protection By nail or crush /multiple cells0 ),,= of nominal capacity$ protection disabled To re"ersal$ with "oltage control disabled

),4

APPE0*+- E

EVCBA""E!# C/ " "A!1E" A,,/2A0CE

1n the table below$ target battery costs are calculated as the Aet 'resent alue /A' 0 of the E 8s energy cost sa"ings /cost of fuel minus cost of electricity0 o"er its assumed ),-year life$ for a range of "alues of the %ey parameters. The basic assumptions are that the cost of the E e2cluding the battery is e#ual to the cost of an 1CE "ehicle$ and that the battery and the E last for ), years$ and ha"e no residual "alue at the end of their ), year life). "able E(3( 0et Present Value A0PVB of EV Ener$y Cost avin$s
;nnual #iles '.ousand #iles
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 15 15 15 15 10

5asoline 7nerg* Cost C(gal

1,33 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 1,67 2 2 2 2 3,34 3,34 4

7le!tri! 7nerg*

7nerg* ,a"ing B$C

4,569 6,270 3,511 3,834 4,051 1,800 2,445 2,881 3,239 2,301 3,904 4,284 5,005 5,384 6,379 5,307 9,335 9,617 6,787

7))i!ien!* 7))i!ien!* Cost C(%?. #iles(gal #iles(%?.

15 15 24 24 24 24 24 24 30 30 27 27 27 27 30 35 35 35 30 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,05 0,10 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,15 1,8 1,8 2,2 2,7 3,2 2,2 2,7 3,2 4 4 2,7 3,5 2,7 3,5 5 5 4 5 3,5

'* i!al Current $ara#eters

87-F18 BearerF'er# ,!enarios &a"ora<le to 7-s /ongerF'er# ,!enarios &a"ora<le to 7-s 7uro e 2000

Assumptions: A. Battery life [ ), years: B. 1nflation rate [ -=: C. 1nterest rate [ F=

T%e Panel wa' in&or+ed abo1t ongoing 't1die' trying to a''e'' t%e po''ible re'id1al /al1e' o& E. batterie' beyond co/ering t%e co't o& collection and di'po'al. T%e general idea i' to 1'e t%e'e batterie' in 'econdary le'' de+anding application' a&ter t%ey no longer +eet E. power re21ire+ent'. A +a@or 1ncertainty in any '1c% a''e''+ent i' w%et%er &ailed E. batterie' can %a/e ade21ate re'id1al li&e to be o& tangible /al1e &or 'econdary application' '1c% a' 1ninterr1ptible power 'olar p%oto/oltaic di'trib1ted power and t%e li#e. Ot%er 21e'tion' '1rro1nding t%i' idea concern t%e collection reconditioning di'trib1tion and warranty co't' o& 1'ed E. batterie'C t%e degree to w%ic% 1'ed*battery +ar#et6'7 can +atc% t%e n1+ber o& di'carded batterie'C and at w%at point in t%e &1t1re +ar#et' wit% predictable price6'7 +ig%t de/elop. T%e Panel wa' not pre'ented data t%at wo1ld allow t%e'e 21e'tion' to be an'wered and re'id1al /al1e' o& &ailed E. batterie' to be e'ti+ated. $e note %owe/er t%at any /al1e t%at i' realiDed need' to be di'co1nted o/er t%e 10*year pri+ary li&e a''1+ed &or t%e E. battery. On t%at ba'i' alone it i' 1nli#ely t%at a re'id1al /al1e '1b'tantial eno1g% to a&&ect t%e o/erall battery co't target' can be realiDed.

),F

APPE0*+- &

,EA*CAC+* A0* 0+C)E,CCA*%+.% EV BA""E!+E

3( ,EA*CAC+* BA""E!+E
The ma!ority of electric "ehicles currently in ser"ice are powered by lead-acid batteries which are used almost e2clusi"ely in industrial moti"e-power applications. (or%lift truc%s$ mining locomoti"es$ airport ground e#uipment$ and other off-road applications use Yindustrial-gradeY lead-acid batteries. These batteries ha"e relati"ely low specific energies /about +3 Wh?%g0$ as a conse#uence of their thic% flat or tubular positi"e-plate$ flooded-electrolyte designs that enable them to pro"ide up to )3,, deepdischarge cycles o"er a 3-), year lifetime at an initial cost of >)3,-+,,?%Wh. Eess robust lead-acid battery designs$ ha"ing thinner plates$ more in common with automoti"e starter battery construction$ are used to power the large number of electric golf carts$ personnel carriers and similar "ehicles that are in ser"ice in the Gnited States. This type of battery$ also with flooded electrolytes$ typically deli"ers +,,--,, deep-discharge cycles o"er a -year period at specific energies of about -, Wh?%g and costs of >43-),,?%Wh. The renewed interest o"er the last decade in on-the-road electric "ehicles /E s0$ has stimulated efforts to ma%e the lead-acid batteryCa well-established albeit in se"eral respects limited E -battery technologyCa more attracti"e candidate for this application. 'robably the most important recent inno"ation in lead-acid battery technology has been the de"elopment of the so-called "al"e-regulated lead-acid battery / REA0 that uses lowgassing lead grid alloys and star"ed electrolyte designs that permit internal gas recombination$ thus eliminating the need for periodic water addition. The sulfuric-acid electrolyte in REAs is immobili5ed$ either in an absorpti"e-glass-microfiber /A670 separator or$ less commonly$ as a gel. Another important inno"ation is the continuous production of lead-grids$ which facilitates the manufacture of thin uniform plates that

),*

permit higher battery power. Because of the good specific power of designs and the large weight of the batteries used for E near the end of discharge and at low temperatures.

REA battery

propulsion$ total battery power

and the acceleration capability of E s with such batteries is not normally an issue e2cept

To encourage lead-acid battery manufacturers to utili5e these de"elopments and to pro"ide continuing financial support for generic technology-ad"ancement research$ the Ad"anced Eead-Acid Battery Consortium /AEABC0 was founded in )**+ by an international group of battery companies and suppliers to the lead-acid battery industry. 'artly as a result of AEABC efforts$ se"eral manufacturers now offer and sell small #uantities of REA batteries specifically designed for the E application. The best of these ha"e specific energies of about -3 Wh?%g and on-the-road ser"ice li"es of -,,-<,, cycles /up-to-),,, cycles under laboratory conditions0 o"er +-- years. Their costs are generally /and sometimes significantly0 abo"e >)43?%wh. These costs reflect low "olume and hea"y emphasis on #uality control and are pro!ected to be reducible to the >),,)3,?%wh range for production le"els abo"e ),$,,, E -battery pac%s?year. 1mportantly$ AEABC-sponsored research established that in )3 minutes. 'rominent manufacturers of REA E batteries presently include East 'enn REA batteries for E applications can be partially recharged "ery rapidly$ for e2ample to the e2tent of 3,= in 3 minutes$ and F,=

7anufacturing and GJ-based ;aw%er in the Gnited States$ and 7atsushita /'anasonic0 in Napan. Also of interest since they are used in a limited number of E s produced by small manufacturers are the E REA batteries of @ptima$ a relati"ely small SwedishREA owned G.S. company. 1n contrast to the con"entional flat-plate designs of other

batteries$ @ptima batteries are composed of cylindrical$ spiral-wound cells. While

apparently demonstrating somewhat lower cycle li"es under actual ser"ice conditions$ @ptima batteries are reported to be a"ailable for less than >),,?%Wh. (inally$ se"eral European battery companies including deep-cycle applications. ARTA$ E2ide$ and (1A77$ offer REA batteries for E s$ some based on the gelled-electrolyte design that has a good record in

)),

Table <.1 shows the most important characteristics of three modules used in E s in the Gnited States.

REA E -battery

"able &(3( Characteristics of V!,A EVCBattery %odules

Manu)a!turer Model -oltage 2-3 Ca a!it* 2;.3 ?eig.t 2%g3 -olu#e 2l3 , e!i)i! 7nerg* 2?.(%g3 7nerg* Densit* 2?.(l3 , e!i)i! $o4er 2?(%g3 ;t 50A DoD , e!i)i! $o4er 2?(%g3 ;t 80A DoD ,our!e

7ast $enn GJ 168 8 85 19 7K9 36 86 180H 43H MaLor ;uto CoK

Matsus.ita 7- 1260 12 60 21 7K9 34 91 315HH 215HH Manu)a!turer

6 ti#a D 750, 12 57 19 8K9 36 80 280HH 220HH Manu)a!turer

` -,-second pulse `` ),-second pulse Three of the E s deployed in California under the 7oAs with the Air Resources Board are or were a"ailable with REA batteries as one option. As noted in Appendix (3 Table (.1, the 67 E ) two-seater and S-), small truc% were originally e#uipped with a Delphi REA battery but performance and life of this battery pro"ed disappointing. 1n

)))

late )***$ 67 switched to the 'anasonic E -)+B, battery /see Table <.1 abo"e0$ which is now pro"iding much impro"ed E performance$ especially in range. @n the basis of laboratory data that show a )$,,, DST cycle capability$ the batteries are e2pected to ha"e impro"ed cycle life although life data are still lac%ing at this early date. @perating temperature range is -+,VC to W3,VC$ but$ as with all lead-acid batteries$ power /including regenerati"e power0 is seriously reduced at the lower temperatures. The 'anel "isited 'anasonic for a discussion of the technology and inspection of the company8s limited-scale REA E -battery manufacturing facility. The E -)+B, module is the main product but shorter modules of +F and -FAh using the same plates are also produced: these are intended for smaller E s. 7anufacturing is based on standard REA technology$ but facility and operation are designed for high-#uality manufacturing and uniformity of product. (or e2ample$ considerable effort is put into sorting electrodes by weight to get uniform stac%s. 'anasonic sold appro2imately )F$,,, modules in )*** and e2pects similar sales in +,,,. At this production le"el$ module cost /i.e. price to E manufacturers0 is about >-3,?%Wh. (or +,,-$ the company pro!ects production of 3,$,,, to F3$,,, modules /appro2imately +,,,--,,, E -battery pac%s0 at an appro2imate cost of >+43?%Wh. Cost would decline further with increasing production rate$ to perhaps >+,,?%Wh and >)+,?%Wh at 3$,,, and )3$,,, pac%s?year respecti"ely. (ord uses a REA battery manufactured by East 'enn 7anufacturing in the

Ranger E . 'erformance characteristics of this battery are generally similar to that of the 'anasonic E -)+B,$ but life of the battery can be as short as ),$,,, miles when Rangers are dri"en only short distances in some climates$ despite the fact that batteries can deli"er about B,, cycles on the test stand. The cost of the East 'enn battery is currently about >)43?%Wh$ with the prospect of declining to >)-3?%Wh at production le"els abo"e appro2imately )$3,, pac%s?year.

))+

Small specialist E

manufacturers such as Solectria and AC 'ropulsion$ and

numerous electric-"ehicle con"ersion enthusiasts also rely on one or the other of these REA batteries in the E s manufactured by them. A radically different approach to increasing specific energy and power of the REA lead-acid batteries has been ta%en by the small G.S. company Electrosource in its de"elopment of the P;ori5onQ battery. The %ey new feature of this battery is the use of grids wo"en from glass fibers co"ered with a thin e2truded lead coating: a second unusual feature is the techni#ue of ma%ing electrical connections between plates with continuous strands of the grid fibers. This design permit specific energies of about <, Wh?%g at the substantial discharge rates typical for the E application. Costs$ although currently high because of low-"olume production$ may ha"e potential to be lower than for most other lead-acid batteries because of the battery8s reduced re#uirement for lead. The ;ori5on battery was once a candidate for use in DaimlerChrysler.s E'1C electric "an$ but its de"elopment is now directed toward hybrid E s and a new class of Ystreet-legal$ low-speedY electric mini-cars aimed at applications in restricted traffic 5ones. /utloo=( While the new REA E batteries can pro"ide acceptable performance

in on-the-road electric "ehicles$ they are still handicapped by their low specific energy that limits the range per charge in any "ehicle ha"ing a not unreasonable proportion /+3-,=0 of its weight allocated to batteries. 1f the capacity of the battery were increased substantially$ the increased weight and "olume would force "ehicle redesign including mechanical reinforcement of the E . As a conse#uence$ range does not increase proportionally with capacity because of the additional weight contributed by the battery. The fast partial-recharge feature of REAs does$ of course$ partly offset the problem of limited "ehicle range$ but does not dispel the Prunning-on-emptyY syndrome that affects E operators faced with an une2pected trip away from charging facilities. Another disad"antage of REA and other lead-acid batteries is that they appear to offer no possibility of pro"iding a YlifetimeY "ehicle battery /nominally ), years or more0 for E s. Since one or two replacements are li%ely to be re#uired during the E 8s ser"ice

))-

life$ the lead-acid battery8s initial cost ad"antage o"er other ad"anced batteries will be greatly diminishedCnot to mention the associated incon"enience and high labor cost. 1t seems clear also that the price of the replacement battery to the E owner will be substantially higher than the original battery cost to an @E7. @ther concerns include the ade#uacy of performance at low temperatures$ the possibility of hydrogen e2plosions under abusi"e charging conditions$ and of battery failure through plate PsulfationQ if left in a discharged condition. 1n combination$ these factors ha"e limited the ma!or auto companies8 interest in lead-acid E batteries and moti"ated the creation of GSABC to foster the de"elopment of ad"anced batteries with much higher specific energies.

2( 0+C)E,CCA*%+.% BA""E!+E
Although rarely encountered in countries outside continental Western Europe$ onthe-road E s powered by nic%el-cadmium batteries are prominent in (rance. @"er the last fi"e years$ the ma!or automa%ers$ 'SA /'eugeot?Citrogn0 and Renault$ and some smaller companies ha"e con"erted se"eral thousand con"entional 1C-powered small cars to electric dri"e with Ai?Cd batteries. These E batteries are manufactured by SA(T in a small /+$,,, pac%s?year capacity0 dedicated factory that was partly financed by 'SA$ Renault$ and the (rench go"ernment. The SA(T Ai?Cd E -battery has a 3-cell monobloc% construction$ gi"ing a B-"olt module with an energy storage capacity of about B,, Wh. 1ts specific energy in an E battery pac%Cat <3-3, Wh?%gCis significantly greater than that of REAs$ e"en after inclusion of a single-point watering system for infre#uently re#uired maintenance. ;owe"er$ at appro2imately >B,,?%wh its costs are much higher. Due to the inherently high discharge-rate capabilities of nic%el-cadmium batteries$ the acceleration of E s powered by a typical )+%Wh pac% is good. The ranges achie"ed per charge are generally comparable to those of E s powered by somewhat larger REA batteries. /utloo=. Aic%el-cadmium batteries ha"e e2cellent cycle life and in normal operation can be e2pected to last the life of the E . ;owe"er$ higher initial costs and a

))<

lower energy density than those pro!ected for ad"anced batteries are significant disad"antages. Widespread use of Ai?Cd batteries in E s is unli%ely also because of percei"ed limitations in the supply of cadmium. (inally$ a ma!or concern is the effect on the en"ironment and health that might result from such a large increase in the use of a metal that is generally considered as to2ic. 1n "iew of these concerns$ SA(T is no longer in"esting in efforts to impro"e the technology but is focusing on the de"elopment of nic%el-metal hydride and lithium-ion E report. batteries$ as is described in Section 111 of this

))3

APPE0*+- 1

E,EC"!/&.E, %A0.&AC".!+01 C/%PA0#

Electrofuel 7anufacturing is a Canadian company founded in )*F-$ with business interests in ceramic materials and production e#uipment$ and batteries. A subsidiary$ Electrofuel 1nc.$ was founded in )**B to commerciali5e the Ei 1on battery technology of Electrofuel 7anufacturing. The 'anel "isited Electrofuel after the company had attracted attention with the claim of "ery high specific energy for its PEithium-ion Super'olymer BatteryQ. The Electrofuel technology utili5es con"entional EiCo@ + positi"e electrodes and graphite negati"e electrodes$ but with a claimed uni#ue polymer /probably gel-type0 electrolyte. Electrofuel stated that it is producing a )<.F $ ))Ah flat pac%$ noteboo%-computer battery prototype with a claimed specific energy of )B, Wh?%g$ higher than any other commercial Ei 1on battery. ;owe"er$ the 'anel was not shown the company8s facilities for RMD or manufacturing$ nor was it gi"en any performance$ cycle life or safety data beyond the limited information that had already been published in the company.s brochures and press releases. Conse#uently$ the 'anel was unable to assess the Electrofuel technology8s prospects for E -battery de"elopment. 1n late )***$ Electrofuel was awarded a firstphase GSABC contract intended to establish whether the Electrofuel technology pro"ides a technically feasible basis for de"elopment of an E -battery.

))B

APPE0*+- 4

VA!"A A1
Company Bac=$round and /r$ani'ation( Because of ARTA8s prominence in the battery industry and its earlier participation in GSABC-sponsored programs to de"elop Ai7; and Ei 1on batteries for E s$ the 'anel "isited battery technologies for E applications. Traditionally one of the world8s most di"ersified and technically ad"anced battery companies$ ARTA has recently narrowed its product lines to concentrate on automoti"e batteries /in a !oint "enture owned +,= by Bosch0 and in a separate$ wholly owned company$ on portable batteries. As part of this reorgani5ation$ ARTA8s highly reputed RMD center was closed$ and a new organi5ation$ ABT- ARTA$ was established at ;ano"er to de"elop ad"anced batteries for future automoti"e applications. ABT- ARTA was the host for the 'anel8s "isit. Activities at 0B"CVA!"A( ABT- ARTA is de"eloping Ai7; and Ei 1on battery systems for three "ehicle categories9 high-energy batteries for pure E s$ highpower designs for ;E s with significant electrical range$ and ultra-high-power designs for power-assist ;E s. ABT- ARTA has completed Ai7; battery designs for all three applications$ and Ei 1on designs for the high-energy and ultra-high-power applications. Ae"ertheless$ at present the company has discontinued the high-energy battery de"elopment because of the lac% of interest in E for pure E s in response to an order by a car company. 1n ABT- ARTA8s "iew$ the outloo% for the high-power and ultra-high-power batteries is more promising$ and acti"e de"elopment of such batteries for both ;E applications and the future <+-"olt electrical systems of con"entional powered "ehicles is continuing. ))4 batteries by potential automoti"e industry customers. ;owe"er$ ABT- ARTA would consider producing Ai7; batteries ARTA at its ;ano"er$ 6ermany head#uarters to ascertain the company8s "iews on the prospects of ad"anced

0B"CVA!"A:s Assessment of Battery "echnolo$ies, Performance and Cost( ABT- ARTA has a generally fa"orable opinion of Ai7; batteries$ citing their good cycle- and calendar-life$ abuse tolerance$ power capability and /relati"e to lead-acid0 specific energy. 'otentially a PlifetimeQ battery for a car$ the Ai7; systems8 ma!or and seemingly insurmountable drawbac% is seen to be its high cost. The Ei 1on system promises somewhat higher specific energy than Ai7;$ but is less de"eloped$ with operating life and abuse tolerance not sufficiently pro"en to date. Designs based on Ei7n@+ positi"es ha"e been found to ha"e a calendar life of less than three years. The EiAiCo@+ "ariant has shown somewhat better /but still un#uantified0 life capability$ but presents significant safety issues$ at least in designs suitable for pure E s. ABT- ARTA also has concerns about the fast-charge capability of the Ei 1on system. (inally$ in ABT- ARTA8s "iew$ the costs of Ei 1on will not be lower than those of Ai7;$ e"en in "olume production. 1n summary$ ABT- ARTA is s%eptical about the prospects of E s but belie"es that mar%ets will de"elop for ad"anced batteries in ;E s and in <+-"olt electrical systems for 1CE-powered "ehicles. At present$ Ai7; appears to be the ad"anced battery with the best prospects for these new applications.

))F

!E&E!E0CE
/)0 (. R. Jalhammer et al.$ Per&or+ance and A/ailability o& Batterie' &or Electric .e%icle'8 A Eeport o& t%e Battery Tec%nical Ad/i'ory (o++ittee$ California Air Resource Board$ /)**30. /+0 (. R. Jalhammer$ Batterie' &or Electric and ;ybrid .e%icle'8 Eecent 4e/elop+ent Progre''$ California Air Resource Board /)***0. /-0 T. E. Eipman$ T%e co't o& Man1&act1ring Electric .e%icle Batterie'$ G.C. Da"is -1TSRR-**-3$ /)***0. /<0 D. Einden$ Bealed :ic#el*Metal ;ydride Batterie'$ Chapter -- in ;andboo# o& Batterie' D. Einden$ editor$ +nd edition /)**<0. /30 ;. Ta%eshita$ =lobal Battery Mar#et TrendF$ in Proceeding o& t%e 15t% International Be+inar on Pri+ary and Becondary batterie'$ (lorida /+,,,0. /B0 T. Aagura$ in Proceeding o& t%e 0rd International Battery Be+inar$ (lorida /)**,0. /40 J. @5awa$ Bolid Btate Ionic'$ B*$ page +)+ /)**<0. /F0 7. B. Armand$ Bolid Btate Ionic'$ 4<3$ page *F), /)*4*0. /*0 T. E. Eipman$ pri"ate communication with a 'anel member.

))*

A."4/! : B+/1!AP4+E
'enahem An%erman 4r. Ander+an recei/ed %i' B.Bc. in (%e+i'try &ro+ t%e ;ebrew Gni/er'ity in Her1'ale+ I'rael and %i' P%.4. in P%y'ical (%e+i'try &ro+ t%e Gni/er'ity o& (ali&ornia in Banta Barbara. ;e @oined $.E. =race and (o+pany in 1>I0 w%ere %e wa' re'pon'ible &or t%e de/elop+ent o& rec%argeable 9it%i1+ batterie'. ;e +o/ed to Ac+e Electric (orporation in 1>II to ta#e t%e po'ition o& Tec%nical 4irector w%ere %e lead t%e de/elop+ent and introd1ction to t%e aero'pace +ar#et o& Ac+eF' %ig% power 'ealed nic#el*cad+i1+ battery 'y'te+'. ;e later 'er/ed a' 4irector o& new b1'ine'' de/elop+ent and a' .ice Pre'ident and =eneral Manager o& Ac+eF' Aero'pace 4i/i'ion. ;i' la't corporate po'ition between 1>>5 and 1>>> wa' a' .ice Pre'ident o& Tec%nology o& PolyBtor (orporation a GB +an1&act1re o& 9i Ion Batterie'. In 1>>A 4r. Ander+an &o1nded Total Battery (on'1lting Inc. a &ir+ w%ic% pro/ide' con'1lting 'er/ice' in de/elop+ent a''e''+ent and application o& battery tec%nologie'. Frit4 R. 5alhammer 4r. Jal%a++er recei/ed B.Bc. and M.Bc. degree' in p%y'ic' and a P%.4. degree in p%y'ical c%e+i'try &ro+ t%e Gni/er'ity o& M1nic%. In 1>)I %e @oined P%ilco (orporation in Penn'yl/ania a' a pro@ect +anager in 'olid*'tate p%y'ic' EK4. ;e beca+e a 'ta&& +e+ber o& Btan&ord Ee'earc% In'tit1te in 1>A1 'er/ing &ir't a' a 'enior p%y'ical c%e+i't and later a' +anager o& t%e P%y'ical and Electroc%e+i'try 9aboratorie' cond1cting and directing EK4 on &1el cell' batterie' and electroc%e+ical 'ynt%e'i'. In 1>50 %e @oined t%e Electric Power Ee'earc% In'tit1te initially wit% re'pon'ibilitie' &or t%e In'tit1te3' progra+' in &1el cell battery and electric /e%icle de/elop+ent. <ro+ 1>5> to 1>II %e directed EPEI3' Energy Manage+ent and GtiliDation 4i/i'ion. ;i' la't &1ll*ti+e po'ition at EPEI wa' a' .ice Pre'ident o& Btrategic EK4 wit% re'pon'ibility &or organiDation and direction o& EPEIF' longer*ter+ core EK4 progra+'. Bince 1>>) 4r. Jal%a++er %a' carried o1t a n1+ber o& 't1die' &or ind1'try and go/ern+ent to a''e'' 'tat1' and pro'pect' o& batterie' and &1el cell' &or electric and %ybrid /e%icle'. Donal% 'acArthur 4r. MacArt%1r earned a B.Bc. in (%e+i'try and P%y'ic' &ro+ t%e Gni/er'ity o& $e'tern Ontario in 1>A0 a P%.4. degree in (%e+i'try &ro+ McMa'ter Gni/er'ity ;a+ilton Ontario in 1>A) and a MBA degree &ro+ Oa#land Gni/er'ity Eoc%e'ter Mic%igan in 1>5>. ;e wa' a Me+ber o& t%e Tec%nical Bta&& Bell 9aboratorie' M1rray ;ill &ro+ 1>A)*54 wit% re'pon'ibilitie' in re'earc% and de/elop+ent &or ad/anced batterie' and 'e+icond1ctor de/ice'. <ro+ 1>54*5A %e wa' in/ol/ed in de/elop+ent and early prod1ction o& t%e inno/ati/e reco+bination lead*acid battery tec%nology de/eloped at =ate' Energy Prod1ct'. ;e wa' a +e+ber o& t%e Tec%nical Bta&& at =eneral Motor' Ee'earc% 9aboratorie' &ro+ 1>54 to 1>>1 wit% re'pon'ibilitie' in batterie' &or a1to+oti/e 1'e. A&ter retiring in 1>>1 %e &or+ed (;EMA( w%ic% pro/ide' report' and con'1lting 'er/ice' to t%e battery ind1'try.

)+,