Post on 04-Jun-2018
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
1/131
Advanced Batteries for Electric Vehicles:An Assessment of Performance, Cost, and Availability
DRAFT
June 22, 2000
Prepared fortate of California Air !esources Board
acramento, California
By
"he #ear 2000 Battery "echnolo$y Advisory Panel
%enahem Anderman
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
2/131
&rit' !( )alhammer*onald %acArthur
*+CA+%E!
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and notnecessarily those of the State of California Air Resources Board. The mention ofcommercial products in connection with the material presented herein is not to beconstrued as actual or implied endorsement of such products.
ii
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
3/131
E-EC."+VE .%%A!#
When the California Air Resources Board began to consider battery-powered Es
as a potentially ma!or strategy to reduce "ehicle emissions and impro"e air #uality$ 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 Es 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 Boards year +,,, Biennial &E 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
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 superiorperformance and range$ ARB as%ed the 'anel to also briefly re"iew the lead-acid battery
technologies used in some of the Es deployed in California. This re#uest recogni5ed
that Es with lead-acid batteries were introduced in the )**,s by se"eral ma!or
automobile manufacturers beginning with 6eneral 7otors8 E)$ and that Es e#uipped
iii
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
4/131
with recently de"eloped lead-acid batteries were performing significantly better than
earlier Es.
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 ofthe '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 Es 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
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
5/131
charging efficiency and cycle life at ele"ated temperature indicate that i7; batteries
ha"e realistic potential to last the life of an E$ or at least ten years and ),,$,,, "ehicle
miles. Se"eral battery companies now ha"e limited production capabilities for i7; E
batteries$ 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 i7; E-battery modules ha"e specific energies of 3 to
4,Wh?%g$ comparable to the technologies of se"eral years agoreported in the BTA'
)**3 report /)0and ma!or increases are unli%ely. 1f i7; battery weight is limited to
anacceptable fraction of E total weight$ the range of a typical
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
6/131
testing of prototype i 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 i7;
batteries at a production "olume of around ),$,,, pac%s per year. E"en in much larger
production "olumes$ i 1on E batteries will cost less than i7; 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.
ithium-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$ thesetechnologies 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 i 'olymer batteries meeting the
performance and life re#uirements$ as well as the cost goals for E propulsion$ can be
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"elopinga 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 )
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
7/131
costs substantially below current pro!ections: the 'anel considered this unli%ely for the
ne2t -F years. 1n addition$ the practical range pro"ided by the batteries of current Es 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
"ehiclessuch as hybrid and mini Esto achie"e emission reductions. i%e
con"entional Es$ ;Es and mini-Es depend on impro"ed batteries for their technical
and cost feasibility. ;owe"er$ they re#uire only a fraction of an E8s battery capacity
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 i7; and i 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 ;Es$ and possibly mini-
Es$ in the coming years can be e2pected to result in continued impro"ements of
ad"anced battery technologies. @"er the longer term$ these ad"ancestogether with
li%ely ad"ances in electric dri"e technologies and reductions in "ehicle weightmight
well increase performance and range$ and reduce costs$ to the point$ where electric
"ehicles could become a widely accepted product.
"ii
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
8/131
"ABE /& C/"E"
E-EC."+VE .%%A!#(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((+++
"ABE /& C/"E"((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((V+++
+" /& "ABE((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((+-
+" /& &+1.!E(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((-
AC)/E*1E%E"(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((-+
EC"+/ +( +"!/*.C"+/(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((3
1.). 'GR'@SE AD SC@'E.....................................................................................................................1.+. STGDH A''R@AC;..........................................................................................................................,$,,, to more than >F,$,,, 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 Es 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 Es 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$ets>!e@uirements( 'ostulating cost e#ui"alence of Es with their
counterpart 1CE "ehicles is a rational starting point for establishing battery cost targets.To con"ert this general postulate into specific cost target/s0 re#uires se"eral assumptions
and a cost-estimating methodology. @ne %ey assumption is that the total ownership cost
of a "ehicle o"er its life /life cycle cost0 is the most appropriate measure of cost$ 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$
)+
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
24/131
se"eral carma%ers mentioned it as a possibility if Es 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 amorti5edo"er the life of the E$ and the amorti5ation cost is lumped with electricity cost into the
E8s 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.
1nAppendix E$ target battery costs are calculated with this methodology as the net
present "alue of the E8s 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 efficiencies are ta%en from Appendi2 C /see
Table (.2 line 50).
The calculations indicate target battery costs of appro2imately >$3,, to >
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
25/131
E)$ 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 >).4?gal increases target battery
cost for the commercial "ehicle by 4=. @n the other hand$ the data of Table E.1show
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
Yearer-Term Scenarios (a"orable to EsY. The impact of E efficiency impro"ements
is predictably small
)
at low electricity costs$ and e"en further increases in motor-fuel costraise target battery costs for
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
26/131
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 assumptionsparticularly basic "ehicle
cost e#ui"alence$ and battery lifeare fa"orable to Es. The specific costs target for
ad"anced batteries would be substantially higher only if motor-fuel costs increaseddrastically 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 efficiencies. one 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
long term.
++(2( CA*+*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
II.1$ abo"e$ with some prospects for impro"ements beyond these targets:
prospecti"e mass-production costs that$ on the basis of the battery
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
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
27/131
&i$ure ++(3( Battery and Electric Vehicle +nteractive *evelopment "imeline
Year: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10BATTERY 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 )ro# -e.i!le /aun!.: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT
De"elo !on!et
'est $rotot*e atteries De"elo ,e!i)i!ation
'est -e.i!les internall* it. $rotot*e atteries
leet ield 'est it. $ilot atteries
Design & uild -e.i!le $rodu!tion $lant
$rodu!tion
Basic cell desi$nestablished
Commit to Pilot
PlantCommit toProductionPlant
Commit to &leet"est
Commit toVehicleProduction
)
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
28/131
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. either 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 Es deployed under the California8s 7oA
as well as thousands of nic%el-cadmium-powered Es in (rance. ;owe"er$ with the
e2ception of the lightweight E) carrying
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
29/131
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 i 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 i 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
ATRA Es /See Table (.10 powered by pre-prototype i 1on batteries operate
successfully in California under issan8s 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 i 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 i
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 inAppendix =.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
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
30/131
++(;( EVBA""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 Es$ 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 battery-
cost information ac#uired in this study.
The basic unit of a battery is the cell$ which has a low unit "oltagetypically )-)$,,,?%Wh. 67@8s pro!ection for fully burdened
costs of the 6eneration-+ product is >,,?%Wh at the pac% le"el$ 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 i7; batteries at the end of their useful life in E ser"ice. This effort is
focusing on secondary usage of such batteries in less demanding applications such as
rural$ '-based electrification in de"eloping countries.
The operating life and ele"ated-temperature performance of 67@8s i7;
technology still need to be fully pro"en. ;owe"er$ the main obstacle in the de"elopmentof 67@8s E-battery businessthe problem common to all de"elopers of ad"anced E
batteriesis the high product costcompared to the costs that are considered acceptable if
Es 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
manufacturersmight 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.
PAA/+C EV EE!1#
Company /vervieD( 'anasonic E Energy /'EE0$ owned ,= by 7atsushita
and
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
42/131
EVBattery *esi$n and Performance( A *3Ah prismatic cell in a thermoplastic
case is the basic element of 'EE8s i7; battery for full-si5e Es. Ten such cells in
series are strapped together in a molded plastic enclosure to ma%e up a )+ and ).)%Wh
module /designation9 E-*30. The energy ratings of the E-*3 module are Wh?%g and
)3, Wh?liter$ and specific power is rated +,, W?%g at F,= DoD. The module design and
performance characteristics are included in Table III.1below.
(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 yttrium-
compound additi"es$ spray-impregnated into a nic%el-foam current collector:
Sulfonated-polypropylene separator and J@;-based electrolyte withi@; additi"e.
Charge acceptance and cycle life at ele"ated temperatures of 'EE8s i7;
technology$ concerns until the recent past$ are now ade#uate for temperatures up to at
least
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
43/131
/,,W?%g0 but somewhat lower specific energy /3FWh?%g0. 1n the same plant$ 'EE is
assembling .3Ah$ 4.+ modules consisting of cylindrical D-si5e$ ultra-high-rate
'anasonic cells. These modules are used in the batteries of the Toyota 'R1GS$ and the
;onda 1S16;T hybrid electric "ehicles. 7ost recently$ 'EE has de"eloped a .3Ah
module comprising 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$( 'EEs production
facility has a capacity of +,, E-pac%s per month$ 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. 'EE has been the
main supplier of i7; batteries for the Es produced by ;onda$ Toyota$ and (ord undertheir California 7@As. 'roduction pea%ed in )**F when 'EE supplied o"er *,, pac%s
to these companies. The production of E modules has decreased since then$ and 'EE
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 and ;ondas PCity 'alQ$ is
increasing$ but it is still at a "ery low le"el. 'EE8s 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.
'EE8s module cost /sale price to @E7s0 is appro2imately >)$),,?%Wh at the
current production "olume of around , pac%s?month. This price is pro!ected to decrease
to appro2imately >3,,?%Wh at a production "olume of 3,, pac%s?month. At the latter
le"el$ materials account for appro2imately 3= 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 ,$,,, pac%s?month 'EE sees a
possibility for further price reductions to appro2imately >+3,?%Wh.
'EE8s business focus is now clearly on ;Es. The company has two steady
customers in Napan9 ;onda$ which uses cylindrical modules in the 1S16;T$ and Toyota$
+
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
44/131
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 +$,,, per month.
'EE has great confidence in the performance of its i7; technology for E
and ;E applications. The operating temperature limit for efficient charge and long life
has reached at least ,,?%Wh in "olumes re#uired for &E
compliance$ nor below >+3,?%Wh in true mass production. As a result$ 'EE does note2pect 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.
'EEs assessment of the mar%et potential of i7; hybrid-E batteries is #uite
different. With two ma!or car companies already in ;E production$ and with the
e2pectation of performance impro"ements and cost reductions for ;E batteries$
scenarios for a profitable business do e2ist. The company$ originally founded to
commerciali5e i7; technology for E applications$ has now become a leading
producer of i7; batteries for ;Es$ and it is mo"ing forward to e2ploit the
opportunity.
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 )$3,, pac%s?year of
)+ %Wh "ented i-Cd batteries for E con"ersions of 'eugeot and Renault small cars
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
45/131
and "ans /seeAppendix
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
46/131
more than ,, cycles at
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
47/131
targets /see Table II.1abo"e0 shows that these batteries appear to meet most of the %ey
E re#uirements$ with the e2ception of specific energy and cost.
The i7; module8s presently demonstrated specific energy of to 4, Wh?%g$
corresponding to appro2imately 33-,Wh?%g at the pac% le"el$ falls well short of the
GSABC goals /Table II.10 and will limit the range of a
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
48/131
"able +++(3( Characteristics of i%4 EV modules
.nit 1%/ PEVE A&"Desi*n Characteristics
ominal Capacity Ah *, *3 *Anode Chemistry - AB+ AB3 AB3
ominal %odule Volta$e ).+ )+ )+ or +; Wh ? liter )4, )3, )
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
49/131
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
50/131
&i$ure +++(2( Char$e Acceptance vs( "emperature of +mproved i%4 Batteries
Se"eral pac% designs depend on li#uid cooling while others utili5e air cooling.The trade-off between battery performance$ efficiency$ life and cost for the two cooling
approaches is a comple2 optimi5ation problem that will depend on the ambient
temperatures in which Es 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.
i7; E batteries ha"e ade#uate specific power at temperatures ranging from
^),C to 3,C. While i7; 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 i7; battery does not create ha5ards in any of the
specified abuse tests and meets the safety re#uirements of the E application.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
'e#erature @C
Caa!i
t*Ao)Bo#inal
Improved Conventional
*
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
51/131
Commercial. The three de"elopers of i7; 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 +)$,,,?%Wh is pro!ected to fall to about >3,?%Wh at the production
"olumes necessary to meet the California +,, &E mandatean implied re#uirement
for ),$,,, 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 ipmans1data on ad"anced E-battery costs and compared
them to the data presented in)< to >)34?%Wh appears optimistic+. Gsing ipmans material cost estimate
ne"ertheless$ and assuming /again somewhat optimistically0 that materials represent 44=
_Te 9ip+an 'tdy 67 wa' condcted in early 1>>> wen te 9ME 69ondon Metal Excange7 price o&
nic#el?a +a@or &actor in te co't o& :iM; batterie'?wa' !) to ! per #g lower tan it ad been in o/er
10 year'. In te &ir't arter o& 2000 te 9ME price o& nic#el ad ri'en to between !>.)0 and !10 per #g.+In addition to 'ing a lower nic#el price 9ip+an +ade no allowance &or engineering yield
+an&actring 'crap and prodct de*rating de to +an&actring /ariation'. Togeter te'e latter &actor'
can add ) to 20% to +aterial 'age per #$ and t' to te !"#$ e'ti+ate' o& battery co't.
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
52/131
&i$ure +++(;( Cost Estimates for i>%4 EV %odules
of the Cost of 6oods /C@60$ and that the gross margin is +3=$ we obtain a C@6 in therange of >)4< to >+,
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
53/131
&i$ure +++( year H1eneration;I material pricin$
0
50
100
150
200
250
Materials Module Cost o) oods C Module Cost $ri!e to M
(%?.
;!ti"e
#aterials
7le!trol*te
,earatorCurrent !olle!tion
Matri:
Cell and #odule
a!%aging
alan!e
Materials
6t.er
Manu)a!turing
Costs
C6
Margin
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
54/131
+++(2( +"4+.%+/
III.2.1. Intro%uction
;istorically difficult issues with cycling and safety of metallic lithium ha"e led to
the de"elopment of carbon host materials for lithium as negati"e electrodes in organic-
electrolyte batteries. This de"elopment was %ey to the successful commerciali5ation for
consumer applications of small i 1on batteries that use lithiated /i.e.$ lithium-containing0
metal-o2ide-positi"e and lithiated-carbon-negati"e electrodes.
The host material of i 1on negati"e electrodes is made from special grades ofgraphitic or co%e carbons$ or from combinations of such carbons. The generic
composition of the positi"e electrode is i7@+$ with cobalt o2ide /7[Co0 commonly
used in small commercial cells. ;owe"er$ due to its high cost$ iCo@ +is precluded from
consideration for E batteries that would need substantial amounts of that material.
De"elopers of large i 1on cells currently employ a manganese compound$ i7n+@
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
55/131
i 1on technology was first commerciali5ed by Sony in )**) /0. @"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 i 1on system is its high cell "oltage. ot 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 i 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$ i 1on technology has
become an important candidate for E and other applications re#uiring large cells. The
de"elopment of E "ersions of the battery began at Sony Corporation around )**.
;owe"er$ Sony and se"eral other ma!or battery companies discontinued i 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 batteries
using i 1on technology are Napan Storage Battery /NSB0$ Shin-Jobe$ a company of
Napans ;itachi group$ and SA(T$ a di"ision of the (rench Alcatel group.
The de"elopment of i 1on technology for E applications presents significant
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.
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
56/131
Cost( At least four factors ma%e ma!or contributions to the cost of i 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 i 1on chemistry to o"ercharge and o"erheating.
afety > Abuse !esistance( @rganic-electrolyte batteries permit the use of high-specific-energy electrochemical couples but generally are more sensiti"e to abuse. The i
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 i metal deposited on the negati"e electrode$ and with the positi"e
electrode becoming chemically unstable at ele"ated temperatures /+,,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 i 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 i 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
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
57/131
Gnderwriters aboratory 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
+
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
58/131
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
59/131
negati"e electrode$ electrolyte$ and separatorare typical for i 1on technology. (or
longer life and greater safety$ the cell charging "oltage is limited to
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
60/131
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 i 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 i 1on batteries$ NSB is in a
good position to de"elop a competiti"e i 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 i 1on E-battery technology "ery cautiously and without a definite
commerciali5ation plan. NSB sees the i 1on mar%et for large cells as de"eloping first for
specialty ? military applications$ then for ;Es and$ possibly$ e"entually for Es.
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 i 1on batteries
are in operation at SA(T8s Bordeau2 plant. SA(T is also de"eloping i 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.
EVBattery *esi$n and Performance. SA(Ts i 1on E cell is cylindrical and
spirally wound$ with a nominal capacity of
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
61/131
The performance characteristics of the *,Ah$ ),.3 module are gi"en in Table
III.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 i 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 Es and ;Es as well as Ah cells and modules for
power assist-type ;Es. @"er the last three years$ SA(T has installed )3 i 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
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
62/131
"able +++(2( A&"s proFected i +on module cost
olume /pac%s?year0 Hear 7odule Cost />?%Wh0),, +,,,-+,,) +,,,
+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 i 1on pac%s to the E mar%et if and when such a mar%et does de"elop.
4+)/BE EEC"!+C %AC4+E!# C/(, "*
3)
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
63/131
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 S1$ industrial /traction
and stationary0 and portable applications$ as well as portable i-Cd batteries.
Shin-Jobe discontinued production of portable i 1on batteries in )**F due to
pressures from se"ere price competition in that mar%et. ;owe"er$ a i 1on cell and
module-de"elopment program for utility load-le"eling and E?;E applications is
maintained at the company8s Saitama facility$ and the program has a small pilot plant for
producing i 1on E cells and modules. These efforts recei"e technical support form the
;itachi Corporate Research aboratory.
EVBattery *esi$n and Performance( Shin-Jobe8s i 1on E cell is cylindrical
and spirally wound$ 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 i7n+@
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
64/131
ele"ated temperatures battery capacity fades relati"ely rapidly e"en when the battery is
idle$ acommon wea%ness of i 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
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
65/131
per year is >,, 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 issan$ its main customer for i 1on E batteries$ see the high
cost of these batteries as a ma!or barrier to the commerciali5ation of Es. 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 i 1on ;E batteries in the
belief that a "iable mar%et for ;Es and their batteries will de"elop and that thecompany 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 pac%s in the +,,-+,, time frame and
probably beyond.
3
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
66/131
III.2.. !ummary
"echnical( The design and performance characteristics of the E modules of the
three leading i 1on E-battery de"elopers are summari5ed in Table III.. The NSB and
Shin-Jobe technologies utili5e i7n+@
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
67/131
"able +++(;( Characteristics of i +on Batteries
.nit JB hin)obe A&"
*esi$n Characteristics
ominal Cell Capacity Ah FF *, *,
Cell *esi$n - 'rismatic Cylindrical Cylindrical
Positive Electrode Chemistry - i7n+,< i7n+,< ii77Y@+/`0
ominal %odule Volta$e )3 , ),.3
umber of Cells in %odule ] < F
ominal %odule Ener$y JWh ).+ +.4 )
Performance Characteristics
pecific Ener$y C>; Wh ? %g *4 * )F
Ener$y *ensity C>; Wh ? liter )F ))< /)0`` +),
pecific PoDer cell level3,= DoD$
+, sec.
3,= DoD$
), sec
F,= DoD$
, sec.
at +,VC or +3VC W ? %g F), 43, /+3VC0
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
68/131
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
69/131
&i$ure +++(6( Cost Estimates for i +on EV %odules
1n an attempt to shed light on these discrepancies$ 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 i 1on technology by one of its members.
The 'anel8s estimates are illustrated in)3?%Wh). Assuming /as in the 'anel8s analysis of i7;-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.
)Te Panel obtained co't pro@ection' &ro+ e'tabli'ed 'pplier' &or te ) large't co't dri/er' o& te 9i Ion
cell at a &tre 6a''+ed to be 2007 prodction /ol+e ei/alent to 100000 0*#$ E pac#' per year.
Te Panel ten a''+ed a 0% redction in te co't o& te po'iti/e and negati/e acti/e +aterial' toanticipate 17 &rter co't lowering in 9i:iM3M-O2pre'ently +ade in relati/ely '+all antitie' and 27 te
'e o& lower*co't natral*grapite negati/e'. Oter a''+ption' inclded !20"#$ &or cell and +odle
ca'ing and ter+inal' !10"#$ &or +odle electronic' and !5"#$ &or +i'cellaneo' +aterial'.
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
$a!%s er Year
(%?.
$eveloper % $eveloper B $eveloper C
3F
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
70/131
&i$ure +++(5( Cost A$$re$ation for i +on %odulesloDend estimates 300,000 pac=s > year
The 'anel notes that the E business will not be large enough to dri"e i 1onmaterial costs$ 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 i 1on E
module prices much below >,,?%Wh cannot be e2pected in the foreseeable future.
1f i 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 i7; batteries. When considering)Ba'ed on an e'ti+ated 1>>> prodction o& 2 +illion #$ o& '+all 9i Ion batterie' 6400 +illion cell' at ana/erage o& ) $7 and a pro@ected annal growt rate o& at lea't 20% 6)7 te prodction o& '+all batterie'
in 200 'old exceed te ei/alent o& 5 +illion #$. Prodction o& 100000 0*#$ E pac#' in tat
year ei/alent to +illion #$ wold be le'' tan )0% o& con'+er 'age.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Materials Module Cost o) oods C6 Module Cost $ri!e to 67M
(%?.
Margin
C6
Materials
t.er
Manu)a!turing
Costs
Ele#troni#s & 't(er
)erminals &
pa#*a+in+
;!ti"e
#aterials
7le!trol*te
,earator &
oils
3*
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
71/131
the prospects for achie"ing these ob!ecti"es$ it must be %ept in mind that any less
e2pensi"e$ new materialsespecially acti"e materials and electrolytesthat might be
introduced$ will ha"e to comply with the life and abuse tolerance re#uirements of the E-
battery.
+++(;( +"4+.%%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 lithiumelectrodes 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 i 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$typically between ,C and *,C. This constraint tends to limit these batteries to
applications for which thermal insulation and management can be pro"ided within the
applications8 physical and cost constraints. This e2cludes the portable battery mar%et but
is not considered a ma!or issue for E batteries that$ in any case$ re#uire thermal
,
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
72/131
management for reasons of battery life and safety. Accordingly$ for more than two
decades$ se"eral organi5ations ha"e been attempting to de"elop i polymer batteries for
electric "ehicles. Two programs are still acti"e today9 those of Argo-Tech?;ydro-Iubec
near 7ontreal$ Canada$ and Bollor?ED( in Iuimper$ (rance. The 'anel "isited both
organi5ations to discuss their de"elopment status and plans.
Argo-Tech8s and Bollor8s i polymer batteries use thin lithium-foil negati"e
electrodes$ and positi"e electrodes that contain "anadium o2ide / +@/3-20$with 2U)0 as the
acti"e material. The electrolyte /which also ser"es as the separator0 is a 'E@ polymer
with other polymeric additi"es into which a fluorinated lithium salt /typically lithium-
trifluoromethanesulfonimide0 is dissol"ed. When in contact with a source of lithium ions$
the +,3compound can re"ersibly intercalate and release up to ,.* i ions per "anadiumatom. The specific capacity /for ).F i ion per +,30 is +
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
73/131
The i polymer system8s theoretical specific energy of
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
74/131
III..2. Li Polymer Com)anies
A!1/"EC4
Company /vervieD( The 1nstitut de Recherche d8;ydro-Iubec /1REI0$ the
research organi5ation of the large Canadian electric utility$ has been engaged in i
'olymer Battery research since )*4*. 1n )**
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
75/131
Without the benefit of complete data$ the 'anel8s best estimates of the current
performance of Argo-Tech8s battery module are as follows9
pecific ener$y: )), to ), Wh?%g
Ener$y density: ), to )3, Wh?liter
Cycle life, 90 *o*, *": +3, to ,, cycles
pecific poDer: Z,, W?%g /F,= DoD$ , seconds0
Calendar life: Gn%nown$ but probably more than years
*evelopment and Commercial tatus, Business Plannin$ and Prospects(
Argo-Tech8s E element$ cell$ and module production processes are in the pre-pilot
stage. A full-si5e E 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 electrode-
electrolyte 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 ,$,,, E pac%s per year. To bring the cost down to less than >+
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
76/131
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
77/131
B//!K, EEC"!+C+"K *E &!ACE E*&, C4E+*E! EEC"!+C
Company Bac=$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 aninterest in E technology for o"er +, years$ and it owns and operates se"eral thousand
electric "ehicles. 1ts commitment to Es led ED( to start the lithium-polymer battery
pro!ect in the early )**,s.
Bollor is a (rench industrial conglomerate with sales e2ceeding >.3 billion in
se"eral industrial fields. Bollor8s battery de"elopment is carried out by the company8s
plastic films and specialty papers group in Iuimper$ (rance. The group has e2tensi"ee2perience and e2pertise in the precise e2trusion and metali5ation of plastic films for
capacitors and holds about
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
78/131
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 Bollor$ at the current stage their 'B system is achie"ing a specific
energy of )
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
79/131
larger potential for safety than other lithium systems. While Bollor 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 years.
III... !ummary
The '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 densitydemonstrated to date at the module le"el are not better than those of the best i 1on E
batteries.
1f 'B battery-le"el specific energy and energy density can achie"e parity with
those of i 1on batteries$ the technology8s ad"antages o"er the i 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 '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 'B system.
The '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$ 'B de"elopment does not ha"e thebenefit of the %nowledge and e2perience ac#uired in the mass manufacturing of small i
1on and i7; cells. 7aterial specifications$ cell and module design$ and process
parameters are still e"ol"ing for the 'B technology$ and until a more mature design and
pro"en manufacturing processes emerge$ cost estimates for high "olume production of
'B E batteries remain uncertain.
F
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
80/131
A limited ability to cycle has always been a wea%ness of rechargeable lithium-
metal batteries. While both '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
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
81/131
&i$ure +++(8( Battery and Electric Vehicle +nteractive *evelopment "imelineand the tatus of the Advanced Batteries of this tudy
Year: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10BATTERY 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 )ro# -e.i!le /aun!.: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT
De"elo !on!et
'est $rotot*e atteries De"elo ,e!i)i!ation'est -e.i!les internall* it. $rotot*e atteries
leet ield 'est it. $ilot atteries
Design & uild -e.i!le $rodu!tion $lant
$rodu!tion
Basic cell desi$nestablished
Commit to PilotPlant
Commit toProductionPlant
Commit to &leet"est
Commit toVehicleProduction
Lithium
PolymerLithium
Ion &i'(
4,
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
82/131
+++(
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
83/131
III.".1. DaimlerChrysler
7ore than a decade ago$ Chrysler selected the mini"an as the corporation8s
primary electric "ehicle platform. The 3 electric TE ans sold by Chrysler in )**-)**3
were e#uipped with nic%el-iron or nic%el-cadmium batteries$ both of which pro"edunsuitable. The E'1C electric "an was introduced in )**4 with an ad"anced-design lead-
acid battery. The E'1C "an remained the main E platform of the newly formed
DaimlerChrysler corporation$ but the limitations of lead-acid batteries led the corporation
to e"aluate i7; E batteries. @n the basis of its e"aluations$ DaimlerChrysler turned
to SA(T8s *3Ah i7; 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 i7; battery technology were presented in Section 111.)
abo"e.
(ield e2perience with the more than *,E'1C "ans e#uipped with i7; 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 /+,-
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
84/131
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
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
85/131
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 itsRanger truc% with the characteristics included in Table (.1.
Appro2imately 3,, Ranger Es 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 inAppendix
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
86/131
1n (ord8s "iew$ the primary issue with i7; 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. ),,$,,, pac%s?year0 would lower this number only to >++3-
+3,?%Wh. The energy density of about)3,Wh?liter is another serious concern because it
limits the Ranger E-battery capacity to less than ,%Wh and the "ehicle range to about
F+ miles /under the SAE N )< test cycle0$ less than 43 miles at freeway speeds$ and 3,-
43 miles in real-world dri"ing /seeAppendix ( Table (.20.
(ord technical staff belie"es that lithium-ion E batteries are se"eral years behind
i7; and that they are unli%ely to offer significant energy density increases or costreductions compared to i7;$ 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"e-
materials area. As a conse#uence$ (ord is not currently wor%ing on the integration and
e"aluation of i ion batteries in its Es. The company is satisfied with its participation in
the GSABC program that is supporting i 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.
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
87/131
the aggregate demand for Es in California will fall short of meeting ARB8s &E
re#uirements. Conse#uently$ e"en small Es 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 first-
generation control technology. The E) and S-), Es 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 ).4 ratio of the two "ehicles8 gross
"ehicle weights. The substitution of the 'anasonic E-)+, lead-acid battery in late )***
increased the range of both "ehicles by ,-
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
88/131
Since fall )***$ both "ehicles are also a"ailable with a 67@ 44Ah$ )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 ),, 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 ),, 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 Es.
44
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
89/131
'ossible strategies include obtaining re"enue from sale of used i7; E batteries$ and
introduction of city cars. 67 belie"es that mandating the introduction of Es is not a
constructi"e step towards their commerciali5ation and that Pcon"entionalQ Es are not a
solution to the os 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 os 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 country8selectric 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%el-
metal 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 Es 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 i7;
technologies used in the Es introduced under the California 7oAs. GSABC recently
concluded its sponsorship of i7; E-battery cost-reduction programs with indications
that i7; materials costs could be reduced to le"els close to >)
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
90/131
analysis$ this materials cost translates to appro2imately >+)3,?%Wh and
long-term target of >),,?%Wh /see Table II.10.
GSABC program emphasis and support has shifted to the de"elopment of thelithium-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 i 1on$
the %ey remaining issues are calendar and cycle-life$ abuse tolerance?safety$ and cost
/especially materials cost0. (or i 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
i 1on and i polymer batteries with the performance and costs re#uired to ma%e Es
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$ )43?%Wh.
III.".$. (on%a
With the E 'GS$ ;onda introduced the world8s first modern$ purpose-designedfour-passenger electric "ehicle with an ad"anced battery. The characteristics of the E
'GS are included in Table (.1: appro2imately +F, of these "ehicles are currently in
ser"ice in California. ;onda maintains that the E 'GS 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 Es$ the "ehicle8s range is substantially less in real-life dri"ing
4*
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
91/131
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 /seeAppendix ( Table (.20.
All E 'GS "ehicles ha"e the 'anasonic E Energy E-*3 i7; 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 'GS$
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 acollision. 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-'GS 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 i7; batteries is continuing. 1t is also carrying out
testing of impro"ed *3Ah 'EE i7; technology$ and e"aluating an air-cooled 3,Ah$
)3%Wh i7; 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 /,,-3,\C0
F,
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
92/131
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 i 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 i 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$ ;ondas in-house analysis suggests that the costs of i 1on batteries would be
substantially higher than i7; costs for comparable production "olumes. ithium-metal
polymer batteries might be e"aluated in the future$ although ;onda has #uestionsregarding the ade#uacy of i polymer battery power density.
(rom its e2perience with the E 'GS 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 factorsin the acceptance of Es in
the mar%et place. The difficulty of the cost challenge is illustrated below$ where ;onda8s
estimates of future i7; 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: >+,% ? +F%Wh$ or >4+, ? %Wh )$,,, pac%s ? year
200; proFection: >),% ? +F%Wh$ or >, ? %Wh ),$,,, pac%s ? year
Cost $oal: >+% ? +F%Wh$ or Z >4, ? %Wh
;onda8s mar%et research indicates that$ despite a number of attracti"echaracteristics$ Es 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)
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
93/131
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
94/131
summari5ed in Table III.. Reliability of the battery has been e2cellent to date$ with no
failures obser"ed among the thousands of *,Ah cells used in issan8s ATRA and
;yper-7ini Es. issan belie"es that the %ey challenges in the introduction of lithium-
ion battery-powered Es 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$
ATRA costs will e2ceed those of comparable 1CE "ehicles se"eralfold$ with the battery
contributing materially to the high cost. This can be inferred from )$+,, for the cost ofthe electrical and thermal management systems$ a +%Wh-battery would cost about
>,$,,,clearly far too much for cost feasibility. 1n mass production$ issan belie"es
that the costs of Es /e2cluding batteries0 could e"entually approach the cost of higher-
end 1CE "ehicles. Ta%ing a >+4,?%Wh battery module cost for a production "olume of
),,$,,, pac%?year from,, for battery
management systems in mass production$ a +%Wh i 1on battery would cost about
>*$,,. This approaches i7; battery mass production costs but remains significantly
abo"e thehighestcost targets discussed in Section 11.+.3 abo"e.
issan considers that the mar%et for Es with limited performance and pro!ected
high costs is nowhere near the
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
95/131
III.".. Toyota
i%e other leading automobile manufacturers worldwide$ 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
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
96/131
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 i7; batteries tested in the laboratory at temperatures as high as 33-,VC.
Because of the limited number of RA< E "ehicles in the field and the e2cellentdurability of their batteries$ good battery failure statistics are not yet a"ailable. The bench
test data in
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
97/131
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
98/131
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 capabilityand thus battery weight as well as costtend 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 ,-
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
99/131
33-,\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 issan ATRA is the only E on California roads with lithium-ion batteries.
Compared to a typical i7; battery$ the i 1on battery8s higher specific energy permits
a ),,-%g-lighter battery despite a ),= larger battery capacity$ and the ATRA matches
the range capability of i7; battery-powered Es$ e2cept for the E) /a two-seater
which has an unusually large ratio of battery-to-"ehicle weight of nearly
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
100/131
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 i7; battery modules produced in &E regulation-prescribed
#uantities are abo"e >,,-3,?%Wh />),$,,,-)+$,,, for a complete ,%Wh including
the re#uired electric and thermal management systems$ see Section 111.)0. 'ro!ected i
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 ),,$,,, units0$ 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 >+$,,,-
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
101/131
of authori5ed users e2ceeding the number of "ehicles more than ),-fold. ead-acid$
i7;$ and e"en i 1on batteries /issan ;yper-7ini0 are used in capacities around F-)3
%Wh to power the city?commuter mini-Es currently being e"aluated. While not
specifically e2cluded from counting against a manufacturer8s &E obligations$ none of
these "ehicles meets the federal 7otor 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.
*,
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
102/131
EC"+/ +V( C/C.+/
(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( ic=elmetal hydride i%4 batteries have demonstrated promise to meet
the poDer and endurance re@uirements for electric vehicle EV 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 86
300 miles for typical current EVs(
(ield e2perience shows that the power capability of the +- %Wh i7;
batteries installed in the "arious types of Es 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 i7; batteries ha"e realistic potential to last for ),,$,,,
"ehicle miles. Se"eral battery companies now ha"e limited production capabilities for
i7; E batteries$ 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 i7; E-battery modules ha"e specific energies of about 3-4,Wh?%g
/about 33-+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 batteryweight is limited to an acceptable fraction of E total weight$ the specific energy of
i7; batteries limits the range of a typical
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
103/131
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
104/131
last the life of the E$ a possibility supported by i7; battery e2tended-test data$ but
not yet pro"en in the field.
;( ithiumion 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$her than those of i%4 EV
batteries( Even in mass production volumes on the order of 300,000 pac=s
per year, i +on battery costs are unli=ely to drop beloD those of i%4Dithout maFor advances in materials and manufacturin$ technolo$y(
The i 1on batteries in the limited number of Es deployed so far ha"e performed
well and shown e2cellent reliability and complete safety. ;owe"er$ the test data of all
ma!or i 1on E-battery de"elopment programs indicate that the operating life of current
technology is limited$ in most cases$ to +-< years. Current i 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 i 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$ i
1on batteries will be significantly more e2pensi"e than i7; batteries in production
"olumes of about ),$,,, pac%s per year. E"en at much larger "olumes$ i 1on E
batteries will cost less than i7; 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.
*
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
105/131
=h 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 59 years of successful pro$rams(
Argo-Tech in Canada /co-funded by GSABC0 and Bollor in (rance are
de"eloping rechargeable battery systems that$ 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 i 1on E batteries. The two programs arecarried 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 high-
precision$ high-speed manufacturing processes needed for low-cost mass production ofreliable 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 -F years
e"en if the programs reali5e rapid ad"ances. While i 'olymer E batteries potentially
could cost less than i7; and i 1on E systems$ achie"ement of lower costs will
depend critically on the successful de"elopment of low-cost cell designs and
manufacturing processes in the years ahead.
*
8/13/2019 b Tap Report
106/131
APPE*+- A
EEC"!+CVE4+CEBA""E!#+&/!%A"+/?.E"+/A+!E
3( ?.E"+/&/!BA""E!#*EVE/PE!A*.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