| Back to main menu? | Back to Index of Entries? |
GM Volt is a hoax if it depends on Lithium.
| The chimera of Lithium, like the hoax of Hydrogen, keeps drawing flies ... and the dumber media. "Lithium...is not ready for prime time...", says a June 19, 2007 article; who knows, Toyota may be changing its plan, and using Lithium after all. But if so, it's a deep, dark secret. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of Lithium, as we do, we are inevitably led back to either lead-acid or NiMH. NiMH actually has 50% greater energy density than the A123 batteries planned for the VOLT, since due to their flat discharge curve, you have to BUY 16 kWh to be able to USE only 8 kWh, and it weighs 400 lbs., even without the cooling system needed to keep them stable. But 400 lbs. of EV-95 NiMH batteries hold 12 kWh at least, all of it usable, for an energy density 50% greater than the A123 Lithium. And, of course, no Lithium battery EV has ever gone more than 50,000 miles without severe degradation, none has ever gone 100,000 miles (any contradictions welcomed, call 562-430-2495 with any other info!). NiMH underwent DAILY testing on the Pomona test track for YEARS in ACTUAL CARS: an EV technician, Ivan W., had the job of driving RAV4-EV around and around, under test conditions, with the data fed back to Japan. The incremental changes improved NiMH, but more importantly, it gave us millions of miles and tens of millions of cell-life data to analyze. No such actual data is available or planned for Lithium. From a life-cycle-cost perspective (origination charge, logistic support, sunset charge or scrap value, divided by useful life), Lead acid or NiMH beats Lithium up and down the block, and then some. Lithium isn't even in the same ball park as NiMH or Lead when it comes to cost; it's almost as ridiculous as "Dot hydrogen hivay, ve vill built eet...". Uneducated nincompoops say these things. Of course, some day, the promise of Lithium MIGHT be fulfilled; but that day, apparently, has not yet come, despite more than 20 years of intensive empty promises and flashy vaporware. Many of us sceptics would love to be proven wrong, but, like the guy who refuses to play 3-card-monte, we don't think there's much of a chance. Most likely, Lithium is going to have the same problems that prohibit its use in cars today. We don't see a lot of Lithium plug-in Prii, because the conversion is so expensive; nor are there any plug-in Lithium cars for sale (with the exception of the ACP eBox, and the "planned" delivery of 8 Tesla per month -- if you believe it). So if Lithium's so good, where's the cars using it?? There remain HUNDREDS of 2002 and earlier NiMH EVs on the road with over 100 miles range and which travel up to 80 mph. That's many times the number of production Lithium EVs, if there are any "production" Lithium cars at all. Obviously, GM is living in a dream-world, if they think they can buy 16 kWh and only use 8 kWh; that doubles your cost! And 8 kWh only provides 32 miles range, in a full-sized non-aerodynamic car; now what if it becomes 12 miles, then 8 miles, then 4 miles, by 50K miles on the odometer? Surprise! Reality is like that. Toyota, the battery leader, the king of battery technology, has provided the ultimate endorsement of NiMH over Lithium. If Lithium is to be used in cars, said Toyota, it won't be soon. In 2007, at least, they were planning on continuing to use NiMH. Of course, this article, like all the GM propaganda, spreads the GM fantasy that NiMH is less energy dense than Lithium; as we have seen, that's just not true for the A123. It is true for the 18-650, which have 56 kWh in the same 900 lbs. that NiMH only has 30 kWh; but they are "unprotected" Li, subject to runaway without a superb BMS. ------NY TIMES BLOGS, June 17, 2007, updated Apr. 2008: 'A third generation of the Toyota Prius gas-electric hybrid car has been eagerly anticipated....journalists had been tipped to expect it sometime in 2008, as a 2009 model. '...the car has been delayed by at least six months, to early 2009. 'Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun, a Japanese industrial publication, reported last Friday [NOTE: THIS IS IN 2007] that the delay was caused by snags in developing new batteries...The next Prius was expected to use new lithium-ion batteries. Currently, the Prius uses nickel metal hydride batteries, which take up more space and aren't as efficient. 'Whether the delay is real or not, it appears that the battery problems are plenty real. Previously, Toyota set a goal of reducing the size of the battery pack in the next Prius by 50 percent, while also increasing its efficiency. 'The delay is apparently to give Toyota engineers time to retro-fit the new Prius design with the old-style nickel metal hydride batteries they'd hoped to be rid of. At least initially, the new Prius will still have nickel metal hydride batteries, Nikkan Kogyo reported. Lithium ion power is not ready for prime time (remember all the exploding laptop batteries made of the same substance?). Lithium ion gets unstable under extreme pressure - apparently too unstable for automotive use at this stage of its development. The apparent failure of Toyota, and its development partners, to come up with a viable next generation battery pack is a serious setback. Will its competitors use this to try to seize a competitive advantage? Calling Chevrolet: Where is the Volt?' http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/2009-prius-not-so-fast/ REPEAT: "Lithium...is not ready for prime time...". Now, obviously, Lithium in a car is not going to explode, as this idjit suggests; we know how to avoid that (no high power draw at low voltages, for example); but ironically he's right for other reasons, that of life-cycle-cost, effective energy density, and shelf-life. BUT, there's an envelope of problems with Lithium that limit its applicability: for the highest energy density, you have to protect against thermal runaway, and there's the durability problem; with protected batteries, there's the lower energy density (Altairnano, for example, is reputedly about the same energy density as EV-95); if you use A123, there's the degradation problem at 2.3v, and the ultra- flat discharge curve. And cost, and shelf life, and durability...and so on. |
| Back to main menu? | Back to Index of Entries? |