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



Download 1.11 Mb.
Page2/13
Date19.05.2018
Size1.11 Mb.
#49195
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   13

TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

List of Tables ix

List of Figures x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi

Section I. INTRODUCTION 1

I.1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 3

I.2. STUDY APPROACH 4

SECTION II. BATTERIES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES 6

II.1. BATTERY TARGETS/REQUIREMENTS 7

II.2. CANDIDATE BATTERIES 15

II.3. EV-BATTERY COST FACTORS 19

SECTION III. FINDINGS 25

III.1. NICKEL-METAL HYDRIDE 25

III.2. LITHIUM-ION 43

III.3. LITHIUM-METAL POLYMER 60

III.4. AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS 71

SECTION IV. CONCLUSIONS 91

APPENDIX A 95

Electric Vehicle Battery Information Questionnaire 95

1. Questions For Battery Developers and Suppliers 95

2. Questions for Automobile Manufacturers 98

I. Experience with batteries presently in public and/or restricted use in electric vehicles manufactured by your company 98

II. Batteries under Evaluation or Consideration for EV Application 99

III. Cost of Batteries 99

IV. Technical and Cost Issues Needing Resolution for EV Batteries 99

V.Barriers and Strategies for EV-battery Commercialization 100

APPENDIX B 101

Organizations Visited by BTAP 2000 101

AC Propulsion 101

Aerovironment, Inc. 101

Argonne National Laboratory 101

Argo-Tech 101

DaimlerChrysler 101

Ford Motor Company 102

General Motors 102

GM Ovonic L.L.C. 102

U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium 102

Bolloré 103

SAFT 103


VARTA 103

Honda R&D Americas, Inc. 103

Japan Storage Battery Company, Ltd. 103

Shin-Kobe Electric Machinery Company 104

Panasonic EV Energy Company 104

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. 104

Toyota Motor Corporation 104

APPENDIX C 105

Characteristics of MoA Electric Vehicles 105

APPENDIX D 107

Representative Battery Abuse Tests 107

A. Mechanical 107

B. Thermal 107

C. Electrical 107

APPENDIX e 108

EV-battery Cost Target Allowance 108

APPENDIX F 109

Lead-Acid and Nickel-Cadmium EV Batteries 109

1. Lead-Acid Batteries 109

2. Nickel-Cadmium Batteries 114

APPENDIX G 116

Electrofuel Manufacturing Company 116

APPENDIX H 117

Varta AG 117

References 119

Authors’ Biographies 120


List of Tables



Table II.1. Requirements for EV Batteries (Adopted from USABC)….……...7

Table III.1. Characteristics of NiMH EV Modules…………………………...37

Table III.2. SAFT’s Projected Li-Ion Module Costs….…………………….…51

Table III.3. Characteristics of Li-Ion Batteries………………………………56

Table C.1. Specifications of California MoA EVs……….………………..…105

Table C.2. Energy-Use and Range Estimates for California MoA

EVs with Advanced Batteries ……………………………………………….….106



Table D.1. Abuse Tests for EV Cells and Modules……………..……………107

Table E.1. Net Present Value (NPV) of EV Energy Cost Savings……….…108

Table F.1. Characteristics of VRLA EV-Battery Modules……………..….111


List of Figures



Figure II.1. Battery and Electric-Vehicle-Development Timeline…………16

Figure II.2. Major Cost Stages in the Production of EV-battery Packs…....20

Figure II.3. Cost Components of EV-battery Packs…………….………….….23

Figure III.1. Life Test Data for NiMH EV Packs…………………………….…38

Figure III.2. Charge Acceptance vs. Temperature of Improved NiMH Batteries…………………………………………………………………….………39

Figure III.3. Cost Estimates for NiMH EV Modules…………………………..41

Figure III.4. Cost Aggregation for NiMH Modules…………………………...42

Figure III.5. Cost Estimates for Li-Ion EV Modules…………………………..58

Figure III.6. Cost Aggregation for Li-Ion Modules…………………………...59

Figure III.7. Battery and EV Interactive Development Timeline and the Status of the Advanced Batteries of this Study...…………...…….…………..70

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was submitted in fulfillment of the State of California Air Resources Board (ARB), Agreements Nos. 99-609, 99-610, 99-611, and 99-612 with the members of the BTAP 2000 Battery Technical Advisory Panel, Menahem Anderman, Fritz R. Kalhammer (Chair), and Donald MacArthur. Thomas Evashenk was the ARB coordinator for the study project; his understanding and support is gratefully acknowledged.



The Panel members give special thanks to consultant Dr. James George for his valuable assistance in important phases of the study, including preparation of appendices and review of the entire report for technical accuracy and clarity.
Last but not least, the Panel expresses its gratitude to the participating organizations without whose assistance this report would not have been possible. Leading battery developers and manufacturers, automobile manufacturers, and a number of other organizations and individuals associated with electric vehicle battery and battery materials development and evaluation freely provided information on their technologies, plans and perspectives. Most of them also assisted by reviewing the Panel’s findings to ensure accuracy of this report.
The final presentation of the Panel’s findings and conclusions, however, is the responsibility of the authors.

Section I. INTRODUCTION



Background.
When the California Air Resources Board began to consider battery-powered EVs as a potentially major strategy to reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality, it did so with the view that the broadest market would be served by electric vehicles with advanced batteries, and it structured its ZEV credit mechanisms to encourage the development and deployment of EVs with such batteries. Consistent with this view, the Air Resources Board defined the scope of work for the first Battery Technical Advisory Panel study to focus on advanced batteries.
In December 1995, that panel presented its report on the “Performance and Availability of Batteries for Electric Vehicles” (1). The report concluded that, despite encouraging development progress, advanced batteries capable of providing electric vehicles with substantially increased performance and range were unlikely to be available in the quantities and at the costs required to implement the early-year provisions of the 1990 Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation. This conclusion was among the factors considered in the 1996 review of the ZEV regulations. The regulations, revised to allow additional time for development and in-vehicle evaluation of advanced batteries, now call for introduction of significant numbers of electric vehicles by the six largest suppliers to the California automobile market beginning in 2003.
Over the past five years, leading EV-battery developers worldwide—several with cost-sharing support from the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC)—have continued to invest large resources (estimated at more than $500 million dollars), and have made important progress in the development of the advanced EV batteries that were examined in the 1995 BTAP report. Additional EV-battery developers have surfaced, and leading automobile manufacturers in Japan and the U.S. have become heavily involved in both the development and deployment of early commercial electric vehicles (primarily in California), and in the evaluation of advanced EV batteries for use in these vehicles.
On the other hand, several important EV-battery programs were discontinued during the last few years, in good part because their sponsors were losing confidence that a market would develop for EV batteries with the currently projected performance and cost characteristics. The experience of the past decade makes it clear that the development of batteries for electric vehicles is facing major technical and cost barriers, and that only those organizations willing to take substantial financial risks and capable of providing extensive resources over a number of years have a realistic chance of overcoming these barriers.
After five years of intensive effort and significant progress in developing and evaluating EV batteries, a key question in the electric vehicle debate is still whether advanced batteries can be available in 2003 that would make electric vehicles acceptable to a large number of owners and operators of automobiles. The answer to this question is an important input to the California Air Resources Board's ZEV regulation review required this year. The authors of this report were asked to assist ARB in developing an answer, working together as a new Battery Technical Advisory Panel (BTAP 2000, termed the Panel in the following). While the focus of BTAP like the first battery panel was to be on advanced batteries because of their basic promise for superior performance and range, ARB asked the BTAP 2000 Panel to also briefly review the lead-acid battery technologies used in some of the EVs deployed in California. This request recognized that EVs with lead-acid batteries were introduced in the 1990s by several major automobile manufacturers beginning with General Motors’ EV1, and that EVs equipped with recently developed lead-acid batteries were performing significantly better than earlier EVs.



Download 1.11 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   13



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
high cost
steps required
coming years
commercial viability