Welcome to the Energy Blog


  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

    Jim


  • SUBSCRIBE TO THE ENERGY BLOG BY EMAIL

After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum

Statistics

Blog powered by Typepad

« Solix Biofuels/Colorado State Deleloping Novel Algae Production System | Main | SCE Signs 1,500 MW Contract with Alta Windpower »

December 29, 2006

Comments

Gary S

This is a VERY positive sign that ALTI can deliver on its holy grail.

amazingdrx

Great news! Could mass production turn the 75k price tag per pack to 7500? how many years will that take?

Too long. A 40 mile range in an economy car would take 5kwh of storage. About 11k. Then a fuel cell backup generator could take over. A 30k price tag would seem reasonable for that type of design.

The V2G feature possible with this kind of vehicle could help defray the monthly payments. Another idea is for power companies to lease these vehicles to other companies with fleets, then use them to operate in v2G mode when they are plugged in.

That way the cost could be split, the vehicle serving it's driving function and its V2G function. The lease price could be equal to ICE vehicle leasing.

Kerry Beauhrt

NO, the battery packs do NOT cost $75,000
apiece. They cost approximately $14,000 each.
Most of the $750,000 was for engineering service fees performed by Altair in engineering the batteries and packs for the vehicles Phoenix is using. So far, every single forum has committed this confusion. Isn't the internet just grand? It can spread more ignorance in less time than a boatload of gossipy old maids ever could. Just like TV. It was going to make every citizen well informed. Over 80% of these folks think we've been visited by aliens. And you want these bozos sitting on a jury and deciding your fate?

Beek

If off-peak electricity prices is 8 cents a kWh and peak prices are 15, then a V2G with 50 kWh BEV will produce $3.50 a day, or about $1000 a year. The life cycle of the nano Li-ion batteries is about 1,000 discharges. So after $3,000 of income, the battery pack needs to be changed. I doubt 50 kWh of battery will be less than $3,000. So V2G is loss making and will not happen, until the economics change.

Kerry, before you blast blogs for spreading ignorance, may I say that it is the responsibility of Altair nano to publish the facts such as the price of a battery pack. I doubt Altairnano website has that listed. Prove me wrong by supplying link to Altairnano battery pack prices pls. How do you expect readers of the Altairnano press release not to arrive at this reasonable conculsion?

It is the responsibility of Altairnano to design an intelligent press release. Otherwise, if there is any ignorance spread, it would be the responsibility of Altairnano and not the blogs, as far as I can tell.

Martin  Holland

Altair claims a lifecycles of tested lifecycles of 18000 with testing apparently continuing

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/altair_nanotech.html#comments

Also see the post in The Energy Blog. Lets not unecessarily publicize the competition. -- Jim from The Energy Blog

That comes to $63000 but over 40 years ($112000 where i live larger difference)

What would be interesting is use a 3kwh pack with something like a FP3 motor

http://www.freepistonpower.com/proposedhev.htm

Out of curiosity I worked out that if the Saft batteries in the proposed powertrain where replaced with Altair nanosafe batteries they would weigh 28 kgs to have the the same power density and should be good for at least 231840 km and give 12km plug in range to boot.
(lifetime of most cars and this would be very abused batteries it will probably be further as the engine would supplly some power directly)

range for a 60 litre tank would be 3750kM

Average cost per km based on $1.20 fuel is 1.92cents

At 13 cents kwh a battery car costs at .2 kwh per kilometer costs 2.6 cents per kilometre

power-train weight would be would be 40kg engine, 28kg battery, 52 kg wheel motors=120kg


similar performance conventional car 168kg engine 48 kg transmission = 216kg

Costs

I understand that the holden alloytec costs about $5000 to make (this is a vaguely remembered number)

This give an engine manufacturing cost in volume of $29 per kg

Projected FP3 cost in volume 40kg x$29= $1160

Battery cost altair nano (in moderate volume) $1000kwh 28kg pack is about 2.5kwh

Cost $2500

Electric Motors in volume cost as suggested here

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/success/delphi_4_3_01.pdf

$450 per motors x 4= $1800

Note this a 4 wheel drive system that adds considerable cost and fuel efficiency reductions in conventional cars.

Electronic controller "this is a big guess" say $1500

Total $1500+$1800+$1160+$2500=$6960 saving of $500 dollars on the a equivalent conventional drive Note the batterys and the FP3 combined have a power output of 152kw

Weight savings of 100kg on the engine and packaging efficiencies (smaller drivetrain size) would save say another 150kg in body weight

A commodore costs say $20000 to manufacture total weight 1600kg cost per kilo 12.5

Saving on car of 150kgs is $1875

Total saved $1875+$500= $2365

Average fuel consumption of a commodore is 10.5 litres a 100km and probably more in the city.

Fuel consumption reduction is 85%

Transportation is approx 74% of oil consumption at present time.

World oil consumption is 82 million barrels a day approx.

Dollar savings

Possible savings 51.578 million barrels reduced consumption dollar value $11483 billion dollars per year

Saving of $1500 per car 70 million cars sold worldwide per year saving $1050 billion

Saving on servicing (brakes, oil replacement extra) on the worlds 570 million cars $400 per car $2280 billion

Total saving $14813 Billion

I must be wrong here because this seems a stupidly high figure, it is a very sizable proportion of the world economy, either the world economy is misreported or lots of countries are buying their oil alot cheaper than $61 dollars a barrel

This sort of saving also cuts the energy consumption footprint down enough so that cleaner alternatives would work could supply the energy needs.

And the gear with the a slight caveat on the FP3 motor can be purchased today, I cannot however see why the FP3 motor wouldnt work though.
The efficiency claimed for the FP3 is pretty high but combined cycle will get 59% so it is possible to get this kind of efficiency with a thermal system.

Food for thought anyhow. Its the first time I have been able to put together a case that even vaguely seemed viable, I thought the tech was getting close but it may already be there.

Cheers and have a Happy New Year

Martin  Holland

I should have added that the Freepiston power site claims a fuel efficiency of 1.6 litres to the 100km, for a city cycle.

I would imagine though that most people would top up at home (plug in) it would only take half an hour to recharge 3kwh an reduce the bother even further of going to a petrol station. It should give a car 20km of extended range.
Do that everyday and you end up with 7300km of petrol station free driving a year.

Also note a diesel genset can nearly as efficient.

Cheers

amazingdrx

14k Kerry? where was that figure? I seem to recall that too.

That changes everything. around 50 miles in an economy car with 2500 dollars worth of batteries.

That would bring an electric economy car in at around 12k or a 100 mile range at 15k.

Or 50 mile plugin with plenty of extra fuel based mileage from a fuel cell backup in a serial hybrid for maybe 20k. With fuel savings these vehicles would already beat ICE cars on cost.

Given a V2G function where the uitility pays to use your car as a backup, the serial hybrid design would have a few years payback.

Very good news!

Beek

Cycle life for the nano-phosphate-iron-lion is most likely 5000 to 10000. I stand corrected.

http://www.a123systems.com/html/tech/life.html

see chart on top right

Note that the income stream is actually much less than $1000 a year simply because the vehicle will not be garaged during peak hours (mainly day time) throughout the year. Assume a 50% "Availability Factor" of when the vehicle is connected to the grid during peak hours and that it will not be used for the rest of the day. That reduces income to $500 a year.

A quick calculation shows that for a 50 kWh BEV with a 50% Availability Factor and 7 cents difference between peak and non-peak rates, and a 5000 life cycle, the cost of the pack should be no more than $10,000 for this to make economic sense. This calculation includes the cost of the inverter/controller necessary to backcharge the grid at about $2000.

marcus

Beek, I think your calculations are too simplistic. V2G makes plenty of economic sense. Check out this paper:
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/KempTom-V2G-Fundamentals05.PDF

Beek

Marcus, after taking a cursury look, I think I spot a fundamental error in the paper you have linked.

The paper assumes that peak kWh prices and off-peak prices cycles 400 times a day, i.e. in a matter of minutes. They assume a BEV of approx. 12 kWh is selling 270 kWh worth of electricity back to the grid PER DAY!

But peak/off-peak cycles only once a day, and I dont think this will change. And most likely, at peak times, your car is not in the garage but at work, anyways.

Even then it still does not makes sense. Tables 2 and 3:

margin = ((4829 - 2374) / 2374)/73% = 146%

So if off-peak rate is 10 cents, the peak rate must be 25 cents, for the 400 cycles a day!

Too many unrealistic assumptions, IMO.

Flabby

amazingdrx, where did you get your information on how much the altair batteries cost?

marcus

Beek, I think you misunderstand some of the terminology. Peak power is extra power (which requires the startup of reserve generators) that comes online for short intervals when demand is particularly high. It does not refer to the pricing regimes normally corresponding with day/night cycles. ie it is not simply a matter of balancing the cost of "off peak" power pricing vs "peak power" pricing. Utility companies have to use expensive capital or pay other companies premiums to generate extra power when demand exceeds the normal supply. This can be done more cheaply using V2G and therefore the utility will pay vehicle owners a premium that more than compensates for battery deterioration, costs of "off peak" vs "peak" power etc.
The economics of power generation are a bit more complicated than you seem to think.

Ender

Beek - "And most likely, at peak times, your car is not in the garage but at work, anyways."

So what - at work it still can be connected to the grid and available.

"So if off-peak rate is 10 cents, the peak rate must be 25 cents, for the 400 cycles a day!"

It is not just peak and off peak. Utilities have to maintain spinning reserve which now is a large generator spinning at almost full speed but not actually generating any power but ready in an instant to start if another generator drops out. Now a utility will pay for a certain amount of capacity simply to be on standby whether it is used or not. Rates can be as high as 30cents per kW of ready capacity. After this the power used is also charged for. V2G can potentially replace this wasteful practice with online instantly accessible power. Just having a certain amount available will generate income.

V2G cars will aggregate their services along the line of cellular phones or parking stations will offer free parking for V2G cars as long as they can use their batteries.

Beek

Marcus, a local grid does not go through 400 cycles PER day, whether it be generator cycling/throttling or spot purchases through tie-ins. Moreover, the authors assume that the G2V is buying at 10 cents a kWh and selling at 25 cents a kWh, through each of these cycles. A 12 kWh battery pack is selling 270 kWh at this differential through the 24 hour day. If you think this is "complicated", then explain to me how you get such extremes in input and output prices per kWh every few minutes, if you can.

Have you read the paper yourself? You seem to be ignorant about the very paper you are recommending. Try to answer the criticism instead of telling me it is "too complicated". I am all ears.

Beek

Futhermore Marcus, are you suggesting that the utilities will have a different pricing regime for V2G as opposed to residential consumption, when they both come off the same connection to the distribution grid? Pls. explain. Does not make sense. As far as I know, residential rates are single predictable cycle. Not 400 per day with a 146% differential.

Beek

Ender, no office park will pay for the additional infrastructure (upgrade of transmission, substations, transformers, lines, charger, controllers, inverters) needed to have your car be on V2G at the office. They will charge you at home for that infratructure. More at the office.

Spinning reserves will be the first to be replaced by nono-lion batteries by the utilities themselves. They do not need V2G for that one.

Standby power at a 30 cent differential may be a better argument. But such differential is for a minute capacity, probably not more than 2% of capacity. Otherwise, it is better for the utility to buy the power (at 4 cents) and just burn it, as opposed to pay 30 cents. This only makes sense if you are talking about a minute amount of standby power.

Well, for a minute amount (lets say 2%) of standby power, you do not need the whole nation tied V2G. V2G can provide standby for 50%, maybe 75% of capacity.

The short of it is that once V2G comes online, the 30 cents differential will disappear as there will be far more supply of backup power than there is need for it.

Again this points to the unreasonable assumption by the authors that there are 400 cycles PER DAY with a 15 cent differential and that a 12 kWh vehicle will be selling/standbying 270 kWh equivalent of electricity back to the grid per day.

Have you read the paper Ender?

marcus

Beek, the 400 pertains to requests for regulatory services, not peak power cycles. Demand fluctuates at high frequency (ie moment to moment) and utility companies have to balance this in real-time (See this paper http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/39/10902/00506375.pdf?arnumber=506375). In the paper the prices paid by utilities for these services are taken straight from past data, see http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/datamine/iso_da_anc_pandq.htm

Please cite evidence that this does not exist.

In this example, the RAV EV has a battery rated at 27.4 kWH capacity although they assume only 21.9 kWh is available so I don't know where you got 12 from. However in this case the line is limiting and so the available power capacity is limited to 15 kW. Now using their formula for calculating the net energy transfered over the time period you get 9855 kWh for a year which ends up as 27 kWh a day on average, not 270 kWh. However this figure as far as I can tell includes the net uploaded and the net downloaded since the utility pays for transfers in both directions. So in any one direction that would be 13.5 kWh a day. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a 27.4 kWh battery.

Now, can you explain your numbers?

marcus

Beek, the 400 pertains to requests for regulatory services, not peak power cycles. Demand fluctuates at high frequency (ie moment to moment) and utility companies have to balance this in real-time (See this paper http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/39/10902/00506375.pdf?arnumber=506375). In the paper the prices paid by utilities for these services are taken straight from past data, see http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/datamine/iso_da_anc_pandq.htm

Please cite evidence that this does not exist.

In this example, the RAV EV has a battery rated at 27.4 kWH capacity although they assume only 21.9 kWh is available so I don't know where you got 12 from. However in this case the line is limiting and so the available power capacity is limited to 15 kW. Now using their formula for calculating the net energy transfered over the time period you get 9855 kWh for a year which ends up as 27 kWh a day on average, not 270 kWh. However this figure as far as I can tell includes the net uploaded and the net downloaded since the utility pays for transfers in both directions. So in any one direction that would be 13.5 kWh a day. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a 27.4 kWh battery.

Now, can you explain your numbers?

marcus

Just to add, that 13.5 kWh is net. So if there are 200 uploads and 200 down loads per day each transfer on average is only 33.75Wh. Also the the battery is only depleted by a small amount at any particular time because downloads of energy are just as frequent as uploads.

CM

It's unlikely that anyone would dedicate all of their battery capacity to V2G, unless they weren't planning on driving anytime soon. There would have to be some sort of user selectable percentage setting based on predicted need for driving power.

Of course, if high energy batteries get really cheap, utilities would buy and use them directly for load balancing, and not bother with the potential difficulties of V2G.

marcus

CM you state the obvious. And yes, if there was a cheap way for the utilities themselves to store the energy then, well, all our energy problems would be solved. But until that golden day the most economical strategy seems to be V2G. It has more potential than just balancing current energy grids, it also has the potential to stabilize large scale intermittent renewable sources. For details see:
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/KempTom-V2G-Implementation05.PDF

John F.

"Spinning reserves will be the first to be replaced by nono-lion batteries by the utilities themselves."

When utilities use batteries to replace spinning reserve, they don't use lithium-ion, which is very expensive. They use other batteries that can store much more energy per dollar, such redox flow batteries and lead-acid.

Vehicle and utility requirements are different. Energy density and power density are important for vehicles, so we're willing to pay the higher price for lithium and NiMH. Size and weight are less important for stationary applications.

Bill Hewitt

If the price is say $15000 for a 35KWh pack, capable of 5000 full cycle discharges, this has the capacity to revolutionise domestic electicity service also. The storage problem is effectively solved, and wind/solarPV will be able to be expanded by individulas to cover their electrical needs.

A hugely exciting development.

Ryan

Nice! Ill have my suv soon and i have a plan on putting some accessories on it from suv and truck accessories.

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .




Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles