Battery Technology and Energy Transition

The Los Angeles Times had a pretty good piece this weekend profiling the inventor behind A123 Systems (based in Boston), and the tremendous hurdles that now exist for any US company that wishes to manufacture in the United States. Fighting for ‘Made in the USA’ therefore is an excellent portrait of how we lose a couple of ways, when the manufacturing process bleeds out to the developing world. It’s not just the jobs. Worse, we give away techniques. This only lengthens further the timeline, before we eventually resurrect a competent manufacturing base domestically. Towards the end of the article there was a small ray of hope offered in that A123—after building most of its capacity so far in China—will open its first plant in Detroit.

In March I spent some time talking with an A123 representative at the MIT Energy Conference in Boston. I like what A123 is doing, and am particularly interested in their utility scale storage solutions. That said, battery technology for electric vehicles faces more hurdles than are presently encountered in the sorry state of US manufacturing. In short, there are sobering limits to car batteries that box them in either by weight, price, or life-duration. And progress, unfortunately, over the past 100 years in battery technology–despite the hype–has been slow. I’m not universally negative on the prospect for EVs, however, and I anticipate owning one myself at some point. But for those who are thinking there will be widespread adoption of EVs or that they’ll replace the oil powered vehicle fleet, you should think again.

Low Tech Magazine has an exellent review this month of the past century’s developments in batteries, and the electric vehicle. Some of the issues touched upon there were also covered in mine and Chris Nelder’s shared Notes on The October 2009 Deutsche Bank/Sankey Peak Oil Report. In that Deutsche Bank report, an adoption model for the global uptake of electric vehicles was put forth that I think is totally unrealistic. But it was Chris Nelder, in the above link, who put up some quick and helfpul numbers to that flawed model and who clarified the problem more fully.

As we depart the domain of extreme power density afforded by oil and the internal combustion engine, it is simply not possible to make machines that combine the same power, distance, and speed via stored energy. This is not necessarily bad news. As we go through energy transition, falling away from a world of peak energy-density to a world of diffuse, lower energy-density, it’s simply important to see EVs as a tactic to mitigate and not replace the loss of high-powered transport. In addition, it won’t be possible economically to effect wide adoption of these higher-priced vehicles, especially during a long period in which the societal wealth afforded by cheap fossil fuel energy is in broad-based withdrawal. The bulk of the population will therefore transition to electrified public transport, where electricity will be distributed more efficiently–mostly owing to the lower rolling resistance of rail. Accordingly, it’s difficult to see where a rich growth market will develop for battery makers such as A123. My best guess now is that the crucial area of storage, as part of new power transmission, will produce the bigger challenge for these technologies to confront.

-Gregor

Photos: 1910 Waverley Coupe electric car.


  • vikmurthy

    Gregor,

    As usual, I enjoyed reading your informed perspective. By now, you have undoubtedly seen the Wall Street Journal article on shale gas.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023

    I would be interested in hearing at some point your perspective on the notion asserted by the article's author that “The reserves and production of new energy resources tend to increase over time, not decrease.”

    Thanks.

  • gregor.us

    Reserve Growth is a real phenomenon, though it's important to remember that it's a shift in our assessment of resources and not so much in the actual quantity of the resource base.

    My quick comment in general on the Jaffe piece:
    http://twitter.com/GregorMacdonald/status/13787

    G

  • alphaJD

    There is a lot that the battery industry is not saying as to why battery technology has not evolved much in the past century. Search for $ and you may find the answer. In the mean time soldiers dies because of dead batteries in their GPS and the oil industry still enjoy overwelming profits over overinflated oil price.

  • http://twitter.com/ianrmc Ian M

    I disagree with your comment that the market for vehicle batteries is likely to be limited. Even if, as you point out, the future size of the car fleet is far smaller than it is today, it would still represent tremendous growth considering we are starting from close to nil. As for AONE's prospects, I have no idea. They face tremendous competition from Japanese and other Asian companies that are far larger and can conceivably throw more money at development.

  • gregor.us

    If you look at Chris Nelder's work in the document linked in the post, it makes me lean towards the idea that EV adoption will be so slow–and the costs associated with EV manufacturing do high–that it may not have enough growth to provide healthy profit margins for everyone in the supply chain. This is one of the problems that occurs when you transition from high energy-density paradigms to very low energy-density paradigms.

    I do see growth! But I lean towards the industrial side: trains, powergrid, buildings–that's where I see battery growth. In places where you can couple a lot of users (humans) with the batteries.

    Best,

    G

  • gregor.us

    Reserve Growth is a real phenomenon, though it's important to remember that it's a shift in our assessment of resources and not so much in the actual quantity of the resource base.

    My quick comment in general on the Jaffe piece:
    http://twitter.com/GregorMacdonald/status/13787

  • gregor.us

    DETROIT, May 13 (Reuters) – High cost and limited performance will keep the number of electric cars at only 2 percent to 5 percent of the U.S. market a decade from now, a study by Deloitte Consulting issued on Thursday shows.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN13105697201

    Not vouching for the study. But, I agree with the general trajectory of EV adoption: much, much slower than currently theorized.

    G

  • gregor.us

    http://ceo.newsbasis.com/a123-disappoints-annou

    As a “story stock”, A123 generated (and still generates) a great deal of enthusiasm among investors sanguine about the cleantech sector. But does an objective look at A123 warrant enthusiasm?

    The company grew only 5.6% year over year, which is well below what you would expect from a leader in an explosive growth sector. That is the growth rate one would expect of a mature player in a mature industry. If you dig into the revenue mix, it turns out the growth was from service revenue, with actual revenue from product shrinking to $19.8 million from $20.1 million (down 1.5%). –@djsiry

  • Militiades

    The political leadership in the United States is horrid when it comes to looking out for the economic interests of the middle class manufacturing worker.

    The United States reminds me of Great Britain many decades ago. Invented in Britain and manufactured somewhere else, while the standard of living of the vast majority continued to fall. Those that believe that the Obama administration is going to look out for manufacturers in the United states here are going to be sadly mistaken. Here, only the bankers matter.

    These folks are a lot of talk and very little follow though, just like our president. A123 will probably not survive long enough to cash in.

  • Militiades

    The political leadership in the United States is horrid when it comes to looking out for the economic interests of the middle class manufacturing worker.

    The United States reminds me of Great Britain many decades ago. Invented in Britain and manufactured somewhere else, while the standard of living of the vast majority continued to fall. Those that believe that the Obama administration is going to look out for manufacturers in the United states here are going to be sadly mistaken. Here, only the bankers matter.

    These folks are a lot of talk and very little follow though, just like our president. A123 will probably not survive long enough to cash in.

  • Richard Elder

    The premise upon which your critique of the EV is based contains one serious error. The notion that the EV is an expensive alternative to the ICE vehicle is incorrect. Comparing Gen1 limited production current EV vehicles to highly subsidized ICE’s with a century of design and manufacturing history is unacceptable.

    Electric motors are inherently more reliable, more efficient and far less expensive than ICE’s. An all-electric commuter car, complete less battery, could likely be mass produced and marketed at a profit for $10,000.  Battery cost is the issue.  And battery technology is more likely to follow the Moore’s Law path than the Oil Depletion path.

    Unlike ICE’s, batteries can be rapidly changed out, charged from widely distributed home solar power, leased and billed by use time, and updated without discarding the vehicle.  Long distance travel can be accommodated by  shared ownership or rental arrangements of liquid fuel vehicles.

    The above facts in no way negate the extreme difficulty of transition to sustainability, but it does no good to set up straw men as targets.

  • gregor.us

    I’m actually quite positive on EV adoption in urban areas. I am also very negative on the ability, however, to cross certain thresholds in power density–in battery development. I hope I’m wrong, but I see no evidence whatsoever to think the optimal mix of battery weight and stored energy capacity can escape the clutches of present limits. I think the history of battery development has been moderately positive in this regard. Just not enough to cross a threshold.

    But that’s OK, because in cities, I see that very small cars (which also do not waste incremental gains on interior gadgetry) can be adopted widely. This will be a huge environmental benefit in dense areas, especially as EV adoption will also trigger behavior changes. We will do “less” but regard it as “more.” :-)

    G

  • gregor.us

    I’m actually quite positive on EV adoption in urban areas. I am also very negative on the ability, however, to cross certain thresholds in power density–in battery development. I hope I’m wrong, but I see no evidence whatsoever to think the optimal mix of battery weight and stored energy capacity can escape the clutches of present limits. I think the history of battery development has been moderately positive in this regard. Just not enough to cross a threshold.

    But that’s OK, because in cities, I see that very small cars (which also do not waste incremental gains on interior gadgetry) can be adopted widely. This will be a huge environmental benefit in dense areas, especially as EV adoption will also trigger behavior changes. We will do “less” but regard it as “more.” :-)

    G