Category Archives: Personal Automobiles

IBM’s Lithium-Air Battery Project


IBM is working on a lithium-air battery that they believe has enormous potential to slash the weight and cost of battery packs.   In an Aol Energy blog posting, IBM’s Winfried Wilcke says: “Improvements to the chemistry and manufacturing methods of Lithium-ion cells have led to reliable improvements in price and performance by about 6 to 8 percent per year.” But he adds:  “…. the cost to outfit an EV with a battery pack-estimated today to add $10,000 to $15,000 to the price of Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf-will fall by only half by 2020”.   Wilcke feels this is not fast enough to make EVs go mainstream.

Wilcke is the Principle Investigator of the IBM Battery 500 Project.  Scientists theorized that combining lithium with oxygen could create a battery with unprecedented energy storage potential. According to the posting:

A key feature of this approach is that the reaction “breathes” air, taking in oxygen when it discharges and releasing oxygen while recharging. Because the battery “borrows” these molecules from the air, fewer raw materials-and less weight-needs be built into the device. This “Lithium-air” approach shows enormous theoretical potential to slash the weight and cost of battery packs. In 2009, IBM took a very long-term bet to see if it could realize this theoretical promise. The resulting project, dubbed Battery 500, aims to produce batteries able to propel an EV 500 miles on a single charge, roughly matching the range of a tank of gas.

Three years in, the results are tantalizing. Lithium-air shows the potential to store up to ten times the energy per weight of today’s commercial Lithium-ion batteries, opening the door to potentially game-changing applications. For instance, if a current EV can hold 100 miles worth of charge, a bank of Lithium-air cells promise to boost that capacity to 500 miles at similar weight.

To be sure, the scientific challenges facing the project remain daunting. After three years of work, the basic operation of rechargeable Lithium-air chemistry has been exhaustively characterized, showing the way ahead. But before Lithium-air cells can move from the laboratory to the car show room, researchers still must improve the cells’ long-term cyclability, speed-up the time needed to charge and discharge, and further drive down costs.

Still, the researchers have been knocking off these sorts of challenges so steadily that they hope to have a working a large-scale prototype within the next two years. Automotive commercialization would be further out, sometime between 2020 and 2030.

If this battery is what is needed to make the EV go mainstream, the forecast of battery commercialization of somewhere around 2020 and 2030 must be discouraging to the advocates that want to replace fossil fuels.

cbdakota

A123 Systems Li-ion Battery Maker Loses $125M In1Q


A 123 Systems Inc. expects to post a net loss of $125 million(M) for the first quarter on revenue of $10.9M.  A123 Systems revised their 2012 revenue forecast downward from $230M to $300m to $145 M to $175 M.  Because the $300M revenue initially forecast less the $125M first quarter loss equals the new $175M revenue forecast, it looks like they think the rest of the year will be pretty smooth sailing.  That is an optimistic call, it would seem, in view of only $10.9M revenue in the 1st quarter. Part of the first quarter loss was a $51M charge to fix the Fisker batter packs.  To read more click here.

Besides making batteries for Fisker which I suppose is their principal client, A123 systems have made batteries for the GM Spark, BMW, and Shanghai Automotive.  They have supplied batteries for Tata transit buses and Daimler hybrid buses.  They have installed some 90MW of storage capacity for wind farms.

A1213 participated in Obama’s Energy Department and the State of Michigan’s incentives programs.  In September 2010, A123 received a $249 million grant from the Energy Department and $125 million in state of Michigan incentives.

Do you think this company will survive?  It’s a close call,one would think.

cbdakota

California Law “Global Warming Solutions Act”—Is It A Black Hole?


The California environmentalists got Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislators to pass the “Global Warming Solutions Act” in 2006.   The law called “AB 32” is sweeping in its authority to regulate fossil fuels.  The stated objective of AB 32 is to implement a “transformative” standard that will reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  In 2013, electric power and major industrial emitters of about 160million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) will be compelled to begin reductions. This will require fuel-switching, new lower-emitting plants and contracting for lower-carbon generated power form out of state. The program is essentially Cap and Trade.  In 2015, transportation, natural gas, smaller emitters, etc accounting for about 230MTCO2e will be required to begin reductions.   How this sector is to accomplish this is not clear and what ever it is, is expected to be expensive.   Off-sets seem to be one way but these are limited and further, no emitter can use more than 8% offsets to comply with the law.

AB32 has not gone unchallenged.  For one challenge, the Renewable Fuel Association (RFA), mainly representing ethanol producers say they will be ruled out of the California market.  The law is based on the study of total emission from “seed to wheel” and California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets a standard that the ethanol producers say makes compliance too expensive.  The RFA  got an injunction to stop implementation saying that the law was  unconstitutional because it violates the commerce clause which was intended to stop states from introducing laws that would discriminate against businesses located in other states.  But the US Court of Appeal (9th District) has now lifted the injunction.  The ruling on AB 32’s constitutionality is expected soon and the lifting of the injunction probably indicates they will say it is constitutional.

AB 32 was the product of Western Climate Initiative (WCI) that was formed in 2007.  The partners in the WCI were California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington and later expanded by the addition of Montana and Utah plus the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec 2008. Each State or Province would not bound by AB32; they would have to pass similar bills in their respective legislative bodies.

All the US states dropped out when AB 32 was passed obviously not on-board with the size and scope of the act and that it was unlikely to get passed in their respective states.  The four Canadian Provinces have remained and have issued AB 32 as guidelines.   It would seem that the tar sands oil in Canada would be negatively affected by these guidelines if they become law in the four Provinces.

The trend for California to get their electrical power from out of state will be affected by this law as well.  CARB wants to limit “leakage” where emissions drop only because the generation source is out of the state.  So any emissions that occur in the process of generating the imported electricity are to be accounted for.

So why the comment about a black hole?  The size of the California market is huge. In the years past,  if California made an environmental change, the nation often followed. The Federal Clean Air Act was pretty much a product of California. Before retirement I pushed a program to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the use of up to 5% methanol mixed with ethanol in gasoline.  It was necessary to work with CARB if you wanted to do business in California. At that time they wanted to use methanol but not as a low level blend but as the primary fuel.  I think CARB and California have become too zealous.  The fact that all the states dropped out of the WCI is pretty telling.   When the price of electricity, gasoline, and other fossil fuel associated products get way out of step with rest of the nation and more industries flee the cost burden to more friendly states, I hope California residents get the message.

Next posting will look at the Californian’s wanting more solar power.  I don’t believe they know how costly this will be.

cbdakota

Automotive Engineering Execs Pessimistic About Electric Car Sales


The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) World Congress was held April 24 &25 in Detroit.  Ford, GM and Chrysler representatives were pessimistic about the future of electric vehicles according to an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).   This is somewhat surprising in that the President has been promoting electric vehicles as a centerpiece of his auto-industry policy.  President Obama has offered $2.4 billion in grants to boost some 48 projects related to electric vehicles or battery production according to the WSJ. This may have required some amount of courage as we know the Administration is a major partner in both GM and Chrysler.

Obama has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.   But if you listen to the auto company engineering execs, it would seem that Obama’s goal is not likely to be met.  Fundamentally they see the buyers not interested in the high price of the electric vehicles and the execs don’t see the prices dropping real soon.

Joseph Bakaj, vice president for powertrain engineering at Ford said:” “By 2025, we see battery electric vehicles still with too long a payback, and inadequate range,”

Sam Winegarden, executive director of powertrain-engine engineering at General Motors Co. made a similar point with a chart comparing the amount of energy delivered by a given volume or mass of fuel. On his chart, lithium-ion batteries, used in electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf and GM’s plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt, were ranked close to zero compared to gasoline and diesel fuels, which delivered the most energy for the least amount of weight and cost to the consumer.”The rumored death of the internal combustion engine is premature,” Mr. Winegarden said.

Chris Cowland, director of advanced powertrains at Chrysler Group LLC, offered some revealing figures. A conventional, gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine and transmission make up about 10% of the cost of a $30,000 car, or about $3,000, he said. Ford Chief Executive Alan Mulally at a green-car forum in New York City last week said batteries for the electric Ford Focus cost $12,000 to $15,000 for a car that is priced at $39,200, about $15,000 more than a petroleum-fueled Focus.

Robert Bienenfeld, senior manager for environment and energy strategy at Honda Motor Co.’s U.S. arm, said that by 2025, a customer who buys a plug-in hybrid could wait 10 years to recover the added upfront costs, compared with a 2025 car outfitted with a more efficient gasoline engine and transmission. The payback for an all-electric car would be even longer

Nissan on the other hand is bullish about electric cars. According to the Nashville Business Journal, Brendan Jones, director of Nissan Leaf Marketing and Sales Strategy said that the Leaf buyers have an average household income of $131,000.

I would be optimistic if the typical buyer were someone in the mid $50s income range.

h/t The Hockey Schtick

cbdakota

Only One In Three Hybrid Owners Buy Another Hybrid


Edmunds.com commissioned a survey that found that hybrid owners were not likely to buy another one.  Edmunds had R.L. Polk conduct the study that determined only 35% of hybrid car owners bought another electric/gas vehicle as a trade-in during 2011.  If the repurchase behavior among the high volume audience of Toyota Prius owners is not factored in, hybrid loyalty drops to under 25 percent.

It is thought that the increased availability of new high mileage gasoline-powered cars at lower prices is causing the shift away from the hybrid.  Edmunds reports that: “The 40-mpg category has risen from one vehicle in 2010 (the Smart ForTwo) to nine vehicles in 2012. “Even as gas prices soar, the economics of buying a hybrid vehicle don’t make much sense in many cases,” Edmunds.com Chief Economist Lacey Plache explained in a statement. “   To read more click here.

A previous posting on this site, “Evaluating The Cost Of Ownership—Electric v Gasoline Cars” provides the DOE program for comparing different makes and models of cars to determine the cost of ownership

cbdakota

 

 

Chevy Sells More Than 2000 Volts In March


The Washington Post reports that Volt sales were the best ever in March, selling more than 2000.  The figure sounds high to me but we will see tomorrow when GM  releases the official sales figures.

3 April Update.  GM reports that March sales of the Volt were 2,289 units.  

GM normally shuts down their production lines for two weeks in July to make the change-over for the next year’s model. However the inventory build-up of Volts at the dealerships may cause the company to take an extra week of down time on the Volt production line in July.  If the sales stay strong, they may cancel that extra week.

cbdakota

Evaluating The Cost of Ownership–Electric v Gasoline Cars.


The New York Times posts an essay titled “The Electric Car, Unplugged” by John Broder, 25 March 2012.  The Hockey Schtick summarized the NYT article this way:

An article in tomorrow’s New York Times proclaims, “The state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.” In typical NYT fashion, the article concludes with the implication that the failure of electric cars is the fault of the fossil-fuel industry.

Because The Hockey Schtick said it so well, you don’t need to read the NYT article, but if you choose to, click here.

I imagine it is hard for some people to put themselves in the shoes of the car buyer.  Most of us are confined within certain boundaries such as amount of money that can be spent on an automobile and what we need to be able to do with that auto.  Gas prices enter the picture but they are not the sole consideration.

My belief is that the people most hurt by higher gasoline prices are typically those having to drive a lot of miles.  Now, while that doesn’t seem like a particularly profound insight, it probably is better than assuming that a person driving a lot of miles would be disposed to buying an EV or a hybrid.  EVs are really not for the high mileage drivers.  The hybrid might seem to be competitive but it’s advantage goes away after just a few miles.

The DOE has a program for comparing different makes and models of cars to determine the cost of ownership.  Using the DOE calculator, the Chevy Cruze is a better buy than the Volt. The DOE program considers operating cost plus initial investment, expected depreciation and cost of maintenance at today’s prices.   The Volt does beat the Cruze when calculating only the cost of fuel.  The DOE uses a 2011 purchase price for the Volt at $40,280 and the Cruze at $18,125.  To use the DOE program to make your own comparisons, click here.

Now some examples: Imputing $4 per gallon gasoline, and 30,000 annual miles into the DOE program, the Honda Fit gives better cost of ownership than the Prius until the 11the year of ownership.  Hardly any autos are still around at the 300,000 miles so data after ten years seems to be of little value.  The Fit cost of ownership advantage gets better at less than 30.000 miles per year.

So where does that leave the EVs and the hybrids?   Seems to me that those go to the people that have a lot of money.  Most of them don’t really worry too much about the price of gasoline anyway.  If you only drive 10 miles to work and 10 back each day, the EV will serve you nicely but the cost of ownership would be very high due to the initial cost and very little to do with the price of gasoline.  If you use the DOE program to compare the Fit versus the Leaf at 20 mile daily commute and 7000 annual miles total with gasoline at $4 per gallon, the Fit is much lower cost of ownership than the Leaf according to the DOE program.

Another factor that is not necessarily rational but has been experienced often in the last 30 years is that gasoline price peaks and then retreats.  New lows may exceed previous lows but at the lower price, the Honda Fit, for example reaffirms the decision to avoid the costly EVs and hybrids.

The reason that EVs and hybrids are not setting sales records is not some nefarious BIG OIL plot, but rather it is rational decision making on the part of the buyer.

cbdakota

Fisker’s Quality SWAT Team?


A recall of up to 600+ Fisker Karmas is underway to replace faulty battery packs.  The batteries are manufactured by A123 Systems.  The problem that the Consumer Reports had with the Karma that failed in testing is believed to be the issue with the batteries to be recalled. The Consumer Reports were told by the Karma dealership that the failure was a:  “…fault was found in the battery and inverter cable. Both were replaced as a unit.”

A123 Systems at its Livonia, Michigan facility, said that the problem could result in “battery underperformance and decreased durability.” Fisker  said that the problem was discovered by Fisker’s “Quality SWAT Team.”

One blog has several postings from owners. It seems that besides the power train,  there are some systems problems.   Several quotes:

“I’ve had zero powertrain/drive issues but certainly did have some software glitches involving infotainment/navigation.”

“The car has some rough edges; there have been some software glitches and quirks that lead to erroneous indicator lights and some challenges with the entertainment/nav/climate command center. Many of these have already been addressed by Fisker in software updates, and I’m confident that the remaining issues will likewise ultimately be resolved.”

It seems that the Quality SWAT Team is behind the curve.

According to the Wilmington (De) News Journal:“….. in October, Fisker pushed back its production schedule for the Karma and the Nina, saying it would not begin high-volume production of its second line of hybrids in Delaware until mid- 2013. Production had been expected to get under way this year. “

cbdakota

What Makes Up The Price Of Gasoline?


Given the interest in the “whys and wherefores” of US gasoline price,  this site welcomes the work done by the Institute For Energy Research (IER).    Their full analysis can be found by clicking here,   but the following is a summary of that analysis:

IER’s analysis provides the following facts about gas prices:

  • 76 percent of the price of gasoline is determined by the price of crude oil.
  • 12 percent of the price of gasoline is determined by federal, state, and local taxes.
  • The federal tax on gasoline accounts for 18.4 cents per gallon, while the volume-weighted average state and local tax is 30.4 cents per gallon.
  • Refining costs account for 6 percent of the price of gasoline.
  • Retail dealer’s costs and profits account for a combined 6 percent of the price of gasoline.
  • Less than 5 percent of gas stations are owned by major oil companies.
  • 60 percent of U.S. oil demand is imported from foreign countries.
  • The world consumed 87.9 million barrels of crude and liquid fuels every day in 2011, the highest consumption rate in history.
  • China is now the world’s second-largest consumer of oil behind the United States.  In 2011, Chinese crude imports were up 8.2 percent over 2010 levels.
  • The U.S. produced an average of 5.67 million barrels of crude oil every day in 2011.
  • Production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 90,000 barrels per day due to production declines in existing fields, permitting delays, and the Obama moratorium.
  • Crude oil production in Alaska is projected to fall by 20,000 barrels per day both in 2012 and 2013.
  • When President George W. Bush lifted the executive moratorium on offshore drilling, there was an immediate price decrease in the cost of oil.
  • About 25 percent of U.S. supply of oil comes from OPEC countries, which have agreed to a production ceiling of 30 million barrels per day including Iraq’s production and some overproduction by member countries.

U.S. monetary policy — particularly increases in the money supply through quantitative easing — have coincided with a surge in oil prices.  Recent signals from the Federal Reserve that interest rates would remain at near-zero through 2014 have created a ripe environment for hedge funds that bet on commodity plays.

Volt and Leaf February sales


The February sales numbers for Volt and Leaf are in.   Volt numbers were 1023 which bettered January sales of 603.    Leaf numbers were 478 which trailed January sales of 679.   Y-T-D  sales for Volt are 1,626 and Leaf 1,157.  Chevy’s 4 cylinder ICE sales were up 46 percent.  The Cruze, one of the GM 4cylinder line,  put up big numbers at 18,556 units in February.   The public is obviously moving to more fuel-efficient vehicles with gasoline prices skyrocketing.   But their choice continues to be the more affordable ICEs than the all-electrics or hybrids.

cbdakota