Production of Batteries for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

[JohnWxy]

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/research/technology_analysis/battery_production.html

"In spite of the promise that electric vehicles (EVs) will greatly alleviate urban air pollution problems and reduce our dependence on imported oil, pure electric and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) may not prove to be a panacea for our transportation problems. The greatest challenges are in battery development. While battery weight is being reduced and vehicle range increased, less attention is given to the high costs and environmental impacts of battery production. Consumers don't want to pay extra for a clean car, and the nation may not want to trade tailpipe emissions for manufacturing emissions or future environmental problems from disposal."

[shoelace414]

1. in that case, sign me up for a coal power car.

[Warpy]

3. Stanley Steamers!

Those things were neat and could be modified to run on anything that would burn. You just needed to start your boiler about 15 minutes (at least) before you needed to go somewhere, and that wait is what killed steam power in motor vehicles. Steam technology is certainly something that can be revisited in the future. Think of running them on all sorts of lumber mill waste, corn, biofuel, old hair tonic, and yes, coal.

But yeah, disposal of dead EV batteries may become a problem in the future, although I think most battery companies will recycle many of the components.

[jpak]

16. My uncle had two Stanley's (and my Mom has a Stanley-made violin)

He used to drive them in M-day and 4th of July parades - they were a hoot....

[JohnWxy]

21. I bet with that Stanley violin she could rip off "Flight of the Bumbe Bee

in about 11 seconds flat!

[JohnWxy]

5. Well, you might prefer a regular car which can use Ethanol 15

(15% ethanol fuel). IT won't cost you any more and you can be saving (or extending) the gas supply by about 15% while you are burning Ethanol 15 gas in it.

Or, you can get a FLexible Fuel Vehicle for NO ADDITIONAL COST and run Ethanol 85 (85% ethanol fuel) in it and be cutting Green HOuse Gases by 65%!

..and you won't have to shovel any coal into your back seat!

[shoelace414]

6. According to the first message

no technology is perfectly clean, because if nothing else the car has to be manufactured, so we may as well screw everything and go to coal powered cars.

[phantom power]

9. To make this comparison, then...

we need to add up all the environmental costs of making (and operating) a hybrid auto, all the costs of making (and operating) an E85 auto, and all the costs of making (and operating) an electric vehicle. And, as long as we're doing it, we ought to include diesels.

For instance, the environmental operating costs of an E85 car include whatever impacts there are from growing all that corn (or choose the sugar source). That would include land usage, fertilizer usage, impacts of any fertilizer runoff, etc. And whatever environmental impact there are from fermenting it all, distilling it, etc.

It's pretty hard to do these kind of comparisons. Especially when you try to account for alternative agricultural techniques, technologies, etc.

[JohnWxy]

18. Yes, you are right. That's why I look at what legitimate researchers

in this area have concluded:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=35706&mesg_id=35706

Argonne National Laboratory Study

[phantom power]

19. EROEI is < 1 for fossil fuels? Your "researchers" are smoking dope.

[rfkrfk]

25. EROEI is less than unity for everthing, unless you ignore the inputs

consider pertroleum.

start with 'one unit', in the ground,
{just for record, nobody is just going to GIVE you
their land that has crude oil under the ground}

pump to surface --> loss
refine --> loss
transprt --> loss
etc,etc --> loss

[NickB79]

46. The energy density of the oil should offset that

And then some. Otherwise it would not have been possible to run the global economy for the past century on oil production if the entire time you were using more energy than you get back.

Pumping is not required until a well starts to reach the end of it's life. Then saltwater injection is introduced to boost the pressure again. When that fails, then pumping is required.

[JohnWxy]

32. Dr., Wang or the Argonne National Laboratory is a recogized authority

in this field. Dr. Wang, GREET Model

[hatrack]

13. Let's see - there are E85 pumps in Marquette, Superior & Grand Island . .

No, that's a little out of the way . .

http://www.auroracoop.com/go.asp?id=008984939

There's one in Hays, KS, 11 in all of Iowa, and New Mexico just opened their third pump (in Santa Fe - according to the article, it's "the most conveniently accessed of all the E85 stations in the state." Kind of far to drive, though . . .

http://www.e85fuel.com/news/081904fyi.htm

According to the State Ag. Secy., Wisconsin will have 40 statewide by the end of the year

http://www.csnews.com/csn/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001882640

Sadly, I'm in Kansas City, and there are exactly two stations with E85 within 25 miles of where I live. Guess I'll just have to stick with my hybrid - or do what I did yesterday and take the bus.

[JohnWxy]

35. I know, there aren't many E85 stations - that's because the Repubs

respond to the oil and natural gas money and the oil industry isn't very interested in developing a fuel source that would be a direct competitor to gas (although they will still be able to sell all the gas they can refine, regardless of ethanol).

That is why we need to contact Congressmen and tell them we need to aggressively promote production of ethanol so we have a chance of finding E85.

However, even if you can't find E85, E15 (15% ethanol) is more widley available and can be burned in any engine that runs on regular gas. But if we want to make a serious dent in imported oil we really need to have more of E15 and E85 available. This would require a significant increase in production of ethanol. Now this is going to happen anyway, it's just that it would be better if we moved it along quicker. Our dependence on imported oil is putting our security and our economy at risk.

If we were importing less oil it would strengthen our economy greatly as this money would not be going out of the country but staying right here. The sooner we can get ethanol up to about 5% to 10% of our gas supply the sooner we will have some protection from a oil supply squeeze of 5 - 10%.
Given the instability of many places around the world where oil is produced this is an all-too-possible scenario. Also, going into the future, with China and India and South America growing demand for oil is just going to grow and this will drive the price of oil higher still.

Enhancing the production of ethanol would represent a very smart energy policy - or maybe I should say it at least would be AN energy policy.

[iconoclastNYC]

45. You aren't saving fuel.

You are just using a different fuel. There are big problems with switching to ethanol. We should also persue every technology that raises MPG, including hybrids. Recycylign batteries will be a trivial matter once production is scaled up.

[benburch]

14. They used to make those...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_Waggon_Works

[central scrutinizer]

2. I want a steam-powered iBook

to link up with my geothermal-powered G5 at home. But once the treadle-powered versions come out, I will upgrade.

[JohnWxy]

8. Well, you could just buy a regular gasoline powered car

and run Ethanol 15 (15% ethanol fuel). IT won't cost you any more money and you would be reducing your gas consumption by about 15% while you are burning Ethanol 15 gas in it. (Any gas powererd car can run ethanol 15 in it.

OR you could get a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (at no additional cost to you) and run Ethanol 85 (85% ethanol) in it and be reducing your gas consumption by about 85% and be reducing Greenhouse Gases 17% - 23%. .. and you wont' have to drag your home around with you!

[EVDebs]

4. eVionyx.com has a Zinc Air Fuel Cell

but hey, zinc is cheap and with a potassium hydroxide catalyst, while Hydrogen fuel cell PEMs require platinum at a high price and limited supply...but Bush & Co. wanted it that way, so what can I tell you.

[jpak]

7. "Consumers don't want to pay extra for a clean car"

This guy apparently never heard of something called the "Prius"....

[JohnWxy]

11. Some people are willing to pay extra for clean air but the point is

since we do not know how much pollution is produced in the manufacture (and destruction when useful life of approx 8 yrs is over) of the batteries we do not even know how much we are saving (or if we are gaining in clean air at all.)

But of course, you don't HAVE to spend more. You can buy a normal gas powered car and run ethanol 15 (15% ethanol) fuel in it and cut your gas consumption about 15% AND be reducing Green house Gases by 7% too! - and for no addtional money!

OR you can buy a FLexible Fuel Vehicle (sold by all the major manufacturers) AT NO ADDITIONAL COST and burn Ethanol 85 (85% ethanol) and cut your gas consumption by about 85% and reduce Greeenhouse gases by 65%. --- and at no addtional cost.

[phantom power]

15. Can you explain to me a couple things...

1) Why/how does burning ethanol reduce CO2 emissions by 17-23%? Frankly, I have a hard time believing that.

2) What is the environmental impact of producing 13 million barrels of ethanol per day? Because that's about how much you need to run the country on E85.

I bring this up, only because if you are going to point out the environmental impact of one system, you have to then compare it to the environmental impact of the thing you propose to replace it with.

[JohnWxy]

20. Fair questions --

Ethanol, because of it's higher oxygen content than gasoline achieves more complete combustion than gasoline and burns much cleaner, resulting in less emmissions (especially of Carbon Dioxide).

With present technology we cannot meet ALL our gasoline demand with ethanol. An estimate I read (I will try to find a web-site for you) indicated with present technology we can meet abut 20% of our total demand. But they are just now beginning production of ethanol from plant and forest product waste (and switch grass) which will be considerably more productive than corn based ethanol is now (but this keeps improving too). Also, production of ethanol is continually getting more efficient as engineers and chemists work with it. However, it's possible we may never be able to meet all our gasoline demands with ethanol. So, more efficient engine design and, yes, hybrid technology will play a roll (I never said hybrids are 'out' of the picture, just that I didn't know if we (the public) have all the data regarding pollution generated in production of the batteries.) (I'm sure there will be much improvement to hybrid cars in the future.)

In the long run, the only final solution to fossil fuel dependence may well be fuel cell cars. But they are about 20 to 30 yrs away from being practical. Given the world situation (IRAQ, IRAN, SAUDI Arabia) and the rate of acceleration of Global Warming we really can't wait that long before we start doing someting about our dependencce on fossil (read imported) fuel.

Ethanol is a technology that is proven (the oil companies used ethanol 50 yrs ago to boost the Octane rating of their gas), is cheaper than gasoline and is easier and quicker to ramp up to higher production levels than just about any other technology being offered - that I can find. I think we should be boosting our production of ethanol to fairly quickly get it to 5% and then 10% of our total demand. This would provide protection from oil shocks (drops in supply), improve our security, strengthen our economy (less money going out for imported oil) and reduce Greeenhouse gas output.

Here is a summary of the findings of Dr. Michael Wang or the Argonne Natiional Laaboratory which I think will address your questions: (Wang shows that it is actually cheaper to produce ethanol than to produce gasoline. Other Later studies have concluded even higher energy returns for ethanol: 56% Michigan State Univ., 65% USDA)

Dr. Wang's Ethanol study

[phantom power]

23. The thing about this guy Wang's report is...

he's claiming that for every gallon of gasoline I use, it's taking 1.23 gallons of gasoline (or energy equivalent) to pump it out of the ground, refine it, and deliver it to my gas station. That can't be true. If it were true, gasoline would be unuseable. If you are using more energy to extract your energy source than you are getting from it, you just... can't do it. Because you will run out of energy! Yes?

As far as ethanol is concerned, I consider it to be an option on the table. It's simply worth keeping in mind that growing that much sugar, fermenting, distilling, etc, will be a very large impact. But we're going to be facing those kind of impacts from one direction or another. Hard as it is to compare them, we'll have to do our best, since our choices going forward will have enormous consequences.

[JohnWxy]

27. Maybe that's why they need those subsidies and tax shelters

Well, maybe that's why the oil industry needs all those billions in subsidies and tax shelters. Ordinarily tax support and subsidies are used for new and promising industries to help them get to a size where they can grow on their own. Subsidies for a mature industry are more of a reflection of political power than economic or technological rationale.

Regarding Dr. Michael Wang, he is a recognized authority in his field. He developed the GREET model for evaluating cost inputs to various fuel technologies. This model is used by researchers in private industry and the academia.Wang and ANL

Researchers in Argonne's Center for Transportation Research have been studying these questions and more for a quarter of century and have developed software that is now the government and industry standard for evaluating various vehicle and fuel combinations on a consistent fuel-cycle basis from extracting the energy feedstocks –petroleum and natural gas – through fuel production to final vehicle operation.

Called GREET– for Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy use in Transportation – the software "evaluates the energy and emission facts from the beginning of the whole process," explained Michael Wang, section leader of Systems Assessment in Argonne Center for Transportation Research. "For gasoline the fuel cycle starts with petroleum recovery, followed by petroleum transportation, refining to produce gasoline, transportation and distribution to refueling stations, and finally gasoline used in vehicles."

As researchers from government, industry and universities use GREET, they can calculate:

Consumption of total energy – in renewable and non-renewable sources – of fossil fuels including petroleum, natural gas and coal, and petroleum only.
Emissions of carbon-dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
Emissions of "criteria" pollutants – those for which the Environmental Protection Agency sets limits: volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxides and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns.

Growing GREET

GREET was funded by the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

"As we were developing the GREET tool," Wang said, "we reached out to experts and stakeholders in energy companies, auto manufacturers and government agencies for input and feedback." Their expertise provided deeper insight into the issues and improved the tool.

The software tool has more than 2,000 registered users in North America, Europe and Asia. That number includes government agencies, the auto industry, the energy industry, research institutes, universities and public interest groups.

GREET Model

More on ethanol potential later.

[phantom power]

33. It's not really an economic problem...

It may be that I just failed to understand what he's saying, but if you have a resource with EROEI < 1, no amount of subsidy can make it useable. If you've got (for instance) 100 Quads of energy to spend, you will *never* spend that energy on an energy source with EROEI < 1, because if you did, you would be throwing it away. It would be better to simply use it.

There are really only two possibilities. Either I mis-read him, or he's making crazy-talk. Under no circumstances do fossil fuels have EROEI < 1. Historically, their EROEI is quite large. It's one main reason they've been so cheap. What happens in the future is another story altogether, but it's a given that if EROEI for oil (or NG, coal, etc) ever drops below 1, that will be the day we stop using it. Because on that day, it will be better to simply use what we have left.

[Dead_Parrot]

36. EROEI < 1 can make sense...

...if the result is a more conveinient fuel. Using electrical energy to make jet fuel is more convienient than plugging the aircraft into the grid, for instance, so if you want jet aircraft, you loose energy. (Just a made-up example, BTW:-))

[phantom power]

37. Your example is more about thermodynamics, than it is about EROEI.

What you are pointing out is that we always lose some energy, every time we change it's form, which is surely true. But that's not exactly what EROEI is about.

Here is an example that illustrates EROEI: Suppose I've got 1000 barrels of oil. Now, I burn all that oil to drill an oil well. Suppose it's a really nice oil field. Once I drill the hole, a billion barrels of oil just gush right out. So, I've spent the energy in 1000 barrels of oil, and I get back the energy stored in a billion barrels of oil. So, my EROEI is 10^9/10^3, or one million.

Now, suppose that it's 50 years from now, and (just like we suspected all along) there are no more nice oil fields. I've got 1000 barrels of oil. In desperation, I drill another well, but when I'm through, all I get is 100 barrels out. Now, my EROEI = 1/10. I would have been better off just burning the 1000 barrels I had, because *now* all I've got is 100!

Notice, that in the second scenario, no amount of money, subsidies, etc, can make this better. You spent 1000 units of energy, and you got 100 units in return. You either need to find some new source of energy with EROEI > 1, or you simply aren't going to have any more energy.

[Dead_Parrot]

38. But it's not just oil...

...was the point I was trying to make.

I'd agree that your example would be barmy, but (and I'm ging to mangle units here) suppose you use 1,000 joules of wind energy to dig a hole and get 100 joules of oil: In energy terms, you have an EROEI of 0.1, but the result is something you can run a car off. Wang's report cheerfully includes electrical energy at every stage of gasoline production, but neglects to highlight that we have lots of electricity at low cost. It's still energy, and still invested to get energy returned, but it's a very different form of energy that doesn't really compare that well.

Incidentally, looking at Wang's report again, he suggests that you need electricity to transport gasoline, but not to transport ethanol. Either Wang is fudging things, or ethanol runs uphill and doesn't need to be pumped. :shrug:

[phantom power]

39. Aha. Well, if it comes to that, we'd probably just make it.

I imagine we'll have to do something like that. One way or another, we'll need motor fuel.

[Dead_Parrot]

40. Ever thought about a horse?

It struck me earlier, that we're still screwed for bitumen, whatever's in your tank. And there goes the road network.

Edit: Remind where most tires come from...

[phantom power]

42. Uh huh. Now we're getting into why Kunstler thinks we're hosed.

The problem is so multi-headed. Well, it's possible to make roads out of concrete, and tires out of... Oh who knows? Used chewing gum?

I can ride a horse. On a good day. But could I defend myself from the other 300 million people trying to steal it from me?

[Dead_Parrot]

43. It's a regular hydra...

I don't normally buy into the end-of-the-world scenarios, but I think it's safe to say the second half of my life will be more, err, interesting than the first. I'm sure we can find replacements for most oil products, but finding them all at once (with no cheap oil to help) is going to be a fun time for all.

(Note that not buying into the scenarios doesn't preclude preparing for them. I like having a plan B, plan C and plan D... :))

[JohnWxy]

29. some comments on ethanol's potential

The estimate I mentioned of ethanol's production potential (still trying to find web=-site) assumed no disruption of currrent agricultural production. Note that, the future growth in ethanol will be due in no small part to development of cellulosic ethanol from plant and forest product waste, switch grasses. The main thing is that we have a currently available alternative fuel which is cheaper than gasoline which we can expand the production of so as to start replacing some of that oil we are importing right now. For the future we will be developing cellulosic ethanol but right now the quickest, economically sound way to start replacing imported oil is the ethanol we are already producing and which we can expand the production of much more quickly than we can develop other (newer and not so cost effective) technologies.

The thing is our dependence on foreign oil is a strategic security liability which we need to address as quickly as possible. We can keep looking for that more perfect solution for the future but current geo-political circumstances, not to mention the acceleration of Global Warming, means we need to start with some solutions right away and not wait until we get that more perfect solution until we act.

NOw, for a little further out, they have begun development of cellulosic ethanol and this has great potential for the future (not that far out, say 7-10 years till significant production levels can be achieved - more progress on enzyme production has to be achieved first to make this a more cost effective alternative.). Also, as far as current starch based ethanol feed stocks are concerned we should be looking at sugar cane and sugar beets as they are more productive than corn. What's interesting about cellulosic ethanol is it can be made from agricaultural and forst product waste material which currently just plowed under, dumped in land-fills or burned!

"The agricultural residues that could be harvested sustainably in the United States today, for example, could yield 14.5 billion gallons of ethanol — four times the current output — with no additional land demands."

[kahleefornia]

10. hybrids are a *step*

in a loooonng term goal. Geez, does everyone have to look at things as absolutes all the time?? We shouldn't make hybrids because they're not perfect? Why, yes, I agree then. Let's just skip ahead to making those cars that run on magic and fairy dust - none of this "experimenting" and "scientific process". it just wastes time.

[Strelnikov_]

44. Hear, Hear! n/t

[4_TN_TITANS]

12. Batteries are a big problem.....

for us firefighters and first responders who have to work wrecks. I dread seeing my first hybrid wreck - they are rolling haz-mat disasters. Acid everywhere....

[jpak]

17. Have they crash tested the Prius and the Insight????

If so, was there "acid everywhere"????

Some interesting chatter here....

http://priuschat.com/lofiversion/index.php/t13001.html

and they don't use lead-acid batteries in the drive train...

http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-comparison.html

[Massacure]

22. There is nothing wrong with current battery technology for hybrids.

Pure electric vehicles are an entirely different ball game.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. It's something to keep an eye on, though

high capacity batteries tend to be made out of a variety of toxic materials: whilst there is a good turnover in recyclying at the moment, many old batteries (I'm thinking laptops here, the first major application) do wind up in landfills or are otherwise dumped. With added volume created by hybrids and off-grid storage, this has the potential to get out of hand. Think of the Chinese cadmium spill, then think groundwater leech...

[skids]

26. Not really.

Laptop batteries end up in landfills because they are cheap and people don't find them worth
recycling. PHEV battery banks are sure as damn hell worth your effort to recycle -- salvage
value on a battery bank of that size is extremely high.

Noone is using cadmium in hybrid battery packs. It's well recognized that nicads are an environmental
hazard and all companies that are responsible are using NiMH instead. Newer Li-ion techs rival
or beat NiMH in low environmental impact.

OP: total FUD.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. I'm just a worrymonger :-)

I think used NiMH cells technically qualify as toxic waste under Basle conv. rules, and you don't want lithium in your water either (at least, not if you're a fish). But you're right about the ecomonics of recycling - trashing a PHEV stack because it's tired would be like throwing out a gold ashtray because it's full. I just hope some lunatic from a mining corp doesn't nobble the EPA with a big brown envolope...

(My full name is Dead Worstcasescenario Parrot :D)

[JohnWxy]

31. I just wonder if anybody has done a cost analysis

economic and environmental with all these considerations in mind - like cost to handle these batteries when they are finished (8 yr expected life, non - reconditionable) economic cost and cost to the environment.

[Dead_Parrot]

34. Probably...

...given the number of companies that recycle batteries :)

[rfkrfk]

30. fuel cell material, is extremely toxic

the material used in the construction of
hydrogem fuel cells,
is much worse that the batteries for hybrids or pure-electric cars

something similiar can be said for
'cancer-somewhere-else' {solar} photovoltaics

[NNadir]

41. To what kind of fuel cells are your referring?

There are many types of fuel cells having widely varying chemistry and operating conditions.