I have never seen any pricing of range by anyone and especially not TOYOTA, even the actual cost of any battery that any OEM uses is top secret, only FORD went accidentally on a limb quoting an "estimate" on cost of batteries and that was in $10,000 to $15,000 per vehicle as per speech that Mr. Mullaly made few weeks ago. Perhaps to explain why EV Focus is that much more than ICE.
Prior that all EV Battery cost estimates were from everyone else but the Automotive OEM.
I myself got the lowerst estimates to replace 4kWh 48 V DC pack with Li technology at about $4,200 and that is without battery management.
We now use since 2003 Pb and the cost per 4kWh is just about $1,000 and the useful battery service life of up to 7 years, and 80% of the batteries can have second life as Automotive Starting batteries for yet another few years.
In 9 years only 4 Battery modules failed, one during the 18 month warranty period.
No Li system that we have tested (26 different set ups) survived in service for more than 26 months so the cost per KWh of battery is chemistry dependend and the long term cost for Li is just astronomical when compared to Pb.
When $/mile does not matter, or is not even considered, then you can get GREAT MPGe.
When CLEAN AIR at the vehicle source is "priceless" then burning coal elsewhere to make electrons flow into EV makes sense.
Small car for Urbank driving utilizing developed Pb technology where traction batteries can have second and even third life as starting or UPS batteries can make EV practical and can be made for under $7,000
But add the FMVSS required equipment for anything that goes over 25 MPH (FMVSS #500 for LSV) and now you have a vehicle that costs
$18,000 to $23,000
Swithc the Pb to Li
and now it is $10,000 to $14,000 more
Make if go 100 MPH and that adds yet another $10,000 to $24,000
Throw in Subsidies and that at best reduces the price by $5,000 to $15,000
But then you look at the sales of Mitsubishi EV or the Think! or Wheego and at the volume people buy EV, there is no Business case - thus the result like Aptera, Think !, Bright, Azure = bankrupt
FISKER and TESLA is next in line for a certain demise.
Only if you can afford to have $$$$$ loss per every EV you make you can afford to be in EV business:
Chuck I'm sure you, as well as Rob, have also noticed how the Moore's Law approach to non-semiconductor technologies--and the consequent assumptions about a wide range of things like manufacturing, distribution and sales--simply doesn't work in many cases. I believe we've discussed that elsewhere in DN. But I don't think I've noticed discussion of this regarding investment. It would make a lot of sense if this were a key reason for why battery technology has lagged, and the article seems to suggest that.
The bottom line for most consumers is going to be the $/mile operating cost for fuel over a reasonable vehicle lifetime. With average $4/gal fuel cost; for even a Hybrid package extending economy from 30 - 45 mpg; and vehicle life of 100k miles [probably realistic current battery life], the purchase price increase vs. a IC only vehicle must be <= $4,500. Even with the current large Taxpayer paid "Government" subsidies; the $$$ just don't add up.
However, If a truly long range [>= 300 mi], rapid recharge [<= 30 min.] vehicle is developed; at Southeastern US kWh rates of 0.11 and IC engine operating efficiency [comparison] of 0.3 the cost differential will only have to be <= $32,000. This is where the plug-in EV can make its case.
First of all, you are not going to be able to sell EVs until you rent and exchange battery packs, so that no single buyer has to take the battery cost risk alone.
Second is that no battery will ever have a rapid pulse discharge capability, so all EVs need some sort of kinetic boost for acceleration, whether it is compressed air, flywheel, capacitive, etc. Compressed air has the added cooling potential, and with a carbon fiber tank, would add the least amount of weight.
Having worked on Battery Development, here are the issues I seen:
1. Market pressure to produce revenue in an immature/unfamiliar market
2. No driving applications [except for Smart Grid] - EVs don't make the cut; FCX Clarity from Honda is a proof in point, not to mention the Electric Grid cannot support a large EV market
3. Immature Technical Leadership - Applications of EV batteries involves the marriage of mechanical and embedded electrical technologies - also there is a lack of familiarity with the Product Development Cycle - unrealistic schedules with no system approach in driving cost down
4. Plenty of experiments need to be runned - most Lithium batteries in the market are not fully charactererized - only one Battery company has test data on their batteries.
What gets me about all of this fretting about batteries is the plain fact of beating taxpayer's/consumer's collective airheads against a wall of simple physics.As I understand it, while a gas tank is full of either fuel or air, a battery is mostly >inert< solids.It is magical to think that physics can be violated, so if one tends to have magical interpretations of nature, economics, and government finance, one might believe that batteries can more than replace gas tanks (and thus be prey to charlatans).
At best, and by definition, a battery is a "gas tank" full of sand!That is the >starting-point< of EV system design!Therefore, there is no mystery why it is so hard, expensive, or hazardous to increase energy density of batteries.If we come up with an EV energy storage device with the performance of a gas tank, it might not be much like a battery.I'm guessing that it will take new physics to do that.
any1 has the point, if batteries were next to free, we could just pack in half a ton of them and just use regenerative breaking to schlep their mass around.
A further note on the vehicle prices, these are typically "sold-at-a-loss prices".
We really don't know what it costs to actually make these cars, much less what it would take to make them profitably at those prices. We are not even close to being able to make EVs profitably at competitve prices with conventional vehicles.
This is a big point Volt fans often miss. Yes, you got a neat piece of technology and a cool little car for $32-35K. GM lost money on it and the Govt subsidized both the technology and your purchase. It is not a matter of getting the price down from $40k, they still need to get the cost down below $40k. Way below. The cost of producing an EV needs to get low enough to make them profitable in the $30k or below range.
That is a long way off. Toyota knows cost on commercially successful battery volumes pretty well by now. They estimate $500/mile of range.
The 100% solar-powered airplane Solar Impulse 2 is prepping for its upcoming flight, becoming the first plane to fly around the world without using fuel. It's able to do so because of above-average performance by all of the technologies that go into it, especially materials.
With major product releases coming from big names like Sony, Microsoft, and Samsung, and big investments by companies like Facebook, 2015 could be the year that virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) finally pop. Here's take a look back at some of the technologies that got us here (for better and worse).
Good engineering designs are those that work in the real world; bad designs are those that don’t. If we agree to set our egos aside and let the real world be our guide, we can resolve nearly any disagreement.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.