Battery Developments and Implications for STOVs

Battery Developments and Implications for STOVs

By Stephen Metzger, Senior Editorial Advisor

The ongoing development of battery power holds significant potential for small, task-oriented vehicles (STOVs).  Most of the development and most discussion and analysis of battery development is in the context of powering on-road vehicles.  The crumbs off the table of this development process, however, could have a significant impact on market development of small, task-oriented vehicles.

STOVs are certainly not confined to electric power, but given the trend toward electric power in all but the off-road UTV (and derivatives) market–and that is coming, too–as well as the market drivers pushing toward electric, a focus on electric power is hardly unjustified.
In a presentation at the Industrial Utility Vehicle Technology Conference in 2006, I outlined four areas of product development that were needed to encourage market growth of the small, electric vehicle market:

• Greater range, moving from 30-40 miles to 100 miles;
• More power, deliverable through the adaptation of AC electric motors;
• Faster speeds, increasing from the upper limits now of 25 m.p.h. to the 40-45 m.p.h. range;
• Better ergonomic features, including all-weather driveability.

The ensuing years have seen improvements in all categories.  Greater range has been achieved, although driving conditions, better driving and maintenance habits, and battery power additions (36 volt-to 48 volt-to 72 volt) are key factors.  As yet, no real, commercially-viable breakthroughs have occured. The AC motor, however, is a breakthrough of sorts and is rapidly becoming the standard for small electric vehicles–bringing significantly improved power and efficiency.

As for greater speeds, small electric vehicles are still bound by NHTSA’s rule 500, which limits on-road operations to 25 m.p.h.  Some states have gotten around NHTSA’s rule-making by legislating higher speed limits for LSVs.  In Tomberlin’s official launch of the Anvil, CEO Jim Tomberlin specifically mentioned the need for NHTSA to raise its current LSV speed limit.  So, there is movement toward higher allowable speeds for on-road use. 

Better ergonomics are clearly coming to the fore in a variety of ways. Overall, what we are seeing is an evolutionary movement toward an abundance of road-worthy features.  On the other hand what we don’t have, as yet, is a breakthrough in range, charging times, power source, i.e., batteries, and speed. 

Lithium-Based vs. Advanced
Lead Acid Batteries

The greatly anticipated breakthrough is a commercially-available and technologically-advanced battery–in particular, large format, lithium-based batteries.  Not every one is convinced, however, that lithium-based batteries will be sufficiently available or cost-effective enough to meet near- and even medium-term needs in the face of sharply growing demand for hybrid vehicles.

In the context of a significant demand-supply gap, John Petersen, a lawyer in the Basel, Switzerland-based firm of Feffer Petersen & Cie makes a good case for advanced lead acid batteries.  He has published an extensive series of informative articles on the subject in Seeking Alpha™, an internet forum on business and economics.

Petersen’s thesis is that, given the regulatory requirements in Europe and the United States, the level of hybrid vehicle production required to achieve these legislated thresholds is substantially greater than what can be supplied either with lithium-based batteries or nickel metal hydride batteries currently used in HEVs. 

Petersen’s solution is advanced lead acid batteries, basically a genre of batteries which use lead acid technology but are characterized by significantly improved energy density.  These batteries purport to deliver substantially greater range than the current offerings of deep cycle lead acid batteries and would fill the gap in the supply of lithium-based and NiMH batteries, as needed to achieve the new emissions and mileage standards in Europe and the United States.  Moreover, these batteries are substantially cheaper than either lithium ion or NiMH batteries.

Featured in Petersen’s writings are Axion Power’s lead- carbon (PbC) batteries, Firefly Energy’s carbon foam technology, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of Australia’s (CSIRO) battery-supercapacitor initiative.  Axion plans, via a collaboration with Exide Technologies, a commercial rollout by mid-2009.  Firefly has made similar progress in partnership with C&D Technologies.  All three initiatives are shooting for substantially improved power, greater energy density, and a cost per watt-hour in the range of $0.20-$0.30.

Will STOVs Benefit
from Current Battery Advances?

With this background, briefly given, in what way will STOVs, as personal transportation or utility vehicles, benefit from these developments?  Intense global competition among lithium-based battery producers, as well as the encouraging developments in advanced lead acid batteries will, certainly, continue to bring unit costs down.  If, in particular, advanced lead acid batteries achieve significant volumes in the next two years, the inherently cheaper raw materials, as well as the more proven technology (compared to large format lithium-based products), could well mean a highly cost-effective product.

Back of the envelope number juggling gives us a rough idea of battery costs over the life of the battery pack.  Take an extreme example of 100 miles at an average speed of 40 m.p.h., giving a run time of 2.5 hours.  With a 72 volt battery pack and a 400 amp controller, 28.8 kW of power could be generated.  This times 2.5 hours is 72 kWh.  If advanced lead acid batteries with these performance assumptions are available at a cost of $200 per kWh, the total cost of the batteries would be $14,400.  While seemingly prohibitive by conventional standards, divided by 600 days usage (approximately three years), the cost per day is $24.  At 1,000 days usage (five years), the cost per day is $14.40.  Still prohibitive?  However, note the assumptions of more than double current NEV distance capabilities and the faster speed.  At this point we have a STOV with a substantially improved investment cost comparison to low cost on-road vehicles and to light pickups, and we haven’t yet considered costs of operation.

There are huge “ifs” in this calculation, all of which revolve around advanced battery technology that is yet to be fully commercialized.  Yet given the regulatory climate and the push toward providing adequate battery power to the multi-million unit automotive market, STOV manufacturers should, I believe, be devising strategies which reflect a dramatic change in goals and objectives.

About the Author:

Stephen Metzger PhD, Managing Director, International Market Solutions, a management consulting firm, whose prime focus is putting companies into the international market arena on a cost-efficient basis. Mr. Metzger is also Principal of International Competitive Assessments (ICA), the market research arm of IMS. ICA has undertaken extensive market research and consulting assignments covering a broad range of products and markets. Mr. Metzger and his staff and associates have produced three ground-breaking studies of small, task-oriented vehicle market in the United States since 2000. Mr. Metzger, an economist by background, is also an adjunct professor of business and economics at Iona College and Mercy College.