SAND REPORT 

SAND2002-4084 

Unlimited Release 

Printed March 2003 

Final Report 

Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications 

A Study for the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program

Erin Cready, John Lippert, Josh Pihl, Irwin Weinstock, Phillip Symons, and 

Rudolph G. Jungst 

Prepared by 

Sandia National Laboratories 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 

Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, 

a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energyís 

National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC04-94-AL85000. 

Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited. 
2 

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States 

Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. 

NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the 

United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any 

of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any 

warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, 

completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or 

represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific 

commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, 

does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the 

United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The 

views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors. 

Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best 

available copy. 

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

Telephone: (865)576-8401 

Facsimile: (865)576-5728 

E-Mail: reports@adonis.osti.gov

Online ordering: http://www.doe.gov/bridge 

Available to the public from 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Rd 

Springfield, VA 22161 

Telephone: (800)553-6847 

Facsimile: (703)605-6900 

E-Mail: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

Online order: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.asp?loc=7-4-0#online
 3 

 

SAND2002-4084 

Unlimited Release 

Printed March 2003 

Final Report 

Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries 

in Stationary Applications 

A Study for the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program 

Erin Cready, John Lippert, Josh Pihl, and Irwin Weinstock 

Sentech, Inc. 

4733 Bethesda Avenue 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Phillip Symons 

Electrochemical Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

1295 Kelly Park Circle 

Morgan Hill, CA 95037 

Sentech Report Number: 068-006 

Sandia Contract No. 20605 

Abstract 

The technical and economic feasibility of applying used electric vehicle (EV) batteries in 

stationary applications was evaluated in this study. In addition to identifying possible barriers to 

EV battery reuse, steps needed to prepare the used EV batteries for a second application were 

also considered. Costs of acquiring, testing, and reconfiguring the used EV batteries were 

estimated. Eight potential stationary applications were identified and described in terms of 

power, energy, and duty cycle requirements. Costs for assembly and operation of battery energy 

storage systems to meet the requirements of these stationary applications were also estimated by 

extrapolating available data on existing systems. The calculated life cycle cost of a battery 

energy storage system designed for each application was then compared to the expected 

economic benefit to determine the economic feasibility. Four of the eight applications were 

found to be at least possible candidates for economically viable reuse of EV batteries. These 

were transmission support, light commercial load following, residential load following, and 

distributed node telecommunications backup power. There were no major technical barriers 

found, however further study is recommended to better characterize the performance and life of 

used EV batteries before design and testing of prototype battery systems. 
 4 

 

Preface 

This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through the Energy Storage Systems 

Program. The DOE Program Manager is Dr. Imre Gyuk. Sentech, Inc. carried out the work 

under Contract 20605 with Sandia National Laboratories. The Sandia technical contact is 

Rudolph G. Jungst, Long-Life Power Sources Department 2525. Sentech, Inc. contributors were 

Erin Cready, John Lippert, Josh Pihl, and Irwin Weinstock. Phillip Symons of Electrochemical 

Engineering Consultants, Inc. developed information regarding the potential stationary use 

applications. 
Final Report 5 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

CONTENTS 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 11

2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 15

2.1. Objective of this Study................................................................................................ 15 

2.2. Definitions................................................................................................................... 16 

2.3. Status of EV Technologies and Markets..................................................................... 16 

2.4. Present Markets for Used Batteries............................................................................. 17 

2.5. ANL USABC 2nd Use Study....................................................................................... 20 

2.5.1. Utility load following...................................................................................... 21 

2.5.2. Frequency regulation & spinning reserve....................................................... 21 

2.5.3. Uninterruptible power source and telecommunications applications ............. 23 

2.5.4. Accelerated calendar life test.......................................................................... 24 

2.5.5. Conclusions..................................................................................................... 24 

3. A PROCESS FOR RE-APPLYING USED EV BATTERIES IN STATIONARY 

APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................ 25

3.1. Overview..................................................................................................................... 25 

3.2. Acquiring Used EV Batteries...................................................................................... 25 

3.3. Testing Used EV Batteries.......................................................................................... 26 

3.4. Reconfiguring Used EV Batteries for Stationary Applications .................................. 27 

3.5. Summary of Refurbishing Process.............................................................................. 29 

4. APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................ 31

4.1. Transmission support.................................................................................................. 32 

4.2. Area regulation & spinning reserve ............................................................................ 32 

4.3. Load leveling/energy arbitrage/transmission deferral ................................................ 33 

4.4. Renewables firming .................................................................................................... 34 

4.5. Power reliability & peak shaving................................................................................ 34 

4.6. Light commercial load following................................................................................ 35 

4.7. Distributed node telecom backup power..................................................................... 36 

4.8. Residential load following .......................................................................................... 36 

5. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ñ ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGY ..................... 37

5.1. Availability and cost of used EV batteries.................................................................. 37 

5.2. Collection & transportation......................................................................................... 38 

5.3. Testing & repackaging................................................................................................ 38 

5.3.1. Capital Costs ................................................................................................... 38 
Final Report 6 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

5.3.2. Direct Costs..................................................................................................... 39 

5.3.3. Indirect Costs .................................................................................................. 42 

5.3.4. Earnings, taxes, and determination of reconfigured battery selling price....... 43 

5.3.5. Cost breakdown .............................................................................................. 44 

5.4. Energy storage system life cycle costs........................................................................ 45 

5.4.1. Application requirements & system characteristics........................................ 45 

5.4.2. Duty cycle and projected life .......................................................................... 46 

5.4.3. Battery costs.................................................................................................... 46 

5.4.4. Balance of system costs .................................................................................. 46 

5.4.5. Operating and maintenance costs.................................................................... 47 

5.4.6. Total system costs........................................................................................... 48 

5.5. Feasibility categories .................................................................................................. 50

6. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ñ RESULTS OF ANALYSIS........................................... 50

6.1. Nickel/Metal Hydride ................................................................................................. 51 

6.1.1. Transmission support...................................................................................... 52 

6.1.2. Area regulation & spinning reserve ................................................................ 53 

6.1.3. Load leveling/energy arbitrage/transmission deferral .................................... 54 

6.1.4. Renewables firming ........................................................................................ 56 

6.1.5. Power reliability & peak shaving.................................................................... 57 

6.1.6. Light commercial load following.................................................................... 59 

6.1.7. Distributed node telecommunications standby power .................................... 60 

6.1.8. Residential load following .............................................................................. 62 

6.2. Other chemistries ........................................................................................................ 63

7. ISSUES AND BARRIERS ................................................................................................. 67

7.1. Technical..................................................................................................................... 67

7.2. Market......................................................................................................................... 67

8. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 69

9. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................... 71

9.1. Used EV battery module testing ................................................................................. 71

9.2. Transmission support.................................................................................................. 71

9.3. Light commercial load following................................................................................ 73

9.4. Residential load following .......................................................................................... 74

9.5. Distributed node telecomm......................................................................................... 76
Final Report 7 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................ A-1 

APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................B-1 

TABLES 

Table 1. Battery module characteristics for typical HEV and EV batteries. ............................ 19 

Table 2. Battery module characteristics for typical CEV and NEV batteries........................... 20 

Table 3. Exide UPS warranty conditions and ANL test results................................................ 23 

Table 4. Capital costs................................................................................................................ 39 

Table 5. Employment costs....................................................................................................... 41 

Table 6. Testing and repackaging costs .................................................................................... 44 

Table 7. BOS and O&M costs for analogous battery systems.................................................. 48 

Table 8. Life cycle cost components for stationary energy storage systems based on used EV 

batteries....................................................................................................................... 49 

Table 9. Analysis of used Ni/MH EV batteries in utility applications ..................................... 51 

Table 10. Analysis of used Ni/MH EV batteries in commercial & residential applications ...... 57 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Power profile for the load follow test conducted by PG&E for the PM250 power 

module......................................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 2. Utility Energy Storage (UES) cycle developed by SNL............................................. 22 

Figure 3. Frequency regulation subcycle of UES test profile .................................................... 23 

Figure 4. Conceptual illustration of future life prediction.......................................................... 27 

Figure 5. Battery conversion process ......................................................................................... 29

Figure 6. Hypothetical used EV battery testing & packaging facility layout............................. 42 

Figure 7. Cost breakdown for reconfigured EV batteries .......................................................... 45 

Figure 8. Life cycle cost as a function of battery life and buy-down for transmission support. 52 

Figure 9. Primary cost drivers for transmission support ............................................................ 53 

Figure 10. Life cycle cost for Ni/MH in area regulation and spinning reserve............................ 53 

Figure 11. Primary cost drivers for area regulation & spinning reserve ...................................... 54 

Figure 13. Life cycle cost curves for load leveling/energy arbitrage/transmission deferral ........ 55 

Figure 14. Life cycle cost curves for renewables firming............................................................ 56 

Figure 15. Primary cost drivers for renewables firming .............................................................. 56 

Figure 16. Life cycle cost curves for power reliability and peak shaving.................................... 58 

Figure 17. Primary cost drivers for power reliability and peak shaving ...................................... 58 
Final Report 8 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Figure 18. Life cycle curves for Ni/MH in light commercial applications .................................. 59 

Figure 19. Primary cost drivers for light comm. load following.................................................. 59 

Figure 20. Life cycle cost curves for distributed node telecom standby power compared to 

VRLA batteries lasting two years............................................................................... 61 

Figure 21. Life cycle cost curves for distributed node telecom standby power compared to 

VRLA batteries lasting five years............................................................................... 61 

Figure 22. Life cycle cost of Ni/MH in residential application.................................................... 62 

Figure 23. Primary cost drivers for residential load following .................................................... 63 

Figure 24. Life cycle cost curves for a generic 100Ah 12V EV battery that experiences a 10% 

capacity fade over its entire life.................................................................................. 65 

Figure 25. Life cycle cost curves for a generic 100Ah 12V EV battery that experiences a 30% 

capacity fade over its entire life.................................................................................. 65 
Final Report 9 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Units of measure

A amperes (amps) 

Ah amp-hours 

V volts 

W watts 

kW kilowatts 

MW megawatts 

Wh watt-hours 

KWh kilowatt-hours 

MWh megawatt-hours 

Hz hertz (cycles/second) 

kg kilogram 

ft. foot 

sec seconds 

yr year 

Vehicle and battery terminology 

EV electric vehicle 

HEV hybrid electric vehicle 

CEV city electric vehicle 

NEV neighborhood electric vehicle 

ZEV zero emission vehicle 

FLA flooded lead-acid 

VRLA valve-regulated lead-acid 

NiCd nickel/cadmium 

Ni/MH nickel/metal hydride 

Li-ion lithium-ion 

LMPB lithium metal-polymer 

OCV open-circuit voltage 

SOC state of charge 

DOD depth of discharge 

DST dynamic stress test 

AC alternating current 

DC direct current 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

O&M operating and maintenance 

BOS balance of system 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

UPS uninterruptible power system 

Organizations

DOE Department of Energy 

SNL Sandia National Laboratories 

ANL Argonne National Laboratory 

USABC United States Advanced Battery Consortium

CARB California Air Resources Board 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric 

OBC Ovonic Battery Company 

PREPA Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 
Final Report 10 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

This page intentionally left blank.
Final Report 11 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This study evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of applying used electric vehicle 

(EV) batteries in stationary applications. Such a second use for a ìspentî EV battery could 

possibly give EV owners an opportunity to reclaim a portion of the purchase price of the battery, 

effectively reducing its cost. This second use scenario could also make lower cost advanced 

batteries available to the stationary energy storage market and accelerate the establishment of a 

sustainable market for advanced EV battery technologies. 

Overall, the concept of EV battery reuse appears to be a viable one. The study team did not 

come across any insurmountable technical barriers to the implementation of a second use 

scheme. In fact, during the course of the study it was learned that there is considerable 

commercialization of used and reconditioned batteries. There are established markets for used, 

off-lease forklift batteries, reconditioned automotive starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) 

batteries, and reconditioned lithium-ion batteries for laptop computers. Used nickel/metal 

hydride (Ni/MH) batteries from bench test and/or prototype EVs are being used in a solar 

program in Mexico. A study by Argonne National Laboratory examined the second use of 

Ni/MH EV batteries and showed that modules tested to end-of-life on the United States 

Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) Dynamic Stress Test (DST) profile could provide 

performance competitive with new lead-acid batteries in stationary energy storage applications. 

While there are no technical ìshow stoppers,î there are some issues that will have to be dealt 

with before an EV battery second use scheme can be implemented. Several unresolved issues 

and potential barriers to the implementation of a second use scheme were identified during the 

development of the hypothetical reuse process. First, non-standardized battery modules and 

varying patterns of vehicle use could make assembly of matched strings of modules with similar 

capacities difficult. Second, the mechanism by which the value from the second use makes its 

way back to the EV buyer needs to be identified. Third, warranty terms and costs will be 

difficult to determine given the uncertainty in the performance and life of the used EV batteries. 

Finally, the perceived value of used batteries relative to new batteries in the consumerís mind 

will have to be addressed to ensure widespread acceptance of used EV batteries. 

In addition to identifying potential barriers to EV battery reuse, this study considered the steps 

necessary to prepare used EV batteries for a second application. EV battery modules will have 

to be collected from vehicle dealerships or service centers, inspected to ensure physical and 

electrical integrity, tested to determine performance, and reconfigured into battery packs suitable 

for stationary applications. 

The study also considered stationary applications where used EV batteries could be applied. 

Eight potential stationary applications for used EV batteries were identified: transmission 

support, area regulation & spinning reserve, load leveling/energy arbitrage/transmission deferral, 

renewables firming, power reliability & peak shaving, light commercial load following, 

distributed node telecommunications backup power, and residential load following. The power, 

energy, and duty cycles required from batteries for these applications were identified. Two 

figures of merit were developed to quantify the economic benefits of battery energy storage in 

each application. The low value was estimated from the expected revenues or savings generated 

by a battery system operating in the application. The high value was typically extrapolated from 
Final Report 12 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

what people have paid for similar systems, representing an upper limit to the allowable cost for 

the system. 

An economic analysis was performed to determine the feasibility of utilizing spent EV batteries 

in the eight potential stationary applications. The costs of acquiring, testing, and reconfiguring 

used EV batteries were estimated. For a typical 12V, 100 Ah Ni/MH battery module, the cost of 

testing and repackaging the module into a stationary battery pack came to about $64/kWh. 

Converting the used EV batteries to stationary applications is a labor-intensive process, with 

labor costs and overhead representing over half of the conversion costs. If the buy-down for a 

new EV battery is around $75/kWh based on the manufacturerís rated capacity, the cost of the 

used battery to the second application comes to about $81/kWh at its reduced second-use rating. 

Adding this figure to the testing cost gives an estimated selling price for Ni/MH battery packs of 

$145/kWh. The results for other battery chemistries and module configurations would be 

similar. 

Costs for the assembly and operation of battery energy storage systems to meet the stationary 

applications were also estimated by extrapolating from data available on existing systems. The 

projected battery life, cost of the converted battery modules, balance of system costs, and system 

operating expenses were used to calculate the life cycle costs of a battery energy storage system 

designed to meet the requirements of each application. These life cycle costs were then 

compared to the economic benefits derived from the applications to determine the economic 

feasibility of applying used EV batteries for each application. The exception to this approach 

was distributed node telecommunications backup power, for which the costs of the used EV 

batteries alone, rather than a complete energy storage system, were compared directly to batteries 

currently used in the application. 

Based on the results of this analysis, the applications were categorized to indicate their economic 

feasibility. If the cost of the system was less than the low benefit estimate for the application, 

then the application was categorized as favorable. If the system cost was higher than the upper 

benefit estimate, the application was classified as unlikely. If the cost of the system fell between 

the two economic benefit estimates, the application was categorized as possible. It should be 

noted that for many of the systems, the battery costs were not the largest component of the life 

cycle costs. Battery costs over the life of the system ranged from 7% to 65% of the total system 

costs, and were the primary cost driver for only three of the applications considered in this study. 

Four of the eight applications were identified as being possible candidates for economically 

viable reuse of EV batteries. Transmission support was categorized as being a possible 

candidate for EV battery reuse, even at relatively high buy-down values. However, the 

difficulties involved in assembling a system large enough to meet the needs of this application 

may prove to be a major hurdle to its implementation. Light commercial load following was also 

identified as a possible application for reuse. Residential load following was the only application 

identified as a favorable candidate for reuse. Unfortunately, the market for this application is not 

well defined since it depends on the growth of distributed generation for residential use. 

Since the economic analysis for distributed node telecommunications backup power compared 

the cost of used EV batteries to that of competing battery technologies currently used in this 

application, the results are highly dependent on the relative lives of the batteries under 

consideration. Specifically, this application was classified as possible only when the used EV 

battery could provide a longer lifetime than competing technologies. It is unclear if this is likely 
Final Report 13 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

to be the case since how long batteries last in this application is primarily determined by calendar 

life and not cycle life. However, the size of the market for this application taken with the 

possibility for an economically feasible outlet for used batteries warrants further investigation 

into distributed node telecom as a candidate for reuse of EV batteries. 

The study team recommends that additional testing be performed on used EV batteries pulled 

from real-world vehicles to better characterize their performance in potential stationary 

applications. The team further recommends that prototype battery systems based on used EV 

battery modules be designed and tested for each of the four promising applications identified in 

the economic analysis. 
Final Report 14 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final Report 15 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

2. INTRODUCTION 

2.1. Objective of this Study 

The high cost of batteries is often considered to be a major factor limiting the sale of electric 

vehicles (EVs). A considerable number of R&D dollars have been and are being spent by 

automakers and battery manufacturers around the world to reduce the cost of batteries in order to 

stimulate the sale of EVs. This study examined another opportunity: the potential for recovering 

some of the original value of a battery that has served its useful life in an electric or hybridelectric vehicle, but which is still suitable for another application. The premise is that the battery 

could be refurbished, resold, and reused for another application, and some of the initial cost 

recovered through the sale of the battery into this second application. 

An EV battery is considered to have reached its end-of-life when it can no longer provide 80% of 

the energy (needed for vehicle range) or 80% of the peak power (needed for acceleration) of a 

new battery. The end-of-life criterion for HEV batteries is a 23% loss in power. A battery that 

cannot meet these performance criteria, however, may still be capable of satisfying the energy 

and power requirements of a less demanding application. For example, four alkaline AA cells 

can provide the power needed to operate a portable CD player for several hours and, when the 

player no longer spins the disk, the batteries can be removed and put into a clock or a TV/VCR 

remote where they may provide up to several more months of service. In this case, there was 

still energy remaining in the batteries when it could no longer spin the CD, but it could not be 

withdrawn at the relatively high power demanded by the CD spinner. It was, however, available 

at the lower power needed by the clock or TV/VCR remote. 

This technique of finding second uses for ìspentî primary batteries may serve as a template for a 

way to extend the useful life of the advanced secondary batteries being developed for use in 

electric vehicles. For example, an EV battery that is no longer capable of delivering the power 

needed to accelerate up a freeway ramp may still provide many useful charge-discharge cycles in 

a less demanding, lower power application. 

Stationary battery applications often do not have the severe weight and volume constraints of the 

EV application and this can translate into lower energy and power requirements (on a unit weight 

or volume basis) for batteries. Since used EV batteries are still expected to be capable of storing 

and delivering substantial energy, it is possible that they might satisfy the requirements of these 

applications. Finding such a second use for a ìspentî EV battery may give the EV owner an 

opportunity to reclaim a portion of the purchase price of the battery, effectively reducing its cost. 

This second use scenario would also make lower cost advanced batteries available to the 

stationary energy storage market and accelerate the establishment of a sustainable market for 

advanced EV battery technologies. 

The objective of this study was to determine the technical and economic feasibility of applying 

used EV batteries in stationary energy storage applications. The study identified several 

technical issues that need to be resolved before this reuse concept can become commonplace. 

The issues studied include: 

1. What is the performance and projected remaining useful life of a battery removed from 

an EV? 
Final Report 16 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

2. What are the potential stationary energy storage applications and what are their 

performance, life, and cost criteria? 

3. Are used EV batteries capable of meeting these requirements? 

4. What needs to done to a used EV battery to prepare it for use in a stationary application? 

5. Can used EV batteries be cost-competitive with other battery options for these stationary 

applications? 

2.2. Definitions 

Before continuing with the details of the study, it is necessary to define several terms used 

throughout this report to refer to the various components that make up a battery to ensure that the 

reader is clear on what items are being described. 

A battery cell is a group of electrodes in a single container exhibiting the fundamental voltage of 

the battery chemistry. Battery cells are typically 1-4 volts 

A battery module is a group of cells mechanically attached to each other and electrically 

connected in series/parallel arrangements to form the building block of the battery pack. In EVs, 

battery modules are typically 10-30 volts. 

A battery pack consists of a number of battery modules in a single container connected in 

series/parallel arrangements to achieve the desired voltage and capacity. The battery pack also 

contains the electronics and thermal management system required to operate the battery. In EVs, 

the battery pack typically consists of 10-40 battery modules and usually operates in the 100-350 

volt range. 

The battery or battery system may be a single battery pack (as in EVs), or it may be a number of 

battery packs electrically connected together to meet the requirements of an application. 

2.3. Status of EV Technologies and Markets 

For the purposes of this study, electric vehicles sold in the U.S. (including those that have gone 

out of production), as well as some demonstration and prototype vehicles, were broken into four 

broad categories. Their descriptions are as follows: 

• EV ñ Electric Vehicle: full size passenger automobile with a battery-based electric drive 

train. 

• CEV ñ City Electric Vehicle: small (short wheelbase) passenger automobile with a 

battery-based electric drive train designed for urban commuting; top speed approximately 

60 mph. 

• NEV ñ Neighborhood Electric Vehicle: small, low speed (<25 mph) passenger 

automobile with a battery-based electric drive train designed for short trips. 

• HEV ñ Hybrid Electric Vehicle: full size passenger vehicle with an internal combustion 

engine coupled with an electric motor and battery. 

Over the past few years, sales of full-sized EVs in the U.S. amounted to about 4,500 vehicles. 

Several automakers have demonstration models of CEVs and Ford offers the TH!NK City 

vehicle for sale in Europe and plans to offer it for sale in the U.S. in the fall of 2002. Several car 

makers have also demonstrated prototype NEVs, and DaimlerChrysler has sold about 6,200 of its 
Final Report 17 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

GEM. In addition, more than 25,000 Honda Insight/Toyota Prius HEVs were sold in the United 

States through the end of 2001. 

Each of these classes of vehicles has different power and energy requirements for the battery. 

For example, EVs typically have about 30 kWh of energy storage, CEVs and NEVs require 

about 10 kWh, and HEVs typically have a battery with around 1 kWh of storage. 

In addition to considering different types of vehicles, this summary also covers systems based on 

each of the major battery chemistries used in electric vehicles: 

• Ni/MH ñ Nickel/Metal Hydride 

• Li-ion ñ Lithium-ion 

• Ni/Cd ñ Nickel/Cadmium 

• LMPB ñ Lithium Metal Polymer 

• VRLA ñ Valve Regulated Lead-Acid 

• FLA ñ Flooded Lead-Acid. 

Table 1 presents broad descriptions of typical batteries for EVs and HEVs, organized by 

chemistry and vehicle type; similar data for CEVs and NEVs is shown in Table 2. These tables 

provide a rough idea of the range of batteries that will be available for potential use in an EV 

battery second use program. While it is not an exhaustive list, it does contain the specifications 

of the battery systems installed in most EVís that have been sold in the U.S. (including those that 

have gone out of production), as well as some demonstration and prototype vehicles. The list 

does not cover most of the conversion vehicles currently available. The information used here 

was obtained from the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas website, the Department of 

Energyís Office of Transportation Technologies Alternative Fuels Database, vehicle 

manufacturers, battery manufacturers, and the ìAdvanced Batteries for Electric Vehicles: An 

Assessment of Performance, Cost and Availabilityî report submitted by the Year 2000 Battery 

Technology Advisory Panel to the California Air Resources Board. More detailed tables are 

available in Appendix B. 

2.4. Present Markets for Used Batteries 

A literature search related to current markets for used batteries was conducted as part of this 

study. Originally, the search was to focus solely on EV and HEV batteries, but since few EVs 

and/or HEVs have been sold to-date, and far fewer have had their batteries reach end of life, the 

scope of the search was expanded to include the reuse of batteries taken from non-EV/HEV 

applications. It was assumed that knowledge gained on existing secondary markets for other 

batteries would be useful to determine the feasibility of establishing a second market for spent 

EV and HEV batteries. 

The results of the literature search demonstrate that there is considerable commercialization of 

used and reconditioned batteries, including batteries from EVs: 

• Amateur radio emergency operators acquire used gel cell lead-acid batteries removed by 

hospitals from medical instruments on a scheduled basis. 

• There is established commerce in used off-lease forklift batteries, reconditioned 

automotive starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) batteries, and reconditioned lithium-ion 
Final Report 18 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

batteries for laptop computers, as well as batteries with various chemistries for energy 

storage in small renewable energy systems. 

• AC Propulsion, a small-volume electric vehicle manufacturer, is implementing a 

successful secondary market for spent OptimaÆ deep-cycle spiral-wound recombinant 

lead-acid batteries. 

• Energy Conversion Devices, a manufacturer of both solar photovoltaic modules and 

nickel/metal hydride (Ni/MH) batteries, is participating in a solar program in Mexico, 

which incorporates used Ni/MH EV batteries taken from EV bench tests and prototype 

EVs. 

Details of the literature search and on the used battery markets may be found in the Interim Task 

1 Report, issued by SENTECH, Inc., included as Appendix A in this report. 
Final Report 19 Technical and Econom

Used EV Batteries 

Table 1. Battery module characteristics for typical HEV and EV batteries. 

Vehicle Type HEV EVChemistry Ni/MH Li-ion2 LMPB3 Ni/MH Li-ion2 VRLA Battery Voltage (V) 144 ñ 274 346 288 - 343 360 312 Battery Capacity (Ah) 6.5 3.6 77 - 95 90 60 - 8Battery Capacity (kWh) 0.94 ñ 1.8 1.2 26 - 32 32 19 - 2Cells/battery 120 ñ 228 96 240 - 286 96 - Modules/Battery 20 ñ 38 2 24 - 28 12 26 - 3Module Voltage (V) 7.2 173 50 12 - 13.2 30 8 - 12 Module Capacity (Ah) 6.5 3.6 14 77 - 95 90 60 - 8Module Capacity (kWh) 0.047 0.62 0.7 1.0 - 1.1 2.7 0.68 - 0Module Output Power (kW)4 ~ 0.9 16 3.2 - 4 12.5 4 - 5 Motor Output (kW) 10 ñ 33 17 49 - 102 62 67 - 10Battery Manufacturers PEVE1 Shin Kobe Avestor PEVE Shin Kobe Panasonic 

SAFT Texaco Ovonic SAFT East Penn

Vehicles Honda Insight Nissan Tino None Chevy S-10 Nissan Altra Baker/Ford U

Toyota Prius Dodge Durango Ford Ranger Ford Ranger

Dodge ESX3 GM EV-1 Chevy S-10

Honda EV Plus GM EV-1Toyota Rav4 Solectria For

Solectria Force 

Notes: 

1 PEVE ñ Panasonic EV Energy, a Matsushita company. 2 The lithium ion characteristics listed here are for Shin Kobe EV and HEV modules. Module level data 

SAFT Li-ion batteries since none of the vehicles using SAFT Li-ion batteries are in production yet. 

3 The LMPB characteristics listed here are for prototype modules developed by Avestor, and some of the 

extrapolations from cell-level performance. Avestor has not yet mass-produced any LMPB battery packsautomakers with plans at the current time to use LMPB systems in a production vehicle, although they ha

in the Ford TH!NK City and the GM Precept. 

4 Module Output Power was estimated using the specific power for the module and an estimated module 

the total battery pack mass and the number of modules
Final Report 20 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 2. Battery module characteristics for typical CEV and NEV batteries.

Vehicle Type CEV NEV 

Chemistry Ni/MH Li-ion Ni/Cd FLA 

Battery Voltage (V) 288 120 114 72 

Battery Capacity (Ah) 28 90 100 130 

Battery Capacity (kWh) 8.1 11 11 9.4 

Cells/battery 240 32 - - 

Modules/Battery 24 4 19 6 

Module Voltage (V) 12 30 6 12 

Module Capacity (Ah) 28 90 100 130 

Module Capacity (kWh) 0.34 2.7 0.6 1.6 

Module Output Power (kW) 1.1 12.5 1.6 

Motor Output (kW) 19 24 27 5 - 25 

Battery Manufacturers PEVE Shin Kobe SAFT Trojan 

 SAFT 

Vehicles Honda City Pal Nissan Hypermini TH!NK City Dynasty IT 

Toyota ecom Solectria Force GEM E825 

 Solectria Flash 

 TH!NK Neighbor

2.5. ANL USABC 2nd Use Study 

Between September 1996 and August 1997 Argonne National Laboratory conducted a study for 

the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) that examined the second use of 

Ni/MH EV batteries1. Eight Ovonic Battery Company (OBC) Ni/MH modules that had 

completed more than 500 Dynamic Stress Test (DST) cycles simulating EV lifetime usage were 

tested to determine their performance in non-EV applications. Test results on the used EV 

batteries were compared to lead-acid battery test data or warranties supplied on lead-acid 

batteries by the manufacturer for the specific applications on which they were tested. The 

approach and results of this work are summarized below. 

After completing DST testing, each of the eight modules was characterized according to standard 

USABC procedures to determine remaining capacity and power capability. Based on these tests, 

the Ni/MH batteries were derated to either 30 Wh/kg or 45 Wh/kg, representing standard 

production lead-acid units and advanced technology lead-acid batteries, respectively. The 

Ni/MH modules were characterized again at their new capacity rating and then placed on life test 

under one of four test regimes: 1) utility load following; 2) utility frequency regulation and 

spinning reserve; 3) uninterruptible power sources (UPS) for stand-by power and 

telecommunications applications; and 4) accelerated life testing. 

 

1

 N. Pinsky (USABC Program Manager) et al., Electric Vehicle Battery 2nd Use Study, Argonne, 

IL: Argonne National Laboratory, Electrochemical Technology Program, (May 21, 1998), 80 

pages plus Appendix. 
Final Report 21 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

2.5.1. Utility load following 

Two modules, one at each rating, were tested for utility load following based a the test profile 

developed by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to characterize the PM250, a 250 kW, 167 kWh 

modular power unit containing 384 lead-acid batteries. The PG&E test applied repeated 3 hour 

sine shaped discharges with an 86.1 kW peak designed to remove the maximum storage capacity 

of the battery (167 kWh). Each discharge was followed by a charge to 100% SOC. Every ten 

discharges, the maximum storage capacity was removed in 1 hour at a 167 kW constant power 

rate, and the battery was recharged to 100% SOC. This 11 discharge cycle was repeated until the 

battery string voltage dropped below the defined 0% SOC point before the maximum capacity 

had been discharged. ANL scaled the power levels for the PG&E tests down to a single Ni/MH 

module to perform their tests. A plot illustrating the power profile used in testing the PM250 is 

shown in Figure 1. 

The PM250 system was only able to complete 33 of the sine wave discharges, falling well short 

of the expected 150 cycles. If other discharges performed by the PM250 battery during testing 

are included in the total, the battery completed 72 deep discharge cycles before reaching end-oflife. The goal for the Ni/MH modules was to achieve 250 sinewave discharges before reaching 

the minimum voltage cutoff signifying end-of-life. The 30 Wh/kg derated module completed all 

250 planned sinewave discharges and a total of 294 deep discharges before testing was 

terminated. It still had not reached end-of-life at this point. The 45 Wh/kg module completed 

133 sinewave discharges and a total of 162 deep discharge cycles before reaching end-of-life. 

2.5.2. Frequency regulation & spinning reserve 

Two modules were placed on a test profile designed to simulate frequency regulation and 

spinning reserve operations. This Utility Energy Storage (UES) profile, developed by Sandia 

National Laboratories (SNL), is based on the actual loads encountered by the Puerto Rico 

Electric Power Authority (PREPA) battery energy storage facility. Each UES cycle contains 

Figure 1. Power profile for the load follow test conducted by PG&E for 

the PM250 power module 
Final Report 22 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

three 160 minute long frequency regulation sessions consisting of 32 asymmetrically arranged 

five minute segments at three different power levels. Each of these sessions is followed by a 

charge period. At the end of the third charge period, a spinning reserve discharge is performed. 

This discharge consists of a 15-minute constant power discharge followed by a 15-minute ramp 

down to zero power. Finally, the battery is recharged to 100% SOC before starting the next UES 

cycle. As with the PM250 tests, the power levels for this test profile were scaled down to the 

level of a Ni/MH module. The UES test cycles were performed on one Ni/MH module rated at 

30 Wh/kg and one at 45 Wh/kg. The UES test cycle load profiles are illustrated in Figure 2 and 

Figure 3. 

Figure 2. Utility Energy Storage (UES) cycle developed by SNL 
Final Report 23 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Both OBC modules completed all 16 of the planned UES cycles without reaching the minimum 

voltage limit. The 45 Wh/kg derated module showed a capacity loss of about 1%, and the 

capacity loss in the 30 Wh/kg derated module was negligible. This compared favorably with the 

twelve C&D Technologies lead-acid batteries subjected to similar testing at SNL, which showed 

8.5% capacity loss after 13 UES cycles. 

2.5.3. Uninterruptible power source and telecommunications applications 

Three of the Ni/MH modules, all rated at 45 Wh/kg, were tested under a series of constant 

current discharge regimes to prove that they could meet or exceed the warranty conditions for an 

Exide flooded lead-acid battery. Exideís warranty specified certain cycle lives under eight 

different discharge conditions. Each module was expected to perform at least two of these 

warranty conditions in succession. The tests and their results are summarized below. 

Table 3. Exide UPS warranty conditions and ANL test results 

Warranty 

condition 

Module Discharge 

rate 

Discharge 

time 

Warranted 

cycles 

Cycles 

completed 

1 A C 1 hr 80 63 (80) 

2 A 4C 1.5 min 210 100 

3 A C/8 8 hr 40 25 

4 B 4C 4 - 15 min 120 120 

5 B C/4 4 hr 60 54 

6 C 4C 30 sec 2700 2700 

7 C 2C 30 min 100 67 

8 - 4C 45 sec 960 - 

The tests on these modules were plagued by uncertain charge procedures, erroneous equipment 

settings, and unexpected failures. There were a number of changes made to the original test 

plan, particularly regarding which module would perform what tests and the order of the tests 

performed, to try to get around these difficulties. Module A reached end of life at cycle 63 of the 

C rate, 100% discharges, but due to an improper setting the test was allowed to continue to the 

Figure 3. Frequency regulation subcycle of UES test profile 
Final Report 24 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

full 80 cycles at an end of discharge voltage of less than the limit selected for the test. Ignoring 

this deviation, each of the modules completed one of the Exide warranty conditions before 

reaching end-of-life. 

Of the other five warranty conditions, four were attempted but not met, and the fifth was never 

attempted. The study authors also note that the warranties for VRLAs, obtained after test 

protocols had already been developed, warrant somewhat higher cycle lives than those for 

flooded batteries. 

2.5.4. Accelerated calendar life test 

One Ni/MH module was placed on a 14 V float charge in an oven at 40°C to accelerate corrosion 

reactions and possible failure mechanisms. The battery was left at elevated temperature for a 

total of 144 days, with reference performance tests performed at 96 days and at the end of the 

test. Over the test period, the C/3 capacity decayed by 13.2% and the peak power degraded by 

20% from the start of the test. There was no comparison made between the performance of this 

module and results from tests of other batteries. 

2.5.5. Conclusions 

Overall, the test results showed that used OBC Ni/MH EV modules perform at least as well as 

new lead-acid batteries in stationary energy storage applications. In some instances, the used EV 

modules appeared capable of performing the same functions as new lead-acid batteries over 

longer lifetimes. The study demonstrated that reusing Ni/MH EV modules in secondary 

applications could be technically feasible from a battery performance perspective. 
Final Report 25 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

3. A PROCESS FOR RE-APPLYING USED EV BATTERIES IN 

STATIONARY APPLICATIONS 

3.1. Overview 

This section discusses the process by which used batteries taken from EVs and/or HEVs might 

be selected, tested, and refurbished for a second use in a stationary application. The scenario 

assumes that EV dealers/service centers would dispose of used EV batteries at a refurbishing 

facility, where the used batteries would be screened, sorted, tested, and finally reconfigured for 

their second use in stationary applications. 

3.2. Acquiring Used EV Batteries 

Electric and/or hybrid electric vehicles will most likely be serviced by the same dealerships that 

sell them. A battery may be removed from an EV for a number of reasons ñ the vehicle owner 

complains of inadequate performance, onboard diagnostics indicate that the battery is not 

performing to specifications, or a predefined mileage or time limit (e.g., 6 years or 60,000 miles) 

has been reached. 

If vehicle is brought to the dealership because it is performing below owner expectations, the 

service department will probably perform some diagnostic tests to determine whether the fault is 

caused by a limited number of defective modules or is an overall battery problem. In those cases 

where there are only a limited number of below-par modules, these may be repaired or replaced 

and the balance of the battery would be reinstalled in the vehicle. 

There are a number of defects that could reduce the performance from a particular module, and 

the nature of the defect will determine whether a module is repaired or replaced. A module 

exhibiting high resistance due to corroded or loose module and cell interconnections could 

probably be repaired and reinstalled. Modules exhibiting leaks, high internal impedance, or an 

internal short circuit would most likely be replaced. Such modules would probably not be good 

candidates for reuse. 

For an EV battery pack that is approaching or has exceeded its expected life in the vehicle, the 

dealer service department will probably replace the entire pack. Automobile OEM 

representatives have indicated that, in such a case, the battery modules would be removed and 

replaced while the remaining components of the battery pack (interconnects, cooling systems, 

electronics, and the tray itself) would be reused in the vehicle. The dealerships would thus have 

a number of used battery modules for disposal ñ either as scrap or as candidates for installation 

in a stationary application. 

The batteries in HEVs, on the other hand, will be part of an integrated system made up of the 

electrochemical cells, the thermal management system, and the other components needed to 

manage the battery in the vehicle environment. When an HEV battery fails prematurely or 

achieves its expected lifetime in the vehicle, this entire integrated unit will be replaced. It was 

determined during the course of this analysis that the labor required to disassemble this 

integrated unit, sort and cull the cells, and reassemble them into modules of reasonable size 

would make the cost of the used batteries prohibitively expensive. As a consequence, batteries 
Final Report 26 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

that fail prematurely due to the failure of individual cells or other hardware problems will 

probably not be viable candidates for second use. 

Likewise, HEV batteries that have met their expected lifetime of 15 years will probably not be 

good candidates for use in a second application. The perceived value of a 15-year-old battery 

will probably limit the amount of money that people will be willing to pay for it. Based on our 

estimates, it is unlikely that such batteries would command a high enough price to accommodate 

the costs of the refurbishing process. Thus, HEV batteries were not included in the detailed 

economic analysis performed for this report. 

3.3. Testing Used EV Batteries 

Used EV battery modules, after arrival at a refurbishing facility, will be visually examined to 

separate out modules with obvious physical damage, leaks, or other signs of abuse. The initial 

inspection will also include determination of the moduleís manufacturer specifications and age 

from labels or bar codes. Voltage and resistance measurements will be performed to identify 

modules that have failed (due to short circuits or dried-out separators, for example). Physically 

sound modules that have not surpassed their calendar lives will then be subjected to limited cycle 

testing to determine their capacity and their power capability, and to make some prediction of 

their expected life in the second application. 

The test regime envisioned is based on the type of characterization tests performed on newly 

manufactured EV modules, using the USABC Reference Performance Test2

 sequence, and in 

conversations with EV battery manufacturers. The sequence includes 

1. Establish the module capacity via four charge-discharge cycles, charging per the 

manufacturerís recommended profile and discharging at C/3 (based on manufacturerís 

original rating) to 100% of capacity. 

2. Establish the power capability by recharging, discharging at C/3 to 50% DOD, and 

determining the sustained (30 sec) power capability at 2/3 of the moduleís OCV. 

3. Sort modules by capacity, power capability, and calendar age for later assembly into 

packs for use in stationary applications. 

The stabilized capacity after the four C/3 cycles may be used to predict the expected life in the 

second application. Figure 4 shows a hypothetical plot of capacity vs. cycle number data that 

might be gathered by a manufacturer of EV battery modules as being representative of the 

expected cycle life of modules discharged at a standard rate, say C/3. By superimposing the 

capacity data collected on the charge-discharge cycles after EV end-of-life, it is possible to 

determine where on this standard life curve the used EV modules lie and, therefore, what the 

expected remaining life is. 

 

 

2

 USABC Electric Vehicle Batteries Test Procedures Manual, Revision 2, January 1996. 
Final Report 27 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

3.4. Reconfiguring Used EV Batteries for Stationary Applications 

A canvass of the stationary applications considered in this study shows a wide range in power 

and energy requirements. Small commercial systems, for example, are likely to be in the 25 kW, 

100 kWh range, while utility systems may require up to 100 MW of power and tens of 

megawatt-hours of storage. Moreover, many of the applications are likely to be unique, 

requiring a battery configuration unlike any other. The larger systems will be equivalent to more 

than 100 full EV packs, complicating shipping and handling if fully assembled at the 

refurbishing facility. On the other hand, assembling thousands of individual battery modules 

together at the application site could result in high installation costs. 

As a consequence, it is likely that the used EV modules will be assembled at the refurbishing 

facility into battery packs that are small enough for convenient handling, but large enough to 

reduce installation costs on larger systems. A survey of the applications considered for this study 

indicates that 25 kWh is a convenient building block to meet the smaller applications (except for 

small household systems, which could use individual modules). It is possible that used EV 

battery modules could be assembled into much larger units (for example, skid mounted shipping 

containers), particularly for the larger applications. However, it is likely that the pack assembly 

costs on a per module basis would be of similar magnitude for a wide range of pack sizes. The 

analysis performed here focused on 25 kWh units that could meet the smaller commercial 

applications as sort of a ìplaceholderî to estimate pack assembly costs. This size is similar to 

EV battery packs, allowing for estimation of materials and assembly costs by analogy. 

The hypothetical stationary battery pack, or ìStatPack,î designed for this analysis would contain 

21 12V, 100Ah EV modules. These could be arranged into three rows of seven side-by-side 

modules to create a battery pack with a convenient size. Taking into account space requirements 

and additional weight for cooling systems and electronics, each StatPack would be roughly 4í 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Cycle Number

C/3 Capacity (% of original)

Capacity vs Cycles

Capacity measured on four 

consecutive cycles after EV 

EOL and superimposed on 

manufacturerís life data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Cycle Number

C/3 Capacity (% of original)

Capacity vs Cycles

Capacity measured on four 

consecutive cycles after EV 

EOL and superimposed on 

manufacturerís life data

Figure 4. Conceptual illustration of future life prediction 
Final Report 28 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

wide x 4í long x 1í high and weigh around 1000 kg. This size is about the same as a standard 

shipping pallet, and the weight is small enough to allow handling with forklifts or other 

commonly used equipment. The modules would probably be connected in series, generating 252 

V. Various battery chemistries or module characteristics could lead to slightly different StatPack 

configurations. 

StatPacks would be fabricated from modules that have been fully characterized at the 

refurbishing facility. The modules in a StatPack would be matched on the basis of cycle tests so 

that they all have similar capacity and power capability. The StatPacks would contain all the 

necessary components for thermal and electrical management of the batteries, including fans or 

coolant channels, module interconnects, sensors, and electronics. After fabrication, the 

StatPacks would be stored at the refurbishing facility and eventually sold to whomever would 

assemble and integrate the battery energy storage systems. 
Final Report 29 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

3.5. Summary of Refurbishing Process 

The complete process for converting used EV batteries to stationary applications is illustrated in 

Figure 5. 

Figure 5. Battery conversion process 

Collect used EV modules from dealerships 

and transport to refurbishing facility.

Visually inspect modules for 

damage or signs of abuse.

Measure voltage and resistance 

to identify failed modules.

Determine manufacturer ratings 

and age from label or barcode.

Load modules onto test equipment. Recycle damaged,

old, or failed modules

Determine module capacity through 

4 charge/discharge cycles:

Charge according to manufacturer profile

Discharge at C/3 to 100% rated capacity

Determine module power capability:

Charge according to manufacturer profile

Discharge at C/3 to 50% rated capacity

Discharge at 2/3 OCV for 30 sec.

Disconnect modules from test equipment.

Sort modules by capacity, 

power capability, and age.

Assemble into new battery packs

Ship to assembler of 

complete energy storage system.
Final Report 30 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final Report 31 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

4. APPLICATIONS 

A total of eight stationary applications of batteries were analyzed for this study and considered in 

the economic feasibility analysis. This chapter describes the requirements, benefits, and 

economic values of each of the applications considered. Most of the application requirements, in 

particular those listed for the utility scale applications and for power reliability/peak shaving, are 

based on updates or projections from the ìOpportunities Analysisî report developed by Sandia 

National Laboratories.3 The requirements for the remaining applications were estimated by the 

study team. 

Two values are listed for the economic benefits of each application. For most of the 

applications, the lower value is a projection of the typical savings or added revenue derived by 

the owner of the battery system from its operation. This value is an estimation of what the 

battery system might be worth to potential users, and hence represents the most somebody might 

be willing to pay to purchase such a system if they expect to obtain a profit. The second, higher 

value reflects what people have paid for similar systems currently or formerly in operation. This 

value gives an idea of the allowable system cost for installation in particularly high value 

situations or for early adopters of the technology. 

Three of the applications are exceptions to these values: light commercial and residential load 

following and distributed node telecommunications standby power. For the two load following 

applications, the high and low values were estimated by the study team based on projected 

benefits derived from operation of such systems. The analysis for distributed node telecom 

standby power was different from the other applications in that only the batteries were 

considered, not an entire energy storage system. The high and low benefit values were 

determined from the price range for lead-acid batteries, the technology currently used to meet the 

needs of this market. 

 

3

 P. Butler, Battery Energy Storage for Utility Applications: Phase I ñ Opportunities Analysis, 

Sandia National Laboratories Report SAND94-2605 (10/1994). 
Final Report 32 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

4.1. Transmission support 

In this application, the battery system 

provides pulses of real and reactive 

power to stabilize transmission lines. 

The battery must be of sufficient size to 

support transmission assets, which 

implies 10s to 100s of megawatts. Since 

this is a pulse power application, and the 

pulses are somewhat infrequent, not 

much storage capacity is required, and 

the life of the batteries would primarily 

be determined by calendar life limitations. The first pulse may be discharge or charge, 

depending on the cause and nature of the particular de-stabilizing event, so the battery must be 

maintained at an intermediate state-of-charge. 

The electricity storage system allows transmission lines in a constricted network to be more 

heavily loaded during periods of peak demand by customers. This allows utilities to defer 

investments in transmission assets. The economic benefits listed above are based on estimates of 

the value of such deferred investments. 

4.2. Area regulation & spinning reserve 

These ancillary services 

are typically provided by 

generating assets 

operating at zero or 

partial loading. A battery 

system can provide load 

following (real and 

possibly reactive power) 

for area regulation 

(frequency regulation for 

an island system) and 

provide an alternative method for short term, fast response spinning reserve. As in transmission 

support, the first use for area regulation may be discharge or charge, so the battery must be 

maintained at a partial state of charge. 

 

4

 Updated and inflated from Hurwitch et. al., EPRI Energy Storage Workshop materials (1991). 

5

 Study team projection. 

6

 B. Louks, EPRI Journal 1988, based on Dynastor projections and inflated (1988). 

7

 Inflated cost of PREPA BESS, from A. Akhil, S. Swaminathan, and R. Sen, Cost Analysis of 

Energy Storage Systems for Electric Utility Applications, Sandia National Laboratories report 

SAND97-0443 (1997). 

Application Requirements 

Typical power rating 100 MW 

Discharge time 

10 sec (up to 5 pulses in 

sequence during discharge 

time) 

Energy delivery Up to 100 MWs per pulse 

Frequency of use 1/month 

Low benefit estimate 4 $50/kW/yr

High benefit estimate 5 $150/kW/yr 

Application Requirements 

Area regulation Spinning reserve 

Typical peak power rating 20 MW 20 MW 

Average power rating +10MW 20 MW 

Discharge time Cycled 

continuously 

15 min full power, 

15 min ramp down 

Energy delivery +2 MWh 7.5 MWh 

Frequency of use Continuous 1/month 

Low benefit estimate 6 $700/kW

High benefit estimate 7 $1500/kW 
Final Report 33 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

This set of applications requires a fairly strenuous duty cycle. Spinning reserve requires 15 

minutes at full power and 15 minutes of ramp down from full power to zero. These events only 

happen about once a month, but they would require a complete discharge of the battery. Area 

regulation requires zero net unscheduled power flow between control areas in each 15 minute 

period. The energy transferred to meet this application is only about 25% of that for spinning 

reserve, but the battery is cycled continuously. 

The benefit of the electricity storage system in both spinning reserve and area regulation derives 

from reducing or eliminating the fuel and maintenance costs that are normally associated with 

underutilized generating assets. The benefit derived from area regulation is probably inadequate 

to justify a battery, but once an electricity storage system has been installed, a battery could be 

the least cost alternative for this service. 

4.3. Load leveling/energy arbitrage/transmission deferral 

This is the classic utility application for 

energy storage: store cheap electricity 

generated off peak and sell it on-peak 

when more expensive generators are 

required. Alternatively, the use of 

nighttime electricity on-peak can allow 

deferral of transmission expansions. 

This application requires large storage capacities, with discharges of five hours or more favored 

by most utilities, particularly for transmission deferral and arbitrage. Each discharge removes 

most of the capacity of the battery, and discharges would occur every weekday when power use 

is high, i.e., 100 to 200 days per year. 

The benefit of the electricity storage system in this application is the difference between the cost 

for supplying electricity close to the loads from on-peak generation and transmission assets and 

the cost for supplying electricity from off-peak assets. 

 

8

 Updated and inflated from Hurwitch et. al., EPRI Energy Storage Workshop materials (1991). 

9

 H. Zaininger, Analysis of the Value of Battery Storage with Wind and Photovoltaic Generation 

to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sandia National Laboratories report SAND98-1904 

(1998). 

Application Requirements 

Average power rating 10 MW/15 MVA 

Discharge time At least 5 hours 

Energy delivery 50 MWh 

Frequency of use 100-200 days/yr 

Low benefit estimate 8 $50/kW/yr

High benefit estimate 9 $150/kW/yr 
Final Report 34 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

4.4. Renewables firming 

Most renewable energy resources, such as 

wind and solar energy, are intermittent in 

nature ñ they do not provide a reliable, 

continuous source of power. This 

limitation prevents system operators from 

having the same type of control over 

renewable generating assets that they have 

over other generating assets. For this 

reason, prices paid for electricity 

generated by renewables (unfirm power) are typically lower than what is paid for firm power. 

An energy storage system can follow the renewable generation (and to a lesser extent the system 

load) and allow the renewable generator to be counted a firm resource. This application requires 

a wide range of storage capacities, depending on the nature of the renewable resource and the 

presence or absence of other generators that fill in the gaps. The duty cycle for this application 

depends on the nature of the renewable resource, but would probably be similar to that found in 

the other load following applications, with many shallow DOD cycles superimposed on daily 

deep discharges. The first event after a period of inactivity may be discharge or charge, 

depending on the needs of the electric system and the renewable resource. 

The benefit of the electricity storage system for renewables is the extra revenue for firm 

electricity as compared to electricity from a non-firm resource. Additionally, variations in the 

power from renewables can cause problems with transmission, since wind and solar farms are 

often placed remote from loads and are often connected through weak lines. The benefit 

estimates used here are derived from avoided transmission upgrades. 

4.5. Power reliability & peak shaving 

An energy storage system can provide 

electricity during extended outages and 

reduce the purchase cost for electricity 

(demand charges, time-of-day prices) by 

shaving peaks. The second use of EV 

batteries for Uninterruptible Power 

Source (UPS) applications alone appears 

very unlikely, given the low cost of leadacid batteries for these applications and 

the fact that they are widely used and have well-defined warranties. Thus, peak shaving must be 

used together with the power reliability function. In this case, the customer will have to decide 

 

10 Based on H. Zaininger, Analysis of the Value of Battery Storage with Wind and Photovoltaic 

Generation to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sandia National Laboratories report 

SAND98-1904 (1998). 

11 Proprietary source. 

Application Requirements 

Typical peak power rating 5 MW 

Average power rating 1 MW 

Discharge time 1-10 hours 

Energy delivery 1-10 MWh 

Frequency of use 10-20 days/month 

Low benefit estimate 10 $1000/kW 

High benefit estimate 10 $1500/kW 

Application Requirements 

Typical peak power rating 2 MW 

Average power rating 1 MW 

Discharge time 3-4 hours 

Energy delivery 3-4 MWh 

Frequency of use 6/yr up to daily 

Low benefit estimate 11 $120/kW/yr 

High benefit estimate 11 $250/kW/yr 
Final Report 35 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

on the value of the system for each application and then decide how much capacity to hold back 

for power reliability. 

Battery systems designed to meet this application could be as large as 2 MW in rated power 

output, but will most likely consist of 100 kW modules. Three to four hours of storage will be 

required to provide blackout ride-through and significant peak shaving benefits. Blackouts may 

only occur a few times per year, but peak shaving could be used almost every workday 

depending on the electricity tariff for the site. 

The benefit of the electricity storage system in this application is mostly in the power reliability 

function, with peak shaving being used to offset the total costs of the system. 

 

4.6. Light commercial load following 

A battery will likely be used in tandem 

with most distributed generation 

technologies (including renewables) to 

allow more efficient and more reliable 

operation. The battery system would be 

used for load-following, thereby allowing 

a generator to run at relatively constant 

power delivery or a renewable resource to 

better match the load. This mode of 

operation would require the battery to be in use (charge or discharge) most of the time, and it 

would be at a partial state-of-charge for much of the time. 

The benefit of the electricity storage system in these applications is in allowing more efficient 

and more dispatchable local generation. Battery systems would only be practical for these 

applications if a utility connection were not economically viable, if a battery system owner could 

arrange to receive a high price for any excess electricity that could be sold back to the utility, or 

if the battery reduces the cost of the distributed generating system by avoiding the need for an 

oversized generator to meet peak loads. The benefit estimates shown here were based on 

avoided utility demand charges. 

 

12 Study team projections. 

Application Requirements 

Typical peak power rating 200 kW 

Average power rating 25 kW 

Discharge time 3 hours 

Energy delivery 75-100 kWh 

Frequency of use Daily 

Low benefit estimate 12 $10/kW/month 

High benefit estimate 12 $20/kW/month 
Final Report 36 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

4.7. Distributed node telecom backup power 

Lead-acid batteries already provide power 

for distributed nodes (fiber nodes) of the 

telecomm system during electric utility 

outages. The replacement of lead-acid 

batteries for telecom ìswitchesî is 

deemed very unlikely, but lithium-ion 

batteries are already being supplied in test 

quantities for the distributed telecom node 

application. Very high reliability, i.e., the 

ability to deliver the stated capacity and power, is a must for this application (in order to 

minimize costly service calls). Since the batteries are used for backup power, the duty cycle in 

this application is fairly benign. However, VRLAs used in this application have shown lifetimes 

as short as one year due to the acceleration of aging processes by the high temperatures 

frequently encountered in telecom equipment boxes. Advanced battery technologies may show 

less performance degradation during high temperature float or standby compared to lead acid 

batteries, resulting in longer battery lifetimes. 

The benefit of an alternative to lead-acid batteries in this application is in lower life cycle costs 

due to longer time between replacements. The benefit estimates listed above are based on the 

current price for VRLAs. 

4.8. Residential load following 

This application is very similar to light 

commercial load following, just on a 

smaller scale and operating under 

different load profiles. Distributed 

generation technologies for residential use 

will likely be paired with a battery system 

to improve their efficiency and reliability. 

The benefit of the electricity storage 

system in these applications is in allowing more efficient and more dispatchable local generation. 

Battery systems would only be practical for these applications if a utility connection were not 

economically viable, if a battery system owner can arrange to receive a high price for any excess 

electricity that can be sold back to the utility, or if the battery reduces the cost of the distributed 

generating system by avoiding the need for an oversized generator to meet peak loads. The 

benefit estimates listed above were based on the avoided demand charges calculated for light 

commercial load following. 

 

13 Estimated current cost of batteries for telecommunications. 

14 Study team projections. 

Application Requirements 

Typical peak power rating 5 kW 

Average power rating <5 kW 

Discharge time 5-10 hours 

Energy delivery 25-50 kWh 

Frequency of use 2/yr 

Low benefit estimate 13 $120/kWh 

High benefit estimate 13 $200/kWh 

Application Requirements 

Typical peak power rating 10 kW 

Average power rating 1 kW 

Discharge time 3 hours 

Energy delivery 3-4 kWh 

Frequency of use Daily 

Low benefit estimate 14 $5/kW/month 

High benefit estimate 14 $10/kW/month 
Final Report 37 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

5. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ñ ASSUMPTIONS & 

METHODOLOGY 

The first part of this assessment focused on three separate tasks: identifying the steps necessary 

to prepare used EV batteries for a second application, estimating the requirements and values for 

a range of potential stationary applications, and projecting the remaining life and performance of 

a used EV battery module. Once these tasks were completed, an economic analysis that 

combined the results of all three efforts was performed to determine the economic feasibility of 

generating a second revenue stream for EV batteries from stationary applications. 

A straightforward approach to this analysis was adopted. It began with estimating the cost of 

each step in the process to convert a module from vehicle to stationary use. This included the 

design of a hypothetical battery testing and pack assembly facility. The costs from this facility 

and the other steps in the conversion process were used to generate an estimate of the selling 

price of a stationary application battery pack comprised of used EV battery modules. The 

performance projections for the batteries were then used to design a battery system that would 

meet the requirements for each of the stationary applications. A life cycle cost estimate based on 

the cost of the stationary battery packs, the number of packs required to build the system, the 

number of battery replacements over the system life, and the balance of system (BOS) costs was 

performed for each stationary battery system. This life cycle cost was then compared to the 

estimated value of the application to identify promising stationary applications. The assumptions 

used for each of these steps are identified in the following sections. 

5.1. Availability and cost of used EV batteries 

The goal of the economic analysis was to determine the feasibility of EV battery reuse when 

electric vehicles are common. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the only 

significant sales of electric vehicles in the U.S. in the near-to-mid term will occur in the state of 

California as a consequence of the California Air Resources Boardís (CARB) zero emission 

vehicle (ZEV) mandate. The impact of the CARB mandate on vehicle sales is fairly difficult to 

interpret due to partial credits for vehicles such as HEVs and NEVs. The mandate has also 

become a bit of a moving target in recent years as the regulations have been rewritten and 

revised. At the time of this writing, the mandate does require a certain level of full-function 

ZEV (either battery electric or fuel cell vehicle) sales as the mandate comes into force. CARB 

estimates that by 2006 sales of full function ZEVs will be roughly 10,000 vehicles per year. This 

study assumes that 10,000 all-battery electric vehicles will be sold each year, and the batteries 

from these vehicles will be available several years later when the vehicles need battery 

replacements. At 25ñ30 battery modules per pack, this corresponds to 250,000-300,000 EV 

battery modules available for reuse each year. 

The value of the used EV batteries for a second application determines the amount of buy-down 

or rebate that can be applied to the electric vehicle. Conversely, a certain buy-down may be 

required to ensure commercial viability of EVs. High volume battery production cost estimates 

for the two leading technology contenders (Ni/MH and Li-ion) range from $225/kWh to 

$300/kWh. The United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) mid-term 

commercialization goal for battery cost is $150/kWh. Thus, the cost of the battery to the EV 

user will have to be reduced by up to $150/kWh to meet the USABCís goals for a marketable 
Final Report 38 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

electric vehicle. Since there is uncertainty regarding both the projected production costs of EV 

batteries and the allowable price of the battery in a commercially viable vehicle, this analysis 

treats buy-down cost as a variable and considers a range of values (from $0/kWh to $150/kWh). 

5.2. Collection & transportation 

The first cost item in the reuse process is transporting the pallets of used modules from 

dealerships to a facility for testing, sorting, and reassembly into battery packs suitable for 

stationary applications. It is likely that the dealerships that sell and service EVs will be spread 

across the major metropolitan areas of California (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and the 

San Francisco Bay Area). These areas are somewhat far apart, so transporting the used battery 

modules to a centrally located facility could result in significant costs. To avoid these costs, this 

analysis assumes a total of four facilities will be built, one in each metropolitan area. The cost 

estimate for each facility includes the price of a medium duty truck equipped to carry batteries 

and a full time driver to make regular collection stops at local vehicle dealerships 

5.3. Testing & repackaging 

Assuming EVs are spread evenly across Californiaís high population density areas, each of the 

four testing and repackaging facilities will have to handle about 62,500 modules each year (the 

facility was actually designed for an input of 67,200 modules per year to make test equipment 

design easier). To determine the costs associated with testing, sorting, and repackaging the used 

EV modules, a hypothetical facility with all the equipment necessary to handle this level of 

throughput was designed. The facility is assumed to operate for 350 days per year to maximize 

the use of the capital equipment. This requires an average daily input of 192 modules. A 

description of the cost components associated with the facility follows. 

5.3.1. Capital Costs 

Testing Equipment: The first step in designing the facility was to specify the type and cost of 

testing equipment required to perform the test procedures outlined in Section 3. Most EV 

modules have a rated capacity of around 100 Ah, so the test stand would have to handle around 

33 A during the C/3 discharge. EV battery modules vary in voltage, but most are between 10 

and 30 volts. Quotes were obtained from Bitrode Corporation and Maccor, Inc. for a test station 

that could handle +/-40 A and 40 V. Bitrode designed a system consisting of 16 channels that is 

expected to cost $43,725. 

The cycle tests outlined previously (Section 3.3) require around 40 hours to complete. If time is 

added for connecting and disconnecting the modules, each module will be on test for 

approximately 48 hours. The facility must therefore have 318 modules on test at any one time to 

meet the 192 module input requirement. At 16 channels each, 24 test stations are required. Each 

day, 12 of these stations will have all their battery modules disconnected and replaced with new 

modules while the other 12 stations will continue cycling the batteries that were hooked up to 

them on the previous day. 

Since battery test equipment costs scale with rated power, and since only a single pulse will be 

performed on each module to get an idea of its power capabilities, the test stations were not 

designed to handle the pulse power characterization. Instead, an estimate was obtained for a 

separate single channel unit rated at 200 A and 30 V, which would cost about $8,000. One pulse 

test unit will be required for every two test stations that are switched each day, for a total of six 
Final Report 39 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

pulse test units. Six computers will also be needed to operate all of the test equipment and 

collect data. Bitrode estimated the cost of each computer along with its associated peripherals, 

software, and cables at $7,236. 

Materials handling equipment: A conveyor system will move the used EV modules from the 

loading dock to the test stations and from the test stations to the pack assembly area. Equipment 

will be required to lift the modules from the conveyor belts and place them into the StatPack 

containers. The assembled StatPacks will be stored on racks within the facility until they are 

shipped to the end user. Finally, a forklift will handle unloading of the pallets of modules as well 

as moving and loading the stationary battery packs. Table 4 contains a listing of all the capital 

costs for the facility, including the materials handling equipment. 

Office and other equipment: The office area of the facility will be equipped with computers, 

furniture, a photocopier, a printer, a fax machine, and furniture. In addition, the facility will 

contain a workshop for calibration, diagnosis, and repair of the test equipment. This workshop 

will be equipped with various tools and devices (such as multimeters, power sources, a soldering 

iron, etc.). These items are included in the capital cost estimate for the facility and are shown in 

Table 4. 

Table 4. Capital costs 

Description # Unit Cost Item Cost Total Cost 

Test Equipment $1,140,816

Bitrode Model MCN16-40-40 battery cycler 24 $43,725 $1,049,400 

Bitrode Model RCN1-200-24 pulse test unit 6 $8,000 $48,000 

Computers 6 $7,236 $43,416 

Materials Handling $138,462

Conveyors $28,871 

Module lifting equipment 8 $1,000 $8,000 

Storage Racks $5,182 

Nissan PE30YSC forklift 1 $18,595 $18,595 

Medium duty truck 1 $50,000 $50,000 

Office and Other Equipment $20,500

Total Capital Costs $1,299,778

5.3.2. Direct Costs 

Materials: The primary material cost for the testing facility comes from the used EV modules. 

This cost was determined by multiplying the buy-down cost input by the rated energy capacity of 

the module when it was new to determine the cost per module to the testing facility. Packaging 

components for the stationary battery pack are the only other significant material cost. Each 

battery pack will consist of 21 modules arranged in series, giving an overall rated voltage of 252 

V and an energy storage capacity of about 25 kWh. Each battery pack will require interconnects, 

cooling components (such as fans or coolant tubing), electronics, and the package in which the 

modules are assembled. These components were estimated to cost about $250/battery pack. 

Labor: The number of full time employees required to operate the facility was determined from 

an estimate of the effort required to carry out the testing protocols listed above and generate an 

output of 192 modules per day. An analysis of the tasks required to disconnect a set of modules 

from a test station, reconnect a new set of modules, and set up a series of tests indicated that it 

will take roughly four hours for a technician to completely switch out the modules on a test 
Final Report 40 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

station. In a single day, a technician could therefore switch out two test stations. This implies 

the need for six technicians on duty for eight hours a day, seven days a week. The facility would 

have to employ about eight test technicians. 

Eight StatPacks will be produced each day. Assuming roughly one person-day for pack 

assembly, eight employees will be required to assemble packs eight hours a day, seven days a 

week, for a total of 12 full time pack assemblers. There will be two supervisors to ensure that 

one is always on duty during operating hours. The facility will also employ a plant manager, an 

electrical engineer to maintain the test equipment, a sales and logistics manager who will handle 

battery shipments and contracts, an office administrator to handle bookkeeping and 

correspondence, three full time security guards for round-the-clock surveillance, a forklift driver, 

a truck driver, and a part time janitor. Estimates for the hourly wages for each of these 

employees were obtained from the Department of Laborís Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

website and converted to annual salaries. 15 These salaries were then increased by a factor of 

27.4%, the national average for non-wage compensation of civilian workers.16 The salaries and 

resulting employment costs are summarized below. 

 

15 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey, 

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm#data (12/2001) 

16 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation for March 2001, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm (6/2001) 
Final Report 41 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

 Table 5. Employment costs 

Description Number Annual Salary Annual Total 

Test technicians 8 $41,210 $370,890 

Pack assemblers 12 $23,490 $281,880 

Forklift driver 1 $26,940 $26,940 

Truck driver 1 $26,940 $26,940 

Supervisors 2 $46,560 $93,120 

Plant manager 1 $85,450 $85,450 

Electrical engineer 1 $66,320 $66,320 

Sales/logistics rep 1 $58,630 $58,630 

Office administrator 1 $28,220 $28,220 

Security guards 3 $19,470 $58,410 

Janitor o $19,880 $4,970 

Total wages $1,101,770 

Non-wage compensation factor 27.4% 

Non-wage compensation $301,895 

Total Employment Costs $1,403,665 

Rent: After determining the equipment and personnel necessary to run the testing and 

repackaging facility, a sample floor plan was drawn up to estimate the amount of space required 

for the operation (see Figure 6. Hypothetical used EV battery testing & packaging facility 

layout). Based on this floor plan, roughly 10,173 ft2 of space will be required for the facility. 

The average rent for R&D/flex facilities from the fourth quarter of 2001 for the four areas where 

facilities might be built (Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, and San Diego) was $11.27 per 

square foot per year (triple net), corresponding to annual rent of about $115,000.17

 

17 Grubb & Ellis, Asking rental rates (R&D-Flex, triple net) for second quarter 2001 from 

"Industrial Market Trends: A Survey of the Nation's Industrial Markets" (Fall 2001) 
Final Report 42 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Figure 6. Hypothetical used EV battery testing & packaging facility layout 

Electricity: Electricity costs were estimated for battery testing as well as general lighting, 

heating, and cooling. Testing for each module will require about 9 kWh of electricity for a total 

of 604,800 kWh of electricity per year. According to data obtained from the DOE Energy 

Information Administrationís website, this electricity would cost $43,300/yr at the average 

commercial electricity rate of 10.4¢/kWh for the utilities serving the four areas mentioned 

above.18 Based on an average annual energy expenditure of $1.58 per square foot of commercial 

floor space obtained from the Department of Energyís Office of Buildings Technology, HVAC 

and lighting for the refurbishing facility would cost around $7,200/yr.19

Transportation: Assuming the truck for collection of modules from dealerships travels 50,000 

miles per year, and maintenance and fuel cost $0.325/mile, the truck would cost $16,250/year to 

operate. 

Other direct costs: This catchall, estimated at 2% of labor costs, includes phones, postage, office 

supplies, and the other costs of doing business. 

5.3.3. Indirect Costs 

Insurance, general & administrative costs, and warranty costs are all estimated as a percentage of 

direct costs: 3%, 16%, and 4%, respectively. 

 

18 Department of Energy Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861, "Annual Electric 

Utility Report" http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esrt15p2.html#cal (4/2002) 

19 Department of Energy Office of Buildings Technology State & Local Programs, BTS Core 

Databook http://btscoredatabook.eren.doe.gov/tableview.asp?TableID=108&t=pdf (10/2001) 
Final Report 43 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

5.3.4. Earnings, taxes, and determination of reconfigured battery selling price 

The testing and packaging facility is assumed to have an after-tax internal rate of return (IRR) of 

15%. This figure is typical of what many firms require before making an investment in a 

particular venture. The analysis also assumes that the facility costs will be recovered in five 

years. While this is somewhat short, potential investors would expect, and perhaps demand, a 

rapid return from a unique and potentially high-risk venture. In addition, obsolescence may 

require replacement of some of the testing equipment after five years, particularly if EV battery 

technologies change significantly. Finally, since testing and packaging the batteries is primarily 

a labor-intensive effort, this short lifetime has little effect on the overall cost of the stationary 

battery packs. 

The cost of the stationary packs on a per module basis was calculated by determining the 

revenues necessary to achieve a 15% IRR after state and federal taxes of 8.84% and 34%, 

respectively. IRR is defined as the discount rate required to make the net present value of a 

particular venture equal to zero, where the net present value is the sum of all the cash flows over 

the life of a venture discounted back to the present. Expressed as an equation, 

( ) 0

0 1 = +

+−−

+−= ∑=

n

i

i IRR

REVTAXEXP CCNPV

where: 

 NPV = net present value 

 CC = capital costs 

 EXP = expenses 

 TAX= taxes 

 REV = revenues 

 IRR = internal rate of return 

 i = year 

 n = lifetime of facility 

Taxes are equal to the tax rate times the adjusted gross income for each year: 

= ( − − DEPEXPREVTRTAX )

where: 

 TR = tax rate 

 DEP = depreciation = CC/n (linear depreciation) 

Substituting these values, the expression for NPV becomes: 

( ) 0

1

( )

0

= +

+−−−−

+−= ∑=

n

i

i

n

CC

IRR

EXPREVTREXP REV

CCNPV

Solving this expression for the annual revenues yields: 
Final Report 44 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

∑

∑

=

=

+

−

+

−+

+

= n

i

i

n

i

i

n

CC

IRR

TR

IRR

EXPTREXP

CC

REV

0

0

)1(

1

)1(

)(

Thus, the revenues could be determined from the capital costs, the annual expenses, the tax rate, 

the internal rate of return, and the projected lifetime of the facility. 

The selling price of the converted batteries on a per module basis was calculated by dividing the 

total annual revenues by the total number of modules that pass through the facility each year: 

MODULES

REV PRICE =

A summary of the costs associated with a refurbishing facility assuming battery modules are 

obtained at a buy-down of $75/kWh is shown in Table 5. This table also shows the projected 

selling price of the converted battery packs on a per-module and per-kWh basis. 

Table 6. Testing and repackaging costs 

Description Amount Unit Cost Total Cost ($/yr) 

Direct Costs 

 Batteries (buy-down) 60,480 modules $98.10/module 

($75/kWh) 

$5,933,088

 Pack materials 2,880 packs/yr $250/pack $720,000

 Labor $1,403,655

 Rent 10,173 ft.2 $11.27/ft.2/yr. $114,679

 Electricity $79,245

Testing 604,800 kWh 10.4¢/kWh 

HVAC & lighting 10,173 ft.2 $1.58/ ft.2

 Transportation 50,000 miles $0.365/mile $18,250

 Other direct costs 2% of labor $22,035

Indirect Costs 

 Insurance 3% of Direct Costs $250,051

 G&A 16% of Direct Costs $1,333,064

 Warranty 4% of Direct Costs $333,401

 Capital recovery, earnings, and taxes $218,403

Required annual revenues $10,724,437

Battery module throughput 60,480

Battery pack selling price ($/module) $176.43

Battery pack selling price ($/kWh) $147.02

5.3.5. Cost breakdown 

The cost for collecting, testing, and repackaging used EV battery modules into battery packs for 

stationary applications is broken down into its various components in Figure 7. This figure was 

generated by taking the cost components listed in Table 6 and dividing them by the total capacity 

of all the battery packs that would be produced by the refurbishing facility in a year. 
Final Report 45 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

The primary cost driver for these battery packs is the purchase price of the used EV batteries, 

which is determined by the buy-down given to the EV buyer. The battery procurement costs 

account for over half of the stationary battery pack costs. Testing and conversion of the used EV 

batteries is primarily a labor intensive process, with employment and overhead costs each 

accounting for around 12-13% of the total battery pack costs. The other major cost component is 

the materials for repackaging the used EV modules into a battery pack, which makes up about 

7% of the total pack cost. 

5.4. Energy storage system life cycle costs 

The price of the batteries represents only a single (and often small) component of the cost of a 

complete energy storage system. There are a number of other costs that are incurred during 

assembly, installation, and operation of such systems that need to be considered to determine life 

cycle costs. Racks and wiring are required for connecting the battery modules and holding them 

in place. Nearly all energy storage systems include a power conditioning system (PCS) to ensure 

that the output of energy storage device matches the requirements of the application (for 

example, 240V, 60Hz AC power). Sensors must be installed to monitor the performance and 

condition of the battery. Also, both regular and unscheduled maintenance will be required over 

the life of the system. Furthermore, the batteries themselves will most likely need replacement 

over the expected life of the energy storage system. 

This section describes the methodology for estimating these and other costs. It also explains how 

all of the costs were brought together to determine the life cycle costs of an energy storage 

system designed to meet each of the applications described in Section 4. 

5.4.1. Application requirements & system characteristics 

The first step was to design an energy storage system for each application that could meet that 

applicationís power and energy requirements. The number of battery modules required to meet 

Figure 7. Cost breakdown for reconfigured EV batteries 
Final Report 46 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

the needs of each application was calculated based on the modulesí projected power and energy 

capabilities. 

5.4.2. Duty cycle and projected life 

To determine the replacement costs of the battery, the battery life had to be estimated. Since 

both the amount of time that the battery will remain in the vehicle and the number of discharge 

cycles it will see before being removed are uncertain and will vary from one vehicle to the next, 

the life of the battery in the stationary application is difficult to estimate. For this analysis, 

battery life in the second application was treated as a variable. To generate the plots shown in 

Section 6, battery life was arbitrarily varied from 1 to 9 years. In addition to these cost vs. life 

curves, a best guess value was established for the life of the battery in each application by 

comparing the projected cycle life and the expected calendar life. 

Cycle lives were determined by dividing the annual energy throughput required by the 

application duty cycle by the expected throughput remaining in the battery after use in an EV 

(based on cycle lives projected by battery manufacturers, where available). For a somewhat 

simplified example, if an EV battery module had a projected life of 1500 cycles, and it were 

removed from the vehicle after 1000 cycles, it would be expected to have 500 cycles remaining 

in the second application. If this same module had a capacity of about 1 kWh, it should have an 

energy throughput of around 500 kWh remaining for the second application. If the duty cycle 

for the application required 100 kWh of energy throughput each year, the battery module would 

be expected to last about 5 years in that application. 

The calendar life in the stationary application was estimated to be 5 years. If the battery is 

designed for a 10-year life, and it is removed from the vehicle after around five years, that would 

leave around five years remaining for the second application. Please note that this is a somewhat 

arbitrary guess since it is unclear how long the battery may actually last in the vehicle. There is 

also some uncertainty on the impact of the vehicle environment (particularly temperature 

extremes) on battery calendar life. Furthermore, the life in the second application may be 

considerably longer since the environment for stationary applications is typically much more 

benign than that found in vehicles. 

For the best guess estimates, the life of the battery was set as the lesser of the cycle and calendar 

lives. 

5.4.3. Battery costs 

The cost of a single set of batteries was calculated by multiplying the number of modules 

required to meet the application by the selling price of the refurbished module (see Section 5.3). 

The number of battery replacements was then determined by dividing the system design life 

(typically 20 years) by the expected life of the battery. The present value of all the battery 

purchases over the system life was calculated by discounting the costs of all the replacements 

back to present day dollars and adding them to the initial purchase cost. 

5.4.4. Balance of system costs 

Typically, the procurement costs of all the non-battery equipment that goes into an energy 

storage system, as well as the cost of assembling and starting up the system, are lumped together 

as balance of system (BOS) costs. These include (but are not limited to) the facilities for housing 

the batteries, equipment to connect the battery modules together and monitor their performance, 

equipment to connect the battery to the local electricity supply, electronics to control the 
Final Report 47 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

operation of the battery system and condition its output appropriately, and transportation for all 

the components to the application site. For this analysis, the BOS costs were broken down into 

three categories: accessories, facilities, and transportation; PCS, interface equipment, and 

controls; and installation and startup. 

For each of the applications, an existing analogous system was chosen as a starting point for 

estimating BOS costs. For example, GNB has installed a backup power/peak shaving system at 

its lead smelting facility in Vernon, California, to allow orderly plant shutdown during blackouts 

and avoid demand charges by providing peak power. The costs of this system have been detailed 

in several reports.20 This system was used as the template for several applications, including 

power reliability/peak shaving. The cost components for this battery system were separated into 

the groups listed above. The cost of each group was then divided by an appropriate size metric 

to generate a scaled cost. For example, the battery accessories & facilities costs were divided by 

the storage capacity of the Vernon system to generate a $/kWh unit value for those components, 

while the PCS, interface equipment, and controls costs were divided by the rated power output to 

give a $/kW figure. See Table 7 for all of the unit BOS costs for each of the applications. 

These unit costs were then multiplied by the appropriate system parameters for each of the 

stationary applications to give a scaled estimate of the various BOS costs. The resulting 

projected costs are summarized in Table 8. Note that distributed node telecom has no BOS 

because this study looked only at the batteries for this application, not the entire system. There 

are no similar systems available for residential load following, so the costs for these systems 

were estimated by the study team based on expected PCS and maintenance costs. 

5.4.5. Operating and maintenance costs 

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs must also be considered if an accurate life cycle cost is 

to be determined. These items include routine and unscheduled maintenance, repair or 

replacement of failed or damaged battery modules or packs, periodic monitoring to ensure 

nominal system operation, and the cost of the electricity used in operating the system (powering 

sensors, controls, cooling devices, etc.) as well as that consumed by the system due to losses 

during normal operation. 

Annual O&M cost estimates were determined in much the same way BOS costs were estimated. 

The O&M costs for an analogous system were divided by the power rating of that system to give 

a $/kWyr value (see Table 7). These unit values were then multiplied by the rated power of the 

hypothetical system designed to meet the stationary application to give a scaled O&M cost 

estimate. The results of this calculation are summarized in Table 8. 

 

20 A. Akhil, S. Swaminathan, and R. Sen, Cost Analysis of Energy Storage Systems for Electric 

Utility Applications, Sandia National Laboratories report SAND97-0443 (1997) and S. 

Swaminathan, N. Miller, and R. Sen, Battery Energy Storage Systems Life Cycle Costs Case 

Studies, Sandia National Laboratories report SAND98-1905 (1998). 
Final Report 48 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 7. BOS and O&M costs for analogous battery systems 

Application 

Similar 

system21

Accessories, 

facilities, 

shipping 

PCS, 

interface 

equipment, 

controls 

Installation 

and 

startup O&M 

Units $/kWh $/kW $/kWh $/kWyr 

Transmission Support PREPA $525 $442 $360 $38 

Area Regulation & Spinning Reserve PREPA $525 $442 $360 $18 

Load Leveling /Arbitrage/ Trans. Deferral Chino $117 $336 $52 $29 

Renewables Firming Vernon $482 $319 $90 $58 

Power Reliability & Peak Shaving Vernon $482 $319 $90 $58 

Light Commercial Load Following Vernon $482 $319 $90 $58 

Distributed-Node Telecomm Standby Batteries only N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Residential Load Following N/A Included $100 Included $102/yr 

One of the costs associated with installing and operating a battery system is proper disposal or 

recycling of the batteries when they reach the end of their useful life. At present, the battery 

manufacturer is responsible for the battery from cradle to grave, and the cost of handling the 

batteries at end of life is included in the price of the new EV battery. It is assumed here that 

recycling/disposal costs will continue to be paid by the primary user of the battery (the EV 

owner). The money set aside for recycling/disposal will somehow be passed along with the 

battery through its various applications until it reaches end of life, or the responsibility for proper 

disposal will remain with the battery manufacturer. Either way, the fees will not have to be 

directly borne by the user of the battery in the second application. Therefore, disposal/recycling 

fees were not included in the system costs for this analysis. 

Salvage value for the balance of system equipment was also not included in this analysis. If the 

energy storage systems last for as long as planned here (20 years for most applications), most of 

the balance of system components will have lived out their useful lives. Some components may 

be obsolete, and others may not be sufficiently portable to warrant use in another system or for 

another application. Therefore, it was assumed that there would be very little salvage value left 

in the system when it reaches end of life, and whatever is remaining is expected to offset any 

decommissioning expenses. 

5.4.6. Total system costs 

The total capital cost for installing the system was calculated by adding together the battery costs 

and the BOS costs. The total capital cost was then amortized over the life of the system to give 

an annualized capital cost. This annualized capital cost was added to the annual O&M costs to 

determine the annualized cost of installing and operating the system, which this study refers to as 

the life cycle cost. This value was then divided by the size of the system to give a per unit figure 

of merit in $/kW/yr or $/kWh/yr. Table 8 summarizes the results of all of these calculations for a 

 

21 Costs for analogous systems inflated from A. Akhil, S. Swaminathan, and R. Sen, Cost 

Analysis of Energy Storage Systems for Electric Utility Applications, Sandia National 

Laboratories report SAND97-0443 (1997) and S. Swaminathan, N. Miller, and R. Sen, Battery 

Energy Storage Systems Life Cycle Costs Case Studies, Sandia National Laboratories report 

SAND98-1905 (1998). 
Final Report 49 Technical and Econom

Used EV Batteries 

Table 8. Life cycle cost components for stationary energy storage systems based on used EV batteries 

Units Trans. Support Area Reg. & Spinning Reserve Load Leveling Renewables Firming Power Reliability & Peak Lt. 

Fo

Application Requirements & System Characteristics Peak power required KW 100,000 20,000 15,000 5,000 2,000  Required capacity KWh 140 40,000 50,000 10,000 8,000  Modules required mod 16,667 33,334 41,667 8,334 6,667  Peak power available KW 100,002 80,002 100,001 20,002 16,001  Capacity available kWh 20,000 40,001 50,000 10,001 8,000 Duty Cycle & Projected Life  Typical energy delivery kWh 140 2000 / 7500 100,000 10,000 4,000  Frequency of use Uses/yr 12 17520 / 12 200 240 256  Annual energy throughput kWh 1,680 35,130,000 20,000,000 2,400,000 1,024,000  Throughput per module KWh/mod 0.10 1,054 480 288 154  Projected battery life Yr 5.00 1.09 2.40 4.00 5.00  Projected system life Yr 20 20 20 20 10 Battery Costs  Cost of one set of batteries $ $2,900,000 $5,880,000 $7,400,000 $1,470,000 $1,180,000  Battery purchases 4 19 9 6 2  Present value of battery purchases $ $8,000,000 $62,800,000 $38,700,000 $5,220,000 $2,050,000 Balance of System Costs  Similar system PREPA PREPA Chino Vernon Vernon V Accessories, facilities, transportation $ $10,500,000 $21,000,000 $5,840,000 $4,820,000 $3,850,000  PCS, interface equipment, controls $ $44,200,000 $8,840,000 $5,040,000 $1,590,000 $638,000  Installation & startup $ $7,210,000 $14,400,000 $2,610,000 $902,000 $721,000  Total BOS first cost $ $61,900,000 $44,300,000 $13,500,000 $7,310,000 $5,210,000 $Operations & Maintenance Costs  Total O&M costs $/yr $3,830,000 $367,000 $434,000 $290,000 $116,000 Total System Costs  Capital costs $ $69,900,000 $107,000,000 $52,200,000 $12,500,000 $7,260,000 $ Annualized capital costs $/yr $6,550,000 $10,000,000 $4,890,000 $1,170,000 $1,030,000  Total annual expenses $/yr $10,400,000 $10,400,000 $5,330,000 $1,460,000 $1,150,000  System unit annual cost $/kW/yr $104 $520 $355 $293 $573 
Final Report 50 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

used EV battery with a $75/kWh buy-down, roughly 1000 cycles remaining in its useful life, and 

an expected calendar life of 5 years. 

5.5. Feasibility categories 

After all of the calculations were completed, the system life cycle cost was compared to the 

application values listed in Section 4 to determine the feasibility of using the reconfigured EV 

batteries in each application. For the purposes of this report, three categories of feasibility were 

developed. If the system life cycle cost is more than the high value estimate, the application is 

deemed ìunlikelyî for that battery. If the life cycle cost is less than the high value but more than 

the low value, the application is described as ìpossibleî for the battery. Finally, if the life cycle 

cost is less than the low value estimate, the application/battery combination is termed 

ìfavorable.î The results of the calculations and the feasibility assessments are summarized in 

the following section. 
Final Report 51 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

6. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ñ RESULTS OF ANALYSIS 

6.1. Nickel/Metal Hydride 

Ni/MH batteries are the most mature advanced battery chemistry used in electric vehicle 

applications in the U.S. As such, obtaining data on life and performance was relatively easy 

compared to other battery chemistries considered. Based on conversations with battery 

manufacturers, it was assumed that a used Ni/MH EV module could provide a cycle life roughly 

equal to that of the vehicle application at a slightly de-rated capacity. Further, we assumed that 

the used EV battery would have a calendar life of 5 years in the second application. The battery 

replacement schedule was determined using the lesser of the predicted cycle and calendar lives. 

Half of the applications considered in the study involve systems that would be installed by a 

utility to provide benefits or services to the grid as a whole. The results of the analysis for these 

four utility applications are summarized in Table 9. The lifetimes shown represent the best 

estimate of how long the battery would last in the application. The term in parentheses after the 

life estimate indicates whether the life in the application was limited by duty cycle or calendar 

life. 

Table 9. Analysis of used Ni/MH EV batteries in utility applications 

Application Life (yr) 

Buy-down 

($/kWh) 

System life 

cycle cost 

($/kW/yr) 

Low value 

($/kW/yr)

High value 

($/kW/yr) Analysis 

Transmission stabilization 5 (calendar) $50 $150 

 $0 $116 Possible 

$50 $119 Possible 

$100 $121 Possible 

$150 $125 Possible 

Area regulation & 1.1 (cycle) $35 $75 

spinning reserve $0 $319 Unlikely 

 $50 $453 Unlikely 

$100 $587 Unlikely 

$150 $721 Unlikely 

Load leveling 4.8 (cycle) $50 $150 

 $0 $158 Unlikely 

$50 $222 Unlikely 

$100 $286 Unlikely 

$150 $350 Unlikely 

Renewables firming 4.0 (cycle) $50 $75 

 $0 $226 Unlikely 

$50 $270 Unlikely 

$100 $315 Unlikely 

$150 $356 Unlikely 
Final Report 52 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

6.1.1. Transmission support 

Of these four applications, only transmission support appears to be a possible candidate for a 

second use of EV battery modules. For the entire range of buy-down values, the life cycle 

system cost is between the two value estimates, categorizing the application as ìpossibleî for 

used Ni/MH EV modules. This is graphically represented in Figure 8, which shows the variation 

in life cycle cost with both battery life and buy-down. 

Note that since this application requires only pulse discharges, the total energy that passes 

through the battery is quite small. Thus, there is no predicted cycle life for this application. The 

life of the battery will be limited by calendar aging processes. 

The horizontal dashed lines on the graph in Figure 8 indicate the estimated values of the 

application and serve as boundaries between the three viability categories. As expected, the life 

cycle cost increases with increasing buy-down and decreasing life, but only to a small degree. 

This relative insensitivity to battery costs is due to the nature of the application, which requires 

short duration, high power pulses. These requirements result in the balance of system 

components being the major cost driver for the battery system, as illustrated in Figure 9. The 

PCS, interface, monitors and controls account for 40% of the total life cycle costs, O&M costs 

account for an estimated 37%, and battery accessories make up about 9%. The battery and its 

replacements account for only 7% of the total life cycle costs. 

Figure 8. Life cycle cost as a function of battery life and buy-down for 

transmission support 
Final Report 53 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Due to this insensitivity to 

battery costs, transmission 

support can tolerate buydowns as high as $150/kWh 

at battery calendar lifetimes 

as short as two years. The 

only point where the cost 

curves look unfavorable is 

at high buy-downs and a 

one-year life. Since the 

battery is expected to be 

calendar life limited in this 

application, it is unlikely 

that the life would be this 

short. 

6.1.2. Area regulation & spinning reserve 

The life cycle cost curves for area regulation & spinning reserve are shown in Figure 10, below. 

The vertical white line on this plot indicates the projected battery life based on the expected 

energy throughput remaining in the battery and the duty cycle for the application. Area 

Figure 9. Primary cost drivers for transmission support 

Figure 10. Life cycle cost for Ni/MH in area regulation and spinning reserve 
Final Report 54 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

regulation is a fairly strenuous application, requiring continuous cycling of the battery, and the 

effect on life is apparent in this plot. However, even at high lifetimes, and even if the batteries 

could be obtained for free, this application would not be viable. This is due to both the relatively 

low value of the estimated economic benefits derived from this application and the high cost of 

installing and operating the system. 

As Figure 11 illustrates, battery costs dominate the life cycle costs for a system designed to 

provide area regulation & spinning reserve. There are therefore two potential pathways to 

reduced costs: lower conversion costs or significantly improved battery performance. It is 

unlikely that a quantum 

leap in battery life 

(representing a doubling 

of the projected cycle life, 

for example) is just 

around the corner, so the 

most likely path to cost 

reduction is in reduced 

battery testing and 

reconfiguring costs. 

While it is possible that 

these costs could be 

somewhat lower than 

what was estimated for 

this study, it is unlikely 

that the cost reductions 

necessary to make this 

application viable are 

achievable. 

6.1.3. Load leveling/energy arbitrage/transmission deferral 

Load leveling/energy arbitrage/transmission deferral looks somewhat better than area regulation 

& spinning reserve, but it is still classified as unlikely. The life cycle cost curves are shown in 

Figure 12. 

Figure 11. Primary cost drivers for area regulation & spinning 

reserve
Final Report 55 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

This application appears to be just on the border of possible when the used EV batteries are 

obtained for free. However, any reasonable buy-down that could lower the purchase price of 

EVs puts the life cycle cost well above the expected economic benefit from the application. This 

is one of the higher value 

applications, but it also has 

one of the highest life cycle 

costs of the systems 

studied here. The vast 

majority of this cost (68%) 

comes from the batteries 

themselves, as shown in 

Figure 13. Much as with 

area regulation & spinning 

reserve, the only way to 

significantly reduce the life 

cycle costs of these 

systems would be reduced 

testing & reconfiguring 

costs. 

Figure 12. Life cycle cost curves for load leveling/energy 

arbitrage/transmission deferral 

Figure 13. Primary cost drivers for load leveling/energy 

arbitrage/transmission deferral
Final Report 56 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

6.1.4. Renewables firming 

The fourth utility scale application, renewables firming, is similar to area regulation and spinning 

reserve in that it is estimated to have a fairly low economic benefit, but high system life cycle 

costs. The life cycle costs as a function of life and buy-down are shown below in Figure 14. 

The life cycle costs for a 

system designed to meet 

this application are split 

fairly evenly between the 

various cost components. 

As Figure 15 illustrates, the 

life cycle costs derive 

mostly from the batteries, 

the battery accessories and 

facilities, and O&M costs. 

It is doubtful that sufficient 

cost reductions in all of 

these areas to make this 

application possible could 

be achieved. 

Figure 14. Life cycle cost curves for renewables firming 

Figure 15. Primary cost drivers for renewables firming 
Final Report 57 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

The remaining applications considered in this study would most likely be installed on the 

customer side of the meter to provide benefits to a particular customer or facility. The results for 

these commercial and residential applications with Ni/MH batteries are shown in Table 10. 

Table 10. Analysis of used Ni/MH EV batteries in commercial & residential applications

Application Life (yr) 

Buy-down 

($/kWh) 

System life 

cycle cost 

($/kW/yr) 

Low value 

($/kW/yr) 

High value 

($/kW/yr) Synopsis 

Power reliability & peak shaving 5 (calendar) $120 $250 

 $0 $473 Unlikely 

$50 $540 Unlikely 

$100 $606 Unlikely 

$150 $672 Unlikely 

Light commercial load following 2.6 (cycle) $120 $240 

 $0 $155 Possible 

$50 $169 Possible 

$100 $184 Possible 

$150 $200 Possible 

Distributed node telecom 5 (calendar) $32 $53 

 $0 $12 Favorable

 $50 $29 Favorable

 $100 $46 Possible 

 $150 $63 Unlikely 

Residential load following 3.9 (cycle) $60 $120 

 $0 $29 Favorable

 $50 $42 Favorable

 $100 $56 Favorable

 $150 $69 Possible 

6.1.5. Power reliability & peak shaving 

The life cycle cost curves for power reliability & peak shaving are shown below in Figure 16. 

This application is expected to generate a fairly high economic benefit, but the system designed 

to meet the application requirements is fairly expensive, putting it well into the unlikely range 

even with free batteries that last a long time. 
Final Report 58 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Power reliability and peak shaving is primarily an energy intensive application, and this is 

illustrated by the cost breakdown shown in Figure 17. Nearly half of the cost of the system for 

comes from battery accessories and facilities, while about a quarter of the cost comes from the 

batteries themselves. It is 

possible that facilities costs 

for many potential 

installations could be 

reduced through creative 

siting of the battery system, 

but this reduction would 

probably not be enough to 

make this application viable 

in and of itself. It is 

unlikely that the costs for 

racking, interconnects, and 

other accessories could be 

significantly reduced. 

Figure 16. Life cycle cost curves for power reliability and peak shaving 

Figure 17. Primary cost drivers for power reliability and peak 

shaving 
Final Report 59 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

6.1.6. Light commercial load following 

In contrast, the other two commercial applications look much more promising. Light 

commercial load following is categorized as ìpossibleî for nearly the entire range of buy-downs 

and battery lifetimes considered here. The life cycle cost curves are shown in Figure 18 below. 

Load following is a fairly 

strenuous application, 

requiring nearly continuous 

low depth of discharge 

cycles superimposed on 

daily deep discharges. At 

higher buy-downs, battery 

life becomes increasingly 

important. Based on the 

projections made here, light 

commercial load following 

could support moderate 

buy-downs even at the 

somewhat short lifetimes 

expected given the 

application duty cycle. 

However, shorter than 

Figure 18. Life cycle curves for Ni/MH in light commercial applications 

Figure 19. Primary cost drivers for light comm. load following 
Final Report 60 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

predicted battery lives combined with high buy-downs could push this application into the 

unlikely range. 

6.1.7. Distributed node telecommunications standby power 

The other commercial application that may show promise for the second use of EV batteries is 

distributed node telecommunications standby power. This application is a bit of a special case in 

this study in that the economic analysis considered only the batteries rather than a fully 

integrated energy storage system. This was done because it is likely that the used EV batteries 

will be used as a direct replacement for the VRLAs currently used for this application and will 

probably utilize existing electronics, wiring, containers, and other components. 

Another difference between distributed node telecom standby power and the other applications 

considered in this study lies in how the economic benefit of the batteries was derived. For this 

application, the high and low estimates for the economic benefit derived from the used EV 

batteries were based on the cost range for VRLAs. Since the economic analysis for this study 

was conducted on a life cycle cost basis, the expected life of the VRLAs was needed to calculate 

the economic benefit of the batteries over the system life. 

Unfortunately, definitively determining the life of VRLAs in distributed node telecom 

applications is impossible. Since they are being used for backup power, the batteries are not 

cycled frequently. Calendar life is typically the limiting factor that leads to battery replacement 

in this application. Variations between sites (temperature extremes, exposure to the elements, 

and other factors) and different batteries lead to a range of lifetimes. 

To account for these variations, two cases were run in the analysis performed for this study in an 

attempt to bound expected battery lifetimes. The first case assumed a VRLA life of two years, 

and the second considered a five year life. These two cases lead to very different results, as 

shown below in Figure 20 and Figure 21. 
Final Report 61 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Figure 20. Life cycle cost curves for distributed node telecom standby power 

compared to VRLA batteries lasting two years 

Figure 21. Life cycle cost curves for distributed node telecom standby power 

compared to VRLA batteries lasting five years 
Final Report 62 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

When compared to VRLAs that last five years, used Ni/MH EV batteries do not appear to be a 

good candidate for this application. The feasibility is only categorized as possible at low buydown values and fairly long (four years or more) lifetimes. However, if the competing VRLAs 

last only two years, then under certain conditions the economic feasibility is classified as 

possible or even favorable. Since only the batteries are considered in the analysis for this 

application, there is a strong dependence on both buy-down cost and battery life. In general, if 

the used EV battery lasts significantly longer than the VRLAs (at least 50% longer), the 

application can support modest buy-downs. As the lifetime of the EV battery increases, the 

feasibility of the application improves and higher level buy-downs can be achieved.

6.1.8. Residential load following 

The residential load following application appears promising. In fact, this is one of only two 

applications studied that generates a life cycle cost less than the low value estimate, classifying it 

as ìfavorableî (see Figure 22). 

Figure 22. Life cycle cost of Ni/MH in residential application 
Final Report 63 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

The favorable economic predictions for this application are due in part to the low balance of 

system costs, illustrated in Figure 23. Since a residential load following battery will most likely 

be teamed with a distributed generator (such as a photovoltaic array or fuel cell), most of the 

necessary power electronics will already be in place. The only additional equipment required is 

a charge controller and 

possibly some 

switchgear. Furthermore, 

maintenance on these 

types of systems is 

expected to be very low. 

Due to these low BOS 

costs, the system cost for 

this application is very 

sensitive to the cost of the 

battery. At the projected 

life of four years, this 

application can accept 

buy-downs of up to 

$150/kWh and still be in 

the favorable range. 

However, as battery life 

decreases, the viability of the application drops off rapidly, particularly for high buy-downs. 

Still, this application probably represents the best opportunity for the second use of EV batteries. 

The biggest drawback to this application is that only a handful of modules are required to meet 

the application requirements, so a large number of customers would be required to provide a 

large enough market to handle the hundreds of thousands of EV battery modules that may reach 

the market. 

There are also some questions regarding the maturity of the residential distributed generation 

market, and the widespread market penetration necessary to ensure a home for each used battery 

may not occur for a number of years. 

6.2. Other chemistries 

A number of battery chemistries have been considered in the past or are currently under 

development for electric vehicle use. Before the rise of nickel/metal hydride, most full function 

EVs were made with either lead-acid or nickel/cadmium batteries. Lead-acid batteries are still 

some of the least expensive and most widely used secondary batteries, and that will not likely 

change any time soon. In recent years, there has been a trend toward using advanced batteries in 

full-function EVs, although nearly all of the low-speed NEVs on the market utilize lead-acid 

batteries. Even so, it is unlikely that lead-acid batteries will find application in a second use 

scheme since very little benefit will be derived from using refurbished lead-acid EV batteries 

rather than new lead-acid batteries. In fact, new lead-acid batteries are low enough in cost that a 

refurbished EV battery could end up being more expensive after testing and repackaging than its 

new counterpart. Furthermore, limited life is one of the drawbacks of new lead-acid batteries, 

and this problem will only be compounded by exposing a battery to the environment found 

inside an EV for an extended period of time before it is placed in the stationary application. 

Figure 23. Primary cost drivers for residential load following 
Final Report 64 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Nickel/cadmium found extensive use in EVs in Europe, and has been mentioned as a candidate 

EV battery by at least one U.S. automaker. Even so, there is currently a big push by 

environmentalists in both Europe and the U.S. to ban the use of cadmium due to concerns 

regarding the final fate of the heavy metal after disposal. The European Union has already made 

moves to phase out the use of cadmium, and similar efforts are being pursued in the U.S. Thus, 

it is unlikely that Ni/Cd batteries will see much use in EVs in the future. 

There are several other battery technologies under consideration for use in EVs. Lithium-ion 

(Li-ion) batteries in particular are receiving a great deal of interest due to their potentially high 

specific energy and specific power. To date, they have not yet proven capable of meeting the 

cycle/calendar life demands of electric vehicle applications. Lithium-polymer batteries are also 

under development for EVs, but these are further still from achieving cycle life performance 

goals. Since these batteries are still developmental in nature, the study team was unable to obtain 

much data from which to project the performance and life of these batteries in second 

applications. 

Much of the analysis described in the previous sections of this report is independent of battery 

chemistry. In fact, all of the transportation, testing, and balance of system costs should be 

independent of the type of battery. Packaging cost is probably the only item that may change 

significantly from one technology to another. Li-ion modules, in particular, require electronics at 

the module and, possibly, even the cell level to prevent overcharge and cell reversal, both of 

which can lead to thermal runaway and possible catastrophic disassembly. Incorporation of 

these electronics into the stationary battery pack may add to the packaging costs. It is unclear at 

this point what types of electronics will be installed on Li-ion EV modules and how those will be 

integrated with the battery pack and the vehicle as a whole. It is possible that some of the 

electronics could be re-used in the stationary battery pack, which could reduce or eliminate the 

aforementioned increase in packaging costs. Regardless, packaging materials represent a fairly 

small part of the overall cost of the stationary battery pack, so it is unlikely that these changes 

will significantly affect the results of the analysis. 

The only other inputs to the analysis that may change with battery chemistry are the battery 

capacity and the projected cycle and/or calendar life. Most EV modules currently under 

development have about the same rated capacity at the start of their lives, so the only major 

differences in performance over the 2nd life will be due to capacity fade and remaining calendar 

life. The two sets of life cycle cost curves in the next two figures are based on ìgenericî 12-V 

100-Ah EV modules. The modules are assumed to go through a vehicle life that is equivalent to 

1000 DST cycles. The first module (Figure 24) is assumed to have a 10% fade in capacity over 

both lifetimes, leaving it at 90 Ah at the end of the stationary application. The second module 

(Figure 25) is assumed to fade 30% to 70 Ah under the same conditions. The four vertical white 

lines indicate cycle lives relative to the life in the vehicle. For example, the 0.25 line represents 

a module that operates for only 25% of the vehicle life, or about 250 cycles. Similarly, the 2.0 

line identifies a module that operates for twice the vehicle life, or 2000 cycles. 
Final Report 65 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Figure 24. Life cycle cost curves for a generic 100Ah 12V EV battery that 

experiences a 10% capacity fade over its entire life 

Figure 25. Life cycle cost curves for a generic 100Ah 12V EV battery that 

experiences a 30% capacity fade over its entire life 
Final Report 66 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Comparing these two plots reveals very little difference between the economic feasibility of the 

two modules. In fact, the additional 20% change in capacity fade had only a marginal impact on 

the life cycle cost of the battery system. It also slightly shifted the projected lifetime in years for 

the various cycle life projections. It would appear that the analysis performed above for Ni/MH 

should hold for any battery chemistry that can provide a similar cycle life in the second 

application. Furthermore, the economic feasibility of the various applications is only affected 

when the life of the used EV module is very short (a year or less). 

Unfortunately, the study team was unable to obtain cycle life projections for the more 

developmental battery technologies. Should such data be obtainable in the future, plotting the 

projected life on the figures developed for this report should give a good first order estimate of 

the economic feasibility of a second use for the battery module in question. 
Final Report 67 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

7. ISSUES AND BARRIERS 

In the process of determining the technical and economic feasibility of using EV batteries in 

second applications, the study team identified several issues that may prove to be hurdles to 

battery reuse if they are not addressed. Some of these issues are technical in nature, while others 

are more economic or market oriented. 

7.1. Technical 

• Lack of available battery life & performance data for modules coming out of EVs. It is 

difficult to determine whether or not using EV batteries in second applications will work 

without more test data on the performance of modules after they are removed from 

vehicles. Life projections in the second application are compounded by the variability that 

can be expected in vehicle duty cycles, which will affect the cycle life, as well as climate 

extremes, which could impact calendar life. Definitive data on the spread of EV module 

capacities and power capabilities, as well as cycle life tests in second applications, will be 

required before second use of EV batteries can be considered feasible. 

• Difficulty in obtaining modules with similar capacities for matched strings. The modules 

in a battery string need to have similar capacities in order to ensure maximized utilization 

of battery capacity and prevent possible damage to individual modules. This is particularly 

true for deep discharge applications, although it is less important for pulse power or low 

depth of discharge cycling. If the variability of the EV application described above results 

in a wide range of capacities in used EV modules, it may be difficult to obtain sufficient 

modules to assemble a matched string, particularly for larger applications. 

• Non-standardized battery modules. Both of the aforementioned issues are compounded by 

the potentially large number of battery suppliers involved in the market. If every 

automaker uses a different module configuration, locating matched modules for assembly 

into packs, and matched packs for assembly into larger systems could prove difficult. 

• Integration of power electronics for Li-ion modules. Li-ion cells are susceptible to thermal 

runaway and catastrophic failure during overcharge or cell reversal. Li-ion battery packs 

will likely have special electronics to prevent these conditions from occurring. These 

electronics will at least reside at the module level and may even be present at the cell level. 

When the used EV battery modules are reconfigured into stationary battery packs, these 

cell and module level electronics will either have to be integrated into the pack level 

electronics or replaced with similar components that can be interconnected with the rest of 

the battery management system. Since it is currently unclear exactly what a Li-ion EV 

battery module will look like, the implications of integrating these electronics on both the 

economic and technical feasibility of a battery reuse process were not determined in this 

study. 

7.2. Market 

• Unclear chain of custody for an EV battery reuse process. If the second use is to have any 

impact on the commercial viability of electric vehicles, the buy-down from the second use 

must find its way back to the vehicle purchaser. While this could take the form of a rebate 
Final Report 68 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

at the time of battery trade-in, it is unlikely that most people would be willing to pay more 

upfront for the car based on the assumption that they will get their money back at a later 

date. The most effective approach would be to give the vehicle purchaser the discount up 

front. This could be accomplished in several ways. 

1. The automaker could purchase the battery from a supplier at full price and not 

charge the vehicle owner for the entire cost of the battery based on the assumption 

that they will recoup the loss when they sell the battery into the second 

application. 

2. Alternatively, the battery manufacturer could maintain custody of the battery for 

the entire vehicle life, and essentially lease it to the EV owner. When it is 

removed from the vehicle, the battery could then be reconfigured by the battery 

manufacturer and sold to a stationary application. However, one of the battery 

manufacturers consulted during this study expressed displeasure with the idea of 

leasing the battery or dealing with used EV battery modules. 

3. The reconfiguring could also be performed by a third party who would then sell it 

to the stationary application user or a system integrator. 

The point of all this is that there are a number of ways a battery reuse process could be 

carried out. While this does not necessarily create a barrier to the concept, a chain of 

custody will have to be established that results in reduced cost for the EV buyer and is 

acceptable to all parties involved. Chain of custody may also be important for determining 

warranties ñ who will warrant what to whom. 

• Warranty terms and costs. Given the uncertainty in the used battery performance and life 

together with the lack of experience with some of the systems considered here, it will be 

difficult to establish warranties and budget for them appropriately. However, warranties 

will be absolutely essential to the success of any second use process. Simply put: no 

warranties, no sales. 

• Perceived value. The utility industry places a premium on reliability and is notoriously 

skeptical of new technologies and unproven approaches. It is unlikely that utilities will 

readily buy into the concept of used batteries. Other potential customers may be more 

open-minded, but the perceived value of used goods may play an important role in the 

success of EV battery reuse. 

• EV production uncertainty. Given the flexible nature of the mandates that currently appear 

to be driving EV production, the potential for other vehicle technologies (primarily fuel 

cells), and the whims of the consuming public, the future of battery electric vehicles is far 

from certain. As long as there is not a guaranteed stream of EV batteries, it will be 

difficult to convince anybody to invest in the facilities necessary to process EV batteries 

for a second use. 
Final Report 69 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

8. CONCLUSIONS 

Overall, the concept of EV battery reuse appears to be a viable one. The study team did not 

come across any insurmountable technical barriers to the implementation of a second use 

scheme. In fact, during the course of the study it was learned that there is already considerable 

commercialization of used and reconditioned batteries. Furthermore, a study by Argonne 

National Laboratory examined the second use of Ni/MH EV batteries and showed that modules 

tested to end-of-life on the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) Dynamic 

Stress Test (DST) profile could provide performance competitive with new lead-acid batteries in 

stationary energy storage applications. 

While there are no technical ìshow stoppers,î there are some issues that will have to be dealt 

with before an EV battery second use scheme can be implemented. First, non-standardized 

battery modules and varying patterns of vehicle use could make assembly of matched strings of 

modules with similar capacities difficult. Second, the mechanism by which the value from the 

second use makes its way back to the EV buyer needs to be identified. Third, warranty terms 

and costs will be difficult to determine given the uncertainty in the performance and life of the 

used EV batteries. This is an important issue since warranties will be absolutely essential in 

achieving market acceptance of the batteries. Finally, the perceived value of used batteries 

relative to new batteries in the consumerís mind will have to be addressed to ensure widespread 

acceptance of used EV batteries. 

Used EV batteries will most likely be available as individual modules rather than entire EV 

battery packs. These modules will have to be collected from vehicle dealerships or service 

centers, inspected to ensure physical and electrical integrity, tested to determine performance, 

and reconfigured into battery packs suitable for stationary applications. 

The testing and reconfiguration process considered here is relatively simple, but essential for the 

success of the EV battery reuse concept. Testing is required to establish the capacity and power 

capabilities of the used EV modules. This information will be needed in designing the stationary 

battery system. It will also aid in predicting a moduleís remaining life, which will be necessary 

in establishing warranties. The labor and equipment required for EV battery testing and 

reconfiguration will represent a significant portion (roughly half) of the final selling price of the 

used EV modules into the second application. 

In spite of the costs involved in the refurbishing process, EV battery reuse looks like it could be 

an economically viable concept. The economic analysis conducted for this study looked at the 

feasibility of applying used EV batteries in eight different stationary applications. Of these eight, 

the feasibility of applying used EV batteries in four of the applications (transmission support, 

light commercial load following, distributed node telecommunications backup power, and 

residential load following) was classified as either favorable or possible. 

It should be noted that, for many of the applications considered, the battery was not the primary 

cost driver in the life cycle costs. Often the most expensive component of the system was the 

power conversion electronics or operating and maintenance costs. The cost of the battery alone 

is insufficient to determine the economic feasibility of a stationary energy storage system. 

Surprisingly, the four applications classified as economically feasible do not have a lot in 

common. In fact, they include both the largest and the smallest of the battery sizes considered 
Final Report 70 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

here. They also do not show any similarity in how much of the system cost is represented by the 

battery. It is difficult to draw any generalizations on application requirements, system sizes, or 

battery characteristics from the results shown here. It would appear that used EV 

battery/stationary application combinations have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Finally, there are sufficient uncertainties in the values used in this analysis (particularly in the 

performance of the batteries and the economic benefits derived from the applications) to warrant 

testing and demonstration of the concepts presented here. Potential testing and demonstration 

programs are detailed in the following section. 
Final Report 71 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

9. RECOMMENDATIONS 

Based on the analyses performed for this study, using EV batteries in a second stationary 

application appears to be a viable concept. However, there are sufficient uncertainties and 

limitations in the scope of the present study to warrant additional work in this area. The largest 

unknown in any hypothetical second use process is the performance and life remaining in the 

battery when it is removed from the vehicle. While conversations with battery manufacturers 

indicate that some of this testing has been performed, at present there is no publicly available 

data regarding used EV battery characteristics. Any future programs seeking to further the reuse 

concept should include significant testing of modules taken from vehicles to characterize their 

performance and evaluate their capabilities under various stationary application duty cycles. 

Implementation of second uses of EV batteries will also require proof of concept and early 

deployment programs to show potential investors that the idea is a valid one and to identify 

implementation difficulties. The analysis performed for this study indicates that future 

demonstrations should focus on four applications: transmission support, light commercial load 

following, residential load following, and distributed node telecommunications backup power. A 

description of possible programs and a cost estimate for each follows. 

9.1. Used EV battery module testing 

Due to the uncertainties in used EV battery performance, any demonstration program must be 

preceded by, or run concurrently with, a focused testing program designed to characterize the 

used modules and quantify their capabilities and lifetimes under stationary application load 

profiles. The testing should include a fairly large number of used modules to provide a 

statistically significant sample that could identify differences between chemistries, vehicle use 

patterns, and climate extremes. 

9.2. Transmission support 

While transmission support proved to be the most 

economically viable utility scale application in the 

analysis for this study, it will also be one of the 

most difficult to demonstrate. Based on the 

assumptions used here, a 100 MW transmission 

support system would require over 17,000 used 

EV modules, which would require the batteries 

from nearly 700 vehicles. In fact, no automaker 

has sold more than 1,000 full function EVs with the same battery. Thus, it is unlikely that more 

than 10,000 or so of the same battery module would be available for demonstration programs in 

the near term. 

However, a bench-scale test of used EV modules under a simulated transmission support load 

profile would be insufficient to prove the validity of the concept. One of the biggest challenges 

in deploying used batteries for this application is showing that large numbers of modules can be 

strung together, and large numbers of strings can be interconnected in a reliable fashion to 

generate high voltages and meet the high current demands for the application. Thus, any 

Transmission Support 

Number of systems 1 

Length of demonstration 3 months 

EV battery modules 600 

Equivalent EV battery packs 24 

System storage capacity 650 kWh 

System rated power 3.2 MW 
Final Report 72 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

demonstration for this application should involve a battery system with a voltage over a thousand 

volts, comprised of several strings containing hundreds of modules each. 

A reduced scale system would be unable to meet the needs of a real world transmission support 

application. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any utility would be willing to potentially jeopardize 

the integrity of a transmission asset to demonstrate an unproven concept utilizing used 

components. Therefore, any demonstration of this concept will likely rely on testing in a 

laboratory setting with sophisticated simulation equipment. There are a number of facilities 

located in the U.S. and Europe that perform testing and validation of transmission equipment. It 

is likely that any of these could handle the types of tests required to put a battery system for 

transmission support through its paces. 

The study team recommends a program including the design, assembly, and testing of a reduced 

scale battery system for transmission support. The system should be comprised of roughly 600 

battery modules, divided into three strings of 200 modules each. Such a design would generate 

2400V, store about 650 kWh, and be capable of a pulse power output of around 3.2 MW. The 

battery should be integrated with the necessary electronics, monitors, and controls and installed 

at a transmission equipment test facility for several months of testing under simulated 

transmission support conditions. 

The first step in this program should involve identifying partners and locations for both obtaining 

used EV batteries and performing the testing. It is likely that the modules from these batteries 

could be obtained free of charge from automakers or battery manufacturers through some sort of 

cost sharing partnership. After it is clear that sufficient EV battery modules are available, system 

design and component procurement can proceed. As with all of the demonstration programs, the 

used EV battery modules should be characterized before they are assembled into the energy 

storage system. Assembly and integration of the system will probably occur onsite at the testing 

facility. Several months of testing will be required to characterize the capabilities of the battery 

system and identify potential problems with actual installations. Since transmission support is 

primarily a pulse power application, the life of the batteries will be limited by calendar life 

issues, not cycle life limitations. Therefore, parallel accelerated calendar life testing may be of 

interest. Once testing is completed, the results of the program should be analyzed and reported. 

A summary of these steps and the costs associated with them is shown below. 

Activity Cost 

1. Identify partners and site for testing $50,000

2. Obtain used EV modules of the same type Cost share 

3. Design system $200,000

4. Obtain the balance of system components 

 PCS, interface equipment, controls and monitors $2,870,000

 Interconnects, racking, cooling $175,000

5. Perform baseline performance tests to characterize the modules $600,000

7. Assemble and install system $100,000

8. Perform system testing $85,000

9. Analyze success of system; identify barriers to implementation and quantify value $50,000

TOTAL $4,130,000
Final Report 73 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

9.3. Light commercial load following 

In a light commercial load following application, 

the battery system is utilized to allow a distributed 

generator to operate at or near constant loading. 

This is typically a more efficient mode of 

operation for the generator, and it can 

significantly reduce the size (and cost) of the 

distributed generator since it does not have to 

meet the entire peak load. When operating in a 

grid-connected mode, a battery can be used to avoid demand charges. 

The demonstration program for this application should include several installations to test the use 

of the battery with an array of different distributed generation technologies, such as 

microturbines, fuel cells, and fossil-fueled gensets. The study team recommends a total of five 

installations, the demonstration at each site lasting for two years. Each system will utilize 

roughly 100 used EV battery modules, contain about 100 kWh of storage capacity, and generate 

around 200 kW of peak power. Exact values for these system parameters will depend on the 

needs of the site where the system is installed. 

The first step in mounting this demonstration program will be to identify sites and partners for 

installing the battery systems. Facilities operating under rate structures with high on-peak 

electricity charges or high demand charges should be the focus of this effort. This application 

offers an interesting opportunity for leveraging R&D funds with other DOE programs seeking to 

demonstrate distributed generation (DG) in a light commercial setting. Sites already selected for 

DG projects could be retrofitted with refurbished EV batteries. Alternatively, a system could be 

designed from the ground up in partnership with a DG demonstration program. 

Once sites and partners have been selected, the energy battery systems will need to be designed. 

It is likely that each site will require a different system, depending upon the DG technology in 

use and the application load profile. After the designs are completed, the system components 

will have to be procured. It is likely that the EV battery modules could be obtained through 

some sort of cost-sharing arrangement with an EV battery manufacturer or automaker. 

Furthermore, the distributed generator could be purchased by another DOE program. Depending 

on the distributed generator technology, it may be possible to integrate the battery system with 

the electronics built into the generator to minimize the cost of the power electronics. The costs 

of the facility to house the energy storage system (which could be as simple as a space in the 

basement of the building or a trailer parked outside) would probably be provided as a cost share 

by the owner/operator of the property where the system is installed. 

Once the EV batteries have been characterized, the system can be assembled. While the batteries 

could be connected together and placed in some sort of shipping container elsewhere, integration 

of the generator into the system will probably have to occur onsite. After the site has been 

prepared, system installation, startup, and shakedown can proceed. This will probably take a 

couple of weeks of labor from an engineer and a technician. 

During operation, system performance can be monitored autonomously, but occasional visits for 

data collection and analysis will be required over the two year operating period. Regular and 

unscheduled maintenance visits will also be necessary to keep the system operating in an 

optimum manner. The study team figures that a one day visit to each site once a week by an 

Light Commercial Load Following 

Number of systems 5 

Length of demonstrations 2 years 

EV battery modules/system 100 

Equivalent EV battery packs 4 

System storage capacity 110 kWh 

System rated power 200 kW 
Final Report 74 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

engineer familiar with the system would be sufficient to monitor system operation and handle 

maintenance issues. At the end of the two years, a report analyzing the success of all five 

systems and identifying pitfalls and unsuspected problems should be generated. 

The estimated costs for all of these steps are summarized below. 

Activity Cost/system Total cost 

1. Identify partners and site for demonstration ---- $50,000

2. Design system $50,000 $250,000

3. Obtain used EV modules of the same type cost share 

4. Obtain the balance of system components 

 Generator cost share 

 PCS, interface equipment, controls and monitors $130,000 $650,000

 Interconnects, racking, cooling $21,000 $105,000

 Facility cost share 

5. Perform baseline performance tests to characterize the modules $100,000 $500,000

6. Assemble system $100,000 $500,000

7. Prepare site, install and test system $14,000 $70,000

8. Monitor and maintain system $120,000 $600,000

9. Analyze success of system; identify problems and quantify value ---- $50,000

TOTAL $485,000 $2,775,000

9.4. Residential load following 

This application is much like light commercial 

load following, only on a smaller scale. In 

addition to the microturbines, fuel cells, and 

fossil-fuel gensets mentioned above, residential 

load following could also involve renewable 

generators such as PV or possibly even a small 

wind turbine. We would recommend at least four 

types of systems for demonstration: 

 1. grid-connected household with a roof-top PV array and net metering 

 2. off-grid household with PV 

 3. off-grid household with a propane genset (and possibly wind or PV) 

 4. off-grid household with a fuel cell 

In all, a total of ten systems would be desirable. Each system would consist of 5 or so EV 

battery modules, with a total capacity of about 5 kWh and a rated power of around 10 kW. At 

this size, ten systems would be feasible. Two year tests would be desirable to show the operation 

of the system over varying seasons and prove its long term durability. 

As with all the demonstrations suggested here, the first step will be to identify partners and 

locations for potential installations. Much as with light commercial load following, opportunities 

for synergies with other government and commercial programs exist for this application. Several 

fuel cell companies are in the process of testing and demonstrating prototype fuel cell systems 

for residential power generation, and they may be willing to utilize used EV battery modules in 

their systems. The Department of Defense is ramping up a residential fuel cell demonstration 

Residential Load Following 

Number of systems 10 

Length of demonstrations 2 years 

EV battery modules/system 5 

Equivalent EV battery packs 0.2 

System storage capacity 5 kWh 

System rated power 10 kW 
Final Report 75 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

program at bases across the country. And Texaco Ovonic Battery Co. is already installing used 

EV battery modules with PV arrays in remote Mexican villages. Leveraging funds and facilities 

with these programs could significantly reduce the costs of installing a demonstration system. 

Unlike the other demonstration programs described here, the battery systems designed for each 

of the residential sites would probably be quite similar. To reduce costs, the study team 

recommends that a single battery system be designed for integration into a number of residential 

distributed generation systems. This system could be assembled into a box or two at a central 

facility and shipped to the application site for integration into the generating system. Some 

residential generators may already have power electronics capable of handling the battery 

system, although others will require additional components. It is possible that cost of the 

electronics, controls, and monitors will have to be borne by the demonstration program, but the 

distributed generator and any facility costs will likely be covered through cost-sharing 

partnerships with other DOE programs or with the end user of the system. The used EV batteries 

will probably also be obtained free of charge through a cost share from a battery or vehicle 

manufacturer. 

After the system design is complete and the components are obtained, the batteries can be tested 

and assembled into a self contained system at some central facility. It is assumed here that 

assembly of the battery systems and initial shakedown will take about a week for an engineer and 

a technician. After this initial checkout, the system will be ready for transport to the application 

site. Another week of labor will be required to integrate the battery system with the generator 

and test the entire power system. 

Monitoring, maintenance, and repair will be required once the system is up and running. Most of 

the monitoring for these systems could be done offsite, and an allowance for telemetry was 

included in the cost estimate for monitors and controls given below. Each site should only take a 

half day or so of an engineerís time to analyze the performance of the system once a week. An 

additional visit to the site once every two months should cover any regular maintenance or 

unscheduled maintenance for each site. All of these functions should be continued for the entire 

two years of the demonstration. When the two years are completed, a report summarizing the 

performance of all the systems and analyzing their economic benefits should be produced. 

All of these steps and their approximate costs are summarized below. 

Activity Cost/system Total cost 

1. Identify partners and site for demonstration ---- $50,000

2. Design system ---- $50,000

3. Obtain used EV modules of the same type cost share 

4. Obtain the balance of system components 

 Generator cost share 

 PCS, interface equipment, controls and monitors, interconnects, racking $20,000 $200,000

 Facility cost share 

5. Perform baseline performance tests to characterize the modules $5,000 $50,000

6. Assemble system $5,000 $50,000

7. Prepare site, install and test system $7,000 $70,000

8. Monitor and maintain system $48,000 $480,000

9. Analyze success of system; identify problems and quantify value ---- $50,000

TOTAL $83,000 $1,000,000
Final Report 76 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

9.5. Distributed node telecomm 

Unlike the other three applications mentioned in 

this section, distributed node telecommunications 

backup power has a well-established market 

currently being met by batteries. This application 

offers a potential early entry market for used EV 

batteries. It also presents the opportunity to work 

alongside with the potential end users of the 

battery system to accurately specify the 

application requirements, design a system that 

meets their needs, and test it in real-world 

situations alongside competing technologies. 

However, distributed node telecomm standby 

power requires an extremely reliable battery system. Before telecommunications companies are 

willing to accept used EV batteries as a replacement for the new VRLAs they current use in this 

application, they will have to be convinced of the reliability and durability of these batteries. 

The study team recommends a two phase demonstration program designed to show that used EV 

batteries can meet the needs of this application in a reliable fashion. Furthermore, this program 

should be run in such a way as to minimize both the risk and the cost to the telecommunications 

company that is involved. 

The first phase of the demonstration program will consist of prototype design, assembly, and 

testing. Since it is unlikely that telecommunications companies will be willing to install an 

unproven system in the field, this prototype will be put under extensive testing at a telecom 

company test facility for about a year. During this testing period, the prototype system will be 

operated under a wide range of conditions to monitor its performance and ensure it will function 

as designed under all the conditions it would be expected to encounter in actual installations. If 

Phase I is successful, the program will proceed with Phase II, in which 9 battery systems will be 

placed in the field for two years and carefully monitored. 

As with all of the programs recommended here, the first step will be to identify partners and sites 

for the demonstration. The telecommunications company will be a particularly key player, and 

will need to be identified early in the process to ensure involvement in all facets of the program. 

Once the players have been identified, the engineering team can work closely with the 

telecommunications company to design a system that meets their needs. This will be followed 

by procurement of the various components for one system. As with the other programs, the EV 

batteries could be obtained free of charge through a cost sharing agreement with either a battery 

manufacturer or automaker. It is assumed that most of the rest of the system components will be 

provided as a cost share from the telecommunications company since the system will have to be 

integrated into their equipment. There is an allowance for monitors and telemetry included in the 

budget estimate for this program since these systems will likely be heavily instrumented to 

monitor their behavior. 

Once the first set of battery modules has been benchmarked, it will be ready for integration into 

the prototype. It is assumed here that assembly will take approximately two weeks of labor from 

an engineer and a technician, and shakedown will take another two weeks. Once the system has 

been checked out, it will be ready for testing by whatever protocols the telecommunications 

Distributed Node Telecom Backup Power 

Number of systems 

 Phase I 

 Phase II 

1 

9 

Length of demonstrations 

 Phase I 

 Phase II 

1 year 

2 years 

EV battery modules/system 48 

Equivalent EV battery packs 2 

System storage capacity 52 kWh 

System rated power 5 kW 
Final Report 77 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

representatives recommend. This is expected to take about one day per week of time from an 

engineer working onsite at the test facility to monitor the system performance, set up tests, move 

the system around if necessary, and perform maintenance or repairs. 

After Phase I has been successfully completed, the prototype system design can be evaluated to 

identify necessary improvements. The materials for the nine Phase II systems can be obtained 

from the same sources used for the prototype system. After battery benchmarking, the second 

set of systems can be assembled and tested, which is predicted to take a total of two weeks for 

each system. Installation in the field should take a day or so. Monitoring will most likely be 

performed at a central facility via telemetry installed in the battery system and should only 

require a couple of days a week to analyze the data from all the systems. One maintenance or 

repair visit is scheduled each month to meet the needs of all the systems. 

Finally, once the second phase of the project reaches completion, a report analyzing the 

performance and economics of the used EV batteries in this application should be generated. 

The steps involved in both Phases and their estimated costs are summarized below. 

Activity Cost/system Total cost 

1. Identify partners and site for demonstration ---- $50,000

2. Design system ---- $50,000

3. Obtain used EV modules of the same type cost share 

4. Obtain the balance of system components 

 PCS, interface equipment, controls and monitors $1,000 $10,000

 Interconnects, racking, cooling cost share from telecom 

 Facility 

5. Perform baseline performance tests to characterize the modules $48,000 $480,000

6. Assemble & test prototype ---- $61,000

7. Assemble remaining systems $9,900 $99,000

8. Prepare site, install and test systems $2,100 $21,000

9. Monitor and maintain systems ---- $182,000

10. Analyze success of systems; identify problems and quantify value ---- $50,000

TOTAL $37,000 $1,218,000
Final Report 78 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final Report A-1 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

APPENDIX A: 

INTERIM REPORT ON BATTERY REUSE 

 INFORMATION SEARCH

Introduction 

The current high cost of batteries is a major barrier hindering the more widespread adoption of 

electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs). Most efforts addressing this 

obstacle consist of research and development aimed at reducing the cost of producing EV and 

HEV batteries. With support from Sandia National Laboratories, this study is examining another 

often overlooked opportunity: the potential for recovering some of the original value from a 

battery that has served its useful life in an electric or hybrid-electric vehicle, but which is still 

suitable for another application. The premise is that the battery could be refurbished, resold, and 

reused for another application, and some of the initial cost recovered through the sale of the 

battery in a secondary market. The objective of this study is to determine the technical and 

economic feasibility of reusing spent EV and HEV batteries, and to identify potential stationary 

applications. 

Methodology 

A literature search was conducted as part of this study. Originally, it was to focus solely on EV 

and HEV batteries. The scope of the search was expanded, however, to also include the reuse of 

batteries taken from non-EV/HEV applications during their first lifetime. Very few electric 

vehicles (EVs) and hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs) have been commercialized to date, and far 

fewer have had their batteries reach end of life. Consequently, few EV and HEV batteries have 

been removed from vehicles and sold or used in a secondary market. It was assumed that 

knowledge gained on existing secondary markets for other batteries would be useful to determine 

the feasibility of establishing a secondary market for spent EV and HEV batteries. 

The literature search involved making personal contacts by phone and/or e-mail, and conducting 

literature and Internet searches. Contacts were made with organizations and companies dealing 

with electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, or which install battery renewable energy systems, to 

determine if they knew of any secondary battery markets. Searches on the Internet as well as 

through non-peer-reviewed publications were conducted on the secondary use of batteries. In 

addition, publicly available online databases (such as SciFinder© and INSPEC©) were used to 

search peer-reviewed publications for information on EV/HEV battery reuse as well as issues 

surrounding cycle life and performance degradation in EV and HEV batteries. 
Final Report A-2 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Summary of results 

The study findings demonstrate that there is considerable commercialization of used and 

reconditioned batteries, including batteries from EVs: 

• Amateur radio emergency operators acquire used gel cell lead-acid batteries from 

hospitals. 

• There is established commerce in used off-lease forklift batteries, reconditioned 

automotive starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) batteries, and reconditioned lithium-ion 

batteries for laptop computers, as well as batteries with various chemistries for energy 

storage in small renewable energy systems. 

• AC Propulsion, a small-volume electric vehicle manufacturer, is implementing a 

successful secondary market for spent OptimaÆ deep-cycle spiral-wound recombinant 

lead-acid batteries. 

• Energy Conversion Devices, a manufacturer of both solar photovoltaic modules and 

nickel/metal hydride (Ni/MH) batteries, is participating in a solar program in Mexico, 

which incorporates used Ni/MH EV batteries taken from EV bench tests and prototype 

EVs. 

• Argonne National Laboratory conducted a study in 1996-1997 for the United States 

Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC), examining the second use of Ni/MH EV 

batteries. The study demonstrated that there is merit in considering the reuse of EV 

batteries for other applications. 

Second Use of Electric and Hybrid-Electric Vehicle Batteries 

A small secondary market for various battery chemistries exists for a range of applications. The 

most extensive secondary market is for lead-acid batteries, several types of which are being 

reused in a number of applications. 

Comprehensive Automotive Reclamation Services (CARS) of Maryland, a Baltimore company 

that disassembles used and damaged cars and light trucks, added reclaiming and reselling leadacid batteries after purchasing a Pulsetech digital battery analyzer to determine which batteries 

had bad cells and which could be reused. CARS of Maryland shifted from recycling all the 

batteries, earning about $1.50 each, to reselling reconditioned batteries for about $25 each. ìIn 

just one month, CARS of Maryland has recovered about 500 batteries using the Pulse Recovery 

Systemô. The company can now resell these batteries to new markets such as cab and other 

fleet customers.î [1] 

International Business Club, a Canadian company, acts as a broker for business opportunities, 

including reconditioning automotive lead-acid batteries. [2] Its website provides information on 

services the company provides to set up a battery reconditioning business. Few technical details 

on how to recondition batteries or on their Batteries Tech 2000 reconditioning system are 

provided other than the statement that Batteries Tech 2000 can recondition 10 batteries 

simultaneously in a period of 20 hours. They have reconditioned and sold more than 25,000 

batteries over the past three years. All batteries were sold with 6- to 12-month warranties, and 

less than 5% of the reconditioned batteries were returned. Defective batteries were replaced with 

reconditioned batteries. Battery recyclers were one source where they received their batteries to 
Final Report A-3 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

recondition. Their customers have included used automobile dealers, new and used auto parts 

dealers, fleet owners, retailers of trucks and heavy equipment, and to a lesser extent golf courses. 

Hospitals regularly replace sealed lead-acid (SLA) batteries (gel cells) used to power medical 

diagnostic instruments, alarm systems, and uninterruptible power sources (UPS) on a fixed 

schedule before they are worn out. These batteries often can be obtained for free to power 

emergency communications activity. An Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) member 

gives advice to other members on how to inspect, recharge, and test donated gel cells. [3] 

Inspection: Check out open circuit voltage to expedite distribution by sorting out 

batteries, which may be load tested immediately. Any 12-volt batteries having an open 

circuit voltage (Voc) of 12.8 V or greater are ready for load testing. Those with Voc of 

less than 12.8 V are charged by connecting in parallel across a regulated 13.8-V power 

supply. Any that are not accepting charge after 4 hours are discarded. Total charging 

should not exceed 140% of capacity. 

Testing: Batteries which accept charge to Voc greater than or equal to 12.8 V must still 

be load tested after recharging. An easy quick check is to apply a load in amperes which 

approximates battery capacity in amp-hours, for 10 seconds, monitoring voltage drop. In 

a "good" battery the voltage drops, but quickly stabilizes after a few seconds, does not 

continue to fall and recovers within a few seconds after the load is removed. The author 

has gotten reliable service from 12-V batteries that don't drop below 11.7 V at "C" load 

for 10 seconds. 

If time is available, and there is only a small number of batteries, a better test is to 

approximate a continuous work load for at least a full minute. The author tests 12-V 

batteries up to 2 Ah with an 8-W fluorescent light at 0.6-A load. Larger ones up to 10 Ah 

can use a 12-V, 50-W incandescent lamp at 4-A load. For larger batteries, connect the test 

battery to the intended transmitter and the transmitter to a nonradiating dummy load, 

monitoring voltage drop for a minute of full-power key-down. Accept for reissue 

batteries which do not exhibit more than 0.5-V voltage drop at normal working load and 

duty cycle. From the authorís personal experience, one in ten donated batteries is rejected 

and recycled. When subjecting a battery to a current load which exceeds C/5, or 1/5, of 

its amp-hour capacity, expect a 25-30% reduction in its delivered capacity. At lower 

temperatures available capacity is further reduced. Lead-acid batteries typically lose 50% 

of their capacity at 32° F! 

A ham radio operator and member of the Electric Vehicle Association of Washington, DC 

confirmed that ham radio operators often use used 12-volt gel cell batteries. [4] 

Deep-cycle lead-acid batteries are commonly found in secondary markets. A member of the 

Electric Vehicle Association of Washington, DC, who is starting to design his own three-wheel 

EV, said that a store, Battery Warehouse on Gude Drive in Alexandria, Virginia, sells used 

batteries, such as forklift batteries. [4] 

SURPLUS TRADERS, a major buyer and importer of manufacturersí excess inventories, 

maintains a business-to-business website aimed at redistributing these materials to 

manufacturers, exporters and large quantity users. [5] On 9/18/01 there was the following 

posting: ìFORK LIFT BATTERIES WANTED: We have buyers for off-lease and surplus 

forklift batteries in usable condition and forklift battery chargers in any condition.î 
Final Report A-4 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

AC Propulsion, developer of the ìtzeroî high-performance electric sports car about to enter 

small-volume production reported that it has implemented a very successful secondary market 

for spent OptimaÆ yellow top batteries. The used EV batteries are ìsold for SLI (starting, 

lighting, and ignition) application at $25 eachóabout 25% of the original costówith a two-year 

warranty.î [6] pp 9-10. 

One typical application for used EV and HEV batteries is a small renewable energy system. 

According to Richard Perez [7] of Home Power magazine, a publication devoted to helping 

individuals set up and operate small renewable energy systems, dozens of articles on used 

batteries have appeared in the do-it-yourself renewable energy magazine over the years. 

One homeowner, for example, recently reported on his successful use of used C&D lead-acid 

batteries in his stand-alone solar-electric photovoltaic (PV) home system. [8] He had acquired 

these batteries as surplus from telephone company backup service in 1983 when they were five 

years old. After having been told frequently that his batteries must be about to crash or were 

somehow unfit to rely on, he decided to conduct a drawdown and load test run. The homeowner 

contacted the battery manufacturer in Pennsylvania and identified his battery bank as consisting 

of C&D KCT-720 cells rated at 720 Ah at the 8-hour rate, or 882 Ah at the 20-hour rate. In 

April 1999, he disconnected the PV array and turned on many of the household loads to 

discharge the battery to a 20 percent state of charge, which he achieved after 4 days. He then 

turned on all the lights in the house, and loaded the inverter with the freezer and the deep-well 

pump to test whether the voltage would hold up to keep the Trace SW4024 inverter on for all 

essential services. He then added a 1-kW hotplate to the load. The voltage held at 21.4 volts 

under a 104-amp load on the severely discharged batteries. The test was successful, with the 

inverter operating without failure. He then shut down all the loads, reconnected the PV system, 

and began charging the battery at a 10-amp rate. After four variably sunny days, the battery was 

fully charged. The doomsayers who said the homeownerís system was about to crash were 

proven wrong, since he indicated that the batteries performed normally during the two years 

since the test. 

Oasis Montana Inc. Alternative Energy Supply and Design maintains a website that sells surplus 

and used renewable energy components, including used batteries. [9] On 9/18/01 there was a 

posting for ì16 Marathon 12V 125Ah Batteries. Approx. 12 years old.î The origin of the 

batteries was not given except to indicate that they are located in Saskatchewan, Canada. 

Paul Hess at the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse, the U.S. Department 

of Energyís clearinghouse for information on energy efficiency and renewable energy, indicated 

that he had met someone who was at Solar Energy International in Carbondale, CO about 10 

years ago who reconditioned batteries and resold them for renewable energy systems. [10] 

Solar Energy International (SEI), which installs small renewable energy systems and conducts 

training courses on teaching others how to do installation, reported that the battery distributor 

formerly located in Colorado closed his marginal operation several years ago. [11] 

Peter Lowenthal, of the Solar Energy Industries Association, the trade association of U.S. solar 

energy companies, reported that many of the batteries in small renewable energy systems in 

developing countries are lead-acid, either automotive starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) or 

deep-cycle lead-acid. Often they are poorly maintained or abused, are discharged extensively, 

and are not adequately charged before the next usage. [12] 
Final Report A-5 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

In addition to deep-cycle lead-acid batteries, commercial and concept electric vehicles employ 

nickel/metal hydride and lithium batteries. In Europe, nickel/cadmium batteries are commonly 

used as well. Hugh Marrow of the International Cadmium Association reported by phone that 

used nickel/cadmium batteries develop high impedance, but can be used for low drain 

applications for as long as 10 more years after no longer being of use in EVs. [13] 

Jade Mountain, a company specializing in the retail of renewable energy products and systems, 

several years ago had reconditioned batteries for sale: nickel/cadmium, nickel/iron, and Ni/MH 

batteries. [14] They stopped selling them because of low demand and difficulty in obtaining 

supply. ìProblem was that we couldn't afford to stock expensive, slow-selling products such as 

this, and the supply wasn't too reliable, so when orders finally came in, we'd typically find that 

there were no batteries to be had,î they reported by e-mail. 

Both the editor of EV WorldÆ, a website specializing in electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and 

the President of the Electric Vehicle Association of Washington, DC, indicated that Energy 

Conversion Devices was exploring a secondary use for their used Ni/MH batteries. [15] [16] 

Energy Conversion Devices, a manufacturer of both solar photovoltaic modules and nickel/metal 

hydride (Ni/MH) batteries, reported by telephone that they are participating in a solar program in 

Mexico which incorporates Ni/MH EV batteries that have completed lab testing or useful life in 

prototype EVs. [17] 

Dell Computer, a computer retailer, sells refurbished lithium-ion batteries for laptop computers 

on its website: <http://www.dell.com/us/en/gen/default.htm>. [18] A search conducted on 

September 26, 2001 on ìReconditioned batteriesî at their Home and Home Office use site, 

<http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/index.asp?customer_id=19>, produced seven hits on 

refurbished lithium-ion batteries for sale. 

In order to get an idea of how these refurbished batteries differ in price and warranty from new 

batteries, the prices for these refurbished lithium-ion batteries were compared to prices for new, 

comparable lithium-ion batteries listed for the same Dell laptop computers. In some cases, the 

watt-hour listing on the Dell refurbished batteries differed slightly from the amp-hour and 

voltage ratings listed by the other two retailers. 
Final Report A-6 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 1. Price Comparison for New vs. Refurbished Computer Batteries 

Dell Laptop Computer Model Dell Computer1

(refurbished) 

Batteries Direct2

(new) 

Raymond Sarrio3

(new) 

Inspiron 3000 (~40Wh) $89.95 $189.00 

Inspiron 3500 (~45 Wh) $119.00 $189.00 

Inspiron 5000 (~52 Wh) $84.95 $129.00 

Latitude CS (~50 Wh) $109.00 $189.00 

Latitude LM (~42 Wh) $129.00 $194.00 $179.00 

Notes to Table 1: 

1

Dell provides free 3-5 Day Ground shipping. No warranty information is provided on the refurbished batteries, or 

explanations of how they ìrefurbishî the batteries. 

2

Batteries Direct (<http://batteriesdirect.com>) provides free Standard Delivery (4-7 days) and charges $3.95 for 2-3 

Days Priority Delivery. Laptop computer batteries are covered by a PRORATED one-year warranty from the date of 

purchase. 

3

The Raymond Sarrio Company (<www.sarrio.com>) provides a 30-day ìno questions asked return policyî and a 1-

year warranty against defects on all batteries sold. They also provide free UPS 3-Day Select shipping anywhere in 

the continental United States. 

Of major interest is a study conducted by Argonne National Laboratory between September 1996 

and August 1997 for the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) that examined 

the second use of Ni/MH EV batteries. [19] Tests were conducted on eight Ovonic Battery 

Company (OBC) Ni/MH batteries that had completed more than 500 Dynamic Stress Test life 

cycles, simulating EV lifetime usage. Modules were tested to determine their performance 

relative to that of lead-acid modules in five non-EV applications: 1) utility load following; 2) 

utility frequency regulation and spinning reserve; 3) commercial and industrial off-road vehicles; 

4) uninterruptible power sources (UPS) for stand-by power; and 5) accelerated life testing. Test 

results on the reused EV batteries were compared to lead-acid battery test data or warranties 

supplied on lead-acid batteries by the manufacturer for the specific applications on which they 

were tested. 

The OBC batteries were initially tested for performance, their module-rated capacities were 

reduced, and they were selected for specific application tests. The specific energy range to be 

examined in the study was determined by reviewing previous EPRI lead-acid battery test data. 

Standard production lead-acid units had a specific energy of approximately 30 Wh/kg (Hawker 

and OptimaÆ batteries), and advanced technology lead-acid units were approximately 45 Wh/kg, 

which was the best measured for the Electrosource HorizonÆ battery. Two of the OBC Ni/MH 

modules were derated to 30 Wh/kg, and the remaining six were derated to 45 Wh/kg. 

1) The utility load follow tests were based on tests used by Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (PG&E) to characterize the PM250 Power Management System. The OBC 

modules were put through repeated 3 hour sine-wave discharges to 80% depth of 

discharge followed by charges to 100% SOC. They were also subjected to periodic 

(every 10 cycles) 1-hour constant power discharges at the 1-hour rate. One each of the 

standard and advanced technology derated modules were put through 250 load follow 

cycles. The standard technology derated module completed all 250 load follow cycles 

and a total of 294 deep discharge cycles; the advanced technology derated module only 
Final Report A-7 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

completed 133 load follow cycles before failing on a constant power discharge. 

However, this still accounted for a total of 162 deep discharge cycles to end of life 

(EOL), which was far better than the 72 cycles performed by the Delco-Remy lead-acid 

modules tested by PG&E. 

2) Two more OBC modules (one each of the advanced technology and standard 

technology derated modules) were tested under the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) 

Utility Energy Storage (UES) test cycle. Developed to model the expected duty cycle of 

the 20-MW Battery Energy Storage system installed by the Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority (PREPA), the UES cycle contained three 50-hour-long frequency regulation 

sessions separated by intermediate charges. These sessions were followed by a spinning 

reserve discharge (15-minute constant power discharge followed by a 15-minute ramp 

down) and a final charge to 100% SOC. The test plan called for reference performance 

tests to be conducted every four UES cycles to establish a performance baseline. Both 

OBC modules completed all 16 of the planned UES cycles. The advanced technology 

derated module showed a capacity loss of about 1%, and the capacity loss in the standard 

derated module was negligible. This compared favorably with the lead-acid batteries 

subjected to similar testing at SNL, which showed 8.5% capacity loss after 13 UES 

cycles. 

3) After the stationary application tests were conducted on the four utility modules, the 

modules were placed on off-road vehicle life test using the Battery Council International 

(BCI) cycle life test procedure for deep-cycle batteries (e.g., marine, golf, RV). The BCI 

procedure defines a constant-current (CI) cycle life test with 2-h rate discharges to 100% 

DOD discharge cutoff voltage (11 V) until the battery capacity declines to less than 50% 

of its 2-h rating. Three of the four Ni/MH modules were still performing BCI cycles 

when testing was halted due to dwindling funds. No comparison was made with the 

performance of lead-acid batteries for this application. 

4) Three modules were tested for UPS application. Test conditions for the UPS test were 

based on the Exide lead-acid battery (flooded cell type) warranty. Exide indicates a 

warranted number of cycles for eight discharge conditions (combinations of eight 

discharge rates and eight discharge times). Three OBC modules (derated to 45 Wh/Kg) 

underwent tests in an attempt to satisfy all eight Exide warranted conditions. Each of the 

three modules successfully completed at least one of the Exide warranted conditions, but 

they fell well short of the eight warranted conditions that were planned. The report 

authors felt that the tests were performed under accelerated conditions with uncertain 

charge procedures, and the modules could have performed better under different 

circumstances. However, they also acknowledged that the warranted conditions tested 

were for flooded cells, and advanced technology lead-acid batteries are warranted for 

significantly higher numbers of cycles. 

5) One battery underwent float-charge life testing at an elevated temperature (40o

C) to 

accelerate possible corrosion reactions and failure. Reference cycles were conducted at 

ambient temperature (approximately 23o

C) periodically during this life test to determine 

the effect of the elevated temperature on battery deep-discharge capacity, resistance, and 

power. The peak power of the module was declining at a rate of 0.11 W/kg per day at 

40°C, which is close to the decline of 0.087 W/kg per day seen in a new OBC module 
Final Report A-8 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

subjected to similar tests. This led the authors to conclude that the impact of temperature 

on performance degradation in the OBC modules is similar throughout their cycle lives. 

Overall, the test results showed that used OBC Ni/MH EV modules perform at least as well as, if 

not better than, new lead-acid batteries in stationary energy storage applications. In fact, the 

derated EV modules appeared capable of performing the same functions as lead-acid batteries 

over longer lifetimes. The study demonstrates that reusing Ni/MH EV modules in secondary 

applications could be technically feasible from a battery performance perspective. 

Peer-reviewed journal search 

Searches performed utilizing online databases turned up no peer-reviewed articles on battery 

reuse. There were a number of articles on cell or electrode-level cycle life for both nickel metal 

hydride and lithium-based chemistries, but very few of these dealt with entire battery packs or 

even mass-produced cells. Most of the published information on cycle life and performance 

degradation for entire batteries identified during this search dealt with lead acid systems. The 

most informative of these papers is listed below: 

Aurbach, D. et al. ìFactors Which Limit the Cycle Life of Rechargeable Lithium (Metal) 

Batteries.î Journal of The Electrochemical Society 147, no.4 (2000): 1274-1279. 

Crow, J. et al. ìSummary of Electrical Test Results for Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid 

(VRLA) Batteries.î Journal of Power Sources 95 (2001): 241-247. 

Hollenkamp, A.F. ìWhen is Capacity Loss in Lead/Acid Batteries ëPrematureí?î Journal 

of Power Sources 59 (1996): 87-98. 

Nakamura, K. et al. ìFailure Modes of Valve-Regulated Lead/Acid Batteriesî Journal of 

Power Sources 59 (1996): 153-157. 

Peters, K. ìReview of Factors That Affect the Deep Cycling Performance of ValveRegulated Lead/Acid Batteries.î Journal of Power Sources 59 (1996): 9-13. 

Zhang, Lu. ìAC Impedance Studies on Sealed Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries over Cycle 

Life in Analog and Digital Operations.î Electrochimica Acta 43, nos. 21-22 (1998): 

3333-3342.

Conclusion 

Entrepreneurial individuals and companies have set up secondary markets for a variety of types 

of batteries. These batteries, once used in one type of operation, have been taken and applied to 

a new application where they have been given a new, second life. Spent nickel/metal hydride 

batteries, at least those used in electric vehicles, appear to have sufficient capacity and life to be 

used for a number of stationary applications. Additional tests will need to confirm this, as well 

as determine if this is true for HEV batteries, and for batteries with other chemistries, especially 

lithium-ion batteries. Setting up a successful secondary market for spent EV and HEV batteries 

will also require favorable economics. 
Final Report A-9 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

References 

[1] ìCARS of Maryland Uses PRS to Recover & Resell Batteries.î Originally presented in 

PulseTalk, The Official Newsletter of PulseTech Products Corporation, Fall 1998. Available 

online at <www.pulsetech.com/about/pulsetalk/fall98/cars.html>. 

[2] ìThe International Business Club has Developed a Unique and Very Efficient Battery 

Reconditioning System.î Available online at 

<http://www.clubclub.com/english/index.html>. 

[3] E. Harris, ìInspection and Test of Donated Used Batteries for ARES,î Fairfax County, VA, 

(December 1, 1998), 2 pages. Available online at <www.vaares.org/library/free_batteries.html>. This article also appeared in the SARINFO reference 

library (<sarinfo@minklink.net>), the MVARC and NVFMA newsletters, and on the ARRL 

Members Only website (<http://www.arrl.org>). 

[4] Approximately two dozen members of the Electric Vehicle Association of Washington, DC, 

were queried during a monthly meeting held on August 14, 2001 in Bethesda, Maryland. 

[5] SURPLUS TRADERS. Available online at <http://www.surplustraders.net> 

[6] A.N. Brooks and T.B. Gage, The tzero Electric Sports CaróHow Electric Vehicles Can 

Achieve Both High Performance and High Efficiency, (October, 2000), 21 pages. Paper 

presented at the 17th Electric Vehicle Conference (EVS17), in Montreal, Canada. 

[7] E-mail communication with Richard Perez of Home Power magazine. The additional articles 

he mentioned were not purchased because they did not appear to deal with EV/HEV 

batteries, nor with advanced, non-lead-acid batteries. 

[8] L. Barker, ìPV Household Storage Battery Test,î Home Power, 83 (June/July 2001): 

50-53. 

[9] Oasis Montana Inc. Alternative Energy Supply and Design. Available online at 

<www.oasismontana.com>. 

[10] Telephone conversation with Paul Hess, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Information Clearinghouse. 

[11] E-mail communication with Johnny Weiss, Solar Energy International. 

[12] Personal communication with Peter Lowenthal, Solar Energy Industries Association. 

[13] Telephone conversation with Hugh Marrow, International Cadmium Association. 

[14] E-mail communication with Jade Mountain. Jade Mountain can be reached on the Internet 

at <http://www.jademountain.com/> and via e-mail at <info@jademountain.com>. 

[15] E-mail communication with Bill Moore, editor of the EV WorldÆ website: 

<www.evworld.com>. 

[16] Personal communication with David Goldstein, President, Electric Vehicle Association of 

Washington, DC, who stated that he had heard that ECD had a proposal to use 50% 

capacity Ni/MH batteries in UPS units. 

[17] Telephone communication with Homero del Basque, Energy Conversion Devices. 
Final Report A-10 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

[18] Dell Computer Corporation. Available online at <www.dell.com>. 

[19] N. Pinsky (USABC Program Manager) et al., Electric Vehicle Battery 2nd Use Study, 

Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, Electrochemical Technology Program, (May 

21, 1998), 80 pages plus Appendix. 
Final Report B-1 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

APPENDIX B: 

EV BATTERIES AVAILABLE ON THE U.S. MARKET 

This appendix contains a summary of the battery systems found in electric vehicles sold or 

demonstrated in the U.S. The purpose of this summary is to provide a rough idea of the range of 

batteries available for potential use in an EV battery secondary use program. As such, it is not an 

exhaustive list. It does, however, contain the specifications of the battery systems installed in 

most EVís that have been sold in the U.S. (including those that have gone out of production), as 

well as some demonstration and prototype vehicles. It does not contain most of the conversion 

vehicles currently available. The information used here was obtained from the Electric Vehicle 

Association of the Americas website, the Department of Energyís Office of Transportation 

Technologies Alternative Fuels Database, vehicle manufacturers, battery manufacturers, and the 

ìAdvanced Batteries for Electric Vehicles: An Assessment of Performance, Cost and 

Availabilityî report submitted by the Year 2000 Battery Technology Advisory Panel to the 

California Air Resources Board. 

For the purposes of this study, electric vehicles were broken into four broad categories to allow 

for comparisons and simplification of the data. Their descriptions follow: 

EV ñ Electric Vehicle: full size passenger automobile with a battery-based electric 

drive train. 

HEV ñ Hybrid Electric Vehicle: full size passenger vehicle with an internal combustion 

engine coupled with an electric motor and battery. 

CEV ñ City Electric Vehicle: small (short wheelbase) passenger automobile with a 

battery-based electric drive train designed for urban commuting; top speed approximately 

60 mph. 

NEV ñ Neighborhood Electric Vehicle: small, low speed (< 25 mph) passenger 

automobile with a battery-based electric drive train designed for short trips. 

Each of these classes of vehicles has different power and energy requirements for the battery. 

For example, EVís typically have about 30 kWh of energy storage, CEVís and NEVís require 

about 10 kWh, and HEVís typically have a battery with around 1 kWh of storage. 

In addition to considering different types of vehicles, this summary also covers systems based on 

each of the major battery chemistries used in electric vehicles: 

Ni/MH ñ Nickel/Metal Hydride 

 Li-ion ñ Lithium-ion 

 NiCd ñ Nickel/Cadmium 

 LMPB ñ Lithium Metal-Polymer 

 VRLA ñ Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid 

 FLA ñ Flooded Lead-Acid. 
Final Report B-2 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Tables 1 and 2 below contain broad descriptions of typical batteries organized by chemistry and 

vehicle type. The remaining tables contain more detailed specifications for the battery systems 

found in most electric vehicles available on the U.S. market today, as well as a number of 

prototype and demonstration vehicles expected to reach production in the next few years.
Final Report B-3 Technical and Econom

Used EV Batteries 

Table 1. Battery Module Characteristics for typical HEV and EV batteries. 

Vehicle Type HEV EV Chemistry Ni/MH Li-ion2 LMPB3 Ni/MH Li-ion2 VRLA Battery Voltage (V) 144 ñ 274 346 288 - 343 360 312 Battery Capacity (Ah) 6.5 3.6 77 - 95 90 60 - 8Battery Capacity (kWh) 0.94 ñ 1.8 1.2 26 - 32 32 19 - 2Cells/battery 120 ñ 228 96 240 - 286 96 - Modules/Battery 20 ñ 38 2 24 - 28 12 26 - 3Module Voltage (V) 7.2 173 50 12 - 13.2 30 8 - 12 Module Capacity (Ah) 6.5 3.6 14 77 - 95 90 60 - 8Module Capacity (kWh) 0.047 0.62 0.7 1.0 - 1.1 2.7 0.68 - 0Module Output Power (kW)4 ~ 0.9 16 3.2 - 4 12.5 4 - 5 Motor Output (kW) 10 ñ 33 17 49 - 102 62 67 - 10Battery Manufacturers PEVE1 Shin Kobe Avestor PEVE Shin Kobe Panasonic 

SAFT Texaco Ovonic SAFT East Penn 

Vehicles Honda Insight Nissan Tino None Chevy S-10 Nissan Altra Baker/Ford U

Toyota Prius Dodge Durango Ford Ranger Ford Ranger 

Dodge ESX3 GM EV-1 Chevy S-10 

 Honda EV Plus GM EV-1  Toyota Rav4 Solectria For

Solectria Force 

Notes: 

1PEVE ñ Panasonic EV Energy, a Matsushita company. 2The lithium-ion characteristics listed here are for Shin Kobe EV and HEV modules. Module level data w

SAFT Li-ion batteries since none of the vehicles using SAFT Li-ion batteries are in production yet. 

3The LMPB characteristics listed here are for prototype modules developed by Avestor, and some of the n

extrapolations from cell-level performance. Avestor has not yet mass-produced any LMPB battery packs

automakers with plans at the current time to use LMPB systems in a production vehicle, although they ha

in the Ford TH!NK City and the GM Precept. 

4Module Output Power was estimated using the specific power for the module and an estimated module m

the total battery pack mass and the number of modules. 
Final Report B-4 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 2. Battery Module Characteristics for typical CEV and NEV batteries. 

Vehicle Type CEV NEV 

Chemistry Ni/MH Li-ion NiCd FLA 

Battery Voltage (V) 288 120 114 72 

Battery Capacity (Ah) 28 90 100 130 

Battery Capacity (kWh) 8.1 11 11 9.4 

Cells/battery 240 32 - - 

Modules/Battery 24 4 19 6 

Module Voltage (V) 12 30 6 12 

Module Capacity (Ah) 28 90 100 130 

Module Capacity (kWh) 0.34 2.7 0.6 1.6 

Module Output Power (kW) 1.1 12.5 1.6 

Motor Output (kW) 19 24 27 5 - 25 

Battery Manufacturers PEVE Shin Kobe SAFT Trojan 

 SAFT 

Vehicles Honda City Pal Nissan Hypermini TH!NK City Dynasty IT 

Toyota ecom Solectria Force GEM E825 

 Solectria Flash 

 TH!NK Neighbor

For additional details on the individual vehicles, see Tables 3-8. 
Final Report B-5 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 3. HEVís by Manufacturer ñ Honda, Nissan, Toyota, DaimlerChrysler 

Manufacturer Honda Nissan Toyota DaimlerChrysler DaimlerChrysler

Model Insight Tino Prius ESX3 Durango 

Chemistry Ni/MH Li-ion Ni/MH Li-ion Li-ion 

Battery Manufacturer PEVE Shin Kobe PEVE SAFT SAFT 

Battery Model HEV Mn type HEV HEV Hi Power Hi Power 

Battery Voltage (V) 144 345.6 273.6 165 259.2 

Battery Capacity (Ah) 6.5 3.6 6.5 8 16 

Battery Capacity (kWh) 0.936 1.24416 1.7784 1.32 4.1472 

Modules/Battery 20 2 38 

Module Voltage (V) 7.2 172.8 7.2 

Module Capacity (Ah) 6.5 3.6 6.5 

Module Capacity (kWh) 0.0468 0.62208 0.0468 

Module Output Power (kW) ~0.9 ~0.9 

Cells/Module 6 48 6 

Connection series series series 

Cell Voltage (V) 1.2 3.6 1.2 3.6 3.6 

Cell Capacity (Ah) 6.5 3.6 6.5 8 16 

Cells/battery 120 96 228 72 

Cell Design cylindrical D cell cylindrical prismatic, plastic cylindrical cylindrical 

Motor Output (kW) 10 17 33 

Sales Figures: 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 (1st qtr) 

1999 (2nd qtr) 

1999 (3rd qtr) 

1999 (4th qtr) 17 

2000 (1st qtr) 397 

2000 (2nd qtr) 1149 

2000 (3rd qtr) 1290 2610 

2000 (4th qtr) 952 2952 

2001 (1st qtr) 597 2490 

2001 (1st ñ 4th qtr) 3901 12116 

Total 7706 17678 

Availability Retail Japan Only Retail Prototype Prototype 
Final Report B-6 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 4. EVís by Manufacturer ñ DaimlerChrysler, Ford 

Manufacturer DaimlerChrysler Baker/Ford Ford 

Model EPIC Minivan ECRV Postal Delivery Veh. Ranger EV1

Chemistry Ni/MH VRLA VRLA Ni/MH 

Battery Manufacturer SAFT East Penn East Penn PEVE 

Battery Model NH 12.4 (old) UX 168 UX 168 EV 95 

Battery Voltage (V) 336 312 312 300 

Battery Capacity (Ah) 95 85 85 95 

Battery Capacity (kWh) 31.92 26.52 26.52 28.5 

Modules/Battery 28 39 39 25 

Module Voltage (V) 12 8 8 12 

Module Capacity (Ah) 95 85 85 95 

Module Capacity (kWh) 1.14 0.68 0.68 1.14 

Module Power Output (kW) 3.2 4 4 3.8 

Cells/Module - - - 10 

Connection - - - series 

Cell Voltage (V) - - - 1.2 

Cell Capacity (Ah) - - - 95 

Cells/battery - - - 250 

Cell Design monoblock monoblock monoblock prismatic, plastic 

Motor Output (kW) 75 67 67 67 

Sales Figures: 

1996 

1997 17 27 

1998 0 310 

1999 (1st qtr) 10 28 

1999 (2nd qtr) 41 119 

1999 (3rd qtr) 23 179 

1999 (4th qtr) 55 207 

2000 (1st qtr) 51 46 

2000 (2nd qtr) 9 130 

2000 (3rd qtr) 0 73 

2000 (4th qtr) 0 140 

2001 (1st qtr) 0 500 2 

Total 206 500 1261 

Availability Out of Production 500 CA & DC USPS2 Fleet and Retail 

Notes: 

1 The Ford Ranger EV was initially offered with VRLA batteries only. In recent model years, customers 

could select Ni/MH batteries as an option. The sales figures are for both options together. 

2 500 ECRV Postal Delivery Vehicles were ordered by the US Postal Service and will be deployed in 

California and the District of Columbia. The USPS has the option of purchasing 5000 more of the 

vehicles after evaluation. 
Final Report B-7 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 5. EVís by Manufacturer - GM

Manufacturer GM Chevy 

Model EV11 S-10 Electric1

Chemistry VRLA Ni/MH VRLA Ni/MH 

Battery Manufacturer Panasonic Texaco Ovonic Panasonic Texaco Ovonic 

Battery Model EV 1260 EV 1260 

Battery Voltage (V) 312 343 312 343 

Battery Capacity (Ah) 60 77 60 77 

Battery Capacity (kWh) 18.72 26.4264 18.72 26.4264 

Modules/Battery 26 26 26 26 

Module Voltage (V) 12 13.2 12 13.2 

Module Capacity (Ah) 60 77 60 77 

Module Capacity (kWh) 0.72 1.0164 0.72 1.0164 

Module Output Power (kW) 5 4 5 4 

Cells/Module - 11 - 11 

Connection - series - series 

Cell Voltage (V) - 1.2 - 1.2 

Cell Capacity (Ah) - 77 - 77 

Cells/battery - 286 - 286 

Cell Design monoblock prismatic, metal monoblock prismatic, metal 

Motor Output (kW) 102 102 85 85 

Sales Figures: 

1996 39 

1997 264 278 

1998 258 99 

1999 (1st qtr) 93 45 

1999 (2nd qtr) 0 11 

1999 (3rd qtr) 0 57 

1999 (4th qtr) 45 10 

2000 (1st qtr) 89 

2000 (2nd qtr) 65 

2000 (3rd qtr) 

2000 (4th qtr) 

2001 (1st qtr) 

Total 853 500 

Availability Out of Production Out of Production 

Notes: 

1

 The GM EV-1 and Chevy S-10 Electric were both initially offered with VRLA batteries only. In 

recent model years, customers could select Ni/MH batteries as an option. The sales figures are for both 

options together. 
Final Report B-8 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 6. EVís by Manufacturer ñ Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Solectria 

Manufacturer Honda Nissan Toyota Solectria 

Model EV Plus Altra EV RAV4 Force 

Chemistry Ni/MH Li-ion Ni/MH VRLA, NiCd, or Ni/MH

Battery Manufacturer PEVE Shin Kobe PEVE 

Battery Model EV 95 Mn type EV MHB-100 

Battery Voltage (V) 288 360 288 156 

Battery Capacity (Ah) 95 90 95 

Battery Capacity (kWh) 27.36 32.4 27.36 

Modules/Battery 24 12 24 13 

Module Voltage (V) 12 30 12 12 

Module Capacity (Ah) 95 90 95 

Module Capacity (kWh) 1.14 2.7 1.14 

Module Output Power (kW) 3.8 12.5 3.8 

Cells/module 10 8 10 

Connection series series series 

Cell Voltage (V) 1.2 3.75 1.2 

Cell Capacity (Ah) 95 90 95 

Cells/battery 240 96 240 

Cell Design prismatic, plastic cylindrical prismatic, plastic 

Motor Output (kW) 49 62 50 42 

Sales Figures: 

1996 

1997 105 69 

1998 133 30 359 

1999 (1st qtr) 29 26 79 

1999 (2nd qtr) 21 4 78 

1999 (3rd qtr) 7 0 51 

1999 (4th qtr) 5 0 47 

2000 (1st qtr) 0 11 1 

2000 (2nd qtr) 0 4 18 

2000 (3rd qtr) 0 5 77 

2000 (4th qtr) 0 30 10 

2001 (1st qtr) 0 1 27 

2001 (2nd qtr) 0 19 26 

2001 (3rd qtr) 0 0 77 

2001 (4th qtr) 0 0 26 

Total 300 130 945 

Availability Out Of Production Fleet in CA Fleet Retail 
Final Report B-9 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 7. CEVís by Manufacturer ñ Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford TH!NK 

Manufacturer Honda Nissan Toyota Ford TH!NK 

Model City Pal Hypermini e-com (62 mph) City (56 mph) 

Chemistry Ni/MH Li-ion Ni/MH NiCd 

Battery Manufacturer Panasonic Shin Kobe Panasonic SAFT 

Battery Model EV 28 Mn type EV EV 28 STM 5-100 MRE 

Battery Voltage (V) 288 120 288 114 

Battery Capacity (Ah) 28 90 28 100 

Battery Capacity (kWh) 8.064 10.8 8.064 11.4 

Modules/Battery 24 4 24 19 

Module Voltage (V) 12 30 12 6 

Module Capacity (Ah) 28 90 28 100 

Module Capacity (kWh) 0.336 2.7 0.336 0.6 

Module Output Power (kW) 1.1 12.5 1.1 1.6 

Cells/Module 10 4 10 - 

Connection series series series - 

Cell Voltage (V) 1.2 3.75 1.2 - 

Cell Capacity (Ah) 28 90 28 - 

Cells/battery 240 16 240 - 

Cell Design prismatic, plastic cylindrical prismatic, plastic monoblock 

Motor Output (kW) 24 19 27 

Sales Figures: 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 (1st qtr) 

1999 (2nd qtr) 

1999 (3rd qtr) 

1999 (4th qtr) 

2000 (1st qtr) 

2000 (2nd qtr) 

2000 (3rd qtr) 

2000 (4th qtr) 

2001 (1st qtr) 

Total 

Availability Demo Demo Demo Demo (retail in EU)
Final Report B-10 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

Table 8. NEVís by Manufacturer ñ Dynasty, GEM, Solectria, Ford TH!NK 

Manufacturer Dynasty 

GEM 

(DaimlerChrysler) Solectria Ford TH!NK 

Model IT NEV E825 Flash Neighbor 

Chemistry FLA FLA FLA FLA? 

Battery Manufacturer Trojan Trojan 

Battery Model 30 XHS 

Battery Voltage (V) 72 72 144 72 

Battery Capacity (Ah) 130 

Battery Capacity (kWh) 9.4 

Modules/Battery 6 6 12 6 

Module Voltage (V) 12 12 12 12 

Module Capacity (Ah) 130 

Module Capacity (kWh) 1.6 

Cells/Module - - - - 

Connection - - - - 

Cell Voltage (V) - - - - 

Cell Capacity (Ah) - - - - 

Cells/battery - - - - 

Cell Design - - - - 

Motor Output (kW) 25 2.5 34 5 

Sales Figures: 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 (1st qtr) 

1999 (2nd qtr) 

1999 (3rd qtr) 

1999 (4th qtr) 

2000 (1st qtr) 

2000 (2nd qtr) 

2000 (3rd qtr) 

2000 (4th qtr) 

2001 (1st qtr) 6261 

Total 6261 

Availability Retail Retail Retail Retail (Fall 2001)
Final Report B-11 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

References 

Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas website: http://www.evaa.org

DOE Office of Transportation Technologies Alternative Fuels Data Center: 

http://www.afdc.doe.gov/afvehicles.html

M. Anderman, F. Kalhammer, and D. MacArthur, Advanced Batteries for Electric Vehicles: An Assessment of 

Performance, Cost and Availability, Prepared for the State of California Air Resources Board (June 22, 2000). 
Final Report B-12 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

1 

Dutch Achenbach 

2111 Buffalo 

Casper, WY 82604 

 Gerald W. Braun 

14801 Braemar Crescent Way 

Darnestown, MD 20878 

Per Danfors 

c/o 1029 W. Zermatt Dr. #8 

Midway, UT 84049 

Bill Erdman 

850 Greenstone Ct. 

Brentwood, CA 94513 

Brad Johnson 

2122 Natahoa Court 

Falls Church, VA 22043 

Nick Magnani 

2494 Windmill Point Rd. 

White Stone, VA 22578 

Bob Weaver 

777 Wildwood Lane 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Hans Weinrich 

ABB Power T&D Co., Inc. 

1460 Livingston Ave. 

P.O. Box 6005 

North Brunswick, NJ 08902-6005 

Distribution 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

2 

Bryan Plater 

Active Power, Inc. 

Corporate Headquarters 

11525 Stonehollow Drive, #135 

Austin, TX 78758 

Jim Balthazar 

Active Power, Inc. 

Corporate Headquarters 

11525 Stonehollow Drive, #110 

Austin, TX 78758 

Joe Thomas 

Active Power, Inc. 

65 Glen Road, Suite 4-287 

Garner, NC 27529 

William V. Hassenzahl 

Advanced Energy Analysis 

1020 Rose Avenue 

Piedmont, CA 94611 

Robert O. Bartlett 

AFS Trinity Power Corporation 

7617 Irongate Lane 

Frederick, MD 21702 

Paul Grems Duncan 

Airak, Inc. 

9058 Euclid Avenue 

Manassas, VA 20110 

Tim Mack 

Airak, Inc. 

9058 Euclid Ave. 

Manassas, VA 20110 

Dennis Meiners 

Alaska Energy Authority 

813 West Northern Lights Boulevard 

Anchorage, AK 99503 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

3 

David Lockard 

Alaska Energy Authority/AIDEA 

813 West Northern Lights Blvd. 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Peter Crimp 

Alaska Energy Authority/AIDEA 

813 West Northern Lights Blvd. 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Phillip R. Beaver 

Albemarle Corporation 

8000 GSRI Avenue 

P.O. Box 14799 

Baton Rouge, LA 70820 

Burkhard Rˆmhild 

ALSTOM Power, Inc. 

2800 Waterford Lake Drive 

Midlothian, VA 23112-3981 

Christian Sasse 

ALSTOM Research & Technology Centre 

PO Box 30; Lichfield Road 

Stafford, ST17 4LN 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Ali Nourai 

American Electric Power 

1 Riverside Plaza, 20th Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

Dave Nichols 

American Electric Power 

1 Riverside Plaza 

Columbus, OH 43215 

Meera Kohler 

Anchorage Municipal Light & Pwr 

1200 East 1st Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99501 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

4 

Ira Bloom 

Argonne National Laboratories 

9700 South Cass Avenue 

CTD, Bldg. 205 

Lemont, IL 60439-4837 

Christian St-Pierre 

ARGO-TECH Productions, Inc. 

Subsidiary of Hydro-Quebec 

1580 de Coulomb 

Boucherville, QC J4B 7Z7 

CANADA 

Herb Hayden 

Arizona Public Service 

400 North Fifth Street 

P.O. Box 53999, MS8931 

Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999 

Ray Hobbs 

Arizona Public Service 

400 North Fifth Street 

P.O. Box 5399, MS8931 

Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999 

Robert Hammond 

Arizona Public Service Co. (APS) 

Solar Test and Research Center 

1500 E. University Drive 

Tempe, AZ 85281 

Violaine Dorval 

Avestor 

1600 De Coulomb 

Boucherville, QC J4B7Z7 

CANADA 

Rick Lawrence 

AVO International 

P.O. Box 9007 

Valley Forge, PA 19485-1007 

Matthew L. Lazarewicz 

Beacon Power Corp. 

234 Ballardvale Street 

Wilmington, MA 01887 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

5 

William Capp 

Beacon Power Corp. 

234 Ballardvale Street 

Wilmington, MA 01887 

Michael L. Bergey 

Bergey Windpower 

2001 Priestley Avenue 

Norman, OK 73069 

Chris Marnay 

Berkley National Laboratory 

MS 90-4000 1Cyclotron Rd. 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Klaus Kraemer 

Berliner Kraft und Licht (BEWAG) 

Bewag AG 

Energy Planning & Trading 

Berlin, D-12432 

GERMANY 

Larry Stoddard 

Black and Veatch 

11401 Lamar Ave. 

Overland Park, KS 66211 

Michael Strasik, Ph.D. 

Boeing 

P.O. Box 3999 MS 73-09 

Seattle, WA 98124-2499 

Art Day 

Boeing Phantom Works 

P.O. Box 3999 MS 73-09 

Seattle, WA 98124-2499 

Mike Hoffman 

Bonneville Power Administration 

P.O. Box 3621 

905 N.E. 11th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97208-3621 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

6 

Roy Forey 

British Embassy 

3100 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20008-3600 

Septimus van der Linden 

Brulin Associates, L.L.C. 

14418 Old Bond Street 

Chesterfield, VA 23832 

Dr. Sudhan S. Misra 

C&D Technologies 

1400 Union Meeting Road 

Blue Bell, PA 19422-0858 

Pramod P. Kulkarni 

California Energy Commission 

Research & Dev. Office 

1516 9th Street, MS42 

Sacramento, CA 95814-5512 

Terry Surles, Ph.D. 

California Energy Commission 

1516 9th Street 

MS43 

Sacramento, CA 95814-5504 

John Cooley 

Chugach Elec. Association, Inc. 

P.O. Box 196300 

Anchorage, AK 99519-6300 

Alex Q. Huang 

CPES Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

674 Whittemore Hall (0179) 

Blacksburg, VA 24061-0179 

Michael A. Lankford 

Detroit Edison 

15600 19 Mile Road 

Clinton Township, MI 48038 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

7 

Haukur Asgeirsson 

Detroit Edison Company 

2000 2nd Ave. 

435 SB 

Detroit, MI 48226-1279 

Joe Iannucci 

Distributed Utility Associates 

1062 Concannon Blvd. 

Livermore, CA 94550 

Murray W. Davis 

DTE Energy 

37849 Interchange Dr. 

Farmington Hills, MI 48335 

Steven G. Whisenant 

Duke Power Company 

P.O. Box 1006 

Charlotte, NC 28201 

Alan Collinson 

EA Technology Limited 

Capenhurst, Chester, England CH1 6ES 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Jim DeGruson 

Eagle-Picher Industries. Inc. 

C & Porter Street 

Joplin, MO 64802 

Alfred Rufer 

Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne 

(EPFL) 

LEI-STI-EPFL 

Lausanne, CH1015 

SWITZERLAND 

K.M. Abraham 

E-KEM Sciences 

P.O. Box 920401 

Needham, MA 2492 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

8 

Gail Hendrickson (15) 

Electric Drive Transporation Association 

701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

3rd Floor - East Building 

Washington, DC 20004 

Mark Skowronski 

Electric Power Group 

201 South Lake Avenue, Suite 400 

Pasadena, CA 91101 

Steve Chapel 

Electric Power Research Institute 

P.O. Box 10412 

Palo Alto, CA 94303-0813 

Steve Eckroad 

Electric Power Research Institute 

P.O. Box 10412 

Palo Alto, CA 94303-0813 

Robert B. Schainker 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

3412 Hillview Avenue 

P.O. Box 10412 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Anthony Price 

Electricity Storage Association 

C/O Innogy, Windmill Hill Business Park 

Whitehill Way 

Swindon, SN5 6PB 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Dave Feder 

Electrochemical Energy 

Storage Systems, Inc. 

35 Ridgedale Avenue 

Madison, NJ 07940 

Jack Brown 

ElectroEnergy, Inc. 

30 Shelter Rock Road 

Danbury, CT 06810 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

9 

Michael Eskra 

ElectroEnergy, Inc. 

30 Shelter Rock Road 

Danbury, CT 06810 

Chuck Whitaker 

Endecon Engineering 

347 Norris Ct. 

San Ramon, CA 94583 

Brian Marchionini 

Energetics, Inc. 

901 D St SW 

Suite 100 

Washington, DC 20024 

Christina Termaath 

Energetics, Inc. 

901 D St. SW 

Suite 100 

Washington, DC 20024 

Edward Skolnik 

Energetics, Inc. 

901 D St SW 

Suite 100 

Washington, DC 20024 

Howard Lowitt 

Energetics, Inc. 

7164 Gateway Drive 

Columbia, MD 21046 

Lauren Giles 

Energetics, Inc. 

7164 Columbia Gateway Drive 

Columbia, MD 21046 

Ndeye K. Fall 

Energetics, Inc. 

901 D St SW 

Suite 100 

Washington, DC 20024 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

10 

Rich Scheer Scheer 

Energetics, Inc. 

901 D St. SW 

Suite 100 

Washington, DC 20024 

Amber Gray-Fenner 

Energy Communications Consulting 

7204 Marigot Rd. NW 

Albuquerque, NM 87120 

Philip C. Symons 

Energy Storage Association/EECI 

1295 Kelly Park Circle 

Morgan Hill, CA 95037 

R. B. Sloan 

Energy United 

P.O. Box 1831 

Statesville, NC 28687 

Tom Key 

EPRI PEAC Corp. 

860 Corridor Park Blvd. 

Knoxville, TN 37932 

Haresh Kamath 

EPRI PEAC Corporation 

942 Corrider Park Boulevard 

Knoxville, TN 37932 

Erik Henning 

EUS GmbH 

Munscheidst 14 

Gelsenkirchen, D-45886 

GERMANY 

James P. Dunlop 

Florida Solar Energy Center 

1679 Clearlake Road 

Cocoa, FL 32922-5703 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

11 

Tom Lovas 

Four Dam Pool Power Agency 

703 West Tudor Road, Suite 102 

Anchorage, AK 99503-6650 

Bob Zrebiec 

GE Industrial & Pwr. Services 

640 Freedom Business Center 

King of Prussia, PA 19046 

Nick Miller 

General Electric Company 

1 River Road 

Building 2, Room 605 

Schenectady, NY 12345 

Declan Daly 

General Electric Drive Systems 

1501 Roanoke Blvd. 

Salem, VA 24153 

Raj M. Bharadwaj 

General Electric Global Research 

One Research Circle, ES 601 

Niskayuna, NY 12309 

Daniel P. Smith 

General Electric R&D 

P.O. Box 3, ES-142 

Schenectady, NY 12301 

Les Fairchild 

Georgia Power Co. 

4404 N. Shallowford Rd. 

Atlanta, GA 30308 

Gerry Woolf 

Gerry Woolf Associates 

17 Westmeston Avenue 

Rottingdean, East Sussex, BN2 8AL 

UNITED KINGDOM 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

12 

Christopher John 

GNB Industrial Power 

829 Parkview Blvd. 

Lombard, IL 60148 

Robert Schmitt 

GNB Industrial Power, Division of Exide 

Technologies 

829 Parkview Boulevard 

Lombard, IL 60148 

George Hunt 

GNB Technologies 

Woodlake Corporate Park 

829 Parkview Blvd. 

Lombard, IL 60148-3249 

Joe Szymborski 

GNB Technologies 

Woodlake Corporate Park 

829 Parkview Blvd. 

Lombard, IL 60148-3249 

Sanjay Deshpande' 

GNB Technologies 

Woodlake Corporate Park 

829 Parkview Blvd. 

Lombard, IL 60148-3249 

Steven Haagensen 

Golden Valley Elec. Assoc., Inc. 

758 Illinois Street 

P.O. Box 71249 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 

Ben Norris 

Gridwise Engineering Company 

121 Starlight Place 

Danville, CA 94526 

Philip Kunsberg 

Haviland Holdings, Inc. 

134 East Gate Drive, Suite B 

Los Alamos, NM 87544 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

13 

Clyde Nagata 

Hawaii Electric Light Co. 

P.O. Box 1027 

Hilo, HI 96720 

Jacqui L. Hoover 

Hawaii Ocean Science & Technology Park 

73-4460 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy., #101 

Kailua-Kona, HI 96740-2632 

Larry Meisner 

HOPPECKE Batteries, Inc. 

1960 Old Cuthbert Road 

Suite 130 

Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 

Andre Belanger 

Hydro-Quebec Research Institute 

1800 Boul. Lionel Boulet 

Varennes, Quebec J3X 1S1 

CANADA 

Mohammad Shahidehpour 

Illinois Institute of Technology 

ECE Department, 3301 S. Dearborn 

Chicago, IL 60616 

Carl D. Parker 

ILZRO 

2525 Meridian Parkway 

P.O. Box 12036 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Jerome F. Cole 

ILZRO 

2525 Meridian Parkway 

PO Box 12036 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Patrick Moseley 

ILZRO 

2525 Meridian Parkway 

P.O. Box 12036 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

14 

Ron Myers 

Imperial Oil Research Centre 

3535 Research Road NW 

Room 2E-123 

Calgary, Alberta, T2L 2K8 

CANADA 

Ken Belfer 

Innovative Power Sources 

1419 Via Jon Jose Road 

Alamo, CA 94507 

Robert Wills 

Intergrid Consulting 

39 Union Street 

Peterborough, NH 03458 

A. Kamal Kalafala 

Intermagnetics General Corp. 

450 Old Niskayuna Road 

P.O. Box 461 

Latham, NY 12110-0461 

Rosalind Volpe 

International Lead Zinc Research 

Organization, Inc. (ILZRO) 

PO Box 12036 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2036 

Albert R. Landgrebe 

Int'l Electrochemical Sys & Technology 

B14 Sussex Lane 

Long Neck, DE 19966 

Douglas Freund 

Invensys Energy Management Division 

2023 North Atlantic Avenue, #276 

Cocoa Beach, FL 32931 

Willie Ozbirn 

Invensys Energy Solutions 

1034 East Ash Street (62703) 

P.O. Box 19424 

Springfield, IL, IL 62794-9424 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

15 

David Bertagnolli 

ISO New England 

One Sullivan Road 

Holyoak,, MA 01040-2841 

Imelda G. Francis 

Just Do IT 

21658 W. Ravine Rd. 

Lake Zurich, IL 60047 

Gerard H. C. M. Thijssen 

KEMA T&D Consulting 

Utrechtseweg 310 

P.O. Box 9035 

Arnhem, 6800ET 

NETHERLANDS 

Joseph M. Derby 

Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC 

PO Box 25861 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

Frank McLarnon 

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 

University of California 

One Cyclotron Road 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Elton Crains 

Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab 

University of California 

One Cyclotron Road 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Grayson Heffner 

Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab 

University of California 

One Cyclotron Road 

M/S Wash DC 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Joe Eto 

Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab 

University of California 

One Cyclotron Road, MS 90-4000 

Berkeley, CA 94720 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

16 

J. Ray Smith 

Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab 

University of California 

P.O. Box 808, L-644 

Livermore, CA 94551 

Susan M. Schoenung 

Longitude 122 West, Inc. 

1010 Doyle Street 

Suite 10 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Patrick J. McGinnis, P.E. 

Machinery Research & Engineering 

Directorate, Naval Surface Warfare Center - 

Carderock Division 

NSWCCD-SSES, Building 77L 

5001 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19112-5083 

Jim Fiske 

Magtube, Inc. 

5735-B Hollister Ave. 

Goleta, CA 93117 

John Sawarin 

McKenzie Bay International Ltd. 

143 Windson Ave. 

London, Ontario, N6C2A1 

Lewis Taylor 

Mega-C Power Corporation 

100 Caster Avenue 

Vaughan, ON L4L 5Y9 

CANADA 

Rene Pardo 

Mega-C Power Corporation 

100 Caster Avenue 

Vaughan, ON L4L 5Y9 

CANADA 

Floyd Russell 

Metlakatla Power & Light 

P.O. Box 359 

3.5 Mile Airport Road 

Metlakatla, AK 99926 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

17 

Peter Donalek 

Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) Global 

175 W Jackson Blvd, Flr 19 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Jagoron Mukherjee 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

320 King Street 

Alexandria, VA 22311 

Dr. Amit Singal 

NanoPowder Enterprises, Inc. 

120 Centennial Avenue 

Suite 106 

Piscataway, NJ 08854-3908 

Dr. Norman Holcombe 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

626 Cochrans Mill Road 

P.O. Box 10940 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 

Tony Schaffhauser 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

Steven P. Lindenberg 

National Rural Elec Cooperative Assoc. 

4301 Wilson Blvd. 

SSER9-207 

Arlington, VA 22203-1860 

Kae Pohe 

Nevarest 

443 Nevada Highway 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

Andrew L. Rosenthal 

New Mexico State University 

Southwest Tech. Dev. Institute 

Box 30001/Dept. 3SOL 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

18 

Satish J. Ranade 

New Mexico State University 

Klish School of ECE, Box 3001, Dept. 3-O 

Las Cruces, NM 88003 

L. Daniel Mears 

NGK Insulators, LTD/NAS Battery Division 

6540 Lusk Boulevard, Suite C-102 

San Diego, CA 92121 

Toyoo Ted Takayama 

NGK Insulators, LTD/NAS Battery Division 

2-56, Suda-cho, Mizuho 

Nagoya, Aichi 467-8530 

JAPAN 

Eddy Ozawa 

NGK-Locke, Inc. 

2525 Insulator Drive 

Baltimore, MD 21230 

Edward Torrero 

NRECA Cooperative Research Network 

4301 Wilson Boulevard, SS9-204 

Arlington, VA 22203-1860 

Clinton Winchester 

NSWC Carderock Division, Code 644 

9500 MacArthur Boulevard 

West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700 

Brendan Kirby 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

P.O. Box 2008 

Bldg. 3147, MS-6070 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6070 

John Stoval 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

P.O. Box 2008 

Bldg. 3147, MS-6070 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6070 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

19 

Michael A. Karnitz 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

P.O. Box 2008 

MS 6186 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6186 

Douglas R. Danley 

Orion Energy Corporation 

4580A Mack Avenue 

Frederick, MD 21703 

Todd Jaffe 

Power Asset Brokers, LLC 

3420 Keyser Road 

Baltimore, MD 21208 

Stan Sostrom 

POWER Engineers, Inc. 

P.O. Box 777 

3870 US Hwy 16 

Newcastle, WY 82701 

Rick Winter 

Private Consultant 

246 Canyon Woods Way 

Suite C 

San Ramon, CA 94583 

Jerry Neal 

Public Service Co. of New Mexico 

Alvarado Square MS-BA52 

Albuquerque, NM 87158 

Roger Flynn 

Public Service Co. of New Mexico 

Alvarado Square MS-2838 

Albuquerque, NM 87158 

Wenceslao Torres 

Puerto Rico Elec. Pwr. Authority 

P.O. Box 364267 

San Juan, PR 00936-4267 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

20 

Scott Hassell 

RAND Corporation 

1200 South Hayes Street 

Arlington, VA 22202-5050 

Mark Kuntz 

Regenesys Technologies Ltd. 

303 East Walker Drive 

Suite 1200 

Chicago, IL 60601 

James T. Reilly 

Reilly Associates 

P.O. Box 838 

Red Bank, NJ 07701 

Gregg Renkes 

Reliable Power Inc. 

2300 Clarendon Blvd. 

Suite 401 

Arlington, VA 22201 

John P. Venners 

Reliable Power Inc. 

2300 Clarendon Blvd. 

Suite 400 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Malcolm T. Jacques 

Reliable Power, Inc. 

2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 401 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Matthew Karcher 

Reliable Power, Inc. 

2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 401 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Markus Becker 

RWE North America 

555 12th Street, Suite 630 

Washington, DC 20004 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

21 

Brad Roberts 

S&C Electric Company 

2010 Energy Drive 

P.O. Box 879 

East Troy, WI 53120 

James McDowall 

Saft America, Inc. 

3 Powdered Metal Drive 

North Haven, CT 06492 

Salah Oweis 

Saft America, Inc. 

Advanced Battery Systems Division 

107 Beaver Court 

Cockeysville, MD 21030 

Guy Chagnon 

SAFT Research & Dev. Ctr. 

107 Beaver Court 

Cockeysville, MD 21030 

Michael C. Saft 

SAFT Research & Dev. Ctr. 

107 Beaver Court 

Cockeysville, MD 21030 

Mindi J. Farber-DeAnda 

SAIC 

901 D Street, SW, Suite 201 

Washington, DC 20024 

G. E. "Ernie" Palomino 

Salt River Project 

P.O. Box 52025 

MS PAB 357 

Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025 

Fred Schwartz 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

1155 Market Street, 4th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94103 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

22 

Leonard Lansing 

Satcon Power Systems 

835 Harrington Court 

Burlington, Ontario L7N 3P3 

CANADA 

Irwin Weinstock 

Sentech, Inc. 

4733 Bethesda Avenue 

Suite 608 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Jonathan Hurwitch 

Sentech, Inc. 

4733 Bethesda Avenue 

Suite 608 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Krista Long 

Sentech, Inc. 

4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Kurt W. Klunder 

Sentech, Inc. 

4733 Bethesda Avenue 

Suite 608 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Rajat K. Sen 

Sentech, Inc. 

4733 Bethesda Avenue 

Suite 608 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Srikesh Sridharan 

Sentech, Inc. 

4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Richard N. Schweinberg 

Southern California Edison 

6070 N. Irwindale Avenue 

Suite I 

Irwindale, CA 91702 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

23 

James T. Collinson 

Southern Electric Exchange 

3379 Peachtree Road NE 

Suite 250 

Atlanta, GA 30326 

Katsuji Emura 

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. 

1-1-3 Shimaya Konohana 

Osaka, 554-0024 

JAPAN 

Harold Gotschall 

Technology Insights 

6540 Lusk Blvd. 

Suite C-102 

San Diego, CA 92121 

Charles E. Bakis 

The Pennsylvania State University 

Dept. of Engineering Science & Mechanics 

212 Earth-Engineering Science Bldg. 

University Park, PA 16802 

Tom Anyos 

The Technology Group, Inc. 

63 Linden Avenue 

Atherton, CA 94027-2161 

Bill Roppenecker 

Trace Engineering Division 

5916 195th Northeast 

Arlington, WA 98223 

Donald A. Bender 

Trinity Flywheel Power 

6724D Preston Avenue 

Livermore, CA 94550 

Melissa Reading 

Trinity Flywheel Power 

6724D Preston Avenue 

Livermore, CA 94550 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

24 

Jim Drizos 

Trojan Battery Company 

12380 Clark Street 

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 

Dr. Joe Hoagland 

TVA/Pubic Power Institute 

P.O. Box 1010 

Reservation Rd., Muscle Shoals, AL 35662 (FedEx) 

Muscle Shoals, AL 35662-1010 

Dr. Gerald P. Ceasar 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

NIST/ATP 

Bldg 101, Room 623 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Dan Sanchez 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Albuquerque Operations Office 

P.O. Box 5400 

Albuquerque, NM 87185 

Russ Eaton 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Golden Field Office 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Bldg. 17 

Golden, CO 80401 

Samuel F. Baldwin 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

Alex O. Bulawka 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-11 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

Gil Bindewald 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-2D FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

25 

Gary D. Burch 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-11 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

Jack Cadogan 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-11 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

James Daley 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Ave SW 

EE-2D FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

Tien Q. Duong 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of FreedomCAR & Vehicle Technologies 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-32, FORSTL, 5G-030 

Washington, DC 20585 

Peter R. Goldman 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-12 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

Sigmund Gronich 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-15 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dr. Imre Gyuk 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-2D FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

Debbie Haught 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20585 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

26 

Patricia A. Hoffman 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue Sw 

EE-2D FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

Richard J. King 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-11 FORSTL, 5H-095 

Washington, DC 20585 

Eric M. Lightner 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Communications and Control Program 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-16 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

Philip N. Overholt 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Transmission Reliability 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-2D FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

William P. Parks 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-10 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

James E. Rannels 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-11 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

Neal Rossmeissl 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-13 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dan T. Ton 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

EE-11 FORSTL 

Washington, DC 20585 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

27 

Henry Chase 

U.S. Flywheel Systems 

21339 Nordhoff St. 

Chatsworth, CA 91311-5819 

Wayne Taylor 

U.S. Navy 

Code 83B000D, NAWS 

China Lake, CA 93555 

Edward Beardsworth 

UFTO 

951 Lincoln Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94301-3041 

Richard Lemmons 

United States Air Force 

OO-ALC/LIPC 

6040 Gum Lane 

Hill Air Force Base, UT 84056-5825 

Bor Yann Liaw 

University of Hawaii 

1680 East West Road, Post 112A 

Honolulu, HI 96822 

Mariesa L. Crow 

University of Missouri - Rolla 

1870 Miner Circle, 233 EECH 

Rolla, MO 65401 

Max Anderson 

University of Missouri - Rolla 

112 Electrical Eng. Bldg. 

Rolla, MO 65401-0249 

John Herbst 

University of Texas - CEM 

10100 Burnet Road, Building 133 

Austin, TX 78712 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

28 

Bob Lasseter 

University of Wisconsin 

1415 Engineering Dr. 

Home- 2913 Walnut Wood Ct. 53711 

Madison, WI 53706 

Alan Palin 

Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd. 

Capenhurst, Chester 

Cheshire, CH1 6ER 

ENGLAND 

Colin Davies 

Urenco Power Technologies 

Virginia Avenue, NW 

Suite 610 

Washington, DC 20037 

John Woodthorpe 

Urenco Power Technologies 

Virginia Avenue, NW 

Suite 610 

Washington, DC 20037 

David St. Angelo 

Valence Technology, Inc. 

6504 Bridge Point Pkwy. 

Austin, TX 78730 

Michael Benke 

Xantrex Technology, Inc. 

161-G South Vasco Road 

Livermore, CA 94550 

Rusi Patel 

Xenergy/KEMA consulting 

3 Burlington Woods 

Burlington, MA 01803 

Yoshiyasu Yamamoto 

YC Consulting 

6102 Shelby Street 

Indianapolis, IN 46227 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

29 

R. Kristiansen 

Yuasa-Exide, Inc. 

35 Loch Lomond Lane 

Middleton, NY 10941-1421 

Henry W. Zaininger 

Zaininger Engineering Co., Inc. 

9959 Granite Crest Court 

Granite Bay, CA 95746 

Greg H. Nelson 

ZBB Energy Corporation 

W93 N14475 Whittaker Way 

Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 

Mike Hughes 

ZBB Technologies Inc. 

N93 W14475 Whittaker Way 

Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 

Peter Lex 

ZBB Technologies, Inc. 

N93 W14475 Whittaker Way 

Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 

Robert J. Parry 

ZBB Technologies, Inc. 

N93 W14475 Whittaker Way 

Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 

MS-0889/01832 Jeff W. Braithwaite 

MS-0512/02500 James K. Rice 

MS-0521/02501 J. Thomas Cutchen 

MS-0613/02521 Daniel H. Doughty 

MS-0614/02522 Nancy H. Clark 

MS-0614/02522 Paul C. Butler 

MS-0614/02522 Stanley Atcitty 

MS-0614/02522 Thomas D. Hund 

MS-0614/02523 Robert W. Bickes, Jr. 

MS-0613/02525 Rudolph G. Jungst (5) 

MS-0741/06200 Marjorie L. Tatro 
Final Report D - Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying 

Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications

30 

MS-0708/06202 Christopher P. Cameron 

MS-0708/06214 Henry M. Dodd 

MS-0753/06218 Ward I. Bower 

MS-0753/06200 Paul C. Klimas 

MS-0710/06251 Abbas A. Akhil 

MS-0710/06251 Garth P. Corey 

MS-0710/06251 John D. Boyes (10) 

MS-0710/06251 John W. Stevens 

MS-0557/09133 Angel Urbina 

MS-9018/08945-1 Central Technical Files 

MS-0612/09612 Review & Approval For DOE/OSTI (1) 

MS-0899/09616 Technical Library (2)