## 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 Administra tion under Contract DE-AC04-94-AL85000.

Approved for public release; fu rther 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 Stat es Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or thei r 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 en dorsement, 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 refl ect 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 a nd 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/orde rmethods.asp?loc=7-4-0#online3 

### 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 applyi ng used electric vehicle (EV) batteries in stationary applications was evaluated in this st udy. 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 stati onary applications were identif ied and described in terms of power, energy, and duty cycle requirements. Cost s for assembly and oper ation 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 cy cle cost of a battery energy storage system designed for each applic ation was then compared to the expected economic benefit to determine the economic feasib ility. Four of the eight applications were found to be at least possible can didates for economically viable reuse of EV batteries. These were transmission support, light commercial load following, re sidential load following, and distributed node telecommunicatio ns backup power. There were no major technical barriers found, however further study is recommended to be tter characterize the pe rformance and life of used EV batteries before design and te sting 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 Sa ndia technical contact is Rudolph G. Jungst, Long-Life Power Sources Depa rtment 2525. Sentech, Inc. contributors were Erin Cready, John Lippert, Josh Pihl, and Irwin Weinstock. Phillip Symons of Electrochemical Engineering Consultants, Inc. developed inform ation 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 2 nd 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 arbitr age/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 ASSU MPTIONS & 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 ................................................................................................... 38Final 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 arbitr age/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 telecomm unications 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......................................................................................... 76Final 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. Employ ment 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 statio nary 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 & resi dential 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 illustrati on 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 ba ttery 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 le veling/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 pow er reliability and peak shaving ...................................... 58Final Report 8 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications Figure 18. Life cycle curves for Ni/M H in light commercial applications .................................. 59 Figure 19. Primary cost drivers for light comm. load following.................................................. 59 Figure 20. Life cycle cost curves for distri buted node telecom standby power compared to VRLA batteries lasting two years............................................................................... 61 Figure 21. Life cycle cost curves for distri buted node telecom standby power compared to VRLA batteries lasting five years............................................................................... 61 Figure 22. Life cycle cost of Ni/M H in residential application.................................................... 62 Figure 23. Primary cost drivers fo r residential load following .................................................... 63 Figure 24. Life cycle cost curves for a generi c 100Ah 12V EV battery that experiences a 10% capacity fade over its entire life.................................................................................. 65 Figure 25. Life cycle cost curves for a generi c 100Ah 12V EV battery that experiences a 30% capacity fade over its entire life.................................................................................. 65Final 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 AuthorityFinal 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 f easibility of applying used electric vehicle (EV) batteries in stationary applications. Su ch a second use for a ìspentî EV battery could possibly give EV owners an opportunity to recla im a portion of the purchas e price of the battery, effectively reducing its cost. This second use sc enario could also make lower cost advanced batteries available to the stationary energy stor age market and accelerate the establishment of a sustainable market for advan ced EV battery technologies. Overall, the concept of EV battery reuse appear s to be a viable one. The study team did not come across any insurmountable technical barr iers to the implementation of a second use scheme. In fact, during the course of the st udy it was learned that th ere is considerable commercialization of used and reconditioned batteries. There are established markets for used, off-lease forklift batteries, reconditioned au tomotive starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) batteries, and reconditione d 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 Nationa l 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) Dynami c 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 wh ich the value from the second use makes its way back to the EV buyer needs to be identifi ed. Third, warranty te rms 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 us ed batteries relative to new ba tteries in the consumerís mind will have to be addressed to ensure wi despread acceptance of used EV batteries. In addition to identifying potential barriers to EV battery reuse, this st udy 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 se rvice centers, inspected to ensure physical and electrical integrity, tested to de termine performance, and reconfigur ed into battery packs suitable for stationary applications. The study also considered stationary applications where used EV batteri es could be applied. Eight potential stationary applications for us ed 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 telecommunica tions backup power, and residential load following. The power, energy, and duty cycles required fr om batteries for these applicat ions 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 fr om the expected revenues or savings generated by a battery system operating in th e application. The high value wa s typically extrapolated fromFinal Report 12 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications what people have paid for similar systems, repres enting 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 ac quiring, 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 sta tionary battery pack came to about $64/kWh. Converting the used EV batteries to stationary ap plications is a labor-int ensive 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 ma nufacturerís rated capacity, the cost of the used battery to the second app lication 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 chemis tries 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 extrapolati ng from data available on existing systems. The projected battery life, co st of the converted battery modules, ba lance 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 a pplication. These life cy cle 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 excep tion to this approach was distributed node telecommunications backup power, for which the costs of the used EV batteries alone, rather than a complete energy stor age system, were compared directly to batteries currently used in the application. Based on the results of this analysis, the applicat ions were categorized to indicate their economic feasibility. If the cost of the system was less than the low bene fit 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 applicati on was categorized as po ssible. It should be noted that for many of the systems, the battery costs were not the larges t component of the life cycle costs. Battery costs over th e life of the system ranged from 7% to 65% of the total system costs, and were the primary cost driver for only th ree of the applications considered in this study. Four of the eight applications were identifie d 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 implemen tation. Light commercial load following was also identified as a possible applicati on for reuse. Residential load following was the only application identified as a favorable candidate for reuse. Un fortunately, the market for this application is not well defined since it depends on the growth of di stributed generation for residential use. Since the economic analysis for distributed node telecommunications backup power compared the cost of used EV batteries to that of comp eting battery technologies currently used in this application, the result s 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 competi ng technologies. It is uncle ar if this is likelyFinal Report 13 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications to be the case since how long batter ies 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 fo r used batteries warrants further investigation into distributed node telecom as a ca ndidate for reuse of EV batteries. The study team recommends that additional tes ting be performed on used EV batteries pulled from real-world vehicles to better characte rize 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 app lications 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 manufactur ers around the world to reduce the co st of batteries in order to stimulate the sale of EVs. This study examined another opportunity: the potential for recovering some of the original valu e of a battery that has served its us eful life in an el ectric or hybridelectric vehicle, but which is still suitable for another application. The premise is that the battery could be refurbished, resold, and reused for anot her application, and some of the initial cost recovered through the sale of the batte ry 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 porta ble CD player for several hours and, when the player no longer spins the disk, the batteries can be removed a nd 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 lowe r energy and power requirements (on a unit weight or volume basis) for batteries. Since used EV batte ries 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 ìs pentî 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 lowe r cost advanced batteries available to the stationary energy storage market and accelerate th e 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 stor age applications. The study identified several technical issues that need to be resolved be fore this reuse concept can become commonplace. The issues studied include: 1. What is the performance and projected rema ining 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, a nd cost criteria? 3. Are used EV batteries capable of meeting these requirements? 4. What needs to done to a used EV battery to pr epare it for use in a stationary application? 5. Can used EV batteries be cost-competitive wi th 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 electro des in a single container exhibi ting 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 ot her 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 batte ry modules in a single container connected in series/parallel arrangements to achieve the desire d voltage and capacity. The battery pack also contains the electronics and thermal management sy stem required to operate the battery. In EVs, the battery pack typically consists of 10-40 ba ttery 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 conn ected together to meet the re quirements of an application.



### 2.3. Status of EV Tech nologies 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 desc riptions are as follows:

• EV ñ Electric Vehicle: full size passenger autom obile 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 EV s 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 fo r sale in the U.S. in th e fall of 2002. Several car makers have also demonstrated prototype NEVs , and DaimlerChrysler has sold about 6,200 of itsFinal Report 17 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications GEM. In addition, more than 25,000 Honda Insi ght/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 vehi cles, this summary also covers systems based on each of the major battery chemistr ies 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 typi cal 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 c ontain 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 protot ype vehicles. The list does not cover most of the conversion vehicles cu rrently available. The information used here was obtained from the Electric Vehicle Associati on of the Americas website, the Department of Energyís Office of Transportation Technologi es 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 cu rrent markets for used batteries was conducted as part of this study. Originally, the search was to focus sole ly on EV and HEV batteries, but since few EVs and/or HEVs have been sold to-date, and far fewe r have had their batterie s 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 feas ibility 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 us ed 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 (S LI) batteries, and reconditioned lithium-ionFinal 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 vehi cle manufacturer, is implementing a successful secondary market for spent Op timaÆ 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 pa rticipating in a sola r 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., incl uded as Appendix A in this report.Final Report19Technical and Economic Feasibility of ApplyingUsed EV Batteries in Stationary ApplicationsTable 1. Battery module characteristics for typical HEV and EV batteries.Vehicle Type HEVEVChemistryNi/MH Li-ion2LMPB3Ni/MH Li-ion2VRLALMPB3Battery Voltage (V)144ñ274 346288 - 343 360312260Battery Capacity (Ah)6.53.677 - 95 9060 - 85 119Battery Capacity (kWh) 0.94ñ1.8 1.226 - 32 3219 - 2731Cells/battery 120ñ228 96240 - 286 96--Modules/Battery 20ñ38224 - 28 1226 - 3913Module Voltage (V)7.217350 12 - 13.2 308 - 1220Module Capacity (Ah)6.53.614 77 - 95 9060 - 85 119Module Capacity (kWh) 0.0470.62 0.7 1.0 - 1.1 2.7 0.68 - 0.72 2.38Module Output Power (kW)4~ 0.916 3.2 - 4 12.54 - 54.9Motor Output (kW)10ñ331749 - 102 6267 - 102-BatteryManufacturers PEVE1Shin KobeAvestor PEVE Shin Kobe PanasonicAvestorSAFTTexacoOvonicSAFT EastPennVehicles HondaInsight Nissan Tino None ChevyS-10 Nissan Altra Baker/Ford USPS NoneToyota Prius Dodge DurangoFord RangerFord RangerDodge ESX3GM EV-1Chevy S-10Honda EV PlusGM EV-1Toyota Rav4Solectria ForceSolectriaForceNotes:1PEVE ñ Panasonic EV Energy, a Matsushita company.2The lithium ion characteristics listed here are for Shin Kobe EVand HEV modules. Module level data were not available forSAFT Li-ion batteries since none of the vehiclesusing SAFT Li-ion batteries are in production yet.3The LMPB characteristics listed here are for prototype modules developed by Avestor, and some of the numbers areextrapolations from cell-level performance. Avestor has not yet mass-produced any LMPB battery packs, and there are noautomakers with plans at the current time to use LMPB systems in a production vehicle, althoughthey have been demonstratedin the Ford TH!NK City and the GM Precept.4Module Output Power was estimated using the specific power for the module andan estimated module mass calculated fromthe total battery pack massand the number of modulesFinal Report 20 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications Table 2. Battery module characterist ics 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 2 nd 

### Use Study Between September 1996 and August 1997 Argonne National Laboratory conducted a study for the United States Advanced Battery Consortiu m (USABC) that examined the second use of Ni/MH EV batteries 1 . Eight Ovonic Battery Company (OBC) Ni/MH modules that had completed more than 500 Dynamic Stress Test (D ST) 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 warrantie s supplied on lead-acid batteries by the manufacturer for the specific applications on wh ich 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 techno logy 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 po wer 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 2 nd Use Study , Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, Electrochem ical 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, we re tested for utility load fo llowing 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 batterie s. The PG&E test applied repeated 3 hour sine shaped discharges with an 86.1 kW peak designed to rem ove 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 re moved in 1 hour at a 167 kW constant power rate, and the battery was recharge d to 100% SOC. This 11 discharge cycle was repeated until the battery string voltage dropped below the define d 0% SOC point before the maximum capacity had been discharged. ANL scaled the power leve ls for the PG&E tests down to a single Ni/MH module to perform their tests. A plot illustrati ng 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 discharg es performed by the PM 250 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-lif e. 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-lif e at this point. The 45 Wh/kg module completed 133 sinewave discharges and a total of 162 deep di scharge cycles before reaching end-of-life. 2.5.2. Frequency regulation & spinning reserve Two modules were placed on a test profile de signed to simulate frequency regulation and spinning reserve operations. This Utility Ener gy Storage (UES) profile, developed by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), is based on the ac tual 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 moduleFinal Report 22 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications three 160 minute long frequency regulation sessions consisting of 32 asy mmetrically arranged five minute segments at three different power le vels. 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 consta nt 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 cycl e load profiles are illu strated in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Figure 2. Utility Energy Storage (UES) cycle developed by SNLFinal Report 23 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications Both OBC modules completed al l 16 of the planned UES cycles without reaching the minimum voltage limit. The 45 Wh/kg derated module s howed a capacity loss of about 1%, and the capacity loss in the 30 Wh/kg derated module was ne gligible. This compar ed 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 co uld meet or exceed the warranty conditions for an Exide flooded lead-acid battery. Exideís warran ty specified certain cy cle lives under eight different discharge conditions. Each module was expected to perform at least two of these warranty conditions in succession. The tests an d 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 uncer tain 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 se tting the test was allowe d to continue to the Figure 3. Frequency regulation subcycle of UES test profileFinal 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 conditi ons, 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 ba ttery was left at elevated temperature for a total of 144 days, with reference performance test s 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 co mparison 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 stationa ry energy storage applications. In some instances, the used EV modules appeared capable of performing the sa me functions as new lead-acid batteries over longer lifetimes. The study demonstrated that reusing Ni/MH EV m odules in secondary applications could be techni cally 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 proce ss by which used batteries take n 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 di spose of used EV batteries at a refurbishing facility, where the used batteries would be screened, sorted, test ed, and finally reconfigured for their second use in stat ionary 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 pe rform 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 th at could reduce the performance from a particular module, and the nature of the defect will determine whether a module is re paired or replaced. A module exhibiting high resistance due to corroded or loose module and cell interconnections could probably be repaired and reinstal led. Modules exhibiting leaks, hi gh internal impedance, or an internal short circuit would mo st likely be replaced. Such mo dules would probably not be good candidates for reuse. For an EV battery pack that is approaching or has exceeded its exp ected 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 (interconne cts, cooling systems, electronics, and the tray itself) w ould be reused in the vehicle. The dealerships would thus have a number of used battery modules for disposal ñ ei ther as scrap or as can didates for installation in a stationary application. The batteries in HEVs, on the other hand, will be pa rt 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 vehi cle environment. When an HEV battery fails prematurely or achieves its expected lifetime in th e 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 r eassemble them into modules of reasonable size would make the cost of the used batteries prohibitively expensive. As a consequence, batteriesFinal Report 26 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications that fail prematurely due to the failure of i ndividual 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 peopl e will be willing to pay for it. Based on our estimates, it is unlikely that such batteries would command a hi gh enough price to accommodate the costs of the refurbishing process. Thus, HE V 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 refu rbishing facility, will be visually examined to separate out modules with obvious physical damage, leaks, or othe r signs of abuse. The initial inspection will also include dete rmination of the moduleís manufact urer specifications and age from labels or bar codes. Voltage and resist ance measurements will be performed to identify modules that have failed (due to short circuits or dr ied-out separators, for example). Physically sound modules that have not surpassed their calenda r lives will then be subjected to limited cycle testing to determine their capacity and their pow er 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 te sts performed on newly manufactured EV modules, using th e USABC Reference Performance Test 2 sequence, and in conversations with EV battery manuf acturers. The sequence includes 1. Establish the module capacity via four ch arge-discharge cycles, charging per the manufacturerís recommended profile and disc harging at C/3 (based on manufacturerís original rating) to 100% of capacity. 2. Establish the power capabil ity by recharging, dischargi ng 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 sta tionary 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 ba ttery 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 Batt eries Test Procedures Manua l, Revision 2, January 1996.Final Report 27 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications 

### 3.4. Reconfiguring Used EV Batteri es for Stationary Applications A canvass of the stationary applications consider ed 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 requi re 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 shippi ng and handling if fully assembled at the refurbishing facility. On the other hand, assembling thousands of individual battery modules together at the applicati on site could result in high installation costs. As a consequence, it is likely that the used EV modules will be asse mbled at the refurbishing facility into battery packs that are small enough for conveni ent handling, but large enough to reduce installation costs on larger systems. A surv ey of the applications considered for this study indicates that 25 kWh is a conveni ent building block to meet the sm aller applications (except for small household systems, which could use individua l 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 un its 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 fo r this analysis would contain 21 12V, 100Ah EV modules. These could be arra nged into three rows of seven side-by-side modules to create a battery pack with a conveni ent size. Taking into account space requirements and additional weight for cooling systems and electronics, each StatP ack 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 NumberC/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 NumberC/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 illustratio n of future life predictionFinal 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. Th is 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 character istics could lead to sli ghtly 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 an d electrical management of th e batteries, including fans or coolant channels, module interconnects, sensor s, and electronics. After fabrication, the StatPacks would be stored at the refurbishing fa cility 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 applica tions 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 applic ations 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 consid ered. Most of the application requirements, in particular those listed for the u tility scale applications and for power reliab ility/peak shaving, are based on updates or projections from the ìOppor tunities 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 benefi ts 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 operati on. This value is an estimation of what the battery system might be worth to potential users, and hence repr esents 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 sy stems currently or formerly in operation. This value gives an idea of the allowable system co st for installation in particularly high value situations or for early ad opters of the technology. Three of the applications are exceptions to these values: light commercial and residential load following and distributed node te lecommunications 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 system s. The analysis for distributed node telecom standby power was different from the other app lications in that onl y the batteries were considered, not an entire energy storage syst em. The high and low benefit values were determined from the price range for lead-acid batt eries, the technology current ly used to meet the needs of this market.

3 P. Butler, Battery Energy Storage for Utility Applic ations: 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. Th e 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 transmissi on lines in a constricted network to be more heavily loaded during periods of peak demand by customers. This allo ws 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 re gulation may be discharge or ch arge, so the battery must be maintained at a partial state of charge.

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

5 Study team projection.

6 B. Louks, EPRI Journal 1988, based on Dyna stor 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/kWFinal Report 33 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications This set of applications requires a fairly st renuous 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 disc harge 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 appl ication is only about 25% of that for spinning reserve, but the battery is cycled continuously. The benefit of the electricity st orage system in both spinning re serve and area regulation derives from reducing or eliminating the fuel and mainte nance costs that are normally associated with underutilized generating assets. The benefit deri ved from area regulation is probably inadequate to justify a battery, but once an electricity storage system has b een installed, a battery could be the least cost alternative for this service.



### 4.3. Load leveling/energy arbi trage/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 discha rges would occur every weekday when power use is high, i.e., 100 to 200 days per year. The benefit of the electricity stor age system in this application is the difference between the cost for supplying electricity close to the loads from on-peak genera tion and transmission assets and the cost for supplying electricity from off-peak assets.

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

9 H. Zaininger, Analysis of the Value of Battery Stor age with Wind and Photovoltaic Generation to the Sacramento Muni cipal 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/yrFinal 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 wh at is paid for firm power. An energy storage system can follow the renewabl e generation (and to a lesser extent the system load) and allow the renewable generator to be count ed 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 peri od 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 ex tended 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 appearsvery unlikely, given the low cost of leadacid batteries for thes e 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/yrFinal Report 35 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications on the value of the system for each application a nd then decide how much capacity to hold back for power reliability. Battery systems designed to meet this applicatio n could be as large as 2 MW in rated power output, but will most likely consist of 100 kW modul es. Three to four hours of storage will be required to provide blackout ride -through and significan t peak shaving benefits. Blackouts may only occur a few times per year, but peak sh aving could be used almost every workday depending on the electricity tariff for the site. The benefit of the electricity stor age 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-c harge for much of the time. The benefit of the electricity stor age system in these applications is in allowing more efficient and more dispatchable local generation. Batte ry systems would only be practical for these applications if a utility connection were not econo mically viable, if a battery system owner could arrange to receive a high price for any excess electric ity that could be sold back to the utility, or if the battery reduces the cost of the distribut ed generating system by avoiding the need for an oversized generator to meet peak loads. Th e 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/monthFinal 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 be ing supplied in test quantities for the distributed telecom node application. Very high reliability, i.e., the ability to deliver the stated cap acity 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, VRLA s used in this application have shown lifetimes as short as one year due to the acceleration of aging pro cesses by the high temperatures frequently encountered in telecom equipment boxe s. Advanced battery technologies may show less performance degradation du ring 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 be nefit 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 util ity connection were not economically viable, if a battery system owner can arrange to rece ive a high price for any excess electricity that can be sold back to the utility, or if the battery re duces the cost of the distributed generating system by avoiding the need for an ov ersized generator to meet peak loads. The benefit estimates listed above were based on th e 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/monthFinal 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 thre e separate tasks: identif ying the steps necessary to prepare used EV batteries for a second applic ation, estimating the requirements and values for a range of potential stationary applications, and projecting the re maining 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 ba tteries from stationary applications. A straightforward approach to this analysis was adopted. It began with estimating the cost of each step in the process to conve rt a module from vehicle to stat ionary use. This included the design of a hypothetical battery test ing and pack assembly facility. The costs from this facility and the other steps in the convers ion process were used to genera te 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 th en 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 batte ry 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 prom ising stationary applications. The assumptions used for each of these steps are id entified in the following sections. 

### 5.1. Availability and cost of used EV batteries The goal of the economic analysis was to determ ine 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 vehicl es in the U.S. in the near-to-mid term will occur in the state of California as a consequence of the Californi a 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 su ch as HEVs and NEVs. The mandate has also become a bit of a moving target in recent year s as the regulations have been rewritten and revised. At the time of this writing, the manda te does require a certain level of full-function ZEV (either battery electric or fu el 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-batter y electric vehicles will be so ld each year, and the batteries from these vehicles will be available severa l years later when the vehicles need battery replacements. At 25ñ30 battery modules pe r 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 sec ond application determines the amount of buy-down or rebate that can be applied to the electri c vehicle. Conversely, a certain buy-down may be required to ensure commercial viability of EVs. High volume battery pr oduction 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 co st of the battery to the EV user will have to be reduced by up to $150/kWh to meet the USABCís goals for a marketableFinal Report 38 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications electric vehicle. Since there is uncertainty regard ing 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 variab le and considers a range of valu es (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 te sting, sorting, and reassembly into battery packs suitable for stationary applications. It is likely that the d ealerships that sell and se rvice EVs will be spread across the major metropolitan areas of Californi a (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and the San Francisco Bay Area). These areas are somewh at far apart, so transporting the used battery modules to a centrally locat ed 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 coll ection stops at local vehicle dealerships 

### 5.3. Testing & repackaging Assuming EVs are spread evenly across Californiaí s high population density areas, each of the four testing and repackaging f acilities will have to handle ab out 62,500 modules each year (the facility was actually designed fo r an input of 67,200 modules per year to make test equipment design easier). To determine the costs associated with testing, sorting, an d repackaging the used EV modules, a hypothetical facility with all the equipment necessa ry 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 requi res an average daily input of 192 modules. A description of the cost components a ssociated with the facility follows. 5.3.1. Capital Costs Testing Equipment: The first step in designi ng the facility was to spec ify the type and cost of testing equipment required to pe rform the test procedures out lined 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 modul es 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 cons isting of 16 channels that is expected to cost $43,725. The cycle tests outlined previous ly (Section 3.3) require around 40 hours to complete. If time is added for connecting and disconnecting the m odules, each module will be on test for approximately 48 hours. The facility must theref ore have 318 modules on test at any one time to meet the 192 module input requirement. At 16 cha nnels each, 24 test stati ons are required. Each day, 12 of these stations will have all their battery modules disc onnected and replaced with new modules while the other 12 stati ons will continue cycling the batteries that were hooked up to them on the previous day. Since battery test equipment costs scale with ra ted 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 a nd 30 V, which would cost about $8,000. One pulse test unit will be required for every two test sta tions that are switched each day, for a total of sixFinal Report 39 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications pulse test units. Six computers will also be n eeded 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 th e pack assembly area. Equipment will be required to lift the modul es from the conveyor belts and place them into the StatPack containers. The assembled StatPacks will be stor ed on racks within the facility until they are shipped to the end user. Finall y, a forklift will handle unl oading of the pallets of modules as well as moving and loading the stationa ry battery packs. Table 4 contains a listing of all the capital costs for the facility, including th e 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 re pair 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 batte ry 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 testin g 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 w ill 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 th e testing protocols listed above and generate an output of 192 modules per day. An analysis of th e tasks required to disc onnect 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 testFinal Report 40 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications station. In a single day, a techni cian could therefore switch out tw o test stations. This implies the need for six technicians on dut y 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 as semble packs eight hours a day, seven days a week, for a total of 12 full time pack assemblers. There will be two supe rvisors 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 equipm ent, a sales and logistics manager who will handle battery shipments and contracts, an o ffice administrator to handle bookkeeping and correspondence, three full time security guards fo r round-the-clock surveilla nce, a forklift driver, a truck driver, and a part time janitor. Estim ates 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.rel ease/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 pe rsonnel 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 us ed EV battery testi ng & packaging facility layout). Based on this floor plan, roughly 10,173 ft 2 of space will be requir ed 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), co rresponding to annual rent of about $115,000. 17

17 Grubb & Ellis, Asking rental rates (R&D-Fle x, triple net) for second quarter 2001 from "Industrial Market Trends: A Survey of th e 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 & packagin g facility layout Electricity: Electricity costs were estimated for ba ttery 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. Accord ing to data obtained from the DOE Energy Information Administrationís website, this el ectricity 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 expenditu re 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 f acility 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 woul d cost $16,250/year to operate. Other direct costs: This catchall, estimated at 2% of la bor costs, includes phones, postage, office supplies, and the other costs of doing business.
5.3.3. Indirect Costs Insurance, general & administrativ e 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 EI A-861, "Annual Electric Utility Report" http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/e lectricity/esr/esrt15p2.html#cal (4/2002)

19 Department of Energy Office of Buildings Technology State & Local Programs, BTS Core Databook http://btscoredata book.eren.doe.gov/tableview.asp?Ta bleID=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 in ternal 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, potenti al investors would exp ect, 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 equipmen t after five years, particularly if EV battery technologies change significantly. Finally, since testing and packag ing the batteries is primarily a labor-intensive effort, this short lifetime has lit tle effect on the overall co st of the stationary battery packs. The cost of the stationary packs on a per m odule basis was calculated by determining the revenues necessary to achieve a 15% IRR afte r state and federal taxes of 8.84% and 34%, respectively. IRR is defined as the discount ra te required to make the net present value of a particular venture equal to zero, where the net pr esent 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 1 0 = + +−− +−= 

## ∑

= 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 th e 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 REV EXPREVTREXP CCNPV

Solving this expression for th e 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 convert ed batteries on a per module basi s was calculated by dividing the total annual revenues by the total number of modules th at pass through the f acility each year:



### M ODULE S REV PRICE =
A summary of the costs associat ed with a refurbishing facility assuming battery modules are obtained at a buy-down of $75/kWh is shown in Tabl e 5. This table also shows the projected selling price of the converted battery packs on a per-module and per-kWh basis. Table 6. Testing and repackaging costs Description Amount Unit Cost Total Cost ($/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 broke n 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 refu rbishing 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 th e EV buyer. The battery procurement costs account for over half of the stationa ry battery pack costs. Testi ng and conversion of the used EV batteries is primarily a labor intensive proce ss, with employment and overhead costs each accounting for around 12-13% of the to tal battery pack costs. The other major cost component is the materials for repackaging th e used EV modules into a batt ery 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 sing le (and often small) component of the cost of a complete energy storage system. There are a nu mber 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 mo dules and holding them in place. Nearly all energy storage systems in clude a power conditioning system (PCS) to ensure that the output of energy storage device matche s 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 ma intenance will be required over the life of the system. Furthermore, the batt eries 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 sy stem for each application that could meet that applicationís power and energy requirements. Th e number of battery modu les required to meet Figure 7. Cost breakdown for reconfigured EV batteriesFinal Report 46 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications the needs of each application wa s 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 rema in in the vehicle and th e number of discharge cycles it will see before being removed are uncerta in 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 arbitrar ily varied from 1 to 9 years. In addition to these cost vs. life curves, a best guess value was established for th e life of the battery in each application by comparing the projected cycle life a nd the expected calendar life. Cycle lives were determined by dividing the annual energy throughput required by the application duty cycle by the expe cted throughput remaining in th e battery after use in an EV (based on cycle lives projected by battery manuf acturers, where available). For a somewhat simplified example, if an EV battery module ha d 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 th roughput 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 app lication. Please note that this is a somewhat arbitrary guess since it is unclear how long the batte ry may actually last in the vehicle. There is also some uncertainty on the impact of the vehicle environment (par ticularly temperature extremes) on battery calendar life. Furthermor e, the life in the second application may be considerably longer since the environment for sta tionary 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 pri ce 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 expect ed 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 assembli ng and starting up the system, are lumped together as balance of system (BOS) costs. These includ e (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 batter y to the local electricity suppl y, electronics to control theFinal Report 47 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications operation of the battery system and condition its output appropriat ely, and transportation for all the components to the application site. For th is 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 Ve rnon, California, to allow orde rly 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 batte ry 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 ba ttery accessories & facilities costs were divided by the storage capacity of the Vernon system to ge nerate a $/kWh unit valu e for those components, while the PCS, interface equipment, and controls costs were divided by th e rated power output to give a $/kW figure. See Table 7 for all of th e unit BOS costs for each of the applications. These unit costs were then multiplied by the appr opriate 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 th e 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) cost s must also be considered if an accurate life cycle cost is to be determined. These items include rout ine 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 el ectricity 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 mu ch the same way BOS costs were estimated. The O&M costs for an analogous system were divide d 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 stationa ry 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 Syst ems 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 fo r analogous battery systems

Application Similar system 21 A ccessories, 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 op erating a battery system is proper disposal or recycling of the batteries when th ey 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 include d in the price of the new EV batte ry. It is assumed here that recycling/disposal costs will continue to be pa id by the primary user of the battery (the EV owner). The money set aside for recycling/di sposal will somehow be passed along with the battery through its various applicat ions until it reaches end of life, or the responsibility for proper disposal will remain with the battery manufactur er. 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 sy stem equipment was also not incl uded 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 th at there would be very little salvage value left in the system when it reaches end of life, and wh atever 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 toge ther the battery costs and the BOS costs. The total capital cost was th en amortized over the life of the system to give an annualized capital cost. This annualized cap ital cost was added to the annual O&M costs to determine the annualized cost of installing and oper ating 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 System s 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 Report49Technical and Economic Feasibility of ApplyingUsed EV Batteries in Stationary ApplicationsTable 8. Life cycle cost components for stationaryenergy storage systems based on used EV batteriesUnitsTrans.SupportArea Reg. &SpinningReserveLoadLevelingRenewablesFirmingPowerReliability& PeakLt. Comm.LoadFollowingDist.NodeTelecomRes. LoadFollowingApplication Requirements & System CharacteristicsPeak power requiredKW 100,000 20,000 15,000 5,000 2,000 200 5 10Required capacityKWh 140 40,000 50,000 10,000 8,000 100 50 4Modules requiredmod 16,667 33,334 41,667 8,334 6,667 84 42 5Peak power availableKW 100,002 80,002 100,001 20,002 16,001 202 101 12Capacity availablekWh20,000 40,001 50,000 10,001 8,000 101 50 6Duty Cycle & Projected LifeTypical energy deliverykWh140 2000 / 7500 100,000 10,000 4,000 100 50 4Frequency of useUses/yr12 17520 / 12 200 240 256 365 2 365Annual energy throughputkWh 1,680 35,130,000 20,000,000 2,400,000 1,024,000 36,500 100 1,460Throughput per moduleKWh/mod 0.10 1,054 480 288 154 435 2 292Projected battery lifeYr5.00 1.09 2.40 4.00 5.00 2.65 5.00 3.94Projected system lifeYr20202020 10 10 20 20Battery CostsCost of one set of batteries$ $2,900,000 $5,880,000 $7,400,000 $1,470,000$1,180,000 $14,800 $7,400 $880Battery purchases419962 4 4 6Present value of battery purchases $ $8,000,000$62,800,000 $38,700,000 $5,220,000 $2,050,000 $46,900 $20,100 $3,150Balance of System CostsSimilar systemPREPA PREPA Chino Vernon Vernon Vernon batt. only N/AAccessories, facilities, transportation $ $10,500,000$21,000,000 $5,840,000 $4,820,000 $3,850,000 $48,600 N/A IncludedPCS, interface equipment, controls $ $44,200,000$8,840,000 $5,040,000 $1,590,000 $638,000 $63,800 N/A $1,000Installation & startup$ $7,210,000 $14,400,000 $2,610,000 $902,000 $721,000 $9,090 N/A IncludedTotal BOS first cost$ $61,900,000 $44,300,000 $13,500,000 $7,310,000 $5,210,000 $121,000 N/A $1,000Operations & Maintenance CostsTotal O&M costs$/yr $3,830,000 $367,000 $434,000 $290,000 $116,000 $11,600 N/A $102Total System CostsCapital costs$ $69,900,000 $107,000,000 $52,200,000 $12,500,000 $7,260,000 $168,000 $20,100 $4,150Annualized capital costs$/yr$6,550,000 $10,000,000 $4,890,000 $1,170,000 $1,030,000 $23,900 $1,880 $389Total annual expenses$/yr $10,400,000 $10,400,000 $5,330,000 $1,460,000$1,150,000 $35,500 $1,880 $491System unit annual cost$/kW/yr $104 $520 $355 $293 $573 $177 $38 $49Final Report 50 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications used EV battery with a $75/kWh buy-down, roughl y 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, th e system life cycle cost was compared to the application values listed in Section 4 to determin e 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 cy cle cost is more than the high value estimate, the application is deemed ìunlikelyî for that battery. If the life cycl e 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, th e application/battery combination is termed ìfavorable.î The results of the calculations a nd 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 performa nce was relatively easy compared to other battery chemistries consid ered. Based on conversations with battery manufacturers, it was assumed th at a used Ni/MH EV module c ould provide a cycle life roughly equal to that of the vehicle application at a sli ghtly de-rated capacity. Further, we assumed that the used EV battery would have a calendar life of 5 years in the second a pplication. The battery replacement schedule was determined using the le sser of the predicted cy cle and calendar lives. Half of the applications consid ered in the study involve system s 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 Ta ble 9. The lifetimes shown represent the best estimate of how long the battery woul d last in the application. Th e 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 UnlikelyFinal 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 s upport appears to be a possible candidate for a second use of EV battery modules. For the en tire 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 re presented in Figure 8, which shows the variation in life cycle cost with bo th battery life and buy-down.

Note that since this applica tion requires only pulse discharges , the total energy that passes through the battery is quite small. Thus, there is no predicted cy cle 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 categor ies. 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 a pplication, which requires short duration, high power pulses. These requ irements result in the balance of system components being the major cost driver for the ba ttery 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 accesso ries make up about 9%. The battery and its replacements account for only 7% of the total lif e cycle costs. Figure 8. Life cycle cost as a func tion of battery life and buy-down for transmission supportFinal Report 53 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications Due to this insensitivity to battery costs, transmissionsupport 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 & sp inning 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 reserveFinal 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 lif etimes, and even if the batteries could be obtained for free, this a pplication would not be viable. Th is is due to both the relatively low value of the estimated economic benefits derive d 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 & spinni ng reserve. There are therefore two potential pathways to reduced costs: lower conversion costs or signific antly 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 somewh at 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 fo r area regulation & spinning

reserveFinal 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 wh en 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 curv es for load leveling/energy arbitrage/transmission deferral

Figure 13. Primary cost driver s for load leveling/energy arbitrage/transmission deferralFinal 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 fi rming, is similar to area regulation and spinning reserve in that it is estimated to have a fair ly 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 cu rves for renewables firming

Figure 15. Primary cost driv ers for renewables firmingFinal Report 57 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications The remaining applications considered in this study would most likel y 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 w ith Ni/MH batteries are shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Analysis of used Ni/MH EV batteri es 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 th at 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 a nd facilities, while about a quarte r 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 fo r power reliability and peak shaving

Figure 17. Primary cost drivers for power reliability and peak shavingFinal 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 applic ations look much more promising. Light commercial load following is categorized as ìpossi bleî 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/M H in light commercial applications

Figure 19. Primary cost drivers fo r light comm. load followingFinal 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 teleco mmunications standby power The other commercial application that may show promise for the second use of EV batteries is distributed node telecommunications standby power. This applicati on is a bit of a special case in this study in that the economic analysis considered only the ba tteries 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 replacem ent for the VRLAs currently used for this application and will probably utilize existing elec tronics, wiring, containers, and other components.
Another difference between distributed node tele com standby power and the other applications considered in this study lies in how the economic be nefit of the batteries wa s derived. For this application, the high and low estimates for th e economic benefit derived from the used EV batteries were based on the cost range for VRLA s. Since the economic analysis for this study was conducted on a life cycle cost ba sis, the expected lif e of the VRLAs was needed to calculate the economic benefit of the batt eries over the system life. Unfortunately, definitively determining the li fe of VRLAs in distributed node telecom applications is impossible. Since they are be ing used for backup power, the batteries are not cycled frequently. Calendar life is typically th e limiting factor that leads to battery replacement in this application. Variations between sites (temperature extremes, e xposure to the elements, and other factors) and different batteri es lead to a range of lifetimes. To account for these variations, tw o cases were run in the analysis performed for this study in an attempt to bound expected battery lifetimes. Th e first case assumed a VR LA life of two years, and the second considered a five year life. Thes e 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 di stributed node telecom standby power compared to VRLA batteries lasting two years

Figure 21. Life cycle cost curves for di stributed node telecom standby power compared to VRLA batteri es lasting five yearsFinal 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 applicati on. The feasibility is only ca tegorized 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 batter ies are considered in the analysis for this application, there is a strong de pendence on both buy-down cost and ba ttery life. In general, if the used EV battery lasts significantly longe r than the VRLAs (at least 50% longer), the application can support modest buy- downs. As the lifetime of th e EV battery increases, the feasibility of the application improves a nd 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 generate s 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 applicationFinal Report 63 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications The favorable economic predictions for this appli cation 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 pl ace. 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 oppor tunity for the second use of EV batteries. The biggest drawback to this app lication 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 t housands of EV battery modules that may reach the market. There are also some questions regarding the matu rity of the residentia l distributed generation market, and the widespread market penetration n ecessary 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 c onsidered in the past or are currently under development for electric vehicle us e. Before the rise of nicke l/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 us ed 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-aci d batteries will find app lication in a second use scheme since very little benef it will be derived from using re furbished lead-acid EV batteries rather than new lead-acid batteries. In fact, ne w lead-acid batteries are low enough in cost that a refurbished EV battery could end up being more e xpensive after testing a nd repackaging than its new counterpart. Furthermore, limited life is on e 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 fo r residential load followingFinal Report 64 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications Nickel/cadmium found extensive use in EVs in Eu rope, 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 Eur ope 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 simila r 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 gr eat 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 ap plications. Lithium-polymer batteries are also under development for EVs, but these are furthe r still from achieving cycle life performance goals. Since these batteries are still developmen tal in nature, the study team was unable to obtain much data from which to project the perfor mance and life of these batteries in second applications. Much of the analysis described in the previous se ctions 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 batte ry. Packaging cost is probably the only item that may change significantly from one technology to another. Li-ion modules, in par ticular, 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 possibl e catastrophic disassembly . Incorporation of these electronics into the stationary battery pack ma y add to the packaging costs. It is unclear at this point what types of electr onics 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 calenda r 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 2 nd life will be due to capacity fade and remaining calendar life. The two sets of life cycle cost curves in the next two figures ar e 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 th e 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 lifeFinal 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 additi onal 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 an alysis 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 applicat ions 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 proj ections for the more developmental battery technologies. Should such data be obtainab le 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 us e 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 th e technical and economic feasibil ity of using EV batteries in second applications, the study team identified seve ral issues that may prove to be hurdles to battery reuse if they are not addres sed. Some of these issues are technical in nature, while others are more economic or market oriented.



### 7.1. Technical

• Lack of available battery life & perform ance data for modules coming out of EVs. It is difficult to determine whether or not using EV batteries in second a pplications will work without more test data on the performan ce of modules after th ey are removed from vehicles. Life projections in the second a pplication are compounded by the variability that can be expected in vehicle duty cycles, which wi ll 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 capabi lities, as well as cycl e life tests in second a pplications, will be required before second use of EV batte ries can be considered feasible.

• Difficulty in obtaining modul es with similar capacities for matched strings. The modules in a battery string need to have similar capac ities in order to ensure maximized utilization of battery capacity and prevent possible damage to individual modules. This is particularly true for deep discharge app lications, although it is less impor tant for pulse power or low depth of discharge cycling. If the variability of the EV appl ication 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 configura tion, locating matched modules for assembly into packs, and matched pack s for assembly into larger systems could prove difficult.

• Integration of power elec tronics for Li-ion modules. Li-ion cells are susceptible to thermal runaway and catastrophic failure during overcharge or cell reve rsal. Li-ion battery packs will likely have special electronics to prev ent 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 reconfi gured into stationary battery packs, these cell and module level electronics will either ha ve 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 exact ly what a Li-ion EV battery module will look like, the implicati ons 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 electri c 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 rebateFinal 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 m oney back at a later date. The most effective approach would be to give the vehicle pur chaser the discount up front. This could be accomp lished in several ways. 1. The automaker could purchase the batte ry from a supplier at full price and not charge the vehicle owner for the entire co st of the battery based on the assumption that they will recoup the loss when th ey sell the battery into the second application. 2. Alternatively, the batter y 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 reconfig ured by the battery manufacturer and sold to a stationary applica tion. However, one of the battery manufacturers consulted duri ng this study expressed displeasure with the idea of leasing the battery or dealing w ith used EV battery modules. 3. The reconfiguring could also be perfor med by a third party who would then sell it to the stationary application us er or a system integrator. The point of all this is that there are a num ber 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 resu lts in reduced cost fo r 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 fo r 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 pl aces a premium on reliabili ty and is notoriously skeptical of new technologies a nd 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 fo r other vehicle technologies (primarily fuel cells), and the whims of the consuming public, th e future of battery electric vehicles is far from certain. As long as there is not a gua ranteed stream of EV batteries, it will be difficult to convince anybody to i nvest 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 appear s to be a viable one. The study team did not come across any insurmountable technical barr iers 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. S econd, the mechanism by which the value from the second use makes its way back to the EV buyer need s to be identified. Third, warranty terms and costs will be difficult to determine given the uncertainty in the perf ormance 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. Fi nally, the perceived value of used batteries relative to new batteries in the consumerís mind w ill 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 physic al and electrical integrity, te sted to determine performance, and reconfigured into battery packs su itable for stationary applications. The testing and reconfiguration proc ess considered here is relatively simple, but essential for the success of the EV battery reuse concept. Testi ng is required to establis h the capacity and power capabilities of the used EV modules. This inform ation 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 e quipment 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 batte ry reuse looks like it could be an economically viable concept. The economic an alysis conducted for th is study looked at the feasibility of applying used EV batteries in eight different stationary appli cations. Of these eight, the feasibility of applying used EV batteries in four of the applicati ons (transmission support, light commercial load follow ing, distributed node teleco mmunications backup power, and residential load following) was classified as either favorable or possible. It should be noted that, for many of the applica tions considered, the battery was not the primary cost driver in the life cycle costs. Often th e most expensive component of the system was the power conversion electronics or operating and mainte nance costs. The cost of the battery alone is insufficient to determine the economic feasib ility of a stationary energy storage system. Surprisingly, the four applicati ons classified as economically feasible do not have a lot in common. In fact, they include both the largest an d the smallest of the battery sizes consideredFinal 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 applicati on requirements, system sizes, or battery characteristics from the results shown here. It would app ear that used EV battery/stationary application combinations have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Finally, there are sufficient uncertainties in the valu es used in this analysis (particularly in the performance of the batteries and the economic bene fits derived from the a pplications) to warrant testing and demonstration of the concepts presen ted here. Potential te sting 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 warra nt 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 pe rformed, 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 mo dules taken from vehicles to characterize their performance and evaluate their capabilities under various stationa ry application duty cycles. Implementation of second uses of EV batteries will also require proof of concept and early deployment programs to show poten tial investors that the idea is a valid one and to identify implementation difficulties. The analysis pe rformed for this study indicates that future demonstrations should focus on four applications : transmission support, light commercial load following, residential load follo wing, and distributed node teleco mmunications 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 pe rformance, any demonstration program must be preceded by, or run concurrently with, a focuse d 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 identif y 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 ba ttery module would be available for demonstration programs in the near term. However, a bench-scale test of used EV modules under a simu lated transmission support load profile would be insufficient to pr ove 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 curr ent 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 MWFinal 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 cont aining 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 dem onstrate an unproven c oncept utilizing used components. Therefore, any demonstration of this concept will likel y rely on testing in a laboratory setting with sophisticat ed simulation equipment. Ther e are a number of facilities located in the U.S. and Europe that perform test ing and validation of tran smission 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 th e 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 fo r several months of testing under simulated transmission support conditions. The first step in this program should involve id entifying 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 batt ery modules are available, system design and component procurement can proceed. As with all of the demonstration programs, the used EV battery modules should be characterize d before they are assembled into the energy storage system. Assembly and integration of th e system will probably occur onsite at the testing facility. Several months of testing will be requi red to characterize the cap abilities 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, para llel 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 a ssociated 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 implement ation and quantify value $50,000 TOTAL $4,130,000Final 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 sin ce 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 severa l installations to test the use of the battery with an array of different distributed generation t echnologies, such as microturbines, fuel cells, and fossil-fueled genset s. The study team recommends a total of five installations, the demonstration at each site la sting for two years. Each system will utilize roughly 100 used EV battery modules, contain ab out 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 oper ating under rate structur es with high on-peak electricity charges or high demand charges should be the focus of this effort. This application offers an interesting opportunity for leveragi ng R&D funds with other DOE programs seeking to demonstrate distributed generation (DG) in a light commercial setti ng. Sites already selected for DG projects could be retrofitted with refurbished EV batteries. Alternatively, a system could be designed from the ground up in partners hip with a DG demonstration program. Once sites and partners have been selected, the en ergy battery systems will need to be designed. It is likely that each site will require a di fferent system, depending upon the DG technology in use and the application load pr ofile. After the designs are co mpleted, 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 th e battery system with the electronics built into the generator to minimi ze 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 outsi de) 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 ha ve to occur onsite. After the site has been prepared, system installation, startup, and shak edown can proceed. This will probably take a couple of weeks of labor from an engineer and a technician. During operation, system performance can be m onitored 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 s ite 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 kWFinal 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 y ears, a report analyzing the success of all five systems and identifying pitfalls and uns uspected 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 sy stem; 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 ment ioned 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 desirabl e. 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 ye ar tests would be desira ble 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 commer cial load following, opportunities for synergies with other government and commercial programs exist for this application. Several fuel cell companies are in the process of testi ng and demonstrating prot otype 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 kWFinal 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. Levera ging funds and facilities with these programs could significantly reduce th e costs of installing a demonstration system. Unlike the other demonstration programs descri bed 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 designe d for integration into a number of residential distributed generation systems. This system coul d be assembled into a box or two at a central facility and shipped to the application site fo r 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 comp onents are obtained, the batteries can be tested and assembled into a self contained system at so me central facility. It is assumed here that assembly of the battery systems and initial shaked own will take about a week for an engineer and a technician. After this initial checkout, the syst em 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 requi red 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 analy ze the performance of the system once a week. An additional visit to the site on ce every two months should cove r any regular maintenance or unscheduled maintenance for each si te. 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 approxi mate 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 sy stem; identify problems and quantify value ---- $50,000 TOTAL $83,000 $1,000,000Final 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 batte ries. 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 syst em. Before telecommunications companies are willing to accept used EV batteries as a replacemen t 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 demonstra tion 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 telecommuni cations companies will be willing to install an unproven system in the field, th is prototype will be put under ex tensive testing at a telecom company test facility for about a year. During th is testing period, the pr ototype system will be operated under a wide range of conditions to m onitor its performance and ensure it will function as designed under all the conditions it would be expected to encount er 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 fi rst 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 involvemen t 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 telecommunicati ons company since the system will have to be integrated into their equipment. There is an al lowance for monitors and telemetry included in the budget estimate for this program since these syst ems will likely be heavily instrumented to monitor their behavior. Once the first set of battery modules has been benc hmarked, 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 testi ng 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 kWFinal 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, th e prototype system design can be evaluated to identify necessary improvements. The material s 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 th e battery system and should only require a couple of days a week to analyze the da ta 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 projec t 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; ident ify problems and quantify value ---- $50,000 TOTAL $37,000 $1,218,000Final 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 th e more widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and hybr id-electric vehicles (HEVs). Most efforts addressing this obstacle consist of research and development ai med 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 c ould be refurbished, resold, and reused for another application, and some of th e 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 identi fy potential stationary applications. 

### Methodology
A literature search was conducted as part of this study. Origina lly, 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 r each 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 wh ich install battery renewa ble energy systems, to determine if they knew of any secondary battery markets. Searches on th e Internet as well as through non-peer-reviewed publicati ons 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 informa tion on EV/HEV battery reuse as well as issues surrounding cycle life and pe rformance 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 commercia lization of used and reconditioned batteries, incl uding 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 ve hicle manufacturer, is implementing a successful secondary market for spent Op timaÆ 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 pa rticipating in a sola r program in Mexico, which incorporates used Ni/MH EV batteries taken from EV benc h 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, se veral 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 li ght 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 recovere d about 500 batteries us ing the Pulse Recovery Systemô. The company can now resell these ba tteries to new markets such as cab and other fleet customers.î [1] International Business Club, a Canadian compa ny, acts as a broker for business opportunities, including reconditioning automotiv e lead-acid batteries. [2] Its website provides information on services the company provides to set up a batter y 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 Ba tteries Tech 2000 can r econdition 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 batterie s were sold with 6- to 12-month warranties, and less than 5% of the reconditioned batteries were re turned. Defective batter ies were replaced with reconditioned batteries. Battery r ecyclers were one source where th ey received their batteries toFinal 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 uni nterruptible power sources (UPS) on a fixed schedule before they are worn out. These batt eries often can be obtained for free to power emergency communications activity. An Amateu r Radio Emergency Service (ARES) member gives advice to other members on how to inspect, recharge, and test don ated gel cells. [3] Inspection: Check out open circuit voltage to expedite distri bution 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 re gulated 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 qui ck check is to apply a load in amperes which approximates battery capacity in amp-hours, fo r 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 li ght at 0.6-A load. Larger ones up to 10 Ah can use a 12-V, 50-W incandescent lamp at 4-A lo ad. 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 nor mal working load and duty cycle. From the authorís personal experience, one in te n 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% reduc tion in its delivered capacity. At lower temperatures available capacity is further re duced. Lead-acid batteries typically lose 50% of their capacity at 32° F! A ham radio operator and member of the Electr ic Vehicle Associati on of Washington, DC confirmed that ham radio operators ofte n use used 12-volt gel cell batteries. [4] Deep-cycle lead-acid batteries are commonly fou nd 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 importe r of manufacturersí excess inventories, maintains a business-to-business website ai med at redistributing these materials to manufacturers, exporters and la rge quantity users. [5] On 9/18/01 there was the following posting: ìFORK LIFT BATTERI ES WANTED: We have buyers for off-lease and surplus forklift batteries in usable condition and fo rklift battery chargers in any condition.îFinal Report A- 4 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications AC Propulsion, developer of the ìtzeroî high-pe rformance electric sports car about to enter small-volume production reported that it has impl emented a very successf ul 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 ba tteries 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 sola r-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 d ecided to conduct a drawdown and lo ad test run. The homeowner contacted the battery manufacturer in Pennsylvania and identified his batter y 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 ch arge, which he achieved after 4 days. He then turned on all the lights in the house, and loaded the inverter with the fr eezer 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 hotplat e 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 variab ly 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 ba tteries performed normally during the two years since the test. Oasis Montana Inc. Alternative Energy Supply a nd Design maintains a webs ite 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 Renewa ble 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 En ergy International in Carbondale, CO about 10 years ago who reconditioned batteries and resold them for renewable energy systems. [10] Solar Energy International (SEI), which instal ls small renewable energy systems and conducts training courses on teaching others how to do inst allation, reported that the battery distributor formerly located in Colorado closed his ma rginal operation severa l years ago. [11] Peter Lowenthal, of the Solar Energy Industries A ssociation, the trade asso ciation of U.S. solar energy companies, reported that many of the ba tteries in small renewable energy systems in developing countries are lead-aci d, 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 c oncept electric vehicles employ nickel/metal hydride and lithium batteries. In Eu rope, nickel/cadmium batteries are commonly used as well. Hugh Marrow of the Internati onal 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 af ter no longer being of use in EVs. [13] Jade Mountain, a company specia lizing in the retail of renewabl e 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 becau se 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 ha d,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 Washingt on, 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 partic ipating in a solar program in Mexico which incorporates Ni/MH EV batteries that have completed lab test ing 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/de fault.htm>. [18] A search conducted on September 26, 2001 on ìReconditioned batteriesî at their Home and Ho me 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 refurbishe d 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 sa me Dell laptop computers. In some cases, the watt-hour listing on the Dell refu rbished 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 Computer 1 (refurbished) Batteries Direct 2 (new) Raymond Sarrio 3 (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 comput er 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 Ar gonne 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 comple ted more than 500 Dynamic Stress Test life cycles, simulating EV lifetime usage. Modules were tested to determ ine their performance relative to that of lead-acid modules in five non- EV applications: 1) ut ility 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) accelerate d 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 modul e-rated capacities were reduced, and they were selected for specific appl ication tests. The specific energy range to be examined in the study was determined by reviewing previous EPRI lead-aci d battery test data. Standard production lead-acid un its had a specific energy of approximately 30 Wh/kg (Hawker and OptimaÆ batteries), and adva nced technology lead-acid units were approximately 45 Wh/kg, which was the best measured for the Electrosour ce 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 base d on tests used by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to characterize the PM250 Power Management System. The OBC modules were put through re peated 3 hour sine-wave disc harges to 80% depth of discharge followed by charges to 100% SOC. They were also subjected to periodic (every 10 cycles) 1-hour constant power discha rges 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 m odule completed all 250 load follow cycles and a total of 294 deep discharge cycles; the advanced technology derated module onlyFinal Report A- 7 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications completed 133 load follow cycles before fa iling 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 cycl es 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 unde r 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 in stalled by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), the UES cycle contai ned three 50-hour-long fr equency regulation sessions separated by intermediate charges. These sessions were followed by a spinning reserve discharge (15-minute constant pow er 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 planne d UES cycles. The advanced technology derated module showed a capacity loss of about 1%, and the ca pacity loss in the standard derated module was negligible. This compared favorably with the lead-acid batteries subjected to similar testing at SNL, wh ich showed 8.5% capacity loss after 13 UES cycles. 3) After the stationary app lication tests were conducted on the four utility modules, the modules were placed on off-ro ad vehicle life test using th e 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 declin es to less than 50% of its 2-h rating. Three of the four Ni/M H 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 applicat ion. Test conditions for the UPS test were based on the Exide lead-acid battery (flooded cell type) wa rranty. Exide indicates a warranted number of cycles for eight di scharge conditions (com binations of eight discharge rates and eight discharge times). Three OBC modules (derated to 45 Wh/Kg) underwent tests in an attempt to satisfy all ei ght Exide warranted condi tions. Each of the three modules successfully completed at leas t 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 performe d under accelerated conditions with uncertain charge procedures, and the modules coul d have performed better under different circumstances. However, they also acknow ledged that the warranted conditions tested were for flooded cells, and advanced technol ogy lead-acid batteries are warranted for significantly higher numbers of cycles. 5) One battery underwent float-charge life testing at an elevated temperature (40 o C) to accelerate possible corrosion reactions and fail ure. Reference cycles were conducted at ambient temperature (approximately 23 o C) periodically during this life test to determine the effect of the elevated temperature on ba ttery deep-discharge capacity, resistance, and power. The peak power of the module was decl ining 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 moduleFinal Report A- 8 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications subjected to similar tests. This led the author s 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 statio nary energy storage applications. In fact, the derated EV modules appeared capable of perfor ming the same functions as lead-acid batteries over longer lifetimes. The study demonstrates th at reusing Ni/MH EV modules in secondary applications could be techni cally feasible from a battery performance perspective. 

### Peer-reviewed journal search Searches performed utilizing online databases tu rned 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 fe w of these dealt with entire battery packs or even mass-produced cells. Most of the publis hed information on cycle life and performance degradation for entire batteries id entified 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 Cy cle 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 Te st 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 ty pe 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 sufficien t 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, a nd for batteries with other chemistries, especially lithium-ion batteries. Setting up a successful sec ondary 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 Pu lseTech Products Corporation , Fall 1998. Available online at < www.pulsetech.com/about/pulsetalk/fall98/cars.html >. [2] ìThe International Business Club has De veloped 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 appear ed in the SARINFO reference library (< sarinfo@minklink.net >), the MVARC and NVFMA news letters, and on the ARRL Members Only website (< http://www.arrl.org >). [4] Approximately two dozen members of the El ectric Vehicle Associati on 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 Caró How 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 th ey did not appear to deal with EV/HEV batteries, nor with advanced , non-lead-acid batteries. [8] L. Barker, ìPV House hold Storage Battery Test,î Home Power , 83 (June/July 2001):
50-53. [9] Oasis Montana Inc. A lternative 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 Lowe nthal, Solar Energy Industries Association. [13] Telephone conversation with Hugh Marro w, International Cadmium Association. [14] E-mail communication with Ja de 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 Moor e, editor of the EV WorldÆ website:

< www.evworld.com >. [16] Personal communication with David Goldstein, President, El ectric 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 Corporat ion. Available online at < www.dell.com >. [19] N. Pinsky (USABC Program Manager) et al., Electric Vehicle Battery 2 nd Use Study
, Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, El ectrochemical 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 batter y systems found in electr ic vehicles sold or demonstrated in the U.S. The purpose of this su mmary is to provide a ro ugh idea of the range of batteries available for potential us e in an EV battery secondary use program. As such, it is not an exhaustive list. It does, however, contain the sp ecifications of the battery systems installed in most EVís that have been sold in the U.S. (i ncluding 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 fr om the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas we bsite, the Department of Ener gyís Office of Transportation Technologies Alternative Fuels Da tabase, 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 th e data. Their descriptions follow: EV ñ Electric Vehicle: full size passenge r automobile with a battery-based electric drive train. HEV ñ Hybrid Electric Vehicle: full size pass enger vehicle with an internal combustion engine coupled with an el ectric 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 kW h 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 vehi cles, this summary also covers systems based on each of the major battery chemistr ies 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 broa d descriptions of typical batte ries 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 to day, as well as a number of prototype and demonstration vehicles expected to reach production in the next few years.Final ReportB-3Technical and Economic Feasibility of ApplyingUsed EV Batteries in Stationary ApplicationsTable 1. Battery Module Characteristics for typical HEV and EV batteries.Vehicle TypeHEVEVChemistry Ni/MHLi-ion2LMPB3Ni/MH Li-ion2VRLA LMPB3Battery Voltage (V)144 ñ 274 346288 - 343 360312260Battery Capacity (Ah)6.53.677 - 95 9060 - 85 119Battery Capacity (kWh) 0.94 ñ 1.8 1.226 - 32 3219 - 27 31Cells/battery120 ñ 228 96240 - 286 96--Modules/Battery20 ñ 38224 - 28 1226 - 39 13Module Voltage (V)7.2173 50 12 - 13.2 308 - 1220Module Capacity (Ah)6.53.6 14 77 - 95 9060 - 85 119Module Capacity (kWh) 0.047 0.62 0.7 1.0 - 1.1 2.7 0.68 - 0.72 2.38Module Output Power (kW)4~ 0.916 3.2 - 4 12.54 - 54.9Motor Output (kW)10 ñ 33 1749 - 102 62 67 - 102 -Battery Manufacturers PEVE1Shin Kobe Avestor PEVE Shin Kobe Panasonic AvestorSAFTTexacoOvonicSAFTEastPennVehiclesHonda Insight Nissan Tino None Chevy S-10 Nissan Altra Baker/Ford USPS NoneToyota Prius Dodge Durango Ford RangerFord RangerDodge ESX3 GM EV-1Chevy S-10Honda EV PlusGM EV-1Toyota Rav4Solectria ForceSolectriaForceNotes: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 were not available forSAFT Li-ion batteries since none of the vehiclesusing SAFT Li-ion batteries are in production yet.3The LMPB characteristics listed here are for prototype modules developed by Avestor, and some of the numbers areextrapolations from cell-level performance. Avestor has not yet mass-produced any LMPB battery packs, and there are noautomakers with plans at the current time to use LMPB systems in a production vehicle, althoughthey have been demonstratedin the Ford TH!NK City and the GM Precept.4Module Output Power was estimated using the specific power for the module andan estimated module mass calculated fromthe total battery pack massand the number of modules.Final Report B- 4 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications Table 2. Battery Module Characteristic s 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 indivi dual 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 pr ismatic, 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 (1 st ñ 4 th qtr) 3901 12116 Total 7706 17678 Availability Retail Japan Only Retail Prototype PrototypeFinal 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 EV 1 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 m onoblock 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 USPS 2 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. Th e sales figures are for both options together.

2 500 ECRV Postal Delivery Vehicles were ordered by th e US Postal Service and will be deployed in California and the District of Columbia. The U SPS 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 EV1 1 S-10 Electric 1 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 batte ries 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 (1 st qtr) 29 26 79 1999 (2 nd qtr) 21 4 78 1999 (3 rd qtr) 7 0 51 1999 (4 th qtr) 5 0 47 2000 (1 st qtr) 0 11 1 2000 (2 nd qtr) 0 4 18 2000 (3 rd qtr) 0 5 77 2000 (4 th qtr) 0 30 10 2001 (1 st qtr) 0 1 27 2001 (2 nd qtr) 0 19 26 2001 (3 rd qtr) 0 0 77 2001 (4 th qtr) 0 0 26 Total 300 130 945 Availability Out Of Production Fleet in CA Fleet RetailFinal 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 Panas onic 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 cylindr ical 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 Dyna sty, 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 Electri c Vehicles: An Assessment of Performance, Cost and Availability , Prepared for the State of Californi a 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 

## DistributionFinal 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 99503Final 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 99501Final 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 01887Final 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 97208-3621Final 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 48038Final 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 2492Final 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 06810Final 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 20024Final 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 32922-5703Final 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 KINGDOMFinal 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 87544Final 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 27709Final 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 62794-9424Final 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 94720Final 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 99926Final 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 88003-8001Final 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 37831-6070Final 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 00936-4267Final 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 20004Final 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 94103Final 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 91702Final 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 94550Final 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 20585Final 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 20585Final 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 20585Final 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 78712Final 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 46227Final 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. TatroFinal 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 & A pproval For DOE/OSTI (1) MS-0899/09616 Technical Library (2)