ADVANCED

AUTOMOTIVE 

BATTERIES ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

MENAHEM ANDERMAN, Ph.D., President 

Tel: (530) 692-0140 E-mail: info@advancedautobat.com Fax: (530) 692-0142

P.O. Box 1059 

Oregon House, CA 95962 

www.advancedautobat.com 

January 6, 2010 

Feedback on ARB’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Staff Technical Report of 

11/25/2009 including attachment A: Status of EV Technology 

Commercialization 

General 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on your recent staff report. The 

overall report is an excellent document that provides a realistic assessment of a very 

complex subject. I am in general agreement with the theme of the report, its 

assessment of the progress in the relevant technologies, and the comments regarding 

the challenges and risks ahead. 

As part of a current multiclient study of the outlook for EVs and PHEVs, I have recently 

had the opportunity of visiting the battery technology groups of nearly all the major 

carmakers and foremost advanced automotive battery developers in the six countries 

with the largest automotive industries. It is clear that the level of effort in PHEV and EV 

battery development has greatly increased over the past three years. However, 

according to most of the companies I visited the commercial viability of these 

technologies for the mass market is still highly questionable, and that of FC vehicles is 

even further on in the future. 

Virtually all the current development programs involve Li-Ion batteries. Due to their 

higher energy density and correspondingly lower volume and weight per unit of energy, 

Li-Ion batteries simplify vehicle design. Yet most EV development programs in major car 

companies are focused on subcompact to compact cars with batteries of 15 to 35kWh 

and real-life driving ranges of 70 to 125 miles (generally similar to the NiMH-powered 

vehicles developed under the MOA with CARB during 1998-2001). Thus, the lighter 

weight of Li-Ion batteries is not being translated into longer driving ranges. There are 

several reasons for this, the most important being high battery cost. Carmakers reckon 

that vehicles with larger capacity batteries (40 kWh and up) would be too expensive for 

market acceptance. 

EV Battery Technology 

My visits confirmed the industry consensus that the challenges to the mass 

commercialization of EVs & PHEVs are largely related to battery technology. They 

include: 

1. Safety 
ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE BATTERIES Menahem Anderman, President 

Tel: (530) 692-0140 E-mail: info@advancedautobat.com Fax: (530) 692-0142 

2 

Significant improvements in Li-Ion battery safety have been achieved following the 

major safety-related recalls of Li-Ion batteries for computers and other applications 

in 2006. Yet the safety of most Li-Ion batteries for EVs is far from proven. Some 

safety enhancements come with a higher manufacturing cost, some with a sacrifice 

in performance and many through improvements prompted by the experience 

gained during the early stages of pack integration and field trials. Safety is of course 

the most critical parameter and trumps any plan to reduce cost or improve 

performance. 

2. Reliability / Manufacturability 

After safety, reliability is the next most important criterion. Battery reliability in the field is 

critical and most experienced battery manufacturers are careful to take the time to 

optimize cell and pack engineering, and to develop manufacturing equipment and 

processes that can support the high-throughput, high-yield production of a reliable 

product. The industry must learn from the past experience of those NiMH automotive 

battery developers who had projected low pricing and high performance but failed to 

establish reliable manufacturing processes, and essentially dropped out of the market. 

Manufacturing is generally more demanding for Li-Ion batteries than for NiMH batteries 

and to meet the high-voltage, high-energy, high-power, and long-life requirements, the 

importance of proper cell, pack, and manufacturing engineering cannot be 

overemphasized. 

3. Durability 

There have been significant improvements in Li-Ion battery cycle and calendar life 

capabilities since the CARB 2000 panel report and our update in 2003. The technology 

seems adequate for EV applications, at least in relation to cycle life, with over 2000 

cycles at 70—80% DOD demonstrated by several developers. However, the more 

difficult area to control is calendar life since Li-Ion batteries degrade as function of state 

of charge (SOC), temperature, and time. Battery life is affected by cell chemistry, pack 

design, cooling method (if any), and vehicle duty-cycle. It is important to note that some 

of today’s most publicized EV efforts involve batteries with no active cooling and whose 

life expectancy in warm weather is likely to be far shorter than the 10-year CARB 

emission-control warranty. Here again the most experienced long-term players in the 

industry stress that they prefer to prioritize battery life even if it is at the expense of cost 

and performance. Please recognize that economic analyses of EVs based on a 10-year 

battery life will simply shatter if the actual battery life in the field does not meet this 

expectation, and two or more batteries are required over the useful life of the car. 

4. Cost 

In our current multiclient study we put considerable effort into analyzing battery cost 

based on: i) ab initio cost models utilizing realistic cell and pack designs and quotations 

for materials from several key materials suppliers, and ii) several actual cost estimates 

given by major battery makers to major car makers. When we apply our base estimates 

to the volumes studied by the CARB 2007 Technology Panel, we obtain considerably 
ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE BATTERIES Menahem Anderman, President 

Tel: (530) 692-0140 E-mail: info@advancedautobat.com Fax: (530) 692-0142 

3 

higher battery cost estimates for EVs, namely $500 to $700/kWh in 2015, for the 500-

MWh case (a plant producing 20,000 packs averaging 25kWH each annually), and $375 

to $500 per kWh for a plant producing 2,500MWh (100,000 25kWh packs annually) for 

the 2018-2020 timescale. 

We focused our study on data from the major materials, cell, and pack producers and 

avoided projections from less experienced companies. This may explain the higher 

pricing in comparison with the CARB Panel study. Also, we and our information sources 

priced in what we believed will be necessary to meet the most important criteria for 

commercialization, namely safety, reliability, manufacturability, and durability. (In this 

connection we suggest avoiding the use of Tesla data as criteria for battery cost. Tesla 

uses computer cells that have a life expectancy on the order of 2 to 4 years, and there 

are no data in the public domain to project their durability and reliability in a vehicle 

battery. Tesla may have a business motivation other than profitability to sell an 

aftermarket battery option with the original vehicle.) 

The cost of PHEV batteries per nominal kWh, depending on duty cycle, is expected to 

be 20% to 30% higher than that of EV batteries. However, since their usable capacity is 

likely to remain between 55% and 70% of nominal, as opposed to 80% to 90% for EV 

batteries, their effective cost is about 60% to 100% higher. 

5. Performance 

Modern EV Li-Ion battery cells deliver 100 – 140 Wh/kg and 200 – 275 Wh/liter with 

good power. These numbers show a greater spread for battery packs as they are 

affected by the weight and volume of the cooling scheme, if any. It is worth recalling that 

the best cylindrical consumer cells deliver 220 Wh/kg and 600 Wh/liter. The gap in 

performance between the best consumer cylindrical cells and current EV cells is related 

to the compromises made in the design of EV cells to support the four key requirements 

of safety, reliability, durability, and cost. EV cell and battery performance can possibly 

be increased with the four key parameters still being satisfied, but this will take several 

years to confirm. In the case of PHEV batteries, the most important objective will be to 

increase their usable capacity and thus their effective energy density, thereby reducing 

their cost. 

Technological breakthroughs with a positive impact on performance are always possible 

but cannot be predicted, nor can policies be based upon them. Furthermore, significant 

improvements in performance (from, say, high-voltage cathodes or silicon anodes) will 

only be beneficial if they do not reduce the battery’s ability to meet the four important 

key requirements. We nevertheless remain hopeful that the recent major international 

public and private investments in battery technology will, in the long run, yield batteries 

with higher performance. 

Advanced Vehicle Status and Policy Recommendations 

At fuel pricing below $4 per gallon in the US, the total cost of owning and operating 

advanced vehicles will clearly exceed that of conventional vehicles. With gasoline at 
ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE BATTERIES Menahem Anderman, President 

Tel: (530) 692-0140 E-mail: info@advancedautobat.com Fax: (530) 692-0142 

4 

about $4-5 per gallon, hybrid-electric vehicles become cost competitive. PHEV vehicles 

will only become cost-competitive when the price of gasoline exceeds $7 per gallon –

even if we assume batteries with an 8-year life (which is far from being proven) and 

battery pricing below $500/kWh (late in the decade). Electric Vehicles will reach that 

point at similar or even higher gasoline price levels, depending on battery size (and thus 

vehicle range). These numbers include the assumption that Li-Ion PHEV and EV 

batteries will prove safe, reliable, and durable, and that price reduction efforts are 

successful. We do not have good estimates for FC vehicles but their economics in the 

next 20 years are likely to be even more problematic than that of PHEVs and EVs with 

a100-mile range. 

It is generally accepted in the industry that the closer the technology is to the market, 

and the more experienced a particular company is in high-volume manufacturing and 

application of the product, the more conservative (or realistic) that company will be 

relative to future cost/performance ratios. Applying this maxim to advanced vehicle 

development (as described in the ARB staff report and the studies quoted therein), 

indicates that the cost and durability projections for fuel cells are probably the most 

speculative. The same projections for PHEV and EV batteries are of intermediate 

credibility, while for Li-Ion HEV batteries they are somewhat more reliable, and for NiMH 

HEV batteries, quite reliable. It is also important to remember that HEVs require no 

investment in infrastructure, PHEVs a limited investment (involving a greening of the 

grid), EVs a somewhat larger investment, and FCs a massive investment in hydrogen 

production and distribution. 

Furthermore, during my visits it also became apparent that several (but not all) car 

companies had redeployed technical staff from fuel-cell development to work on Li-Ion 

batteries. In addition, some of these companies also mentioned that technology 

investment in the FC-component supply chain is in decline. These two changes 

combine to reduce the likelihood of the fast progress in fuel-cell technology that was 

expected a few years ago. 

We maintain that it is very unlikely that either FC vehicles or battery electric vehicles 

could be competitive in the mass market before 2020, or probably even 2025. To 

reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles, starting in 2015, it is clear that CARB will have to 

promulgate and enforce some severe restrictions, and increase them annually to meet 

the desired goal. Providing limited incentives for early demonstrations of advanced 

technologies (PHEV, EV and FC vehicles) could complement its policy but should not 

constitute its basis, so as to allow the policy to remain technology-neutral. 

We propose that CO2-emission regulations should also be accompanied by an increase 

in fuel cost via a fuel tax or other mechanism. This may very well be the most effective 

way to accelerate the introduction of transportation with near-zero carbon footprint by 

affecting the demand for fossil fuel. Although drivers may have to pay more for a gallon 

of gasoline, with good education that can be sold to the public and their use of more 

fuel-efficient vehicles will minimize the cost impact. Furthermore, a reduction in fuel 

consumption may alter the supply/demand equation sufficiently to delay future oil-price 

escalation. Eventually, a win-win situation could develop with the consumer benefitting 
ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE BATTERIES Menahem Anderman, President 

Tel: (530) 692-0140 E-mail: info@advancedautobat.com Fax: (530) 692-0142 

5 

from a lower overall fuel bill, the environment from lower CO2 emissions, and 

governments from increased revenue—all in support of the energy supply and 

environmental causes. 

The ARB staff’s assessment that a notable impact on the environment will lag behind 

new product introduction by 20 to 30 years is correct. It is the main reason to promote 

the expanded use of HEVs. This technology is road-proven and already delivers an 

approximately 40% reduction in CO2 emissions, and even more in pollutant emissions. 

A 50% market share for strong hybrids in California by 2020 is feasible and would thus 

reduce CO2 emissions from new cars by about 20%. In contrast, given the problems in 

using the existing electrical grid, the environmental benefits of PHEVs in comparison 

with HEVs are relatively small. When this is compounded with the more difficult 

commercial threshold for mass production of PHEVs, the likelihood that these vehicles 

can make a notable impact on the environment within the next 20 years is slim. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Based on our understanding of the technical and commercial barriers to the introduction 

of advanced vehicle, we recommend the following guidelines for future policies: 

1. CARB to increase the requirements for new-vehicle fuel efficiency by about 4% 

per year, starting at the earliest feasible date and continuing indefinitely, 

2. CARB to initiate a drive to increase gasoline taxes nationally, in collaboration 

with interested political and environmental lobbying groups, 

3. CARB to enact policies to accelerate the “greening” of California’s electrical 

transmission grids, and 

4. CARB to provide some incentives for the early introduction of EVs and FC 

vehicles provided they are matched with measurable progress in drastically 

reducing the carbon footprint of the energy source (electricity or hydrogen).