TheEEStory.com

This sounds credible - a lot more than EEStor anyway (I know that is a low, low bar). May be we can get this in vehicles in 3 to 5 years.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/envi...

Atul Kapadia, chairman and chief executive of Envia, said in a telephone interview. “The cost of cells will be less than half — perhaps 45 percent — of cells today, and the energy density will be almost three times greater than conventional automotive cells.”
Mr. Kapadia continued: “What we have are not demonstrations, not experiments, but actual products. We could be in automotive production in a year and a half.”
...
Envia’s announcement said that its packs would deliver cell energy of 400 watt-hours per kilogram at a cost of $150 per kilowatt-hour. Though it doesn’t disclose a cost breakdown, Tesla Motors rates the energy density of its Roadster’s pack at 121 watt-hours per kilogram. Envia said its energy-density performance was verified in testing of prototype cells at the Naval Service Warfare Center’s Crane evaluation division.

Damn, you beat me to it! Yes, this looks reasonable.

Is there any stock play here? Envia is not listed is it?
Are there any stakeholders small enough to play?
This seems like a good interim company to fill the need till something better comes along(Lithium/air,cathode competitors,EEstor,LENR/LANR etc. etc.)

How much lithium does it use?

It bears watching for sure...

Envia wrote:

Envia Systems was founded in July 2007, and its headquarters are located in Newark, CA, which houses its materials innovation lab and a pilot production facility for fabrication of battery materials.

Envia wrote:

Its cell prototyping and manufacturing plant is located in Jiaxing, China.

Last edited Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 1:17am by DGDanforth

And for those wondering where Newark, California is we see that it is just across the bay from me (Menlo Park) and right next to Tesla's manufacturing facilities in Fremont.

I would guess there must be active negotiations between Envia and Tesla.

Last edited Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 1:21am by DGDanforth

Here is a nice cost comparison from the Envia website

No prototypes or science projects but "Actual" products. 400 wh/kg. Well, that matches EEstor Gen 1 in density.

$150 kwh is entry level cost effectiveness. expect that to halve in 5-8 years.

the real questions everyone wants to know, Charge/discharge rates, DOD, and cycle life.

I am sure it beats any Lithium on the market in all catagories but knowing the numbers would be the tell all.

So, here we have actual battery cells with the science already done. just need to go to manufacture for mass production.

So what did sec. Chu say again?

More on Envia

http://enviasystems.com/announcement/

http://blogs.motortrend.com/cost-cutting-the-vo...

Looks like GM has first dibs

Looks great, if what they are saying is true!

Here's hoping it doesn't turn out to be another DBM "Kolibra" battery-- all hat and no cattle.

What about life, temperature sensitivity, degredation etc. etc.

I get fed up with these 'breakthroughs' that come at the cost of sacrificing some essential parameter that is not mentioned.

Maybe it doesn't apply in this case. The battery doesn't degrade, is totally safe, can be used for millions of cycles, can be charged at -40 and all the rest of it. Maybe!

But if they don't specify it, then I will assume its deficient.

I'm happy to welcome it if it IS a better battery, but until its in operation and proved to work well I'll reserve judgement. Its just another promise at this point. Another in a long line of such promises, very few of which ever seem to see the light of day.

Now that I look this over a bit more, I think this is the NMC battery which Nissan, GM and probably other EV makers plan to start putting into their cars in 2015.

The cost Envia is claiming is certainly a lot lower than the prices I've seen quoted. Time will tell just how close to reality Envia's claims are, and how much is just hype.

Lensman wrote:

The cost Envia is claiming is certainly a lot lower than the prices I've seen quoted. Time will tell just how close to reality Envia's claims are, and how much is just hype.

ps :

“Lithium-ion cell designs are pretty much the same,” Kumar says. “It’s what’s inside the cell that matters. We’ve changed the material inside the cells. “ They consist of high-capacity silicon-carbon anodes and lithium-rich layered cathodes.”

Read more: http://blogs.motortrend.com/cost-cutting-the-vo...

Last edited Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 10:27am by evnow

Here's an interesting graph:

It appears to lose its 45ah capacity after just a few cycles, so it seems like a stretch to describe this as a 45ah cell. If you'll settle for 25 AH, it should be good for 450 cycles or so. This makes me think that for all practical purposes, they've only achieved 200 watt-hours per kilogram, but maybe the longevity will improve before it comes to market.

Source: http://enviasystems.com/announcement/

Looks like life cycles sacrificed for ED this time.

Ho hum!

I'd like to see what happens after 300 cycles.

For a car 300 cycles is not enough IMHO. How many years before you have to change it?

Looking at the graph in Dolphyn's post, #13, it would appear that the battery is good for about 100K miles, but at an average @30Ah, not 45Ah. Being optimistic, it may make it to 135K miles. When you factor in vehicle wight and the driving style, it could be a lot less. Keep looking, turn the page.

Envia responded to comments in the Motortrend article linked above. They expect to get to 1 thousand cycles; this is 300,000 miles.

I did not see charging time or any ideas about degradation from fast charging.

This is getting close to a viable EV battery, but the EESU at original spec still blows it away.

...but the EESU at original spec still blows it away.

Well, it would if it existed.

Dolphyn wrote:

Here's an interesting graph:

It appears to lose its 45ah capacity after just a few cycles, so it seems like a stretch to describe this as a 45ah cell.

Rats, so the claims are mostly hype.

*sigh*

BCGF wrote:

For a car 300 cycles is not enough IMHO. How many years before you have to change it?

If you commute 60 miles (round trip) per day then you would need to recharge every 5 days (at least). This is assuming you can go 300 miles on a charge. So 5 days/charge *300 charges = 1500 days which is less than 3 years.

Yah, if the battery pack can't be expected to last for 1000 cycles, or at least 800, then it's probably not going to be competitive in the EV market.

The cycling could be an issue but it is with most current lithium batts anyway. At the end of its lifetime should this one come to market there may be other choices available. That was one good thing about the many old prius's out there with NimH's in them. Affordability longevity but sacrificing ED.

eeinterested wrote:

I did not see charging time or any ideas about degradation from fast charging.

Dolphyn wrote:

Here's an interesting graph:

It appears to lose its 45ah capacity after just a few cycles, so it seems like a stretch to describe this as a 45ah cell. If you'll settle for 25 AH, it should be good for 450 cycles or so. This makes me think that for all practical purposes, they've only achieved 200 watt-hours per kilogram, but maybe the longevity will improve before it comes to market.

Source: http://enviasystems.com/announcement/

Actually it is just a bad graph. Apparently the first 3 cycles were 100% DOD - and rest were 80% DOD. So, obvioiusly they show 80% capacity. I know, bad presentation.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1073442_new...

The capacity drops off in the first three cycles because the first 3 cycles were done at 100% DoD (C/20, C/10 and C/3 rates respectively). Cycles 4-400 were conducted at 80% DoD at C/3 which are typical charge/discharge profiles in automotive EV applications. By definition you'd get 80% of the original capacity. Hope this helps.

hoarybat wrote:

The cycling could be an issue but it is with most current lithium batts anyway. At the end of its lifetime should this one come to market there may be other choices available. That was one good thing about the many old prius's out there with NimH's in them. Affordability longevity but sacrificing ED.

Yes, but the industry standard for EVs would seem to be retaining at least 80% capacity after 8-10 years. If they are claiming 45 ah but it drops to only ~33 ah with just 15 cycles or so, and drops to 30 ah in less than 200 cycles, then the claim of "400 watt-hours per kilogram at a cost of $150 per kilowatt-hour" only applies to the batteries in the very first cycle.

It looks like a more honest claim would be ~290 Wh / kg at a cost of ~$205 / kWh, and only expected to retain ~50% capacity after 1000 cycles.

As has been said, there is a tradeoff with li-ion batteries (probably all batteries) between energy density, longevity, ability to be charged quickly, and cost. Sacrificing longevity for higher ED and lower cost isn't really an advance for the EV market.

Last edited Tue, 28 Feb 2012, 12:33am by Lensman

evnow wrote:

Apparently the first 3 cycles were 100% DOD - and rest were 80% DOD. So, obvioiusly they show 80% capacity. I know, bad presentation.

I see. So then, the batteries should have better longevity than indicated. Strange that they would have put that in their public info or advertising.

Lensman wrote:

I see. So then, the batteries should have better longevity than indicated. Strange that they would have put that in their public info or advertising.

You can see a bunch of answers by Atul (and I guess others) in various blogs - Green Car Congress & MT for eg. Somewaht unusual, but very welcome.

I dont think these batteries are ready for market just yet. The Cycling damage in the chart kills the high ED. 300 cycles is useless. 1000 cycles is Borderline.

We will not see these in cars with less than 1000 cycles before noticable degredation.

I am sure they already know what to do to achieve their 1000 cycle milestone. it is most likely why they stated it.

Man, the 100% DOD killed the cell fast. I want to see consistant 80% DOD from new. that will show if the damage was actually from the 100% DOD or if the cells breaks down naturally with normal cycling when new.

It is impressive though that they are definately stable at 45ah for the first few cycles. looks like they have something, I just hope they can fix the issues.

evnow wrote:

Lensman wrote:

I see. So then, the batteries should have better longevity than indicated. Strange that they would have put that in their public info or advertising.

Yes - it almost seems they are just a bunch of technocrats/PHDs - not that PR savvy. As all of know, the graphs etc in tech literature can be quite dense.

You can see a bunch of answers by Atul (and I guess others) in various blogs - Green Car Congress & MT for eg. Somewaht unusual, but very welcome.