Who's behind a better lithium-ion hybrid/EV battery? Why, it's Exxon Mobil
When we write about Exxon Mobil here on AutoblogGreen, we mostly do it to point out just how much money they make. In 2006, after all, the company did make $1,252 every second. Sometimes we write about their shady ethanol studies or other ways the giant oil company is trying to buy off scientists. What I'm saying is that it's not too often that we say somewhat nice things about Exxon Mobil. Today we do. The AP has a story about Exxon's new greener car announcement. Apparently, the latest technological advancement the company is working on (with Japan's Tonen Chemical) is a new film for lithium-ion batteries that would make electric and hybrid cars more efficient and affordable. Exxon will release more information at the Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exposition (aka EVS23) in Anaheim. I'll be attending that conference, and will make sure to bring you more details from Exxon.
[Source: AP via CNN Money]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jamie 2:34AM (6/18/2008)
If you look at Cobasys 8K from 2004, you will see some of the details of the law suit. The key thing here is that it never went to court but was settled out of court. Although the specific details of the settlement were not able to be disclosed, it does mention that the agreement included restrictions on the types of batteries that could be licensed until about 2014.
Regarding conspiracy theories, I find it interesting that the people who don't want to believe in conspiracy theories are as stubborn as the people who do. If you look at the documented facts, you will see clear evidence that oil companies fought to suppress the technologies and the major car companies were only half-hearted in their efforts to develop the EV's and gave up without much of a whimper.
Reply
mark 12:20AM (7/31/2008)
It's easy to understand why car companies don't want to produce EVs. They and their dealerships don't make much revenue by selling cars. They make money through service and by selling parts. Just go take a look at a typical dealership's huge service department as a clue to what's at stake here.
EV: No oil changes. No oil filters. No tuneups. No spark plugs. No O2 sensors. No smog checks. No Belts. No $600 timing belt change. No hoses. No radiator flushes. No coolant. No radiator change. No brake pads (regenerative electronic braking means the mechanical secondary brakes last the life of the car as has been shown on the EV Rav4). No brake rotors. No transmission fluid changes. No exhaust system. No clutch change.
It would seem that Pepboys, Kragen's Jiffylube and just about every other automobile oriented retail/service outlet would also suffer.
And for the guy who wrote about the muggy Texas climate, EVs can have a perfectly fine air conditioner system as does the AC (volts) Propulsion EV retrofit on the Scion B. In fact the air conditioner uses very little compared to the drive system, so a battery designed for a reasonable drive range will hardly notice the much smaller load of an air conditioner. One could even leave the AC running while shopping and not drain a significant amount from the battery pack. Imagine coming out of the mall to an ice cold car on a hot sunny day.
Timothy Balcer 12:48PM (12/08/2008)
Many good comments here.. but many misconceptions as well.
First, everyone should know that EVs are possible -today-, given a 300 mile range using lithium iron phosphate cells which have already been developed, and have been available for years now. These batteries are lightweight, and could easily provide a 150 mile all electric range in a hybrid, including A/C and heat (the poster was right, A/C and heat are barely noticed by a power pack of this size).
What would this do? Well, it would almost completely remove oil from the daily picture, since Americans drive an average of 30 miles per day. Hence why plug in hybrids have not been seen yet, even though the technology not only exists, it is mature. There is even a lead based retrofit pack for the prius which gives it something like an 80 mile electric range. However you have to hack the computer to get it to NOT turn on the engine when you don't want or need it to.
So, why haven't we seen this? Why don't these cars exist? It's not expense. People are doing this piecemeal themselves for low cost, putting pieces together from expensive retail components. It's not production. Electric motors and batteries are so mature, it is ridiculous.
It is profit.
Oil companies ARE scared about EVs and this very equation. If they do not control the battery tech, they lose 50% or more of their profits overnight given a plug in hybrid.
Auto companies ARE scared about EVs because they would make no money on replacement parts, nor would their dealers. It would collapse the entire model.
This is not about supply and demand, nor price, nor technology. This is about market control and profit protection. Oil does it, Auto co.s do it. They have blinded the dialogue with idiotic claims about costs when it isn't about costs, and in the meantime they are trying to come to the trough to get more taxpayer money to "develop" the very things they have tried to suppress.
They will be forced to deal with this, but they will not go quietly, nor without doing absolutely everything in their power to prevent dilution of their profit, regardless of benefits to our world.
One thing IS true about their crying wolf which is not an exaggeration. A pure EV won't go more than 300 miles or so given current tech. They want cars to have a 400+ mile range, as they currently do with gasoline/diesel, and they want that range to exist for heavy vehicles as well. They are using the excuse that a "sizable portion" of the american people would not be able to use the cars... patently untrue. less than 25% need that kind of range. But its in their best interests to shout about it.
THINK. READ. Check out the facts about this. There are some who are overreacting, but in this case, what I've said is mild based on what's been going on since 1990.
Reply
Kardax 12:46PM (11/29/2007)
Just about all oil companies are engaged in alternative energy programs. Sure, they're trying to maximize their oil income, but they know the supply is finite and they're planning ahead. They still want to be in business in the post-oil era :)
Reply
Tony Belding 1:06PM (11/29/2007)
If Exxon get patents on this technology, won't they prevent anybody from using it in electric cars? Chevron have already used their patents to keep large-format NiMH cells out of electric cars.
Reply
Ian Bruce 1:37PM (11/29/2007)
Though you wouldn’t know it from this dumbed-down AP article, Exxon isn’t producing batteries themselves, but rather Tonen Chemical (a Japanese affiliate ExxonMobil Chemical) would be supplying a new separator film to battery manufacturers who need safer batteries for automotive and other specialized markets. Separator films are the thin membranes that keep the battery's positive and negative electrodes apart.
Tonen Chemical's new separator film technology can apparently stand up to much higher heat levels. Tonen’s film will allow battery companies to make larger lithium ion batteries that will not overheat — all without adding additional costs, changing the manufacturing process, or altering the battery's chemistry.
Tonen's been supplying companies with thin film products for nearly 20 years.
Reply
Chauncey 1:45PM (11/29/2007)
Exactly Tony, ...this has nothing to do with trying to be green or evolve their business. Any oil company working on batteries is doing it as a blocking strategy to prevent others from disrupting their business model. They're seeing Tesla, Zenn, Th!nk, etc. and are using Exxon's vast money and industry resources to beat them at their own game, then block.
Reply
Tim 1:52PM (11/29/2007)
There are 3 possible scenarios here:
1) Peak oil is coming sooner than we have been lead to believe and Big Oil is getting ready for it.
2) Big Oil has seen the writing on the wall that Congress will divert tax funds from oil to renewable energy and they are working to capture some of this free taxpayer money.
3) Technology capture & sequestration to kill competition and control both the demand through vehicle efficiency and supply.
Of course, all 3 dovetail nicely together. Big energy can release captured technologies piece by piece in order to maximize profits as oil’s decreasing availability increases oil prices thus lowering demand. They can maximize profits by straight lining use through supply and technology manipulation.
This strategy will allow Big Oil to control the energy market both supply and demand into the foreseeable future.
Reply
Yanquetino 2:33PM (11/29/2007)
I agree with Tony. I wouldn't trust Exxon/Mobil --or any other oily company-- to get within a light-year of something to do with batteries. The very fact that Chevron/Texaco so clandestinely acquired the worldwide patent on NiMH from GM, and then sued Toyota/Panasonic for putting the batteries in EVs says it all. I am still so boiling mad at them that I now refuse to fill up at either a Chevron or a Texaco station. And let's not forget that it was Exxon/Mobil that published all those newspaper and magazine ads in the 90's, screaming to high heaven that EVs were dangerous, inadequate, and too costly. I am willing wager that, at this very moment, nasty, under-the-table schemes are being hatched in their board rooms to do anything and everything possible to destroy Tesla Motors, Phoenix Motorcars, Miles Automotive, and any other EV manufacturer.
Reply
Joseph 6:26PM (12/02/2007)
Exxon Mobile isn't going to release their technology in any meaningful amounts if there's still plenty of oil to be sold at a grater profit than the battery's profit margin will be.
If Exxon Mobile make some great battery, they'll probably purposely make them in very limited amounts as to hike up the cost for EVs. (Heck, if anyone had the miracle battery, anyone would take advantage. lol) In this way, they look green b/c they'd make batteries for EVs and they're making a little money, and they're protecting their oil business to stay attatched to oil until they want (i.e. when the alt. is more profitable) to start making dramatic changes to the business.
Does anyone remember what happened with large-format NiMH batteries for EVs? Oil companies took the patents. (whether that was really patent infringement or not is up to debate)
Maybe I'm just biased, but I don't trust an oil company getting into the EV business. Money is still money no matter what.
However, I think it is a little late in the lithium-ion game to get involved.
Reply
Domenick 6:51PM (11/29/2007)
It's amazing how many "eco" blogs are so ready to print a story about Exxon.
Is this the only environmental story about Exxon out there? No. There's also this http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/47/30_47exxonanoshow.html
But, yeah, if a company Exxon got a controlling stake in from it's merger with Mobil can improve on LiIon batteries that's great. Maybe they'll have more information on the battery they are pouring 322 million dollars into when they show up at EVS23.
Reply
Jase 7:16PM (11/29/2007)
Well, here's the easy way to look at it.
1. Hybrid technology is out there, and it is working.
2. Hybrid technology is eating into fuel company's revenue.
3. It is not in the interests of big oil to support fuel cell technology, or super capacitors which are the other promising (but a way off), technologies.
3. Is the really important point. If 3 came into being, oil companies business would evaporate more rapidly than it would with hybrids. If they support this research it keeps people tied to oil - if oil prices go back down - and people go back to bigger cars, all good for them. If people jump to an electric or hydrogen based solution they have changed technologies and they may not come back.
I think this is risk mitigation rather than anything sinister.
Reply
MitchJi 7:18PM (11/29/2007)
Hi,
From another article on the Web:
"This weekend, at the 23rd Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exposition (EVS-23) in Anaheim, Calif., Exxon Mobil will unveil a super-thin plastic sheeting the company says can improve the power, safety and reliability of lithium-ion batteries for use in automobiles...
Exxon Mobil considers the film a breakthrough because it allows battery makers to build smaller and cheaper battery systems — removing key obstacles that have kept automakers from building hybrid and electric vehicles on a wide scale. Porosity is one of the key parameters in building higher performance separators and Tonen has developed a prototype film with a 51% porosity compared to 37% in current production batteries while maintaining the same strength and thermal integrity."
"I'll be attending that conference, and will make sure to bring you more details from Exxon."
I'd like to you to get some idea of how much difference in size, power and cost this 14% improvement might make.
Thanks,
Mitch
Reply
Brian McCoy 10:36AM (8/01/2008)
Read with interest your comments on Exxon's new separator. Are you aware of Porous Power Technology's new separator for lithium batteries with claims of reaching porosity of up to 80%, thereby greatly improving battery efficiency and lower thermal loads compared with competitive products?
Chris M 3:03AM (11/30/2007)
I suspect that story of Chevron/Cobasys suing Panasonic and Toyota to prevent them from making electric cars is either a misunderstanding or an urban legend.
That couldn't have been a legitimate lawsuit. Unless there was a prior contract agreement or a serious public safety issue, Chevron couldn't control what the batteries were used for. Since there were no such restrictions in the licensing and no safety issue, there was no such lawsuit.
Now, there might have been a lawsuit over the amount of royalty payments, but that is another issue.
Exxon is just trying to get another profitable product on the market, they do not want to be dependent on a single product that might become obsolete. There are other manufacturers of battery separators, so they cannot corner the market and control it. Exxon can't prevent it from being used in electric cars, so why squawk?
Reply
suzy.denim 8:54AM (11/30/2007)
The eco-fanatics discredit themselves every time they spout some conspiracy theory vilifying American businesses. Businesses exist to make money -- but they have a lot of good people in them. Sure, a few companies do short sighted things. But most are pretty reasonable. If they see money in alternative fuels, or better batteries, or opportunities to diversify their businesses, they'll go for it. So have this teenage paranoid Exxon=evil, Chevron=Satan attitude turns more people off to watermelon environmentalism than helps the cause. They would convert many refineries to biofuel if there was money in it.
Reply
Lad 9:33AM (11/30/2007)
Chris:
Please understand the oil companies now call themselves energy companies. This should be a clue to their thinking and to me means an expansion of their involvement in all forms of energy. Indeed a few, like BP and Shell are in the solar cell business.
Regarding the control of NiMH battery production. From my readings: Chevron/Texaco and Ovonic, the original NiMH patent holder, formed the joint company, Cobasys to control the NiMH business using Chevron's deep pockets. Patent infringement charges are leveled at any outside company producing NiMH batteries. And in all court cases the decision has been to limit the size of the batteries so they cannot be manufacture as large format batteries suitable for electric auto use. And, the reason you don't hear about the settlement details is because all parties are ordered to remain mum on the settlement particulars. It makes sense when you see how small Toyota's and Honda's NiMH pack really are. True? I think so because I believe Big Oil is all about controlling the energy markets and have done so for many years; and, I don't think they would have a second thought about continuing by any means possible.
Reply
BGJ 10:16AM (11/30/2007)
FYI we've already hit Peak Oil. We just haven't realized it yet. Nor will we until it is too late.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 10:41AM (11/30/2007)
An illuminating article about peak oil:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=103243&d=6&m=11&y=2007
Reply
Yanquetino 11:36AM (11/30/2007)
Ladd: Bingo! Thanks for explaining the Chevron vs. Toyota lawsuit for Chris. Suzy: For the record, I am not an eco-fanatic, but feel free to consider me discredited if you wish. Over decades I have painfully observed that a fair number of --but not all-- American businesses do indeed conspire, precisely "to make money." We're a pretty nasty species in and of ourselves, the product of Paleolithic conditions --and without any help from some boogie-man satyr.
Reply