A123: History and Progress
Upstart lithium battery maker A123 is a lesson in how fast things can move in the battery space. The MIT Technology Review has a story, An Electrifying Startup, in its May/June issue recounting the tale.
Founded in late 2001, small amounts of funding lead to technological breakthroughs by mid-2002. By 2003 Black & Decker was interested in powering its new line of cordless power tools with A123's new lithium cocktail, and product was rolling off assembly lines in Asia by 2005.
Cut to the burgeoning success of hybrid cars, dependent on batteries to utilize the great efficiencies of electric drive technologies to raise the fuel economy of gasoline-powered cars. NiMH batteries are already raising mpg by 30-50 percent, and had propelled all-electric cars 100 to 140 miles per charge. The greater energy of lithium could promise even higher mpg for hybrids and longer range for EVs with much less weight, the battery bugaboo.
GM finally began to face the reality of hybrids' market success just as the company was being battered in the press by the true story of EV1 emerging via the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? GM could have been years ahead of the competition with electric cars powered by its own NiMH venture, just as Toyota carved out its preeminence with hybrids. But, having sold off its 50 percent stake in NiMH to Texaco when it killed off its own electric car, by the time they got serious and announced the Volt, they had to look elsewhere. Into the picture stepped A123 (and other lithium battery makers like LG Chem/Compact Power Inc.). GM may or may not be the first major auto maker with lithium powered cars, but the evidence is in that it is batteries, not fuel cells, that will bring cars with zero emission capability to market in the near term.
[Source: MIT Technology Review]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
why not the LS2LS7? 5:38PM (4/30/2008)
I'm sorry, why do you believe "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is the true story? Because it comes from a "counter-culture" source?
The movie blames everyone except batteries, saying the technology was ready. Except as we know now from seeing Tesla prices and such, even 8 years later, batteries cannot be put into a full-featured car cost-effectively.
There's a lot more story to be told that the movie only touches on. It really keys on what the Ford Th!nk engineer said. He said it was difficult to sell the cars to people because they didn't expect to pay more for an electric car and get less car than they would with a gas one.
Reply
marc 6:24PM (4/30/2008)
The reason I believe it is because I drive it. My Toyota RAV4 EV is a full-featured car, has over 59,000 miles on the original battery pack, and easily drives over 100 miles per charge. On the highway. Using NiMH. The Ford guy in the movie was being disingenous, because neither Ford nor GM ever offered their electric cars for sale. They have no idea what the market might have been, except that they never produced as many cars as they had takers.
Reply
Geoff de Ruiter 8:02PM (4/30/2008)
Marc I completely agree with you about the ford think guy. He was simply playing into the victim mentality that all the car companies were expressing... "Oh we tried we really did, but those darn cars are weak and don't go vary far and too expensive to sell to people, so we had to close down the programs" even though they were in fact selling. And "why not the LS2LS7" the Tesla is not the EV1 so don't compare apples to pears, yes they are both cars but the Tesla roadster is a high end sports car with GPS, maxi-features, and mad acceleration skills. I recommend that you watch "WKTEC" again and think past what people were simply saying, and understand why they are saying it. Next thing you know you'll be claiming that the electric car was "an abysmal failure, and is something that should be never repeated again" just like that oil representative said, conspiracy theories left behind.
Marc you are a lucky fellow for having a Rav4 EV and even though I don't live where they originally sold them, I still think every time I see one "man, they use to make those in electric" What could have been by now... fortunately things are on there way again.
Reply
Bill 8:08PM (4/30/2008)
It's very clear Li, not Ni-MH is the future for EV propulsion.
Everyone seems to forget most EV1s were powered by lead-acid, not NiMH batteries.
Technology does improve, significantly, over time - isn't the Volt's battery pack only 1/3 the size of the EV1's?
Reply
heils 9:13PM (4/30/2008)
....about electric cars, how do they fare in cold temperatures ? I am aware that there will be more battery drain while trudging through 3 feet of snow and keeping the heater on ... and the A123 might help with that ...but do they somehow "freeze" if it gets too cold, and do electric cars have to me warmed up before driving in winter like normal cars ?
Reply
Throwback 9:47PM (4/30/2008)
So did GM kill the RAV4-EV also? The fact is all of the car companies came to the same conclusion. Toyota decided to pursue a hybrid strategy as did Honda. Did they kill the electric car?
Reply
andrichrose 2:07AM (5/01/2008)
the last RAV4 EV I saw for sale on Ebay it went for
over 60000 dollars , does not sound much like the
"abysmal failure" that the car companies would like
us to think.
Reply
Geoff de Ruiter 2:42AM (5/01/2008)
throwback I have read many of your posts on ABG and they are all pretty much the same I'm afraid to say. you state the obvious Nth degree. We all know GM alone did not kill the electric car, ford was there, toyota, honda, all the majors. This is also to add to other vested interested parties (oil and gas, hydrogen fuel cell, government. The underlying reason the electric car was attempted to be buried (and not killed anymore) was because of money. Oil companies would loose it, automotive companies would loose it (in # sales and repairs), Hydrogen ventures wouldn't have an automotive niche, etc. The entire charade that was played to the people by these companies was well done, but for me it was easy to see the truth and the reasonings behind. Naysayer of ABG, new technologies/ways of thinking, or shite disturbers open your minds see through the glare and politics think critically, express your knowledge diplomatically and really asks yourself what should be the correct path, and 99 percent of the time it's the green way. One question to ask everyone Who has the world and futures best interest in mind companies that want to make endless sums of money, or responsible and caring people that love the ONLY enclosed world we have?
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 7:02AM (5/01/2008)
Yes, the first EVs are too expensive and have a limited market. The first big screen TVs were also too expensive and had a limited market.
So, did the TV makers give up and say "We tried, but because we couldn't sell 10 million of them the first year, we decided there was no market, and quit making them"
No, they sold a few at the high prices, and kept working through successive generations of the product to improve the technology and work the prices down. Over time, prices fell from $10,000 to $5,000, then $2,000 and now you can get one for under $1,000. Sales numbers went up, and now lots and lots of people have big screen TVs.
Don't say there is no market for a product just because the first ones are high cost. That's been proven many, many times to be a false argument. TVs, cell phones, microwave ovens, air travel, computers, and many more products all started out expensive until the technology matured and now all of these products are commonplace in our lives.
The reason the automakers, all of them, not just GM, didn't want to be in the electric car business is really very simple. To sell these vehicles, they would have to promote their virtues; clean, low maintenance, inexpensive to operate, and have the convenience of charging at home.
Advertising those virtues highlights that their ICE products are NOT clean, inexpensive to operate, easy to maintain, and have to often visit the gas station to keep going. Anything that is a potential threat to their existing business is the enemy. Therefore, the electric car had to be killed.
Now, high gas prices are becoming an even bigger enemy, and the automakers are seeing that electric cars are the answer to high gas prices. Gets back to the idea that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". BMW, Mercedes, GM, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Toyota, and many others, and many startups as well are all working on electric cars. This time, the high gas prices are not going away, and the electric cars are here to stay.
Reply
greg woulf 7:51AM (5/01/2008)
There was no market for the EV-1. If GM came out with the EV-1, at it's best state, it still wouldn't sell to the masses today. GM would almost definitely still lose money on that deal.
It would sell more today because of higher gas prices, but it wouldn't sell 100,000 units a year consistently.
The cost was over 60k, go to the Volt concept site, people are complaining that the car will cost half that.
GM did nothing wrong, the people that are holding a grudge are hurting the environment because they're ignoring the very car that can change driving for everyone.
Your hero Toyota is pressing the parallel hybrid, and they're going to get a lot of ignorant buyers when the Volt comes out. The reason is that on the surface it will look the same as the Volt. It will have the range, and the MPG, and will cost a bit less. What it won't have is a sustainable pure electric range, and what it really won't do is push forward EV technology.
Take off the anti-GM goggles and see things the way they are. GM has spent more money and achieved more in the EV technology field than any car company. They should be the heroes of the environmental movement the second the Volt comes out, but instead people want to look smart and altruistic.
ACPropulsion, Tesla, Wrightspeed and most other variable voltage EV's that are in the news today owe their start to GM.
Instead of being right, look at the core of the technology that's presented, look at the life of the batteries and look at the mass appeal of the car. I hope that Toyota, Honda and the others get into the EV field, but only GM is right now.
Reply
Lithous 8:46AM (5/01/2008)
"neither Ford nor GM ever offered their electric cars for sale"
Gee, what the fud are these then?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160229571772
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170213030683
There are more "non-existent" GM factory EVs for sale on eBay than the overrated RAV-4s by far. Why is it overrated? Who here would even consider buying a vehicle with 68 horepower? People will barely buy a motorcyle with that much less an SUV for gods sake.
I'd love to see you put four 200 pound people in a RAV4 electric and merge on the highway.
Now that you have the great RAV4 in your possession why don't you ask for money from all the fellow EV1 GM haters and build a modern vehicle and make the billions you think GM passed on?
The EV1 was like the Honda insight as far as usability and that is why both failed.
See this is how it has always been. The Japanese could care less for decades if you got killed in their vehicles that is why the RAV4 was sold. Putting out little Datsun B-10 things at one point or those death trap Sentras and then 68 horesepower SUVs weighed down by batteries. They could careless if you tried to go on the highway with four big dudes and had to merge past a tractor trailer.
You might as well have bought a handful of Corbin Sparrows for the price of the RAV4 electric.
0-60 in 9 minutes. Yes, we all want a RAV4. If Toyota wanted electric vehicles to succeed then they should have but that (under achieving motor) in a car not an SUV.
Reply
Peekoyle 9:33AM (5/01/2008)
stooges
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 9:24AM (5/01/2008)
"If GM came out with the EV-1, at it's best state, it still wouldn't sell to the masses today."
So? When big screen TVs were $10,000 they didn't have mass appeal either. Did they stop selling them? No. Did they recall them all and crush them? No.
GM only sold 300 Corvettes in the first year. Not exactly mass appeal there either. Did they stop selling them? No. Did they recall them all and crush them? No.
Your point is completely irrelevant.
Reply
GM Volt Fan 9:50AM (5/01/2008)
Good article by MIT’s Technology Review about A123. These new lithium ion battery companies like A123 and LGChem have a darn good chance of becoming the Intel and AMD of the automobile business.
Since electricity will become the primary fuel for cars … GM, Toyota, Ford, Mercedes and the rest of the auto companies are going to start looking more like computer companies … OEMs like Dell, Hewlett Packard, Apple, IBM, etc. They better learn to innovate and get products out the door at a quicker pace. That’s how it is in the computer business. Lots of races going on.
The automotive battery business could get VERY large … maybe tens or hundreds of billions in revenues. That scientist at MIT (Yet-Ming Chiang) is helping to get a HUGE industry up and running. He might someday be considered one of the “founding fathers” of the electric car business if A123 batteries do well … like Gordon Moore is with Intel.
I’m hoping a bunch of geniuses emerge in the automotive battery business in the next 10 years. The world NEEDS them to help us kick our addiction to oil and keep us from screwing up the environment. Maybe that one Stanford professor Dr. Cui will be one of them with his silicon nanowire lithium ion battery. These guys could be like the new Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the next 40 years.
The Chevy Volt can't get here fast enough. It is going to be AWESOME. It's going to be a bigtime "tipping point" kind of car. The electrification of the automobile will take off bigtime once it comes out. It's an idea who's time has come. Thank you A123 and LG Chem for working your butts off and bringing these awesome new batteries to the world.
Reply
Chad 10:23AM (5/01/2008)
"0-60 in 9 minutes. Yes, we all want a RAV4. If Toyota wanted electric vehicles to succeed then they should have but that (under achieving motor) in a car not an SUV."
Model T's weren't that fast either. Give it a while. With these gas prices, over the next ten years range and power of electric cars will increase dramatically.
Reply
Lithous 11:13AM (5/01/2008)
"Model T's weren't that fast either. Give it a while. With these gas prices, over the next ten years range and power of electric cars will increase dramatically."
I agree that all technology should get better over time. But to blame GM or anyone else other than the timing was not right for all electrics is stupid.
But the flaw in your example is that there weren't many machines that did what the Model T did. I.e. there weren't Chevy Impalas around when the Model T was introduced or else the Model T would have failed.
Reply
Dave 12:26PM (5/01/2008)
Throwback said:
> So did GM kill the RAV4-EV also?
In effect, they did, but selling off Cobasys who locked up the patents on large format NiMH batteries. Toyota/Panasonic paid Cobasys a lot of money to resolve their patent dispute. If Panasonic had been able to continue manufacturing and selling large format NiMH batteries, things would likely be different today.
Finally, after 10+ years, alternative technologies that do not violate Cobasys' patents are finally becoming viable.
Reply
Throwback 8:43AM (5/02/2008)
Geoff de Ruiter- my point is GM is an easy target for electric car fans. It is easy to avoid the truth that there where not enough buyers for electric cars when gas was cheap. These companies are in a cut throat business and want nothing more than to dominate each other. I use Toyota as an example of a company that realized the hybrid approach was a better solution for most (not all) buyers. Guess what they where right. The success of their hybrids is mostly due to the fact that you don't have to plug them in to get great mileage. Now that gas has gone through the roof some (not most) people are interested in electric cars. As for who cares more about the world, can you tell me how you define responsible and caring people? Is there a test, a secret handshake or do they just have to espouse a "green" agenda?
Reply
Jonathan King 2:05PM (6/21/2008)
GM, Toyota and others snatched the EVs from people who *wanted* them and *crushed* them. Are you really ignoring and writing off that fact? If they stopped making them because the market wasnt larger enough, WHY CRUSH VEHICLES THAT PEOPLE ARE BEGGING FOR AND OFFERING LARGE SUMS OF MONEY TO BUY? Even if they saw the program as non profitable WHY CRUSH THE CARS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BUY? Please come up with a believable explanation for this.
Reply