# [EVDL] $300 million prize for new battery technology...



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

McCain is promising to offer a prize to the inventor of a higher
performance battery.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfqkglGaJzMm-z8hIuFPKpCqLkwwD91FJE980

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

They have all this backwards. We need the $300 million now to develop 
improved battery technology.


Chip




> [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > Message: 22
> > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:44:11 -0600
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chip Gribben" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] $300 million prize for new battery technology...


> They have all this backwards. We need the $300 million now to develop
> improved battery technology.
>
>
> Chip
Hi Chip an' EVerybody;

Going bass-ackward is official policy! Gees! Lay SOME of those bux on 
Panasonic! They made the good ones in EV-1's and Rav-4's. The first gen. 
ones did great> Ask any happy camper Rav driver. IF Panic -sonic had a bit 
of R and D money, or maybe A124, or some of those other guyz on OUR shores 
doing batteries?

Seems the MONEY is here, like lifeboats on the Titanic, just wern't where 
needed at the time.Oh while you up shoot, say a couple mil. towards Lee and 
Tim, and Sunrise<g>? Give ME that money and I'll find it a loving home!!

Just my two amps worth.

Bob, STILL with crappy Lead Acids
>
>


> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> Message: 22
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:44:11 -0600
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

You mean like the billions in US government grants towards the development
of elevtric vehicles?
Now that was some money well spent.

Personally I like the idea of a prize better than a grant. People
actually have to develop and sell something to win the prize. If you give
out a $300 million grant for research, someone will happily spend all the
money and conclude that they need more before they can do anything.

> They have all this backwards. We need the $300 million now to develop
> improved battery technology.
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>


> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> Message: 22
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:44:11 -0600
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chip Gribben" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] $300 million prize for new battery technology...


> They have all this backwards. We need the $300 million now to develop
> improved battery technology.


I completely disagree. Battery research is fully funded, in many cases 
overfunded. Adding even $1 Billion to the funding for batteries wouldn't 
mean anything. The problem is getting the attention on the problem which 
will get more people involved. However, such X prize like processes have 
proven to be successful in attracting talented individuals and the correct 
funding targets. This is the same process that gave the world SpaceShipOne, 
has sparked extra research progress for Tesla, Aptera, Alpha-Core, Arkas, 
Avion, Belloso, etc, etc, etc. This process, done properly, works.

I see a very different problem with the prize. The X prize process works, as 
much as anything, because it provides a well-defined goal. From what I have 
seen this seems to provide the money, but I have yet to see any metric for 
success.
Joe 

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I think the problem is that any new battery needs to become a commodity
for EV's to become commonplace.
Research for the sake of yet another proprietary locked down battery
chemistry is a waste of taxpayers' money.

So Perhaps the trick here is to give the prize, but require the
technology to be open or at least, open within 3 to 5 years.
Best would probably be "open to manufactures using it in the continental
US".

I still don't understand why they say the batteries aren't ready, sure
they could get better over time, but get the vehicles out there and in
use, then improve range. And why is the money focused on batteries? a
strong light glider is equally important as well as auxiliary systems
like electric assisted brakes, steering and electric A/C.

I think 300Million could better be spent on a small car company using
alternative manufacturing techniques.

It is a classic problem that only companies with large amounts of money
and resources have a chance. Grants address the opposite end, get money
into the hands of people or companies that may have a good idea and no
funds.
Maybe a good idea would be to merge the two. Create grants that would
contain a balance of moneys and manufacturing vouchers to be used to get
things done. Manufactures would apply to get on this list. It could
potentially eliminate waste in capitol outlay buying equipment like
every other grant recipient would repeat. More grants could be made.


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Jeff Shanab wrote:
> > I still don't understand why they say the batteries aren't ready, sure
> > they could get better over time, but get the vehicles out there and in
> > use, then improve range. And why is the money focused on batteries? a
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

That's because it went to "Elevtric" vehicles instead of "Electric" 
vehicles. No wonder it didn't do any good.

Grants actually do help so I'm in disagreement with your 
disagreement. The USABC recently gave a $12.5 million grant to A123 
Systems to further develop batteries for PHEV applications.

There are obviously good reasons for competition. It spurs 
innovation. For the past 8 years I've organized NEDRA races and 
personally give out hundreds of dollars of prize money to the 
winners. I wish I could give out more.

The key word there is winners(s). I'm curious to know how McCain's 
prize money will be distributed. Will just one winner get the money 
and the others that didn't win but made innovative strides get left 
in the dust? I know of one famous EV mover and shaker who was on the 
board of the Automotive X-Prize and left because of disagreements 
with how that competition was being handled.

My original point is, it shouldn't take a competition for the 
government to finally give out sizable funding for alt fuel technology.

McCain says the money will be taken from 3 Pork Barrel Projects. 
Obviously, those Pork Barrel projects didn't have to win a Prize to 
get that money, why the hell do WE have to, which is another 
important point.

The good news is that McCain actually is doing this and it's given us 
more publicity. As a matter of fact, I heard about it from the T- 
shirt shop owner Tuesday when I drove my EV to the shop to pickup 
more Power of DC T-shirts.

So this news does get people thinking about it the technology. And 
maybe the candidates will each up the ante. With fuel prices being 
what they are EVs and PHEVs are going to be one of the top issues on 
the campaign.

Chip




> [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > You mean like the billions in US government grants towards the
> > development
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Certainly there's ample room for development, but I think it's worth noting 
that we already HAVE a proven EV battery with, if not ideal, at least quite 
respectable performance. So perhaps we should apply the $300m to purchasing 
the rights to NiMH from Cobasys and placing it in the public domain.

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not 
reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my 
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Jeff Shanab wrote:
> > I still don't understand why they say the batteries aren't ready, sure
> > they could get better over time, but get the vehicles out there and in
> > use, then improve range.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Hi Chip and All,

They need orders and EV's to put them in,
not another contest!!
The Gov should put out to a bid request for
30,000 EV's instead. Nissan I think is doing that with
Israel.
But it's not really the batteries, we have
those but the gliders, EV's built as EV's even lead will
work for 90% of US trips are what's needed. 
After all Jay Leno's 1911 Baker Electric got
110 mile range and still uses some of the original batts!
For many people this is all the car they need.
Just raise the CAFE to 50mile average in 5
yrs which can easily be done by EV's and bringing the Euro
models Detroit already makes built, sold here.

 Here's a letter to the editor I did this
morning to the Tampa Trib and St Pete Times,

John McCain's battery contest is too late. There are already
4 Lithium battery makers that can do this now, the just need
orders/ EV's for them to go into to go from preproduction
they do now to full production.
What's really needed is good Electric Vehicle designs
as one can get 80 mph and 100 mile range on regular golf
cart lead batteries, no new tech needed. My old 2 seat EV
sportswagon and the new one I'm building got, will get
400mpg fuel cost wise and can be recharged in 15 minutes.
This using existing reliable forklift EV tech! Sliding in a
7kw gasoline generator it will get unlimited range at about
100mpg+.
Since Detroit won't build them because they have few
parts to make money from, last forever, unless forced, we
need to mandate 50mpg Cafe in 5 yrs. This can be done by
bringing their European cars here and building EV's, plug in
hybrids. 
Another thing is make a new vehicle class of
cyclecars, under 1200lbs gas, 1500lbs EV using MC
regulations would spur a new industry of affordable fuel
efficient cars outside Detroit's influence.
And battery patents need to be watched,
Chevon//Texeco bought the NiMH battery patents and wouldn't
let anyone build EV size batteries, stopping EV's for 10
yrs. We need to make sure that doesn't happen again. 
The tech is here, we just need to do it. Thousands
of EVer's drive them everyday we built ourselves, why can't
Detroit build them too? We are on the web.



Jerry Dycus

----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Chip Gribben <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] $300 million prize for new battery
technology...
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:18:30 -0400

>That's because it went to "Elevtric" vehicles instead of
>"Electric" vehicles. No wonder it didn't do any good.
>
>Grants actually do help so I'm in disagreement with your 
>disagreement. The USABC recently gave a $12.5 million grant
>to A123 Systems to further develop batteries for PHEV
>applications.
>
>There are obviously good reasons for competition. It spurs 
>innovation. For the past 8 years I've organized NEDRA races
>and personally give out hundreds of dollars of prize
>money to the winners. I wish I could give out more.
>
>The key word there is winners(s). I'm curious to know how
>McCain's prize money will be distributed. Will just one
>winner get the money and the others that didn't win but
>made innovative strides get left in the dust? I know of
>one famous EV mover and shaker who was on the board of
>the Automotive X-Prize and left because of disagreements 
>with how that competition was being handled.
>
>My original point is, it shouldn't take a competition for
>the government to finally give out sizable funding for
>alt fuel technology.
>
>McCain says the money will be taken from 3 Pork Barrel
>Projects. Obviously, those Pork Barrel projects didn't
>have to win a Prize to get that money, why the hell do WE
>have to, which is another important point.
>
>The good news is that McCain actually is doing this and
>it's given us more publicity. As a matter of fact, I
>heard about it from the T- shirt shop owner Tuesday when I
>drove my EV to the shop to pickup more Power of DC
>T-shirts.
>
>So this news does get people thinking about it the
>technology. And maybe the candidates will each up the
>ante. With fuel prices being what they are EVs and PHEVs
>are going to be one of the top issues on the campaign.
>
>Chip
>
>

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:06:34 -0400, "EVDL Administrator" <[email protected]>


> wrote:
> 
> >Certainly there's ample room for development, but I think it's worth noting
> >that we already HAVE a proven EV battery with, if not ideal, at least quite
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> EVDL Administrator wrote:
> >> Certainly there's ample room for development, but I think it's
> >> worth noting that we already HAVE a proven EV battery with, if not
> >> ideal, at least quite respectable performance. So perhaps we
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >EVDL Administrator wrote:
> >>> Certainly there's ample room for development, but I think it's
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I think this money should never be spent on Large corporations that will
monopolize it anyway.
Here in Australia the previous Prime Ministry threw 97 per cent of 10billion
dollars at mining and
oil companies to fund greener ways of reducing CO2. Only 3 per cent went to
sustainable energy
startups with proven technology to benefit the country.
Instead of just saying to these companies to buckle up and change their
ways, politicians throw
money at the Large corporations as donations. Thats all it is a donation
that makes it legal in
everyones eyes, rather than passing the money under the table. Same result
different approach.

-----
There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more. - George Byron
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%24300-million-prize-for-new-battery-technology...-tp18091125p18124311.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I think this money should never be spent on Large corporations that will
monopolize it anyway.
Here in Australia the previous Prime Ministry threw 97 per cent of 10billion
dollars at mining and
oil companies to fund greener ways of reducing CO2. Only 3 per cent went to
sustainable energy
startups with proven technology to benefit the country.
Instead of just saying to these companies to buckle up and change their
ways, politicians throw
money at Large corporations as donations. A donation that makes it legal in
everyones eyes, 
rather than passing the money under the table. Same result different
approach.

-----
There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more. - George Byron
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%24300-million-prize-for-new-battery-technology...-tp18091125p18124311.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Nimh has been around for 20 years now, and millions of them are on the
> >> road in EVs and hybrids. They are proven to last 10 years and 100,000
> >> miles.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

>
>


> Jeff Shanab wrote:
> >
> >> > I still don't understand why they say the batteries aren't ready, sure
> >> > they could get better over time, but get the vehicles out there and in
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "EVDL Administrator" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] $300 million prize for new battery technology...


> Certainly there's ample room for development, but I think it's worth 
> noting
> that we already HAVE a proven EV battery with, if not ideal, at least 
> quite
> respectable performance. So perhaps we should apply the $300m to 
> purchasing
> the rights to NiMH from Cobasys and placing it in the public domain.


I have to disagree on the NiMH. NiMH is not weight efficient. The most 
weight efficient design to date has been about 80 Wh per kg. Even extending 
this to 100 Wh per kg doesn't bring it into the realm of Li-ion (160 Wh/kg) 
or Li-polymer (up to 200 Wh/kg) and a far cry from the 400 Wh/kg possibility 
of Li Sulfur. In NiMH's favor though it is 2-3 times the density of Lead 
Acid. Just as important is the efficiency, NiMH is only 66% efficient in the 
store retrieve cycle, Li-ION and Li-POLY are both 99+% and even Lead Acid is 
70+%. I agree that NiMH would be a big step up over the Lead Acid in 
widespread use today, and for most purposes the significantly lower cost 
compared to Li-ION makes NiMH superior, but NiMH is at best a temporary stop 
in the search for better batteries.
Joe 

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Nimh is not the right path as its owned by scum.

Laws need to be put in place for lithium recycling
as the potential for lithium technology is paramount.

On the same note Id be happy to see Firefly succeed 
and supply me with Trojan t-105 alternatives unless
that patent too ends up with the Scum of the earth.

-----
There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more. - George Byron
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%24300-million-prize-for-new-battery-technology...-tp18091125p18126623.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

You are all aware of this, right?

http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do;jsessionid=LjvGnnfwLwmmbrwt1lHqc7CvzGZ9Whtlx2SGTnJpMfwmQqHRydMJ!-944675996?oppId=16303&flag2006=true&mode=VIEW

If it comes up with a search page search on "plug in electric" or grant
number- DE-PS26-08NT00360-02 

Sorry, I didn't make that up. DOE Grant program, $10m for plug in electric
hybrid research. Look at the requirements for the bidder... Oh to be in
Detroit...

Greg
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%24300-million-prize-for-new-battery-technology...-tp18091125p18127136.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> "Joseph Ashwood" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >I have to disagree on the NiMH. NiMH is not weight efficient. The most
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

John's tested values are actually better than what the original poster 
had listed. The difference comes from using Wh/kg vs Wh/lb. After the 
metric <-> english conversion, they're not far off at all:

At 2.2lb=1kg
42 Wh/lb = 92.4 Wh/kg NiMH (better than the listed 80 Wh/kg)
85.1 Wh/lb = 187.22 Wh/kg Li-ion (better than the listed 160Wh/kg)

I second the notes on the Rayovac Hybrid NiMH batteries. They're the 
low-self discharge versions, are very similar to Sanyo Eneloop NiMH 
batteries (maybe even the same w/different labeling). The 2000 mAh 
versions last much longer than my 2500 mAh Energizer NiMH, mostly 
because of the low-self discharge. For an EV, however, I don't think 
low-self discharge is a critical characteristic for a daily driver 
commuter car that is charged up every night. The low-self discharge 
characteristic shows its greatest value in high current devices that are 
not charged every few days (like digital cameras), but otherwise 
strongly benefit from the low internal resistance of NiMH (vs. say 
alkaline AA batteries).

-hk

Neon John wrote:
>


> "Joseph Ashwood" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Haudy Kazemi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >I second the notes on the Rayovac Hybrid NiMH batteries. They're the
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Alternative Energy Guy wrote:
> > McCain is promising to offer a prize to the inventor of a higher
> > performance battery.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Haudy Kazemi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >Alternative Energy Guy wrote:
> >> McCain is promising to offer a prize to the inventor of a higher
> ...


----------

