USABC awards $7.7M contract to Envia Systems for advanced EV battery development; layered-layered cathode, Si-based anode
21 July 2014
The United States Advanced Battery Consortium LLC (USABC), a collaborative organization operated by Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company and General Motors, has awarded a $7.7-million advanced battery technology development contract for electric vehicle applications to Envia Systems. The competitively bid contract award is co-funded by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and includes a 50% Envia Systems cost-share.
The 36-month, lithium-ion layered-layered cathode/silicon-based anode program will focus on the development of high-energy cathode and anode material appropriate for vehicle applications and the development and scale up of pouch cells that exhibit performance metrics that exceed the minimum USABC targets for electric vehicles.
|
|
| USABC EV Battery Goals—CY2020 Commercialization. Click to enlarge. |
The new Envia Systems contract follows research previously conducted with USABC to develop advanced lithium-ion battery technologies for electric vehicle applications. (Earlier post.)
USABC is a subsidiary of the United States Council for Automotive Research LLC (USCAR). Enabled by a cooperative agreement with the DOE, USABC’s mission is to develop electrochemical energy storage technologies that support commercialization of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, electric and fuel cell vehicles.
In support of its mission, USABC has developed mid- and long-term goals to guide its projects and measure its progress.
Envia!
Now there's a name from the past!
Lets hope they do better in future than they have done so far.
Posted by: Davemart | 21 July 2014 at 02:55 PM
I wish them all the best, assuming they have the IP issues resolved.
Posted by: SJC | 21 July 2014 at 03:08 PM
I really liked their guy who came on here and discussed things with us, Atul something.
I seem to remember he fell out with them though, but my memory might be faulty, and I did not pay that much attention.
There were a lot of bad things happening at Envia at the time, so the casualties were hard to track.
Posted by: Davemart | 21 July 2014 at 03:13 PM
I think DOE needs to audit the record and history of USABC. I can't think of anything they have produced in the way of products that has been useful. DOE has been funding them since Clinton and the COBASYS fiasco(about 1992)...nothing but busy work...smells like a political boondoggle and payoff.
Posted by: Lad | 21 July 2014 at 03:58 PM
Mercury News Interview:
Atul Kapadia of battery-maker Envia Systems
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22312503/mercury-news-interview-atul-kapadia-battery-maker-envia-systems
Posted by: SJC | 21 July 2014 at 04:57 PM
"three of Envia’s top former executives filed a lawsuit alleging that Sujeet Kumar, the company’s co-founder and chief technology officer, created the company using intellectual property that he stole outright from Santa Clara-based NanoeXa, his previous employer. Envia claimed it had created a rechargeable lithium-ion battery for the electric vehicle market and was awarded a $4 million grant from ARPA-E, the innovation arm of the Department of Energy. General Motors invested in the company with the hopes of licensing the technology."
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/23/former-envia-systems-execs-drop-their-lawsuit/
By the way, no one is talking about the Tesla 3 announcement.
Posted by: SJC | 21 July 2014 at 05:00 PM
These are very aggressive specifications. You're talking about a 200 mile battery for a mid-sized sedan (65kWh), in a pack size roughly the same size as the A123 Spark EV pack (130L), that can recharge at 10kW (7 hours recharge time) and only weights 600 lbs. for $8,125.
Posted by: Anthony F | 21 July 2014 at 05:29 PM
"You're talking about a 200 mile battery for a mid-sized sedan (65kWh)..."
Indeed we are.
We were also talking about it in November of 2012. Didn't pan out, and there has been no real explanation of why the configuration displayed such poor life.
The real issue (as far as GM shareholders and taxpayers are concerned) has never really been IP; that's an internecine spat. The problem is a giant promise that was based largely on BS. Maybe it's solved now to USABC's satisfaction --- I'll believe it when the results show up.
To Lad's point "I can't think of anything they have produced in the way of products that has been useful." I agree. I think "political payoff" is not the case --- you just need to go through the long history of these kinds of "government industry consortia" and see that nothing about this is atypical. Stand by for ANL's "5-5-5" project to rhyme.
Posted by: Herman | 21 July 2014 at 06:43 PM
@sjc this is no place to discuss frivolous lawsuit. Atul kapadia dropped the lawsuit in a month. Often ceos file lawsuit when they are thrown off the plane without golden parachute. Michal pak of nanoexa also sued Argonne lab and then dropped the lawsuit. These guys are lowest of the lowest.
As Anthony pointed out these are very aggressive target perhaps limit of lithium ion technology. Imo cost target is impossible to achieve. But even achiving $150/ kwh will be a success.
Posted by: Vikks | 21 July 2014 at 06:47 PM
I was not discussing the law suit, just posting the link. Calm down and quit trying to tell people what to do, THAT is what is inappropriate.
Posted by: SJC | 21 July 2014 at 07:35 PM
I'm confused that capacity and instant power perf numbers are published at C/3 only here... Why not at 3C or 5C that are more the levels at which this may be used in EVs ? Is there a trick doing that here ? What are the numbers at 5C ?
Take the PHEV SUV I'm still dreaming of to replace next year my too old beloved BMW 530DA (Against the views of most experts on this great WEB site, I know..., and no vendor offer yet,... I admit, but I'm french hence "têtut"), with a 30KWH battery pack that could allow to do all my 50M/day local commutes in ALL-EV mode with no more than one charge every 2 days, so a good 3000 cycle battery could last more than 10 years (Up to 20Y in fact, but chemistry may not last as much), to maximize resale value when used, still with an ICE Range Extender on top, so I could also go on far away vacations, in the middle of nowhere with it.
If it could only use that battery at C/3 it would means a maxi instant power of 10KW, that would be totally USELESS. Or the other way round, since I need a minimum of 100KW of maxi instant power to drive with same comfort as my current car the local commute miles that represent 80% of my yearly mileage, hence need to be fun, then if I need to use the battery at C/3 maxi, I would need to install a 10X larger pack of 300KWH... Woooh, # 1K Miles range, but may weight a few tons too, and cost an arm...
Why not publishing numbers at 5C here ?
Posted by: Patrick Free | 22 July 2014 at 07:12 AM
The relevance of IP problems for "sustainable mobility" is if there are problems, they will never be allowed to go to market. So much for imagining longer range..first things first.
Posted by: SJC | 22 July 2014 at 10:44 AM
Tesla has confirmed via its Twitter account that the car due after the Model X SUV will be called the Model 3.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1093293_tesla-gen-3-sedan-to-be-called-model-iii-debut-in-2016-official
Posted by: SJC | 22 July 2014 at 02:48 PM
@SJC,
I believe they're going to call it the Model III (with Roman numerals). So their lineup will be the models:
S III X
Of course, they use III sideways to stand for the "E" in TESLA. So of course everyone is noting they're doing models: SEX LOL
They were literally going for the Model E until Ford said cease and desist. So it's not a stretch.
Posted by: DaveD | 23 July 2014 at 12:46 PM
High capacity NMC + Si anode ?
Posted by: Energy_Future | 30 July 2014 at 09:17 PM