NiMH and NiCd - Panasonic

[ChrisB]

This I have taken from the EV mailing list from 2yrs ago , not sure how relevent it is or even how true it is but it does make for interesting reading and I thought I'd place it here for others .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NiCd batteries are not in the same class as NiMH.

ALL THE FOLLOWING IS EITHER MY OPINION, OR WHAT OTHERS OFFERED AS OPINION PROTECTED UNDER FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION, NOT SUBJECT TO LIBEL OR SLANDER LAWS, AND NOT OFFERED WITH A MALICIOUS INTENT.

Translation, there are people who threaten lawsuits over these opinions, so watch your step when offering opinions and make clear that you are safely harbored under the protections of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, as interpreted.

"NiMH batteries vary greatly; the best are the result of Panasonic's trial and development efforts.

Apparently, the story on NiMH is as follows: Stan Ovshinsky, founder of Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) and reclusive genius inventor always in need of financing, developed NiMH chemical mix, and patented it.

Panasonic, in various development agreements, improved the 'goo' to the point that it is more robust and lasts longer. When combined with a thermal management system, the NiMH Panasonics last a long time.

When ECD needed money, they formed a joint venture, Ovonics, with GM to make and distribute NiMH for EV usage. This was back when GM maintained the fiction that they were going into production with the EV1.

Instead of using ECD NiMH batteries, GM used Delco lead-acid for the original EV1 in 1997. These batteries often failed, and did not give the same performance as even Panasonic lead-acid, so there was a big demand to go to NiMH versions. These Delco batteries only gave a maximum range of less than 90 miles, often no more than 60, and sometimes a module would go bad, incapacitating the entire EV in a 'christmas tree' event where the entire dash would light up. Saturn of San Juan Capistrano and Santa Ana replaced our pack multiple times, but it failed once in Oceanside, stranding my wife as one battery went dead, stopping the vehicle. This was not an isolated occurrence, and the EV1 got the bad rap, not the Delco batteries. At the time, we did not understand that the batteries were the car, in a sense, and that bad batteries would make the car look bad.

Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota came out with NiMH Electric cars that proved that GM was dissimulating; because the Honda EV+ and RAV4-EV used NiMH and had a range of 120 miles on a charge.

Instead of moving to NiMH, GM upgraded to Panasonic lead-acid, and delayed the launch of the NiMH version until 1999, allegedly to solve overheating problems on the EV1 battery box configuration. This solved the range problem for the 1997 EV1, which suddenly had 110 mile range on lead-acid batteries, but it was too late to salvage the reputation, a lot of people (such as one San Diego Council member who is now on the Air Board) rejected the EV1 because of unreliable, bad batteries and low range.

At the very end of 1999, kicking and screaming, GM finally released the NiMH 1999 EV1, which solved the range problem -- initially, wakeup ranges of 200 miles were seen occasionally -- but the range rapidly deteriorated. At the time, we did not know it, but GM was using the Ovonics (ECD) NiMH batteries, not the evidently superior Panasonic NiMH that gave the RAV4-EV and Honda EV+ such good, consistent range.

When GM's 'magnecharger' charging station was rejected by the Air Board as not being a valid standard, as cutting the Electric car off from the electric infrastructure, GM seemed to close down any idea of continuing the program. Could it be that, freed from the magnecharger, the EV fleet was threatening to become ubiquitous? In any case, GM took its marbles and went home, its spokespeople seemed to fold their arms and defy the Air Board to make them do anything! GM sued the Air Board, a lawsuit that was joined by EV drivers, and which GM then dropped and reinstituted. Finally, one of their tricks managed to fool staff into trying to regulate miles per gallon, and the Bush Justice Dept. joined the lawsuit, finally killing any pretense of Electric cars under the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate.

GM sold its half-interest in the battery patents of ECD to Texaco, which had put in some magnechargers in certain 'Star Mart' gas stations. Shortly thereafter, Texaco merged with Chevron, forming ChevronTexaco, and apparent control of the patents went to ChevronTexaco. In addition, ChevronTexaco owned a few million shares of ECD, which gave them 50% +1 control of the patents. Since then, after the lawsuit, ChevronTexaco has made moves to divest those extra shares, but still maintains its interest in the patents.

Panasonic was meanwhile improving its version of the NiMH each year, and, some say, the batteries were completely in a different league. While ECD did not pursue cylindrical license revenues, as it seemed to some, ChevronTexaco offered to fund lawsuits against LARGE FORMAT applications such as the Panasonic NiMH Electric car batteries.

In a landmark settlement, Panasonic reputedly paid ECD a token sum, cross-licensed all patents, enabling them to continue selling their seemingly superior versions of the NiMH batteries, but FORBIDDING them to sell the large format versions in the US at least until 2010, with the exception of NiMH batteries on the Prius, which are made in Japan.

Thus, if you want NiMH batteries here, you must settle for the apparently overpriced, seemingly lower-priced ECD versions until 2010.

AA (cylindrical) NiMH batteries sell retail for $200 to $400 per kwh. Large format NiMh should cost about the same, or $5000 for a reasonable 100 mile pack. But ECD's battery unit, perhaps with reason, maintains that they cannot lower the price to that level until they get a big order. Not surprisingly, there are no big orders since the price is too high.

Apparently, also, ECD is not interested, or ChevronTexaco is not interested, in funding a big production of these batteries; in the view of some, they would rather spend money on lawsuits against Panasonic than on duplicating the improvements made by Panasonic."

ALL THE FOREGOING IS EITHER MY OPINION, OR WHAT OTHERS OFFERED AS OPINION, PROTECTED UNDER THE 1ST AMENDMENT AS FREE SPEECH.

The Author is doug korth from what I can gather.


ChrisB