Abstract
Advanced battery (Lithium ion) costs — for stationary or mobile applications — remain high and current approaches to optimizing cost and life of those batteries have been hampered by a lack of robust data, models, and standards for high-accuracy battery aging prognostics. It takes 60–90 channels of expensive battery test equipment and 18–24 months to perform a full validation of one cell chemistry from one supplier. Many OEMs have multiple validation programs underway (hybrid, PHEV, BEV programs) and each program usually has one or more potential suppliers. In addition, internal RD the potential repurposing of batteries for automotive vocations into stationary energy storage use for alternative energy “micro-grids” and grid stabilization and support applications; enable third-party or other non-conventional ownership, such as battery leasing and other “battery as a service” models, and; allow the net present value (NPV) of battery re-use and recycling services to be brought forward into the initial transaction as “residual value.” If a battery odometer is so valuable — What does it take to create one? Why should the stationary energy storage industry care about its development? Why is it so hard to create standards at this stage of the development of the advanced automotive and stationary storage industries? What can the stationary energy storage industry learn from the most recent efforts in battery aging prognostics from the automotive industry?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
