October 23, 2016

Estimated Production Costs of Current-Future Lithium-ion Batteries for Submarine

Further to Submarine Matters' Cost of Lithium-ion Batteries One Major Reason Why RAN Won't Adopt Them, of October 21, 2016.

Thanks to new data, we have more insight into the price of Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs).

12 million yen/battery-module for LIBs is a reasonable price, though it looks very expensive. Both operating life and energy density of LIBs are twice as much as those of Lead-acid Batteries (LABs) according to Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD). The price of LIBs actually corresponds to four times (=  twice operating life x twice energy density) the price of LABs.

Translation of Parts of Sources [1] and [2] Produces

"Quantitative Research on Scenario for Realization of Low Carbon Society”
 by Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), Feb/16/2016, reference 2, page 9.

 "Construction of Technology Scenario based on Structuring of Basic Technology: Secondary Battery” by JST, on page 36, is Figure 2-5-3 Relationship between production cost (yen/Wh) and scale for lithium ion batteries
(Bars mean labor, equipment, utilities (electricity, etc) and raw material costs from top to bottom)

2.5.2 Calculation of Production Cost of Lithium Ion Battery by Sructuring Pocedure
(1) Calculation of Production Cost by Structuring of Production Process

Cost calculations show that the production cost of cylindrical LIBs with annual production scale of 10 GWh is 17 yen/Wh as shown in Figure 2-5-3 (standard case, middle). Raw material and utilities costs in variable cost are 77% and 4%, respectively. Equipment and labor costs in fixed cost are 15% and 3%, respectively. Raw material cost is highest.

TABLE 
Current Status and Future Senarios for Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) [based on Sources [1] and [2]?]


Current (2016)
FY 2020
FY 2030

Ni based battery
Ni based battery
Li2O based battery
Production Scale [GWh/y]
1
10
10
Yield [%]
66
90
90
Energy Density [Wh/kg]
250
340
500
Cathode/Anode
LiNi0.85Co0.12Al0.3O2
/graphite
LiNi0.85Co0.12Al0.3O2
/graphite
Co-Li2O/SiO
Cathode/Anode Capacity Density
[nAh/g]
200/300
270/380
440/2000
Ratio of actual capacity vs theoretical capacity of Cathode /Anode
0.71/0.78
0.97/0.99
0.75/0.75
Production Costs [Yen/Wh]



Variable Cost
Raw matterial
10.2
4.8
2.8
Utilities
0.5
0.4
0.3
Fixed Cost

3.2
1.4
2.1
Total Production Cost  [Yen/Wh]
13.9
6.6
5.2



COMMENTS ON TABLE

As the LIBs cost and efficiency estimates progress from 2016, to 2020, to 2030:

-  Production (in terms of GWh/y) Scale increases by a factor of 10.

-  Yield increases frrom 66% to 90. [how is Yield calculated?]

-  Energy Density, in Wh/kg, increases from 250, to 340, to 500.

-  Cathode/Anode substances change from LiNi0.85Co0.12Al0.3O2 /graphite  to  Co-Li2O/SiO

-  note that "Cathode/Anode Capacity Density [nAh/g]"  AND  "Ratio of actual capacity vs 
   theoretical capacity of Cathode /Anode"

-  Production Costs (both Variable and Fixed) decline.

-  Total Production Costs, in terms of Yen/Wh, decline.

Other conclusions?

Friend - all the translation, calculations and data.
Pete - derived COMMENTS ON TABLE

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

In LIBs for electric energy storage equipment for ship, the manufacturer of single cell or battery has to satisfy requirements of safety management system as well as those of products. In the case of submarine, additionally, submarine-specific requirements of both management system and products have to be satisfied. As satisfaction of all requirements needs detail knowledge and rich experiences on submarine, actually, only GS YUASA is possible manufacturer in Japan.

As requirements for ship, the manufacturer analyze hazard source and assess risk from production, assembly/installation,use to disposal by using such as FTA(Fault Tree Analysis)[1], FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) [2] and SIL(Safety Integrity Level) [3].

Procedures of analysis of hazard source, risk assessment and risk reduction are as follows: i) abstraction of potential element as hazard source (such as recharge after over discharge, EMC, shock, etc) should be abstracted, iii) risk should be assessed based on magnitude of effect and probability of hazard source, and iii) target of safety standard should be established and activities of risk reduction should be conducted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_tree_analysis
FTA is a top down, deductive failure analysis in which an undesired state of a system is analyzed using Boolean logic to combine a series of lower-level events.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_mode_and_effects_analysis

FMEA is often the first step of a system reliability study. It involves reviewing as many components, assemblies, and subsystems as possible to identify failure modes, and their causes and effects.
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_integrity_level
SIL is defined as a relative level of risk-reduction provided by a safety function, or to specify a target level of risk reduction. In simple terms, SIL is a measurement of performance required for a safety instrumented function (SIF).

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

Before correction
Procedures of analysis of hazard source, risk assessment and risk reduction are as follows: i) abstraction of potential

After correction (abstraction --> extraction)
Procedures of analysis of hazard source, risk assessment and risk reduction are as follows: i) extraction of potential

Peter Coates said...

[shifted from a dead link article]

Wispywood2344 http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/ said

Hi Pete.

ATLA says that a new LIB unit has "50+% longer cycle life" and "100+% higher energy density" and "nearly same dimensions" than a conventional LAB unit.[1]

This indicates that the total electric energy which the new LIB unit can charge and recharge in its lifetime is 3+ times larger than that of LAB.

In other words, lifetime of new LIB is 3+ times longer than that of LAB.

Considering lifetime of LABs in Soryu Mk.1s (6 years [2]), Soryu Mk.2s may need replace their LIBs every 18 years.

(Soryu Mk.2s, which lifetime is assumed to be 24 years, might not need battery replacement in their lifetime.)

Due to longer battery lifetime, the life cycle cost (for 15 years) of Soryu Mk.2 is lower than that of Soryu Mk.1.[3]

[1]"Policy evaluation report of MoD in FY2006 (Post project review)", R&D on new submarine main battery.
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/hyouka/seisaku/results/18/jigo/honbun/jigo05_honbun.pdf#page=2
English version is available here;
http://gentleseas.blogspot.jp/2015/10/japan-fine-tuning-campaign-for.html?showComment=1444649621692#c5200890535263077644
[2]"Administarive rewiew of MoD in FY2014", Submarine battery replacement.
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/others/service/kanshi_koritsu/h26/h26_gijiroku.pdf#page=19
[3]http://jp.reuters.com/article/idJPT9N0SO00G20141118

Regards
Wispwood2344

Peter Coates said...

Thanks Wispwood2344

I'll use the info, that you have provided, in a future LIBs to LSBs article.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

I understand that LIBs show 50% longer cycle life and 100% higher energy density than LABs and that LABs show 6 years life time of LABs.

According to studies on lifetime of stationary LIBs [1, 2], performace degradation of LIBs consists of two elements: i) number of charge-discharge cycle, and ii) total elapsed period (sum of operation and non-operation periods). The performance degradation in storage (=total elapsed period) is not sometimes negligible.

As testing conditions (type of LIBs, stationary LIBs, operation, etc) of these studies are different from those of submarine LIBs operation, insights from these studies do not directly reflect lifetime of submarine LIBs. But, in terms of long operation, effect of storage period on performance should be taken into account.

[1] http://criepi.denken.or.jp/jp/kenkikaku/report/download/RZtgHGpwfkDLsFYkmWUbojaNEYqE4deB/report.pdf
“Life Evaluation of Lithium-Ion Battery in Leveling Operation with Photovoltaic Power Generation”, CRIEPI (Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry) MSL (Materials Science Laboratory) Report No. Q11015 appoved in May/22/2012, Y. Kobayashi, et al.

[2] http://criepi.denken.or.jp/jp/kenkikaku/report/download/7726o0Ny7GO0gSV2QyQzGZQO5p8nXqxk/report.pdf
“Development of Lifetime Evaluation Method of Lithium-Ion Battery for Stationary Use (1) - Analysis of the Capacity Change by Separating the Fading Factors –“, CRIEPI MSL Rep. No. Q14009 appoved in May/27/2015, H. Yoshida, et al.

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Reference of comment (30/10/16 3:54 PM) can be accessed by following addresses.

[1] http://criepi.denken.or.jp/jp/kenkikaku/report/detail/Q11015.html
(Full text in JPN is available from PDF file in this page)

[2] http://criepi.denken.or.jp/jp/kenkikaku/report/detail/Q14009.html
(Full text in JPN is available from PDF file in this page)
Final goal of this study is cost reduction and ensurance of reliability of large scale LIBs for long run of 20 years.
Figure 12 (page 12) shows schematic capacity change with time. Total capacity reduction (=grey solid line-blach solid line) is consisted of i) contribution of charge/dischage cycle (=grey solid line – dotted line), and ii) contribution of storage (=dotted line – black line).

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

I introduce a professional article which summarizes the main points of lifetime and reliability of battery [1].

[1] http://ijesat.org/Volumes/2012_Vol_02_Iss_05/IJESAT_2012_02_05_06.pdf
“Improvemen of lifetime and reliability of battery”, International Journal of Engineering Science & Advanced Technology, Vol.2, Issue 5, page 1210, E.S.Kumar et al.

Regards

Peter Coates said...

Thanks S [for 30/10/16 3:54 PM 30/10/16 7:30 PM and]

I certainly have enough new information to write:

- another article on LIBs, and

- one on LSBs.

Regards

Pete