Universal Technical Institute (UTI), a Phoenix-based school that was founded in 1965, is adding a new EV-oriented curriculum to its Ford FACT (Ford Accelerated Credential Training) program. The new course is another step in UTI’s strategy of offering new EV certifications in certain manufacturer-specific advanced training (MSAT) programs.
Nine of UTI’s 14 campuses currently offer Ford FACT, a 15-week advanced training program. Since Ford and UTI launched FACT in 1999, more than 25,000 students have graduated from the program.
The new Ford EV curriculum will feature blended learning courses on High Voltage Systems Safety, Hybrid Vehicle Components and Operation, Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) Components and Operation and an introduction to High Voltage Battery Service, as well as a Ford instructor-led class on Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Operation and Diagnosis.
Ford FACT graduates will have the opportunity to achieve Ford’s High Voltage Systems Certification, in addition to the 11 certifications the program already offers. Ford FACT graduates also train in three additional certification pathways that require certain classes to be taken at a Ford training center.
Ford is providing a new PHEV vehicle to each campus to provide students with hands-on training.
“Ford has been working with UTI for more than 20 years to ensure our students receive state-of-the-industry training,” said UTI CEO Jerome Grant. “Demand for our graduates remains strong, and by staying at the forefront of new technologies like EV, we are building the workforce of tomorrow and supplying automakers like Ford with the skilled technicians they need to adapt to consumer demand.”
“Ford has been investing in building a pipeline of qualified technicians for years now, and our alliance with Universal Technical Institute allows us to do that through the Ford FACT program,” said Elizabeth Tarquinto, Ford Manager of Technical Support Operations, NA. “The enhancements we’re making to the program ensure that Ford and Lincoln Dealers across the country will be able to find certified technicians ready to work on the vehicles of the future, and help them keep up with consumer demand for hybrid and electric vehicle service.”
A large-scale system for efficiently recycling batteries will be a critical part of the new clean energy ecosystem. However, battery manufacturers and automakers may well be concerned that recycled products may be lower in quality than those built from newly mined minerals.
Now a team of researchers has developed a recycling method that involves refurbishing the cathode, and they claim that batteries they made with their new technique perform just as well as those with a cathode made from scratch—or maybe even better.
Current recycling methods typically involve dismantling and shredding the entire battery, then either melting it down or dissolving it in acid to produce black mass, from which chemical elements or simple compounds can be extracted. The recovered chemicals then go through the standard manufacturing process to make new cathodes.
Professor Wang and his colleagues use a similar process, but they keep some of the components of the cathode intact. After shredding the battery, they physically remove the less-valuable parts (such as the electronic circuits and steel casing) and recycle them separately. Most of what’s left is the cathode material, which they dissolve in acid and purify. Next, they add carefully-calibrated amounts of fresh elements such as nickel and cobalt, ensuring that the ratio of ingredients is optimal. The result is a “refreshed” cathode powder, which can be used in a new battery.
Slight changes to the structure or composition of a cathode can compromise performance, Professor Emma Kendrick of the University of Birmingham (who was not involved in the new study) explained to Scientific American. Thus, much of the cathode powder’s value is “in how you’ve engineered the particles [of powder] in the first place.”
Wang and his colleagues compared the particles in their recycled cathode powder with those in commercially manufactured cathode powder, and found that their powder particles were more porous. This reduced cracking, which is a major cause of battery degradation. More pores also mean more exposed surface area, which can enable faster charging.
Linda Gaines of the Argonne National Laboratory (not involved in the new study) told SA that “the cathode they can make is as good as—or even better than—the commercial material that we’ve been importing.”
Professor Wang has co-founded a company called Ascend Elements to scale up the new recycling process. The company recently announced plans to open a battery recycling facility in Georgia later this year, where it will recycle lithium, cobalt and nickel.
Tesla has announced a new round of investment aimed at expanding production at Gigafactory Shanghai. Reuters reports that Tesla recently filed documents with the local city government to allow an expansion of its parts production in order to meet growing demand for exports. The automaker plans to add production workshops, increase the number of workers at the plant and increase the time equipment is operational.
Last year, Tesla announced that Gigafactory Shanghai had surpassed the company’s Fremont factory in production capacity. Tesla has made the Chinese factory its main export hub. In 2021, Tesla sold over 470,000 China-made cars, of which more than 160,000 were exported, according to the Xinhua news agency.
As of the end of 2021, the Shanghai Gig’s annualized production rate had grown to over 800,000 vehicles, and the company appears to be moving full speed ahead with more expansion. The latest investment announcement is in addition to plans announced in November, which included investing around $190 million and adding 4,000 more employees to the current headcount of 15,000.
Elon Musk has said that he envisions the factory producing over a million vehicles per year.
CATL, Tesla’s main battery cell supplier in China, is currently building a battery factory near Gigafactory Shanghai, which is expected to have a capacity of 80 GWh per year—enough to power some 800,000 EVs.
Just a couple of days after the news of the new investment broke, “two people familiar with the matter” told Reuters that Tesla plans to start work on an entire second factory in Shanghai, possibly as soon as next month. If and when the new plant comes online, the automaker’s production capacity in China could be as much as two million cars per year.
In today’s fast-paced world the need to create quicker, more mobile mechanical devices is steadily increasing. One primary method for doing this is to replace traditional gas-powered or plugged-in devices with battery power. Batteries have become smaller and increasingly efficient as a result. In order to keep up with the rate of technology advancement, the equipment used to test advanced technology must also be advanced, flexible, and responsive. For these reasons, the PSB bidirectional programmable DC power supply series by EA Elektro-Automatik is a perfect fit for advanced battery test. The PSB bidirectional supply can seamlessly switch between providing power to charge the battery and controlling the discharge of the battery.
Specifying just the right equipment, the following will provide some basic guidance and considerations on how to build a robust battery test system to ensure the safety and proper functioning of all test equipment and batteries under test.
FlexGen Power Systems, a provider of energy storage systems and related software, has launched a new system called Plug & Play FlexGen EV Charging Services, which uses the company’s updated HybridOS 9.3 energy management system platform.
FlexGen’s EV charging solution provides a containerized energy storage system that’s designed to optimize energy consumption to ensure maximum value to charging network operators. In addition to energy services for EV Charging, HybridOS 9.3 expands microgrid capabilities to ensure that charging stations can still deliver, regardless of what is happening on the power grid.
FlexGen’s HybridOS automatically optimizes energy usage and power demand for the charging station, ensuring that it never exceeds physical limits and minimizes utility demand charges. The platform is designed to integrate seamlessly with on-site energy resources, and it supports both greenfield and brownfield charging deployments.
FlexGen’s platform also enables participation in regional power markets and demand response programs.
FlexGen currently operates energy storage assets at several sites in the US. Customers include investor-owned utilities, municipalities, cooperative utilities and independent power producers.
“EV’s are the future, and flexible, advanced, available EV charging is the most important step to realizing that future,” said Kelcy Pegler, CEO of FlexGen. “We’re committed to delivering solutions that allow our customers to meet the full range of operational and commercial demands today, while anticipating the needs of tomorrow. Software is the key to meeting those needs. In fact, software is quickly becoming the most important aspect of the energy grid.”
UK startup Britishvolt, which has an ambitious plan to build one of the UK’s few large-scale battery factories, has secured £40 million in new investment from mining giant Glencore.
Britishvolt aims to triple its funding with £200 million in a third funding round, with Glencore serving as the anchor investor. Earlier funding rounds valued Britishvolt at over £740 million ($1 billion).
Global battery supply is currently dominated by manufacturers in China, Japan and South Korea, and European governments are keen to catch up. The UK government has backed the Britishvolt project with £100 million from its Automotive Transformation Fund.
Britishvolt has already carried out preparatory work on its site near Blyth in Northumberland, and construction is due to start in April. Britishvolt expects the new factory to reach 30 GWh peak annual production—enough cells to make 300,000 batteries a year—and to create some 3,000 jobs.
Meanwhile, four separate automotive manufacturers, including Lotus, have signed memorandums of understanding with Britishvolt. The company says this represents demand for 7 GWh of battery capacity.
Kasra Pezeshki, Britishvolt’s Chief Investment Officer, said: “We are excited by the number of potential growth and investment opportunities available to the business. Our interactions with the capital markets and customers show that demand for low-carbon, responsibly manufactured batteries is rapidly growing day by day.”
Buyers of the new Kia EV6 will receive 1,000 kWh of complimentary charging at any Electrify America station across the US—which translates to approximately 3,500 to 4,000 miles of electric driving—within three years from the date of purchase.
EV6 buyers will receive an enrollment code through the Kia Connect in-car telematics system, and will be able to use Electrify America’s mobile app and 24-hour Customer Contact Center.
The EV6 features a 77.4 kWh battery pack, an EPA-rated 310-mile range, and an 800 V multi-charging architecture. Electrify America’s fastest chargers deliver 350 kW of power, which should enable the EV6 to add around 217 miles range in under 18 minutes.
“Kia is undergoing a pivotal shift to electrification, and the all-new EV6 is the first major step in that direction, underpinned by the company’s advanced E-GMP platform,” said Steve Center, COO of Kia America. “Partnering with Electrify America will enable our customers to enjoy a superior charging experience.”
“Our collaboration with Kia is an excellent example of how automakers are helping customers make the transition to an electric lifestyle easy for new EV customers,” said Electrify America CEO Giovanni Palazzo. “Electrify America is dedicated to making the switch to zero-emission vehicles seamless with convenient and reliable charging options.”
Nissan says its Canton Vehicle Assembly Plant in Mississippi will become a center for US EV production. The company is updating the plant with EV manufacturing technology to support production of two all-new EVs.
Canton Vehicle Assembly Plant, which opened in 2003, currently builds the Nissan Altima, Frontier and Titan. Nissan plans to invest $500 million to adapt the plant for EV production, and expects EV production to begin there in 2025.
Nissan’s Ambition 2030 program calls for it to launch 23 electrified models across the Nissan and Infiniti brands, including 15 pure EVs, by 2030. The company hopes to make 40 percent of its US vehicle sales fully electric by 2030.
“Today’s announcement is the first of several new investments that will drive the EV revolution in the US,” said Nissan COO Ashwani Gupta. “Nissan is making a strong investment in Canton’s future, bringing the latest technology, training and process to create a truly best-in-class EV manufacturing team.”
The Norwegian Postal Service has ordered 29 electric trucks from Volvo Trucks—one of the truck-maker’s largest ever in Europe. The order follows an earlier one for three electric trucks. Volvo Trucks will deliver a total of 32 electric and 13 biogas-fueled trucks to Norwegian Post in 2022.
The order includes different two- and three-axle configurations of the Volvo FL and FE models, but all the trucks have the same driveline.
According to Volvo, Norway currently has more electric trucks in service than any European country except Switzerland.
Volvo Trucks currently offers five different electric truck models in Europe, and one in North America. The Volvo FH, FM and FMX Electric are heavy-duty trucks with a total weight of up to 44 tons. They are currently on sale in Europe, and production is to start during the second half of 2022. The Volvo FL and FE Electric are aimed at city distribution and waste management applications. They went into series production in 2019 in Europe. Production of the Volvo VNR Electric for North America started in 2021.
“It is very important that the big players lead the way,” said Bjørn Inge Haugan, Sales and Marketing Director, Volvo Trucks Norway. “This kind of order clearly tells the world that regional transport with electric trucks is a feasible solution on a large scale today.”
“We want to put these vehicles in operation quickly, from Tromsø in the north to Kristiansand in the south,” said Norwegian Post Press Officer Kenneth Tjønndal Pettersen. “37 percent of our fleet now runs on renewable energy, and that share will increase significantly going forward. We have an ambitious environmental strategy, and to keep the pace up in this important work, we need quality-focused and ambitious partners like Volvo.”
EVSE manufacturer ADS-TEC Energy (NASDAQ: ADSE) has announced that Smart City Capital will be deploying more than 200 ADS-TEC Energy ultra-high-speed ChargeBox charging stations throughout Florida. This $30-million order is ADS-TEC’s second from Smart City, and the single largest order of ChargeBox units to date in the US.
Smart City also plans a third phase of deployment that is expected to deploy another 200 ADS-TEC Energy charging systems in 13 states. The two companies will use the Florida deployments, which are expected to begin in mid-2022, as a framework for the future rollouts in other states. The deployments include both public and private applications for both individual vehicles and fleets.
Smart City Capital says it chose to work with ADS-TEC Energy because of the capabilities of the ChargeBox product, combined with the company’s decade of experience in battery-buffered charging technologies. In fact, Smart City Capital has built a new division called UltraSmart Charge around its partnership with ADS-TEC Energy.
ADS-TEC Energy says its battery-buffered technology enables ultra-fast charging (up to 320 kW) on existing grids without the need for electrical infrastructure upgrades.
“No other vendor can match what ADS-TEC Energy is doing. They are the right partner, at the right time, with the industry’s most highly disruptive charging solution,” said Oscar Bode, CEO of Smart City Capital.
“Smart City Capital is breaking down the barriers to cities of all sizes becoming smart cities. We’re thrilled to be partnering with them to deploy our high-speed, battery-buffered charging stations all across the United States, without requiring a major overhaul to the power grid,” said Thomas Speidel, CEO and founder of ADS-TEC Energy.
Ascend Elements, a vertically integrated battery recycling and engineered materials company, and Koura, a producer of fluoroproducts, have announced the launch of a proprietary process that yields battery-grade graphite material from spent lithium-ion batteries. Koura’s parent company Orbia is serving as a development partner to Ascend Elements to scale the company’s technology for commercial production, and has also backed the company through several investment rounds.
Ascend is currently producing battery-grade graphite at its facility in Westborough, Massachusetts. The company says its technology consistently yields over 99.9% pure graphite, which offers energy capacity and cycle life on par with virgin battery-grade graphite anode material. Its Hydro-to-Anode process technology can be used for both cathode active materials and anode materials.
Ascend says its recycling and manufacturing processes can reclaim not only high-purity graphite, but also lithium and cobalt.
“With this advancement, we just made the case for battery recycling a lot more compelling,” says Ascend Elements CEO Michael O’Kronley. “Increasing the value of the extracted materials improves the economics of recycling, which creates an incentive for even more recycling. The ability to recover graphite for use in batteries helps solve another critical material challenge in the battery supply chain and minimizes the need for mining new materials.”
German mechanical engineering, process specialist and automated dispensing cell manufacturer bdtronic plans to offer standardized industrial ovens for heat-treating the components found in power electronics, on-board EV chargers, autonomous vehicle sensors and automotive tire-pressure sensors. The ovens are designed to cure epoxy resins, polyurethanes and silicones, as well as to preheat components.
bdtronic’s continuous ovens convey parts horizontally on two tracks. They are encapsulated to shield components from dirt, moisture and overheating. Inside, a fan and heating coil produce a longitudinal air flow that evenly heats or dries components. To minimize heat loss, the ovens have a recirculation system, special insulation and bulkheads.
The company says integrating its ovens into a production line provides many advantages, including optimizing cycle and process time, saving floor space, reducing energy consumption and improving process stability.
In the future, the company plans to manufacture the oven technology itself.
Gearing Up for the EV Road Ahead: Reliable, Convenient Fast Charging Will Drive the Future of EV Adoption
For consumers in developed nations, lifestyle convenience is ingrained. We don’t know what it’s like not to have access to necessities – food, water, clothing, housing and transportation – not to mention luxuries. When it comes to dependency on automotive transportation that, too, is built on confidence around readily-available fuel. In urban areas, there’s a gas station on every corner. The societal transformation that has occurred because of automotive technology is stunning; and, now, the auto sector is set to enter a new era of e-mobility. While electric vehicles (EVs) have been available for decades, next-generation electronic innovation and rechargeable battery technology have moved the needle from EVs as a novelty mode of transport to a reliable combustion engine alternative.
With a healthy nearly 30% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) projected over the next decade, there could be over 30 million EVs on the road globally by the year 2030(1). Consumer sentiment around battery-operated EVs has witnessed a dramatic shift in recent years, and EV sales as a percentage of total car sales have continued to steadily climb. While this is a promising development toward meeting the goals of CO2 emission reduction, a looming roadblock remains: access to charging power.
How do we keep the momentum from stalling out?
The EV charging infrastructure, while markedly improved with the expansion of EV ownership, is a long way from parity with the availability and speed of a refuel at the pump. Opportunity charging via residential or commercial (workplace and public spaces) connection comprises the vast majority of battery charging events and is the most practical for numerous reasons. An overnight plug-in at home will fully charge most EV batteries and a top-off while at work or the grocery store can help keep enough power for around town movement. But a few hours’ AC charge will not suffice for long distances like vacation travel. For extended journeys, access to robust fast charging stations that can provide a charge in 30 minutes or less is required.
Without an expansive DC fast charging infrastructure to supplement residential and public/workplace access, the projected dramatic rise of EV sales through 2030 may sputter. Numerous factors will influence accelerated development of the global charging network – from public policy to funding initiatives to technology innovation. No matter the charging level device, however, consumers expect reliability and dependability – just like the gas pump. The systems have to work and building them to last will increase trust and encourage more widespread use. Imagine pulling into a charging port to find the connector gun broken or the entire unit out of service; too many experiences like this and the enthusiasm about EV ownership may wane. For our part, Henkel is working to ensure dependability within all types of EV charging devices to shape consumer confidence at the port, just like exists at the pump. Effectively dissipating heat – all the way up to the 400 – 1000 V of fast chargers – is a key piece of the reliability equation, as are protective potting solutions for securing critical wires and coils, and gasketing materials that prevent ingress of environmental contaminants into charging units.
DC fast chargers, which is arguably where expansion is required, system reliability is a must as these units are expected to last as long as 10 years in the field. They are costly to produce and, therefore, performance and durability are critical. Functionality of the device’s workhorse power module – now smaller in size with higher power densities than previous-generation designs – can be optimized by effectively dissipating operational heat; Henkel’s low thermal resistance phase change thermal interface materials are a proven solution and a superior alternative to grease, which can lose effectiveness over time. The importance of sound thermal control cannot be overstated, especially with systems that are managing such high power. Securing the unit’s interior structure to protect its electronics is made possible with UL-certified Sonderhoff Fermapor K31 formed-in-place foam gasketing (FIPFG) system, which allows high automation, fast deposition for complex shapes and changing designs. Units are protected from dust, moisture and other environmental contaminants while delivering fast shape recovery for confident serviceability. And, as drivers will attest, charging connectors take a beating with users plugging and unplugging quickly. High-performance, cost-effective potting materials fully encapsulate the cables and wires within the charging gun connectors to provide rugged durability in changing outdoor environments and manage the stress induced during user plug-ins.
While these are only a few examples of Henkel material solutions in the EV charging infrastructure ecosystem, they are integral to building long-lasting, functionally and electrically sound devices that will foster EV owner trust and drive needed additional investment.
Charger manufacturer EvoCharge’s new iEVSE Home Charging Station is a Level 2 charger that features various smart charging capabilities. Users can schedule charge times, track history and usage, and manage multiple charging stations through the EvoCharge iEVSE Home Charging app (Android and iOS).
The iEVSE Home Charging Station features a compact design that is “smaller than a standard sheet of letter-size paper.” It is NEMA 4-rated for indoor and outdoor use in temperatures ranging from -22° to 122° F. It comes standard with a cable holster and is compatible with other EvoCharge cable management solutions, including the EvoReel retractable cable system. The charger is rated for use with a dedicated 40 A supply circuit (208-240 VAC), and can be adjusted to operate with 32 A or 20 A circuits.
The iEVSE Home Charging Station is available for direct purchase from the company’s new online store and from other retail sites. Financing options are available.
“Since 80 percent of EV charging is done at home, we evolved our home charging solution to be smarter,” said Manish Virmani, VP of Sales and Marketing for EvoCharge. “More and more utility companies are offering EV drivers incentives to schedule their charging for off-peak hours, which can be very late at night. The convenience of plugging in your vehicles when you arrive home and then managing charge start/stop times through an easy-to-use yet feature-rich app brings intelligence and even more economy to residential charging.”
Redwood Materials, the battery materials firm founded by Tesla cofounder JB Straubel, has launched a battery recycling pilot in California that aims to “establish efficient, safe and effective recovery pathways for end-of-life hybrid and EV battery packs.” Ford and Volvo are the first automakers to directly support the program, but the company will accept all Li-ion and NiMH batteries in the state.
Establishing a circular supply chain for batteries is a critical part of making EVs truly sustainable and affordable. Redwood’s goal is to create pathways for end-of-life battery packs to be collected, recycled and remanufactured into new battery materials. “While the first major wave of end-of-life electric vehicles is still a few years away, Redwood and our initial partners at Ford and Volvo are committed to creating these pathways now,” says the company.
Redwood says it’s processing most of the recycled lithium-ion batteries in North America today—some 6 GWh worth, or the equivalent of 60,000 EVs, per year. The company is ramping its processes in order to support the battery market in identifying and creating pathways to collect battery packs.
Redwood plans to work directly with dealers and dismantlers in California to identify and recover end-of-life packs. The company will safely package, transport, and recycle these batteries at its facility in Nevada, then return high-quality, recycled materials back into domestic cell production.
“Our goal is to learn, and share those learnings with the industry,” says Redwood. “We will demonstrate the value of end-of-life packs today and how we can steadily improve those economics as volumes scale up. Ultimately, our aim is to create the most effective and sustainable closed-loop system that physics and chemistry will allow for end-of-life battery packs to re-enter the domestic supply chain.”
Has a legacy automaker finally produced an EV that can challenge mighty Tesla? Consumer Reports has named the Ford Mustang Mach-E as this year’s Top Pick in the EV category, dethroning Tesla’s Model 3, which held the honor for the past two years. The Ford earned the accolade based on its Overall Score, which incorporates a road-test score, predicted reliability, owner satisfaction and safety.
Consumer Reports hasn’t soured on Tesla’s flagship vehicle—it still recommends Model 3, and calls it “a great choice” that “shines with the latest technology, a long range, an impressive charging network, and a driving experience closer to a high-performance sports car than a sedan.”
However, CR finds the Mustang Mach-E to be “more practical and easier to live with,” and says it’s also quieter and rides better. “Both cars have large infotainment center screens, but the Mach-E’s is far easier to operate and doesn’t require multiple steps to activate routine features, such as using the defroster or adjusting the mirrors, as with the Tesla.”
CR’s Reliability rating, which is a key factor in each model’s Overall Score, is based on an annual reader survey. The results of this survey kept Model Y off the mag’s list of Top Picks. “Owners reported problems with the Model Y concerning paint, body integrity, body hardware, power equipment, and the climate control system.”
CR found Model 3 to have “an average predicted reliability score,” whereas survey respondents reported “very few problems with the Mustang Mach-E.”
As driver assistance systems have become more prevalent, CR has become a strong proponent of autonomy features that promote safety, such as collision avoidance systems. CR’s testers place a lot of importance on a vehicle’s driver monitoring system. These systems are designed to prevent drivers from relying too much on self-driving features, by giving appropriate warnings when the driver’s attention wanders.
Beginning this year, CR is adding 2 points to a vehicle’s Overall Score if it has an active driving assistance system with “an adequate driver monitoring system.” The Mach-E’s BlueCruise active driving assistance system scored the extra 2 points. Tesla’s Autopilot system did not. Apparently, just resting one hand on the steering wheel is enough to keep Autopilot active, and that allows drivers to look away from the road, or fiddle with their phones.
Charged’s home state of Florida is something of an EV hotspot—there are an estimated 58,000 electric vehicles in the Sunshine State, and according to the DOE, Florida has the third-largest number of charging stations in the US, behind only California and New York.
This progress is not the result of any particular pro-EV policies of the state government. Unlike the two aforementioned states, Florida offers no state-level incentives to EV buyers. In 2020, and again in 2021, the state legislature introduced bills that would have slapped a special tax on EV owners (both failed to pass). State lawmakers are currently considering a utility-sponsored bill that many say would cripple the state’s booming rooftop solar industry.
So, when we read that a Florida House committee had approved House Bill 737, which would prohibit utilities from passing on the cost of deploying public charging stations to their customers, it sounded like another anti-EV bill. The bill “makes sure that you and I as homeowners, as residential customers of electricity, don’t have to pay the costs of charging stations,” said the bill’s sponsor, State Representative David Borrero (R-Miami).
Borrero’s concern for utility ratepayers is—shall we say—unusual for a Florida lawmaker. In the past, the Republican-controlled legislature has allowed Florida utilities to pass on billions of dollars’ worth of costs to their customers for various unpopular projects, including natural gas exploration in other states, nuclear power plants that were never built, and “upgrades” to, and later the decommissioning of, the Crystal River nuke plant.
Florida, along with several other states, generally prohibits any entity other than a regulated utility from selling electricity to retail customers. However, in 2012, the legislature created an exemption for EV charging. Since then, according to the Tampa Bay Times, the state’s investor-owned electric utilities have been the primary investors in the public charging market.
In 2021, the Florida Public Service Commission approved Florida Power & Light’s request for its customers to finance $175 million worth of charging infrastructure. Duke Energy won approval for $63 million, and Tampa Electric for $2 million.
Borrero argued that this amounts to a subsidy for more affluent EV drivers, at the expense of ICE drivers, and drew a comparison to the argument that Florida utilities are making against net metering, which they claim benefits those who own solar systems at the expense of those who do not. Some industry analysts consider the argument to be a spurious one (rooftop solar currently generates about 0.5% of Florida’s electrical energy). In any case, it’s akin to the position that childless people shouldn’t have to pay taxes for schools. A literate workforce, cleaner air and a more resilient electrical grid are societal goods that benefit everyone.
So, is Borrero’s bill just another of the thousand cuts designed to slow down EV adoption? Well, it’s not that simple. The bill has the support of charging network operator Chargepoint, as well as Racetrac, a gas station chain that has considered the idea of offering EV charging. Some fear that giant utilities could soon dominate public charging, leaving no room for independent network operators and limiting consumer choice.
Allowing utilities to pass on the cost of building charging stations to ratepayers “gives the investor-owned utilities a significant unfair competitive advantage over third parties like gas stations, or other electricity pump-station manufacturers from being able to enter into the field,” Borrero argues. “The current framework has the effect of preventing other companies from also participating in this field.”
This is a battle that’s also being waged in other locations. In 2015, California enacted a law that allowed utilities to have a central role in rolling out infrastructure, but included measures designed to protect independent charging operators. (ChargePoint supported the law, as did several of the investor-owned utilities).
The Florida charging bill may not become law this year. The Florida legislature has a full (and highly controversial) plate this session, and Senator Keith Perry, (R-Alachua), the sponsor of a companion bill in the Florida Senate, concedes that “time may be running out.”
However, as the charging industry expands, we’ll see this issue crop up again. Hopefully, policymakers will find solutions that allow utilities to use their massive resources to get infrastructure rolled out quickly, but not to squeeze out independent operators.
Utility demand charges—steep fees that commercial customers pay when their power consumption exceeds a certain level—are the bane of public charging operators, and most Charged readers are probably familiar with how they work. Average Joe and Jane, however, are blissfully ignorant of their existence, and might be shocked to learn that they represent a roadblock to more public charging deployment.
In a recent op-ed piece in the Tampa Bay Times, Florida Senator Jeff Brandes set out to educate the public about these nefarious charges. (Ironically, Republican Jeff Brandes, who represents Charged’s home town of St. Petersburg, is not known as a friend of EVs—in 2020, and again in 2021, he sponsored bills that would have imposed a special yearly tax on plug-in vehicle owners.)
Senator Brandes points out that, under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Florida is expected to receive some $198 million in federal funding for charging infrastructure, and that the state needs to “allocate these funds in a way that prioritizes a competitive charging marketplace and supports private sector investments.” (One of Brandes’s colleagues has introduced a bill that would supposedly promote competition in the charging market.)
Demand charges are especially onerous for small businesses that want to install DC fast chargers. A small store or restaurant’s average energy use may be relatively low, but even moderate usage of a typical DC fast charging station can cause a spike in energy consumption that incurs a demand charge. “In many cases, these additional fees make it hard for charging station hosts to break even on charging costs, let alone begin recouping the costs associated with the initial installation,” writes Brandes.
Last June, the Florida Department of Transportation released an EV Infrastructure Master Plan, which listed utility demand charges as a primary barrier to public charging station deployment.
The document reads, in part:
EV charging station companies are concerned that through the rate structure, demand charges by utilities are an impediment to DC fast charging infrastructure. Fast charging stations are commercial customers billed under rate schedules that include an energy charge (based on the amount of energy consumed, or kWh) and a demand charge (dollar per kW). The demand charge is based on the highest usage, or demand, over a specified time interval (15 or 30 minutes). This peak usage determines the demand charge for the billing month.
Demand charges…challenge the economics of public fast charging stations that experience a high peak demand, but low levels of kWh energy sales, or utilization. Peak demand at an infrequently used site could be determined by the single customer of that site with the highest demand, rather than an aggregate from multiple users charging at the sites busiest time. At low levels of utilization, the bill incurred by the charging stations result in demand charges being spread over a low volume of energy sales. Stations with higher kWh sales spread the demand charge over more energy sales and are more likely to recover costs. In addition to evaluating whether demand charges are appropriate for EV charging, utilities may consider how rate structure can help manage the additional demand created by vehicle charging. Time-of-use rates, based upon the cost of producing energy during different segments of the day, can be a mechanism for encouraging EV charging during off-peak hours.
Brandes argues that charging stations should be exempt from demand charges, and any public charging operator would probably agree.
Last November, The Regulatory Commission of Alaska, which manages public utilities in the state, approved a set of rate structure changes that eliminate demand charges for EV chargers. (The revision also allows businesses hosting charging stations to charge for electricity by the kWh, a reform that Florida regulators made in 2012.)
“Electric vehicles are the future, and Florida needs to be ready to meet the needs of this growing industry with the infrastructure required to support it,” writes Brandes. “While Florida has taken promising steps toward an electrified future, lawmakers and utility regulators must work together to take the necessary steps to promote fair competition in the charging station marketplace.”
The long-awaited opening of Tesla’s Supercharger network recently took another leap forward as the company expanded access for non-Tesla EVs to all 36 of its locations in the Netherlands. To start using the Superchargers, drivers of CCS-equipped EVs simply need to download the Tesla app.
Tesla took the first step towards an open network in November 2021, with a “Non-Tesla Supercharger pilot” at 10 locations in the Netherlands. The automaker started with a small number of sites so that it could “review the experience, monitor congestion and assess feedback before expanding.”
Opening up the network will be good news for overall EV adoption, and probably for Tesla, which could win some customers from other brands, but existing Tesla owners are naturally concerned about increased traffic at charging stations.
Last month, the automaker announced that the program will expand to more stations in Norway and France.
Tesla is expected to gradually open up the network throughout Europe, and eventually in North America. However, the latter will be a more complex proposition, as Tesla uses its own proprietary plug rather than the CCS connector. Non-Tesla EV drivers will need a plug adapter, and as some EV owners have pointed out, Tesla may need to make other modifications, such as installing longer cables to accommodate vehicles with charging ports in other locations.
Any such updates will be well worth making, however—Tesla will need to make its network available to all EVs if it hopes to benefit from some of the federal subsidies for EV infrastructure that are expected to start flowing later this year. (No, Elon Musk’s recent fling against government subsidies was not meant for general audiences.)
For those who want to go electric, but have an attachment (sentimental or otherwise) to a particular vehicle, and have the money to pay for what they want, an EV conversion is the way to go. Until recently, conversions have been the exclusive province of independent specialty shops, but the lively scene is starting to attract interest from OEMs—Ford recently introduced its own crate motor.
Now Mini has gone further, offering complete factory EV conversions for its classic models. Under the Mini Recharged program, classic Austin Mini owners will be able to commission a conversion that will replace the vehicle’s gas engine with an electric motor and a high-voltage battery pack.
The rejuvenated Mini will have a range of about 100 miles, continuous output of up to 90 kW (120 hp), and 6.6 kW charging. The conversion is designed to be reversible—Mini says it will remove the engines and store them, making it possible to “restore the classic Mini to its original condition at a later date.”
The company isn’t offering many more details. What size is the battery, and where will it go? Will the conversion retain all of the vehicle’s passenger and trunk space? Autoweek notes that the current Mini Cooper SE Electric (which is itself a conversion of a gas vehicle) has a 32.6 kWh battery pack and an EPA-estimated range of 110 miles, and speculates that the Mini Recharged will have a smaller pack located where the gas tank was.
The “bespoke upcycling” of the classic Mini will be carried out exclusively in the UK, and Mini has not offered any pricing information (If you have to ask…).
“What the project team are developing preserves the character of the classic Mini and enables its fans to enjoy all-electric performance,” says Bernd Körber, Head of the Mini brand. “With Mini Recharged, we are connecting the past with the future of the brand.”
BYD has introduced a Type A battery-electric school bus that features vehicle-to-grid technology, allowing the vehicle to serve as a power storage resource when it’s not transporting students.
Type A school buses are typically used on routes with fewer students, or for transporting students with disabilities. The BYD Type A can seat up to 30, and is available in lengths of 26.7, 24.5 or 22.9 feet. It can be equipped with an ADA liftgate capable of lifting 800 pounds. Standard safety features include electronic stability control and an electronic braking system.
The bus features a lithium iron phosphate battery, and has a range of up to 140 miles. BYD offers two charging solutions: 19.2 kW single-phase AC and 150 kW DC.
BYD says its battery-electric technology can cut fuel costs and maintenance costs by as much as 60% compared to diesel vehicles.
“Just like our Type D bus introduced last year, our Type A bus bidirectional charging capability is a game-changer,” said Samuel Kang, BYD’s Head of Total Technology Solutions. “School buses can be charged overnight when energy demand is low, and clean emission-free energy can be fed back into the classroom during school hours when the bus is parked.”
Graphex Technologies, a subsidiary of Graphex Group, has agreed to form a joint venture with Michigan-based Emerald Energy Solutions to build and operate a graphite processing facility. The JV is considering “several Michigan sites as well as other sites,” and the final site selection is expected in March.
Graphex hopes to have a facility operational before the end of Q2 2023, with an initial capacity to deliver 10,000 metric tons per year of coated spherical graphite, which is used in EV battery anodes. The company says it will be able to increase the plant’s capacity to 20,000 tons per year quickly to meet increased demand.
Graphex has been “proficient” in commercial graphite processing since 2013, and is currently producing over 10,000 metric tons of spherical graphite annually.
EES specializes in the construction of manufacturing facilities. Its Emerald Business Park, a 23-acre industrial park in Warren, Michigan was recently upcycled into several manufacturing and processing facilities.
“The establishment of a US-based facility represents one of many steps in Graphex’s expansion plans,” said John DeMaio, President of the Graphene Division of Graphex. “While localizing this integral element of the EV supply chain certainly creates commercial opportunity, we are equally pleased to be able to import technological expertise and create well-paying jobs in the US.”
“Global EV growth creates unprecedented demand for battery materials, and graphite continues to be a key material in future battery chemistries,” said David Halabu, Managing Partner of EES. “Detroit is positioning itself to be a global leader not only in traditional automobile manufacturing, but also the leader in EV manufacturing.”
Two Russian firms—software developer 4xxi and charger manufacturer L-Charge—are collaborating to create an off-grid EV charging network in London that’s scheduled to be launched this year.
L-Charge’s “rapidly scalable off-grid ultra-fast chargers” use energy from locally-stored fossil fuels rather than the electrical grid. L-Charge has tested a mobile gas-powered charging station in Moscow, and plans to use this to offer on-demand charging in London. The mobile station is “a truck with a set of equipment installed onboard operating on the principle of the gas power plant.” Customers can call for a charge via a mobile app, and can book charging in advance at pre-scheduled times.
“Using hydrogen or an LNG/H2 mixture instead of connecting to the power grid connection is the most efficient way to provide power on-site,” says L-Charge CEO Dmitry Lashin. “Low-carbon fuels are currently the most economically feasible solution, and can be used as a bridging technology towards a carbon-neutral solution such as hydrogen. Even using pure LNG to charge EVs we are already substantially reducing emissions.”
There’s a good argument to be made that legacy automakers that are serious about electrification might do well to spin off their EVs as separate brands. Christiaan Hetzner writes in Fortune that Ford CEO Jim Farley—intentionally or not—made a case for doing just that in a recent earnings call.
When asked whether Ford should separate its legacy ICE vehicles and its EVs, Farley told investors: “I’m struck at how different the rhythm of this digital BEV business is versus ICE. Running a successful ICE business and a successful BEV business is not the same.”
“The customers are different, we think the go-to-market is going to have to be different,” Farley continued. “The kind of products we develop are different, the procurement supply chain is all different, the talent is different, the level of in-sourcing is different.”
Farley noted that the engineering of EVs can be much simpler, which could present an opportunity for higher margins. He also conceded that Ford had been caught by surprise by the huge level of demand for the F-150 Lightning, and had to quickly expand planned production volume, “knocking down walls in our Rouge Electric Vehicle Center while the mortar was still wet.”
Even with the recent expansion, production of the Lightning is constrained by a lack of factory capacity. “If we had full production today to meet our current demand, we would rival the [Tesla] Model Y as the leading BEV nameplate in the US market,” Farley said.
Battery and metal recycling technology company Nth Cycle has raised $12.5 million in Series A funding, which it will use to deploy the first commercial units of its electro-extraction technology to recycling facilities in 2022 and to grow its technical and development staff.
Nth Cycle’s electro-extraction technology uses electricity and carbon filters to recover cobalt and nickel from discarded batteries, low-grade ores and mine site waste. Compared to the pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical methods commonly used by battery recyclers and mining companies, Nth Cycle says electro-extraction is cleaner and costs less. Since its launch in 2021, Nth Cycle has doubled the size of its team, tripled the footprint of its facilities in Massachusetts and finished second at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in 2021.
Nth Cycle expects to announce customer deals in the first quarter of 2022 and plans to perform a full commercial demonstration by April.
Charging station manufacturer EOS Linx has announced a collaboration with Choice Hotels International, a lodging franchisor with a portfolio of over 7,100 hotels in 40 countries, to install EOS Charge Stations at selected properties. The first set will be installed at Choice Hotels franchised properties in Atlanta, Chattanooga, and Nashville during the first quarter of this year. Additional locations across the US are to be added following a successful pilot program.
The EOS comprehensive product suite includes solar power generation and storage, AI-based security and out-of-home advertising. Each EOS Charge Station includes a 75-inch digital advertising display, which can also be used to broadcast public service announcements.
“Choice Hotels properties are often located close to highways, making them ideal locations for EV chargers,” says Blake Snider, President of EOS Linx.
“This will provide drivers with access to EV chargers while traveling, and potentially uncover new customer engagement opportunities for our 6,000-plus domestic franchised hotels,” says Rick Summa, VP of Partner Services at Choice Hotels International.
In the previous article, we looked at the various losses incurred on the AC side of the circuit while charging an EV’s battery (from the breaker in the load center to the EVSE inlet on the EV), as well as things that could be done to minimize them, either by the OEM, the electrical contractor or the EV owner. This time our focus will shift over to the DC side of the circuit (and more specifically, the charger itself).
Regardless of where the charger is actually located—either onboard the EV or within a curbside DC fast charging station—a few basic functional requirements will be common to all chargers: provide galvanic isolation between the AC mains and the EV (i.e. have a transformer for isolation somewhere in the circuit); regulate and/or limit the current and voltage to the battery (i.e. be capable of constant current [CC] or constant voltage [CV] operation); and, more than likely, ensure the current waveform drawn from the mains is aligned in time and magnitude with the voltage waveform (in other words, perform power factor correction, or PFC). Unsurprisingly, there are numerous potential solutions to performing all three functions, but for the sake of not turning this article into a proverbial “Homeric catalog of ships,” we’ll just concentrate on the most common configurations—ignoring, for example, the use of a mains-frequency transformer for isolation, or so-called “single-stage” PFC and isolation converter topologies (which inevitably perform no function terribly well).
Basic requirements common to all chargers include: provide galvanic isolation between the AC mains and the EV; regulate the current and voltage to the battery; and perform power factor correction.
Assuming that isolation will be done with a high-frequency transformer, rather than a mains-frequency one, the first stage of the DC charger is the mains-frequency rectifier. For chargers that also do PFC—pretty much all of them these days—a bridge rectifier with a very small amount of filter capacitance (strictly to reduce noise and transients from the mains) will be used to produce sinusoidally-pulsating DC with a ripple frequency that is twice the mains frequency (i.e. 120 Hz for 60 Hz mains) and a peak value that is approximately 1.4x the RMS value of the mains voltage (~165 VDC for 120 VAC mains, or ~330 VDC for 240 VAC). The following PFC stage will then convert that pulsating DC to a much more smoothed-out DC with an average value close to 400 VDC, typically using a boost converter. Since the same DC bus voltage is produced regardless of the AC mains input voltage, this configuration is commonly described as universal input—meaning that the onboard charger can be plugged into either a 120 VAC or 240 VAC outlet without any action or concern on the part of the user to ensure things don’t blow up. Finally, there are the transformer isolation and CC/CV regulation functions, which are usually performed by a single converter. The most common converter topology used here is a full-bridge converter operating at a switching frequency of >50 kHz (typically in the range of 100 kHz-300 kHz, to be more precise) driving a high-frequency transformer. Control of the output current and/or voltage can be achieved by the conventional method of varying the duty cycle of each complementary pair of bridge switches from 0% to 50% (i.e. pulse-width modulation, or PWM), or through more exotic methods, like varying the phase shift of each pair from 0° to 180° (i.e. phase-shift modulation).
Series resonant full bridge converter:
(a) The topology of DBSRC; (b) The equivalent circuit of DBSRC.
Rectifying the AC from the mains into DC is usually done with four conventional silicon junction diodes in the bridge configuration. This puts two diodes in series with the mains at all times, and since every diode introduces a voltage drop while conducting (aka its forward voltage drop, or Vf), the humble bridge rectifier can exact a surprisingly large toll on overall charger efficiency. Diode Vf typically has a minimum value of 0.4 V to 1.8 V (depending on diode type and peak inverse voltage [PIV] rating) which also increases with current, both from simple (ohmic) resistance and a logarithmic factor of, typically, 60 mV/decade of current (also depending on diode type). Generally speaking, the faster a diode switches from conducting to blocking (i.e. its reverse recovery time, or trr) and the higher the PIV rating, the higher the initial Vf will be. Diodes operating at mains voltages and frequencies don’t need to be terribly fast, so a conventional Si pn junction type can be used with a trr of a few microseconds, but one shouldn’t be too stingy with the PIV, as the mains are a harsh place, filled with voltage spikes and transients—typically a 600 V PIV rating is the bare minimum for reasonable survivability, but there’s often little increase in Vf when going from 600 V to 1.0 kV or even 1.2 kV. With this combination of diode type and ratings, the Vf will likely end up at around 1.0 V at nominal rated current, so we’ll see a total drop of 2.0 V in the bridge rectifier. That’s a 1.7 percentage-point hit to efficiency at 120 VAC input right there! Some improvement can be had by going with a much higher current rating than is necessary—lowering ohmic and logarithmic losses—but getting to the mythical 0.6 V drop of a Si-junction diode at zero current ain’t happenin’.
Some improvement can be had by going with a much higher current rating than is necessary—lowering ohmic and logarithmic losses—but getting to the mythical 0.6 V drop of a Si-junction diode at zero current ain’t happenin’.
The next stage in the charger performs power factor correction, and this is usually done with a boost converter. In the boost topology, energy is stored in a choke when the switch is on, then some or all of that energy is released to the output capacitor via a blocking diode when the switch is off. It might seem counterintuitive, but at high power levels it is common to retain some energy in the choke from cycle to cycle (this is called continuous conduction mode, or CCM), because the peak and peak-to-peak (i.e. AC) currents are much lower than if the choke completely empties each cycle (called, unsurprisingly, discontinuous conduction mode, or DCM). In fact, the peak current in any of the power stage components when operating in DCM will be twice the average current, minimum, because current starts from zero every cycle. This not only exacerbates I2R losses throughout the power stage, it also incurs more AC losses in the choke, as they tend to be exponentially proportional to the peak-to-peak swing. However, the one huge disadvantage of CCM operation is that the blocking diode has to instantaneously switch from conducting forward current to blocking reverse current (it needs a trr of zero, in other words), which would normally mean using a Schottky type. Before the commercialization of SiC Schottky diodes, that was a non-starter, since the PIV rating of Si Schottkys tops out around 100 V, but SiC Schottkys have PIV ratings of 600 V and above, so they are the diode of choice here. They do have a higher Vf than their Si-junction counterparts (typically >1.8 V), but this has far less of an impact on overall efficiency than in the bridge rectifier, because there is only one of them in series with the relatively high voltage output (e.g. 400/401.8 = 99.55%). The other main points of optimization are the choke and the boost switch. In CCM operation, AC losses in the core and windings of the choke are less of a concern, so the focus should be on minimizing the DC (I2R) losses of the windings themselves (the converse is true for DCM—minimizing the AC losses then takes priority). For the switch, the obvious parameter to optimize is the on-resistance (RDS[ON]), but the less-obvious—and perhaps more important—parameter is the output capacitance (COSS), because this capacitance is charged up to the output voltage value every time the switch turns off, only to be discharged across the switch at next turn-on. This is an example of a loss that is both frequency- and voltage-dependent, and one that will covered in more detail next.
Phase-shifted full bridge converter
The final stage in the charger is usually a full-bridge converter which drives an isolation transformer, followed by a full-wave rectifier (with a choke-input filter if PWM is used to achieve CC/CV regulation). As with any switchmode converter, the higher the switching frequency, the smaller the magnetic and energy storage elements (transformers, chokes and capacitors), but, as was just hinted at above, increasing the switching frequency without bound is, well, bound to cause problems. In fact, switching losses routinely dominate in traditional “hard-switched” bridge converters above a switching frequency of 100 kHz or so, and the main contributors are the aforementioned charging/discharging of COSS, along with overlap of voltage and current during the transitions. A number of solutions for reducing—or even eliminating—switching losses are possible, with varying tradeoffs between reliability, complexity and flexibility (of, more specifically, the load range that can be accommodated while maintaining lossless switching), but broadly speaking, they fall into two categories: fully resonant and resonant transition (aka quasi-resonant).
Fully resonant converter topologies use resonant LC networks (aka tanks) to shape either the current, the voltage, or both waveforms into sinusoids.
Fully resonant converter topologies use resonant LC networks (aka tanks) to shape either the current, the voltage, or both waveforms into sinusoids so that the switches can be turned on (or off) at the moment the voltage (or current) passes through zero. This eliminates switching loss from overlapping voltage and current (if one parameter is zero, then the product of both is zero, of course), but the disadvantages of resonant converters are steep enough that they are infrequently used these days, because: (1) the resonant tank requires a certain amount of energy sloshing back and forth between its inductor and capacitor to function, either requiring a high minimum load or exhibiting terrible light-load efficiency; (2) this circulating current in the resonant tank incurs additional ohmic (I2R) losses from the various resistances in its path; (3) the only way to vary output power is by changing either the switching frequency or the pulse repetition rate, making compliance with EMI/RFI regulations more difficult; (4) when varying the frequency to effect regulation of the output, inadvertently crossing over the resonant peak will invert the control function, causing the output to collapse and, most likely, destroying the switches; (5) finally, the resonant frequency is dependent on the precise values of inductance and capacitance in the tank, and these are notoriously difficult to control in production volumes, possibly requiring hand-tuning of each unit.
The main solution to the downsides of fully resonant operation is to confine the resonant period to just the switching transitions, and one of the most popular ways to do this is to take advantage of the ringing that naturally occurs between the lumped sum of COSS from each switch in a bridge with the leakage inductance of the transformer. In hard-switched bridge converters, this ringing is a huge nuisance that requires dissipative snubbers (RC networks across each switch) to dampen it out so as to prevent failing EMI/RFI requirements. One of the most popular quasi-resonant topologies that uses the ringing between COSS and Lleakage is the phase-shifted full-bridge, and while discussing it in detail is beyond the scope of this article, those who are interested can look up Texas Instruments application note SLUA107A for more information. Regardless of the specific quasi-resonant technique employed, the current and voltage waveforms during the power transfer portion of each switching period will still be square—the same as in conventional hard-switched PWM—so peak currents and voltages will be the same as their hard-switched counterparts. Finally, because many quasi-resonant techniques utilize parasitic circuit elements for their operation, they can relax the need to minimize the leakage inductance of the transformer or the COSS of the switches, which usually translates into a lower cost for each of these often-pricey components.
Finally there are “wireless” chargers, which transmit power across an air gap from a coil in a base station to one in the EV. These chargers can be extremely convenient to use, but rarely exceed 80% transfer efficiency, and that’s before the other losses outlined above are factored in. Still, they seem to be gaining in popularity despite that, so they will be the topic of a future article. In the meantime, choosing SiC MOSFETs and a resonant transition converter topology for the charger are the two best ways to maximize its efficiency.
Battery manufacturers and their stakeholders strive to design batteries that are smaller, safer, and longer-lasting. The Electric Vehicle market in particular is invested in tools and technology that can help quantify and closely examine battery dynamics. Pressure mapping plays a critical role in this type of research & development, lifecycle testing, durability testing, and quality control.
Many familiar with the construction of a lithium ion battery will say that it “breathes.” However, few methods exist to quantify the internal stress this activity may have on battery life and performance. Charging and discharging causes changes in temperature, electrochemistry, and the mechanics of the internal components, caused by changes in pressure. Even between relatively flat surfaces, one finds the interface pressure distribution is often not uniform within localized areas of peak pressure. Pressure mapping technology like Tekscan’s I-Scan System helps design engineers obtain insights into areas that may impact design and quality.
Significant internal pressures have been shown to cause plastic deformation, delamination, and increases in internal impedance. Lower stack pressures tend to yield better long-term performance, but when pressures are too low, delamination may still occur. Designers are challenged to find the “sweet spot” for housing pressure, and pressure mapping technology is an optimal solution for battery design and testing due to the thinness and flexibility of the sensors, and the ability of the accompanying software to map pressure changes over time. This video shows an example:
Solid state batteries are a promising advancement for the electric vehicle market because their composition makes them less volatile and less vulnerable to fire than liquid li-ion batteries, and they have the potential for higher energy density. However, their inherent properties pose some challenges. The rigid electrolyte generates a non-uniform pressure distribution, and concentrated pressures can lead to cracking in the material, reducing their efficiency. Pressure mapping can reveal hot spots and help engineers make informed design decisions aimed at preserving battery life.
