AutoblogGreen

1. Just about all oil companies are engaged in alternative energy programs. Sure, they're trying to maximize their oil income, but they know the supply is finite and they're planning ahead. They still want to be in business in the post-oil era :)

Posted at 12:46PM on Nov 29th 2007 by Kardax

2. If Exxon get patents on this technology, won't they prevent anybody from using it in electric cars? Chevron have already used their patents to keep large-format NiMH cells out of electric cars.

Posted at 1:06PM on Nov 29th 2007 by Tony Belding

3. Though you wouldn’t know it from this dumbed-down AP article, Exxon isn’t producing batteries themselves, but rather Tonen Chemical (a Japanese affiliate ExxonMobil Chemical) would be supplying a new separator film to battery manufacturers who need safer batteries for automotive and other specialized markets. Separator films are the thin membranes that keep the battery's positive and negative electrodes apart.

Tonen Chemical's new separator film technology can apparently stand up to much higher heat levels. Tonen’s film will allow battery companies to make larger lithium ion batteries that will not overheat — all without adding additional costs, changing the manufacturing process, or altering the battery's chemistry.

Tonen's been supplying companies with thin film products for nearly 20 years.

Posted at 1:37PM on Nov 29th 2007 by Ian Bruce

4. Exactly Tony, ...this has nothing to do with trying to be green or evolve their business. Any oil company working on batteries is doing it as a blocking strategy to prevent others from disrupting their business model. They're seeing Tesla, Zenn, Th!nk, etc. and are using Exxon's vast money and industry resources to beat them at their own game, then block.

Posted at 1:45PM on Nov 29th 2007 by Chauncey

5. There are 3 possible scenarios here:

1) Peak oil is coming sooner than we have been lead to believe and Big Oil is getting ready for it.

2) Big Oil has seen the writing on the wall that Congress will divert tax funds from oil to renewable energy and they are working to capture some of this free taxpayer money.

3) Technology capture & sequestration to kill competition and control both the demand through vehicle efficiency and supply.

Of course, all 3 dovetail nicely together. Big energy can release captured technologies piece by piece in order to maximize profits as oil’s decreasing availability increases oil prices thus lowering demand. They can maximize profits by straight lining use through supply and technology manipulation.

This strategy will allow Big Oil to control the energy market both supply and demand into the foreseeable future.

Posted at 1:52PM on Nov 29th 2007 by Tim

6. I agree with Tony. I wouldn't trust Exxon/Mobil --or any other oily company-- to get within a light-year of something to do with batteries. The very fact that Chevron/Texaco so clandestinely acquired the worldwide patent on NiMH from GM, and then sued Toyota/Panasonic for putting the batteries in EVs says it all. I am still so boiling mad at them that I now refuse to fill up at either a Chevron or a Texaco station. And let's not forget that it was Exxon/Mobil that published all those newspaper and magazine ads in the 90's, screaming to high heaven that EVs were dangerous, inadequate, and too costly. I am willing wager that, at this very moment, nasty, under-the-table schemes are being hatched in their board rooms to do anything and everything possible to destroy Tesla Motors, Phoenix Motorcars, Miles Automotive, and any other EV manufacturer.

Posted at 2:33PM on Nov 29th 2007 by Yanquetino

7. It's amazing how many "eco" blogs are so ready to print a story about Exxon.
Is this the only environmental story about Exxon out there? No. There's also this http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/47/30_47exxonanoshow.html

But, yeah, if a company Exxon got a controlling stake in from it's merger with Mobil can improve on LiIon batteries that's great. Maybe they'll have more information on the battery they are pouring 322 million dollars into when they show up at EVS23.

Posted at 6:51PM on Nov 29th 2007 by Domenick

8. Well, here's the easy way to look at it.

1. Hybrid technology is out there, and it is working.
2. Hybrid technology is eating into fuel company's revenue.
3. It is not in the interests of big oil to support fuel cell technology, or super capacitors which are the other promising (but a way off), technologies.

3. Is the really important point. If 3 came into being, oil companies business would evaporate more rapidly than it would with hybrids. If they support this research it keeps people tied to oil - if oil prices go back down - and people go back to bigger cars, all good for them. If people jump to an electric or hydrogen based solution they have changed technologies and they may not come back.

I think this is risk mitigation rather than anything sinister.

Posted at 7:16PM on Nov 29th 2007 by Jase

9. Hi,

From another article on the Web:
"This weekend, at the 23rd Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exposition (EVS-23) in Anaheim, Calif., Exxon Mobil will unveil a super-thin plastic sheeting the company says can improve the power, safety and reliability of lithium-ion batteries for use in automobiles...

Exxon Mobil considers the film a breakthrough because it allows battery makers to build smaller and cheaper battery systems — removing key obstacles that have kept automakers from building hybrid and electric vehicles on a wide scale. Porosity is one of the key parameters in building higher performance separators and Tonen has developed a prototype film with a 51% porosity compared to 37% in current production batteries while maintaining the same strength and thermal integrity."

"I'll be attending that conference, and will make sure to bring you more details from Exxon."

I'd like to you to get some idea of how much difference in size, power and cost this 14% improvement might make.

Thanks,

Mitch

Posted at 7:18PM on Nov 29th 2007 by MitchJi

10. I suspect that story of Chevron/Cobasys suing Panasonic and Toyota to prevent them from making electric cars is either a misunderstanding or an urban legend.

That couldn't have been a legitimate lawsuit. Unless there was a prior contract agreement or a serious public safety issue, Chevron couldn't control what the batteries were used for. Since there were no such restrictions in the licensing and no safety issue, there was no such lawsuit.

Now, there might have been a lawsuit over the amount of royalty payments, but that is another issue.

Exxon is just trying to get another profitable product on the market, they do not want to be dependent on a single product that might become obsolete. There are other manufacturers of battery separators, so they cannot corner the market and control it. Exxon can't prevent it from being used in electric cars, so why squawk?

Posted at 3:03AM on Nov 30th 2007 by Chris M

11. The eco-fanatics discredit themselves every time they spout some conspiracy theory vilifying American businesses. Businesses exist to make money -- but they have a lot of good people in them. Sure, a few companies do short sighted things. But most are pretty reasonable. If they see money in alternative fuels, or better batteries, or opportunities to diversify their businesses, they'll go for it. So have this teenage paranoid Exxon=evil, Chevron=Satan attitude turns more people off to watermelon environmentalism than helps the cause. They would convert many refineries to biofuel if there was money in it.

Posted at 8:54AM on Nov 30th 2007 by suzy.denim

12. Chris:
Please understand the oil companies now call themselves energy companies. This should be a clue to their thinking and to me means an expansion of their involvement in all forms of energy. Indeed a few, like BP and Shell are in the solar cell business.

Regarding the control of NiMH battery production. From my readings: Chevron/Texaco and Ovonic, the original NiMH patent holder, formed the joint company, Cobasys to control the NiMH business using Chevron's deep pockets. Patent infringement charges are leveled at any outside company producing NiMH batteries. And in all court cases the decision has been to limit the size of the batteries so they cannot be manufacture as large format batteries suitable for electric auto use. And, the reason you don't hear about the settlement details is because all parties are ordered to remain mum on the settlement particulars. It makes sense when you see how small Toyota's and Honda's NiMH pack really are. True? I think so because I believe Big Oil is all about controlling the energy markets and have done so for many years; and, I don't think they would have a second thought about continuing by any means possible.

Posted at 9:33AM on Nov 30th 2007 by Lad

13. FYI we've already hit Peak Oil. We just haven't realized it yet. Nor will we until it is too late.

Posted at 10:16AM on Nov 30th 2007 by BGJ

14. An illuminating article about peak oil:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=103243&d=6&m=11&y=2007

Posted at 10:41AM on Nov 30th 2007 by BlackbirdHighway

15. Ladd: Bingo! Thanks for explaining the Chevron vs. Toyota lawsuit for Chris. Suzy: For the record, I am not an eco-fanatic, but feel free to consider me discredited if you wish. Over decades I have painfully observed that a fair number of --but not all-- American businesses do indeed conspire, precisely "to make money." We're a pretty nasty species in and of ourselves, the product of Paleolithic conditions --and without any help from some boogie-man satyr.

Posted at 11:36AM on Nov 30th 2007 by Yanquetino

16. Cobasys is more than willing to provide NiMH batteries if you're willing to pay:

http://www.cobasys.com/news/20070313.shtml

Panasonic violated their patents and had to pay up.

We could just blame Stanford R. Ovshinsky for not giving away his NiMH patents for free.

Posted at 2:23PM on Nov 30th 2007 by Bill

17. Bill: Unless I have missed something, I believe that Cobasys (e.g. Chevron) is willing to license its NiMH only for hybrids --never pure EVs. Not at all surprising, since hybrids still depend upon gasoline. If you know of a pure EV manufacturer to whom Chevron has, in fact, licensed its NiMH, by all means please let us know!

As for Ovshinsky, I had the impression that he sold the controlling shares of his patent to GM in good faith, expressly for use in its EV1. I seriously doubt he knew that GM would then turn around and sell them to... Texaco/Chevron!!! In point of fact, it was only after GM censured him for publicly touting the batteries' improvements to the EV1 that it dawned on him that something wasn't right. Let's not blame the rape victim here!

Posted at 6:32PM on Nov 30th 2007 by Yanquetino

18. COBASYS ?!?!/23@?#%4@?#$@?#$?!&*^&(^&(^&*%^&#$%@#$!@#~#$%!#$%^&*%&(^@#$@

Sense 1:
evil, immorality, wickedness, iniquity
evildoing, transgression

Sense 2:
evil
bad, badness

Sense 3:
evil, evilness
immorality

Similarity of adj evil

4 senses of evil

Sense 1:
evil (vs. good), wicked
atrocious, flagitious, grievous, heinous, monstrous
bad, immoral
black, dark, sinister
corruptive, perversive
demonic, diabolic, diabolical, fiendish, hellish, infernal, satanic, unholy
despicable, ugly, vile, unworthy
devilish, diabolic, diabolical, mephistophelian, mephistophelean
evil-minded
Also See: bad#1; immoral#1; offensive#5; unrighteous#1; wicked#1; wrong#2

Sense 2:
depraved, evil, vicious
wicked (vs. virtuous)

Sense 3:
evil, harmful, injurious
malign (vs. benign)

Sense 4:
malefic, malevolent, malign, evil
maleficent (vs. beneficent)

Posted at 7:59PM on Nov 30th 2007 by Conspriacy theory

19. Boy, the myths are sure persistant tonight! I guess some people prefer dramatic conspiracy stories to the humdrum truth.

Ovonics was trying to develop hydrogen storage when they stumbled across the metal hydride battery. They patented it, but as a small company with no battery manufacturing experience, they did the rational thing and licensed it to several companies that make batteries, like Panasonic and Sanyo and Eveready. That licensing contract had no restriction on size, but probably based the royalty payment on the size and number of batteries made.

When the ZEV mandate came along, Toyota responded with the RAV4 EV, using NiMH batteries made by Panasonic. GM then approached Ovonics and set up a joint venture to make NiMH batteries for GM, and Cobasys was born. When the ZEV mandate was withdrawn, Toyota stopped making the RAV4EV as sales were poor and the Prius was greatly outselling it. GM canceled and crushed the EV1, as they preferred selling the more profitable SUVs, and sold off their share of Cobasys to Chevron.

Chevron got Cobasys too late, the licensing agreements were already in place, and they couldn't stop their licensees from making "large format" batteries for EVs. Not that it mattered, the major car makers had all canceled their EV programs. Thing is, Panasonic is making "large format" batteries for Toyota, for use in their hybrids. The only difference between "hybrid sized" and "EV sized" battery packs is the number of battery cells.

Moreover, it looks like Cobasys does have batteries for EVs. See:
http://www.cobasys.com/products/transportation.shtml
Ironically, their marketing may have been hampered by their association with Chevron, which may be one reason why Chevron plans to sell off Cobasys. (The other reason is LiIon threatens to make NiMH obsolete.)

Posted at 10:32PM on Nov 30th 2007 by Chris M

20. Chris M:

That web page at Cobasys does state that they make "advanced NiMH energy storage systems for hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), electric vehicles (EV), 42-Volt and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) transportation applications." What it fails to mention is the name of any EV manufacturer to whom it actually supplies the batteries.

Do you know of one? Perhaps Zenn or ZAP or Th!nk or Miles or Aptera? Claiming that they COULD be used for that purpose, but actually providing them... are two different things.

Also, perhaps you should write to Wikipedia to correct their assessment of the Toyota/Panasonic issues. For example, you say that "Toyota stopped making the RAV4EV as sales were poor." Yet Wikipedia claims that "there were more RAV4-EV's sold than there were cars available."

Moreover, on the subject of the NiMH batteries, according to Wikipedia:

"Whether or not Toyota wanted to continue production, it was unlikely to be able to do so, because the EV-95 battery was no longer available. Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors. Chevron's unit won a $30,000,000 settlement from Toyota and Panasonic, and the production line for the large NiMH batteries was closed down and dismantled. Only smaller NiMH batteries, incapable of powering an electric vehicle or plugging in, are currently allowed by Chevron-Texaco."

Finally, I think your timeline might be off --and the subsequent consequences and conclusions. According to the documents and news releases I can find, this is the chronology:

1994 - General Motors buys controlling interest in Ovonics's NiMH batteries.

1997 - Toyota makes the RAV4-EV available in the U.S.

Oct. 10, 2000 - Texaco purchases GM's controlling interest in Ovonic.

Oct. 16, 2000 - Chevron acquires Texaco.

2001 - CARB repeals the ZEV mandate and GM axes the EV1 program.

2001 - Texaco/Chevron Ovonic sues Toyota/Panasonic for patent infringement.

November, 2002 - Toyota axes the RAV4-EV.

2003 - Texaco/Chevron Ovonic becomes Cobasys.

July 7, 2004 - Toyota/Panasonic settle with Cobasys for $30,000,000.

Posted at 12:10PM on Dec 1st 2007 by Yanquetino