This battery is clearly an LFP (LiFePO4). BYD tries to obscure this, but the 3.3 volts gives it away.

http://www.byd.com/tech/Etech.asp?show=t1&color=b

Obviously BYD does not have a patent license to manufacture this chemistry, and that is why they are obscuring the chemistry and calling it a "Ferrous Battery".

Will they be successful in getting a LFP patent license from Hydro-Quebec, a leeching Canadian government corporation?

Probably not, as GM will do some kind of technology limiting deal with HQ through political channels, to stop the BYD LFP in the US.

As the BYD F3DM serial range extended XEV is based on this battery - do not expect that car to be imported to the US.

Another reason why GM and others should be allowed to die. They use and will continue to use their monopoly position for political ends and to manipulate the market. US consumers should be able to buy cheap, reliable, environmentally friendly cars and not have to be forced to buy crappy Detroit rejects.

Given that the UAW claims to only be suspending their jobs bank, instead of permanently eliminating it, I agree that the Big 3 and the UAW should be allowed to fail and be dismantled. We will never get out of this rut while the UAW exists.

Well, BYD never really had a chance to distribute F3DM in the US and Europe due to chassis piracy and safety issues in the first place.

I have heard that it at least was possible to go to Europe and buy a European car, then drive it there for a while (a year?) and then ship the car to US. Apparently the car then did not have to meet US emission standards? Anyone know if that applies to Chinese cars? If I moved to China for a year and bought a BYD car, could I then ship it to US and drive it here?

So just what did they claim the difference between LiFePO4 and their "ferrous battery"? What kind of battery technology are they putting in their staple mobile phone battery packs?

Does A123 have a patent license? GM needs to learn that if they can't beat them, they should join them, if they are going to be buying batteries from an Asian company, they should at least look into BYD's battery and get a patent license if it's better than what LG Chem is giving them.

if they are going to be buying batteries from an Asian company, they should at least look into BYD's battery and get a patent license if it's better than what LG Chem is giving them.
Timing and schedule prohibits alternatives other than LG or A123 at this point. Even A123 is not a viable option because all the road testing has been done with LG battery packs.

Batteries are not interchangeable(Once GM picks LG battery as widely reported, they cannot second source from A123 or vice verse), and Volt must enter pre-production phase NOW to make Fall 2010 launch as a 2011 model.

Of course GM is open to other options for the 2nd-gen Volt or other regular models with reduced PHEV capability, but for Volt, the choice is between LG or A123. There are no other options.

I have heard that it at least was possible to go to Europe and buy a European car, then drive it there for a while (a year?) and then ship the car to US. Apparently the car then did not have to meet US emission standards? Anyone know if that applies to Chinese cars? If I moved to China for a year and bought a BYD car, could I then ship it to US and drive it here?

Read it here on how to import a personal car (http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/entering_us/7importingyourcar.htm)

Looks like you cannot import a BYD on personal base.

I think the best bet for BYD and A123 is to see the patent expire in 2015 (or is it 2017) -- As you get closer to that date, Hydro Quebec will be more inclined to talk. Also, Valence recently got a ruling that Phostech's patent does not apply (?). HyperMiller, what is your take on this?

A123 would have been a natural for Tesla. But that idiot Musk said, people like to travel long distances in tiny 2 seater sportcars (he must have been thinking of his own skiing sojournes to Tahoe - 100 miles each way), and the other idiot Eberhardt said, we have an engineering problem (how to cool and crash proof LCOs), and I want to be known on Wiki as the man who solved this problem. So he bet the company on a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

With A123, they could have offered a terrific sportscar for $65,000 with 100 miles range. And the after-market folks would have given you a removable genset to go very long distances at modest speeds.

What a difference this would have made to Tesla. No liquid heating/cooling of the pack. No costly crash protection and uncertainty in certification. No transmission or differential. Lighter/faster car with extended range removable genset.

Timing and schedule prohibits alternatives other than LG or A123 at this point. Even A123 is not a viable option because all the road testing has been done with LG battery packs.

Batteries are not interchangeable(Once GM picks LG battery as widely reported, they cannot second source from A123 or vice verse), and Volt must enter pre-production phase NOW to make Fall 2010 launch as a 2011 model.

Of course GM is open to other options for the 2nd-gen Volt or other regular models with reduced PHEV capability, but for Volt, the choice is between LG or A123. There are no other options.

Yeah I understand that it's way too late to get anything but LGChem or A123 in the Volt, but I doubt the first gen is really going to be produced in significant numbers anyway, I think the first gen Volt is 33% PR for GM to wipe some of the "Who Killed the Electric Car" egg off their face, 33% to set up the E-FLEX platform for future models and prove it can work, and 33% to get some real world testing out in the real world for the batteries. I would imagine that a couple years down the road, they want to be applying this technology to at least 2 vehicles to each brand they have. They've already announced 3 E-FLEX vehicles and the Volt is still 2 years away. If BYD is making a 20kWh battery they should at least be looked at if GM plans to make a significant amount of E-FLEX vehicles, which I think they do seeings how they are investing over a billion in hybrid technology.

Believe or not, BYD chairman is already sending F6DM to Europe/US test. So, let's see...

Both A123 and LG-Chem batteries are superior to standard LiFePO4 batteries.

Both A123 and LG-Chem batteries are superior to standard LiFePO4 batteries.

While this might be true, price becomes a factor at some point!

Both A123 and LG-Chem batteries are superior to standard LiFePO4 batteries.

In what way is LG-Chem battery superior to LiFePO4? (besides that its manufactured in Korea as opposed to in China and would be of higher manufacturing quality)?

Difficult for me to provide absolute proof. A123 batteries are LiFePO4 batteries. MIT originally improved on them and A123 licensed the nano Phosphate technology from MIT. A123 is regarded as the world leader of this technology. They have over 160 US and world wide patents. If anybody knows how to build the best of this type I have to believe that it is A123 and not a copy-cat company in China.
Lithium Manganese Polymer batteries is a newer technology with significantly higher energy (Wh/kg and Wh/l) performance and lower power (W/kg and W/l). I do not know which is better for cycle or calender life, I know A123 advertises >3000 cycles and 10 year calender life. Naturally any car company would want the higher energy density offered by the polymer battery, however what GM needs to answer is the power, cycles, and calender life of the polymer battery good enough? A123 offers up to 100C power, this is an amazing amount, that means these batteries can deliver over 2000 amps, but the motor can only take about 400 amps, so if the polymer batteries can deliver over say 500 amps, then this is good enough. If LG's polymer batteries have proven to have equal or better cycle and calender life then they would be the best choice. There are other considerations such as efficiency and cost. If cost was GMs only consideration then they would buy the LiFePO4 batteries from China. :)

Innovator: Lithium Manganese Polymer batteries is a newer technology with significantly higher energy (Wh/kg and Wh/l) performance

Do you know what the energy density numbers are for this LG LMSP?

Not sure if I have time to spend on it to search for all the details again; I have read a year ago that BYD and A123 batteries are from the same chemical compound, different implementations and completely different manufacture process. BYD solved the problems of fast charging and reduction of memory effect by its own research as it is the leader in battery manufacture technologies in the world.

BYD is also successful in solving the consistency issue in manufacture process. All batteries are linked in serial mode, so one single cell failure will cause the whole car to stop functioning. BYD's implementation has used its own technology to produce high quality battery parts that are cheap enough.

BYD CEO came out around the time of the A123/UTexas law suit and made a comment that he does not know to whom he should pay the patent fee. The UTexas professor does not want to collect a fee, and A123's claim is that the chemical compound LiFePO4 is public domain knowledge and the patent is not valid. Either way, BYD will not pay any patent fee for the knowledge of LiFePO4 being used as battery.

It is also true there are many other companies in the world, mostly in Asia, are also researching on LiFePO4 batteries. BYD is successful in applying it in cars so far.

Not sure if I have time to spend on it to search for all the details again; I have read a year ago that BYD and A123 batteries are from the same chemical compound, different implementations and completely different manufacture process. BYD solved the problems of fast charging and reduction of memory effect by its own research as it is the leader in battery manufacture technologies in the world.

BYD is also successful in solving the consistency issue in manufacture process. All batteries are linked in serial mode, so one single cell failure will cause the whole car to stop functioning. BYD's implementation has used its own technology to produce high quality battery parts that are cheap enough.

BYD CEO came out around the time of the A123/UTexas law suit and made a comment that he does not know to whom he should pay the patent fee. The UTexas professor does not want to collect a fee, and A123's claim is that the chemical compound LiFePO4 is public domain knowledge and the patent is not valid. Either way, BYD will not pay any patent fee for the knowledge of LiFePO4 being used as battery.

It is also true there are many other companies in the world, mostly in Asia, are also researching on LiFePO4 batteries. BYD is successful in applying it in cars so far.

I don't think BYD produce powder itself.
A123 is the leader in this area in the world.