Introduction
2
Who are we? • Joe Wofford – PhD Materials Science 2011 • Rebekah Shirley – MS Energy & Resources 2011 • Steve Miller – MBA 2011 • Gabe Schwartz – MBA 2011
What are we doing here? • Discuss LBNL / Stanford proof of concept (Dr. Yuegang Zhang, Dr. Yi Cui) • Assess the market to determine value and next steps
What are we going to talk about? • Growing importance of supercapacitors • Potential value and implications of early stage LBL / Stanford Lab tech • How it fits into the market & industry landscape • Conclusions and recommendations
Broad and sustained market trends create demand for supercapacitors
Unplug everything
High functionality, small size
Global clean energy focus
Off-grid power
3
$877M market by 2014
Energy and power intensive applications,
larger peak-power demands
Wind turbines & hybrids need large power boosts
Requires efficient energy storage solutions
Source: Lux Research
Why supercapacitors?
4
Long Cycle Life (1,000x >Batteries) High Efficiency
High Reliability and Low Maintenance Wide Working Temperature
More Supercapacitor Advantages
Power: Primary Supercapacitor Advantage
Cost is the key market consideration and barrier for mass adoption
5
Both increasing volumes and technological innovation will lower costs, driving further demand growth
2001 2011 Target for mass adoption
Cost down 90% in last 10 yrs
Still 20-200% too expensive
Materials 60-70% of total
cost
Cost Per Farad Progression Cost Breakdown
A new approach to carbon electrodes
6
Nanoporouscarbon
1F1F
Moreac0vesurfacearea
Highercapacitanceperarea(3X)
=
Carbonnanofibers
Prior Approaches: Planar Substrate
Our Approach: 3D Foam Substrate
Leads to increased energy storage without sacrificing power
7 Source: Kotz & Carlen; “Principles and applications of electrochemical capacitors”, Electrochimica Acta 45 (2000)
High Power Low Energy
+
+
+
+
+ + +
+ +
+
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
Thick electrodes with low resistance higher energy without the typical power tradeoff
3D Foam Substrate Thin Active Layer Thick Active Layer
+ + +
-
- -
- - -
- -
-
- -
-
+ - - -
Low Power High Energy
High Power High Energy
Basic development could make device competitive with industry leaders
8
100
1000
104
105
106
0.1 1 10
W/L
Wh/L
Optimization Steps (<1 yr) ① Bench-top unit ② Organic
electrolyte ③ Geometric
optimization ④ Tailored
carbon 1
2
3
4
Energy Density (Watt-Hours/Liter)
Pow
er D
ensi
ty (W
atts
/Lite
r)
Projected cost advantage is uncertain with current data & processes
9
21.0 14.6
19.6 15.2
27.1 36.5
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
Maxwell Our Tech (Projected)
Tota
l Cos
t
Production Other Materials Electrode
$67 $55 - 90
Cost Comparison for a 2,600F Cell
Avoided premium for activated carbon lower material costs Production costs present the biggest risk to cost parity
Source: Frost and Sullivan
Projections suggest real-world value
10
Improved Performance
~50% higher energy density
Reduced balance of system materials
Differentiated Process
No activation step (deposition)
Less energy intense
Could offset competitors’ scale
Energy Density Cost Cost
Performance & cost competitive with simple optimization ?
IP most valuable if low-cost, high-speed manufacturing possible
Whether these translate to commercial relevance depends heavily on market & industry dynamics
Supercapacitor applications fall within three primary markets
11
BurstPower Regenera0vePower BoardnetStabiliza0on
BurstPower Regenera0vePower BackupPower
BurstPower BaGeryLifeExtension QuickCharge
Industrial Transporta/onConsumer
2014 Market Size $109M
2014 Market Size $218M
2014MarketSize
$550MSource: Lux Research
Competitive landscape is the tale of two markets
12
MarketApplica/onFocus
IndustrialandTransporta/onConsumer
Source: Lux Research
Commercializa/
onStage
Incumbe
nts
Start‐Ups
OEMsandEndUsers
Start-ups leveraging new technology to disconnect from incumbent value chain
13
However,moststart‐upsareinsulatedfromthismanufacturingprocess
andvaluechain
MaxwellandEnerG2aimtosupplyelectrode
materialtoincumbentmanufacturers
CellandModuleManufacturers
ElectrodeandMaterialManufacturers
Commercializa/
onStage
Incumbe
nts
Start‐Ups
A.C.
Key adoption considerations revolve around cost per power
14
Handsets,Cameras
PowerTools
WindTurbines
Cranes,ForkliIs UPS
HybridHeavyVehicles
LightVehicles
Cost
Power
Energy
CycleLife
Reliability
TempRange
PrimaryAdop/onConsidera/ons
Industrial Transporta/onConsumer
Industrial and heavy transportation markets present the best fit for this technology
Light Vehicles
Hybrid Heavy Vehicles
Wind Turbines
Cranes, Forklifts
UPS
Handsets, Cameras
Power Tools
Military, Space
Smart Meters
Ease
of E
ntry
(T
ime
to M
arke
t, R
elat
ions
hips
)
Alignment with Market Requirements (Cost, Energy Density)
Note: Bubble size represents the relative size of the addressable market in 2014 15
Competitive standalone product unlikely, but could be valuable as a complement to innovators pursuing these markets
Two potential paths for technology progression
16
ValueProp
CustomerAOributes
Approach
TargetMarkets
Higher energy density, lower material costs, novel process
High specific surface area carbon
Heavy hybrids, wind turbines, military & space
Water desalinization, metal recovery, hydrogen storage, Li-
ion battery electrodes
Willing to experiment, can integrate w/ process, targeting
industrial & heavy transport
Less cost sensitive, looking to solve surface area specifically
License IP to a startup Customer discovery, licensing or joint development
SupercapacitorComplementaryValue
BroaderMarketApplica/ons
Summary and next steps
Promising proof of concept, significant room for optimization Energy density improvement of up to 50% Maintained power and cycle life Unique approach could lead to materials and process cost savings
Industry focused on cost Need to understand manufacturing costs at scale Startups with similar non-AC processes are best positioned to
incorporate this research into a competitive product
Two likely paths forward Complementary value to other supercap startups, e.g. FastCap –
explore licensing interest High potential value in non-supercapacitor applications, i.e. battery
electrodes, water treatment, and fuel cells
17
Much Insight comes from Discussion with Industry Professionals
19
• “Important for an electrode to fit into pre-existing manufacturing process.” • “Demonstrate either ability to be integrated or significant performance gain”
Christine Ho Imprint Energy, Co-Founder
• “A company’s electrode is the ‘secret sauce’ of supercapacitors” • “While companies tend to manufacture their own electrodes, there is a market for electrode materials”
Kelsey Lynn Fire Lake Capital, Partner Energ2, Board Observer
• “You have to ask yourself where your core competence lies” • “Each application requires something different. Know what you’re good at… and make sure you understand the length of the sales & design cycle”
Riccardo Signorelli FastCAP, President and CEO
• “Response time is an important characteristic of supercapacitor performance” • “There may be other markets for high surface area, high specific capacitance carbon materials”
John Miller JME Inc., Founder
• “Focus on lifetime, rather than upfront, costs” • “You have to be able to manufacture at speed, at least 15 meters per minute” • Companies are very reluctant to license out. They will license in, but this involves a lot of time and money for testing and joint development”
Chad Hall Ioxus, VP Sales
Comparison with battery technologies
20
Features Lead Acid Battery Lithium-Ion Battery Supercapacitor
PowerDensity(W/L) ~350‐450 ~500‐5,800 ~1,000‐90,000
Energy Density (Wh/L) ~150‐550 ~60‐90 ~1‐11
Life Cycle ~500‐800 ~500‐3,500 ~500,000‐1,000,000
Efficiency(%) ~80% ~90% ~95%
Work Temperature (oC) ~(30)‐45 ~(20)‐60 ~(40)‐85
Cost/Power ($/kW) ~$25‐100 ~$25‐400 ~$5‐35
Cost/Energy ($/kWh) ~$200‐400 ~$350‐1,000 ~$13,000‐3,000,000
Source:LuxResearch
Note: Electrodes’ volumetric performance is typically more relevant than gravimetric once balance of system is taken into account. A 2x difference in electrode Wh/kg would only produce a spread of a few oz. in a large device, while the same 2x in Wh/L would translate directly to device size.
Electrode performance as a function of active layer thickness
24
1)Kotz,R.;Carlen,M.;“Principlesandapplica0onsofelectrochemicalcapacitors”,ElectrochimicaActa45,2483‐2498(2000).
60%
40%
Materials Assembly
Cost Breakdown 25
25%
10%
15%
50%
Packaging Seperator Electrolyte Electrode
50%
25%
10%
15%
Materialsaccountforalargepor0onofoverallcostscomparedtootherstoragetechnologies
Electrodeasignificantpor0onofthesematerialcosts
Material costs Production costs
60%40%
25
Projected cost differential is uncertain
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
Maxwell 2,600F Cell
This Tech - 2,600F Cell
Material Costs
Al203 Nickel Foam Ethylene Binder Activated Carbon Current Collector Packaging
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
Maxwell 2,600F Cell
This Tech - 2,600F Cell
Processing Costs
Deposition Passivation Slurry / Pasting Cell Assembly
26
??
This Tech Total: $50 - 90
Maxwell Total: $67
Assumes: • 15-30% savings in the carbon electrode • 67% savings in the separator • 10% savings in packaging
Market applications detail
27
Markets 2014MarketSize Functions Primary Adoption Considerations
Handsets/Cameras ~$539M QuickCharge,BurstPowerCost/Power,PowerDensity,Life0me
PowerTools ~$9M QuickCharge,BurstPowerCost/Power,Cycling,Life0me
WindTurbines ~$20M BurstPower,QuickCyclingCycling,LowMaintenance,TempDurability
Elevators/Cranes/Forklihs <$50MRegenera0vePower,BurstPower
Durability,Reliability,DeepDischargeCycling,TempDurability
UPS <$50M BackUpPowerReliability,LowMaintenance,Life0me
HybridVehicles/Buses ~$218M ColdStart,Regenera0vePowerCost/Power,Power/EnergyDensity,TempDurability
ElectricTrains <$50M ColdStart,Regenera0vePowerCost/Power,Power/EnergyDensity,TempDurability
Consumer
Industrial
Transporta/on
Non Supercapacitor Application Details
28
3D Macroporous Carbon Negative Electrode enhances rate performance of Li-ion batteries: Higher Surface Area > Increased Number of Active Sites for Charge Transfer Reactions
Capacitive Deionization is being e x p l o r e d f o r l o w - c o s t w a t e r desalination and metal recovery using high specific area carbon materials: Higher Surface Area > Increased area for ion absorption
H o l l o w g e o m e t r y o f C a r b o n nanostructures is a solution to storing Hydrogen Gas for Hydrogen Fuel Cells: Higher Specific Surface Area > Higher amount of adsorbate per surface area