Fisker Ends Tie Up With “Breakthrough” Battery Maker Nanotech

3 months ago by Mark Kane 29

Fisker says EMotion battery pack will be the highest energy density…in partnership with LG.

When Henrik Fisker announced the EMotion electric car nine months ago, one of the stronger points of the promised specs was a 400 miles range via:

“…a new battery technology using graphene, with battery packs produced by Fisker Nanotech, a joint venture between Fisker Inc. and Nanotech Energy Inc.”

Fisker eMotion

But as it turns out, Fisker will be using what it calls its proprietary UltraPack … with LG Chem battery cells inside (seemingly like just about everybody else).

So the question is: what happened with the breakthrough technology?

“”This cell from LG Chem, it’s their latest new cell and we have done our own testing of that cell and verified that it will give us the power we need and the capability of fast charging,” Fisker said.”

And so, the Fisker Nanotech joint venture has come to an end.

The official version of the split is that Nanotech Energy doesn’t want to focus solely on single project, which would be required Fisker’s EMotion timeframe.

“”In order to meet the timetable for Henrik Fisker, we would have had to just focus on that and that alone,” Jack Kavanaugh, chairman and acting CEO of Nanotech Energy, who had been named to lead the joint venture, told Automotive News. “It wasn’t right for us as a company to just focus on one thing.””

“Kavanaugh said Nanotech is speaking with several companies — both inside and outside automotive — about bringing its battery technology to market, following independent testing beginning at the end of the summer.

“We’re focusing on auto, computer, cell phone, solar, aerospace and other things having to do Internet, medical and power tool,” he said. “They all have slightly different requirements.””

Fisker EMotion

Fisker and Nanotech apparently will stay in touch to do business together in the future, but that would be now years away, as no new “mass-market” Fisker models have even been sketched, and the EMotion is planned for 2019.

There is yet a third chapter to Fisker’s battery approach; and that is the internal development of a solid state-type battery, but those are still 5-7 years away according to Henrik Fisker:

“”We are enhancing and expediting our efforts in solid-state technology and will be announcing our recent developments and partnerships on the near future,” Fisker said in a follow-up email after a recent phone interview.”

The bottom line is that LG Chem can do it now, and they do it the cheapest – so fancier tech and radical solutions (for current projects) have been put on hiatus by most everyone in the industry.

source: Automotive News

Tags: , , , ,

29 responses to "Fisker Ends Tie Up With “Breakthrough” Battery Maker Nanotech"

  1. wavelet says:

    I’m shocked,I tell ya. Something that Fisker said ended up not happening…
    What’s next, rainbow unicorns becoming extinct?

    1. La Frennia di Mamata says:

      Sounds too good as usual, I am very Cautiously Optimistic considering the source. There has to be some sort of a catch somewhere to all this.

  2. Gazz says:

    Graphene that’s years away from commercialisation and everyone knows that. We can hardly make a credit card size pice in a lab atm.

  3. Vexar says:

    Wow, so Fisker fell in with a “breakthrough battery company” that didn’t yield relevant results for automotive purposes. I think Elon Musk said a long time ago, regarding battery scientists: send us a working prototype battery for testing, and we will make things happen.

    Working prototype. Pesky detail…

    1. Alltesla says:

      He also said the battery business is full of bulls*** (ers).

  4. Longvsshort says:

    Embarrassing.

  5. Jake Brake says:

    Probably the smartest decesion fisker has ever made.

    1. arne-nl says:

      Probably the smartest decision Nanotech Energy has ever made.

      “…Nanotech Energy doesn’t want to focus solely on single project…”

      1. Doggydogworld says:

        Merely a weak attempt at saving face. Startups HAVE to focus. They incinerate cash and desperately need that first “win”. Once they have revenue and start ramping the organization it becomes easier to raise funds, hire top people and branch out into other areas. A famous Silicon Valley bible called “Crossing the Chasm” spelled this out years ago.

        There’s a slight chance Nanotech found a better partner than Henrik Flakesker, but the more likely explanation is their battery doesn’t work.

        1. Chris O says:

          If they had a working prototype they would have no shortage of funds. Even a questionable chance of eventual success is worth millions as shown by the $90 million Dyson paid for Sakti3 that probably amounts to a borderline scam.

          1. SJC says:

            That just had to do with a few patents at Universities.

  6. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    My only question is: Did Fisker really think this latest in a long string of battery startups making wild claims had the real goods, or did Fisker just cynically use their (probably empty) claims to attract investor money?

    Either way, it doesn’t say much for Fisker’s reputation.

    @Vexar:

    Yes, after spending far too many years on TheEEStory forum, I’ll never again give any credence to claims about breakthru tech if the inventor or company isn’t willing to show a working prototype.

    1. Ambulator says:

      That sounds a little bit too skeptical. If LG or Panasonic were to announce a breakthrough cell it would definitely get my interest. I wouldn’t assume it will work out, since is probably wouldn’t, but there’s a fair chance that something will come of it.

      Now, if someone I’ve never heard of otherwise makes such a claim I will provisionally dismiss it, while keeping in mind there might be a tiny chance of success. That was the position of EEStor until they announced that Lockheed had invested. That got my interest and I joined TheEEStory.com to check it out. After a while I realized there was nothing there and my interest in the company went back to nothing at all, although I enjoyed the discussion enough to stick around until the web site was dropped.

      1. Fibb says:

        Nobody will ever see this reply since this site’s comment section system is a piece of poo.

        I just wanted to say that EEStor is very much alive and doing great things.

        Don’t pretend it no longer exists. That just doesn’t fit with the facts.

        1. Ambulator says:

          EEStor stock has been hovering around $0.30, so there are those who agree with you. From my standpoint EEStor has almost no chance of powering cars, but there is a very small but real chance of them developing a commercially viable high-voltage capacitor. Of course, you’re following the story much more closely, but it’s hard for me to rely on your judgement.

          1. Fibb says:

            With several 3rd party test reports from Intertek and MRA published it’s very clear eestor has something very special in the high voltage capacitor arena.

            But they aren’t stopping there. They still fully intend to completely dominate the energy storage markets. I think they will succeed.

            Their’s lots of recent info available on EEStor for people who are still curious. eestorcorp.com is a good place to start.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Fibb:

          As I recall (I posted as “Lensman” on TheEEstory forum), you were one of only 2 or 3 people who were still defending EEStor’s claims when the forum was shut down.

          Here’s the reality: If I recall correctly, and I think I do, EEStor’s original claims were for a breakthru ultracapacitor which would function like a battery, and would provide electrical energy storage which at the time would have been 10x cheaper than li-ion batteries, while having 2x the energy density, plus being able to charge more or less instantly. The would-be inventor also claimed to have a breakthru approach to mass production which he claimed would allow ramp-up of production much faster than normal. (The latter claim was of course one of many red flags.)

          By the time TheEEStory forum was shut down, the few remaining supporters were hoping EEStor’s tech would find some niche commercial application altho it had been shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the original claims of EEStor were completely without any foundation whatsoever.

          Now, Fibb, given your history of posts on the old forum, it would not be at all surprising if you are still refusing to face reality. But wishful thinking does not actually change reality.

          1. Fibb says:

            Lens, your recollection is faulty.

            In fact there is over 280 people in a eestor dedicated Slack room right now – many from the old site – that believe in EEStor and are so happy that YOU no longer do.

    2. Someone out there says:

      Yeah it’s hard to tell who scammed who in this mess

  7. WARREN says:

    That is actually a very nice looking car. It really makes the Tesla look a little long in the tooth comparitively. I Wonder if Fisker designed the BMW Z8. That car is already 15+ years old, and can still fetch $150k-$200k on the used car market!

    1. Martin Winlow says:

      Except that it looks almost exactly like a Model S.

      1. One says:

        Well yeah, it has four wheels I guess

  8. arne-nl says:

    Nanotech Energy made the right decision.

    We all know how Fisker’s previous enterprise ended up. They don’t want to go down with him.

    1. Chris O says:

      It was actually the other way around: Fisker’s battery supplier A123 folded and Fisker’s production came to a stop never to be resumed again.

  9. K A Cheah says:

    THE PROBLEM IS THAT NANOTECH ENERGY UNTIL NOW HAS NO REAL BATTERY TO SUPPORT THE SAID FISKER EMOTION CAR 400 MILE RANGE WHEREBY LG COULD WITH DO THE CURRENT BEST LITHIUM ION BATTERY TECHNOLOGY PRESENT TODAY RIGHT & SIMPLY OK???

  10. Chris O says:

    If Nanotech were sitting on a serious battery breakthrough it would be talking with the likes of Apple, Samsung, Tesla, GM etc. What we are seeing instead is two marginal operations teaming up in an effort to part some really naive investors with their money.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Yes, I think that is the most likely scenario. Thanks for spelling it out.

  11. Roy_H says:

    So I went to http://www.nanotechenergy.com/ to get more info. No information on their batteries, just general info on their direction. Very much start-up phase. I’m guessing they need a lot of funding which Fisker couldn’t provide and their batteries wouldn’t be ready for years.

  12. Murrysville EV says:

    Even a working prototype wouldn’t answer questions about cost, manufacturability, degradation, thermal performance, safety, and scalability.

    Charlatans – both of them.

Leave a Reply