tooltalk

>> LFP batteries are definitely becoming more prevalen. The standard range Teslas in some regions come with them. <<

LFP batteries are fine (but barely) for entry-level, low-range EVs, or stationary energy storage systems (aka, ESS).

>> As you said, NMC should limit the charging to 80% for daily use. <<

All lithium ion batteries, including LFP, suffers accelerated degradation under high SOC, high C-rates; or in LFP's case, extreme temperature.

>> Interestingly for LFP the recommended is 100% so that actually means that a standard range LFP Model Y can get more miles <<

That 100% SOC charging causes a lot of wear and tear in LFP batteries, but it is still required to recalibrate the BMS to avoid misreading of SOC/range and other associated problems such as cell imbalancing issues. According to Cleanerwatt reports Oct 22, 2022, as a result of 100% charging:

  Tesla LFP Battery 10% RANGE LOSS PROBLEM? | Model 3 RWD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suw20wPrbL0
  The brand new LFP batteries will degrade substantially quicker.  There's not long-term retention data for LFP batteries on the market yet, but the trend tends to be substantially faster degradation.  Trends show them stabilizing around that 10% degradation mark in about half the time as non-LFP batteries - around 50,000 miles instead of 100,000 miles."

There is no long-term data yet, though BYD has been making/using much smaller LFP battery packs in their EVs since 2009, but these LFP packs aren't likely to last anywhere near what many LFP faithfuls blindly believe they would last.

The main driver behind LFP's popularity is the cost, especially during the past 2-3 years of COVID-19 which wrecked havoc in the auto supply-chain and inflated prices. China under their massive state subsidy and protectionism (banning foreign battery competitors and cutting all subsidies to EVs with their batteries since 2015) was able to mass-produce them at scale as LFP's share of EV market went from 2% in 2020 to 30% in 2022. China is also very much behind LFP because their ability to export EVs is limited by the fact that other leading battery chemistries such as NCM/NCA are largely guarded by the Japanese and the Korean battery makers -- China ensured that they couldn't get ahead in their domestic market by banning their business very early on and cutting all subsidies to EV with foreign batteries or since 2015 under Made-In-China 2025.

Otherwise, LFP is really a cheap, inferior battery chemistry for EVs.

Sure, the M3 also has 1/3 less battery capacity too.

  The maximum speed was caped to 90 km/hour (56 miles/hour), and the energy consumption was 13.2 kWh/100 km. The average speed for the trip was 83.9 km/h.

so there it goes, driven at an average speed of 53 mph hypermilling! For comparison, Tesla M3 achieved 975km:

  In May 2018, Sean Mitchell and Erik Strait set a hypermiling record for the Tesla Model 3 by driving 606.2 miles on a single charge after 32 hours of driving.

>> The last of the patents on LFP expired last year. Up until then, the patent holders made a deal where Chinese companies could produce the cells, but not export them <<

China did negotiate a deal with a patent consortium in Suisse to license LFP royalty-free for all domestic use. But then I wonder what the point was, since all foreign battery makers/patent holders such as LG (NCM), Panasonic (NCA) were required to give up their IP Rights in order to acces China's NEV market, or China would have ignored their IP Rights anyway.

>> So that appears to be the reason for so much investment in the space in recent times. <<

Sure, there has been some improvement, but LFP is still mostly limited to entry-level, low-range EVs. The recent rise of LFP is largely attributable to the various COVID related auto component shortages and price spike in battery raw materials past few years. The average price of lithium however plunged by some 80% since last November and once 400+GWh new production capacity come up in the US, I suspect that LFP won't be as competitive.

>> Before opening a factory in China, Tesla only used NMC/NCA cells. <<

Tesla has been primarily working with Panasonic's NCA for over a decade now. LG's NCM was added only after 2020 for their Long Range models in China/EU.

>> LFP has far greater cycle count than Li-ion. That the battery is going to last 4x longer or more is a huge factor for me. <<

Sure, that's true in individual cell studies in lab, or stationary energy storage (aka, ESS), but not necessarily in moving vehicles, ie, EVs. CATL's cheap, inferior LFP would probably make more sense in storage.

With the pack level density of ~140Wh/kg. CATL is Tesla's primary LFP supplier -- BYD was added earlier this year.

The key sellig point here is the cost.

>> Is it sodium battery tech starting to have an effect? <<

It's not yet mass-produced at scale or commodified to have much impact yet. The falling lithium price however could make sodium batteries less attractive.

but is now down by 75+% since last November peak (and still declining). I suspect that we won't see another price spike like last year's for quite some time.

>> My understanding is also that LFP batteries have basically eliminated the raw materials bottleneck, <<

the casuality between the raw material supply bottleneck and LFP would be difficult to demonstrate. LFP has lower energy density and would have required more lithium to get equivalent KWh than what is normally required by high-energy, high-nickel batteries (eg, NCM/A); therefore higher lithium demand, but ...

The price of lithium, and other battery raw materials, however, plunged by 75% since last Novemember peak (still falling) -- it's widely understood that the drop is largely caused by slower than expected EV demand (and oversupply).

>> but I believe the reason for the slow drop is mostly because most of the battery factories currently under production are not online yet... <<

GM forecasted earlier this year that their (Ultium) cell cost would drop to $87/KWh by 2025; just last week, GM reported a 40% drop in their cell cost YoY. Sure, there is 400+GWh new US battery production coming up in 2025-2026 and the commodification/mass-production of made batteries would accelerate further price drop.

>> There are some significant constraints on raw materials supplies. <<

which was true for all kinds of stuff from construction materials to EVs last year -- the prices of battery raw materials, eg, lithium, nickel and cobalt, plunged by as much as 75% since last November peak.

Well, graphite is not all that scarce either. The problem is that China has almost complete dominance in the anode material production (ie, graphite) with 90+% market share in EV battery supply-chain.

It's all in ASML's 3Q IR presentation, "Net system sales breakdown (Quarterly)"- Q3'23 Net system sales €5,308 million,

Sales in lithography units:

  11 EUV, 32 Arfi, 9 ArFdry, 44 KrF, 16 i-Line.

China has no access to EUV; no sales breakdown by model.

This has been going on for a while and China had plenty of time to place orders ahead:

  "Wennink tells CNBC that the average lead time of ASML's machines is roughly a year and a half to two years and that “when you look at the relatively short expectations… of a potential recession, then customers are of course not canceling any orders because they could find themselves in the back of the queue when this" ...Jan 25, 2023

That's just very misleading though: the 980 miles battery in a light, compact EV, eg, M3, isn't going to deliver the same range in a pick-up truck, eg, the Hummer EV.

It's just an open invitation for abuse (and has already been abused by battery makers like CATL who recently announced a new improved LFP with 4C charging and 750 miles range??).

>> LFPs lose some of their capacity early on, but then the degradation is much slower. ... <<

There is nothing weird about lithium ion batteries, including LFPs, degrading quickly under high SOC/high C-rates -- ie, EVs. We don't know anything about LFP's longevity in EV profil, and, while there is no long-term data on LFP's true lifespan in EVs, it's been demonstrated that LFP could lose as much as 1/3 of its lifespan under 100% SOC in ESS profile.

LFP's are already mostly limited to entry-level, low-range EVs due to its other technical short-coming in moving vehicles (ie, low energy density and weight). This quick degradation makes LFP even less appealing in vehicles.

According to Recurrent's recent report, most EVs lose only about 10% of SOH (or battery capacity/range) after 100,000 miles.

>> LFP batteries generally have about 3x the longevity of other lithium ion types <<

This is not true at all. All LFPs in EVs degrade much faster than other lithium ion batteries:

  Tesla LFP Battery 10% RANGE LOSS PROBLEM? | Model 3 RWD  (Cleanwatt citing Tessie's data) 
  The brand new LFP batteries will degrade substantially quicker.  There's not long-term retention data for LFP batteries on the market yet, but the trend tends to be substantially faster degradation.  Trends show them stabilizing around that 10% degradation mark in about half the time as non-LFP batteries - around 50,000 miles instead of 100,000 miles."

Even in ideal environment, such as ESS, LFPs would degrade substantially faster under high SOC/high c-rates (eg, EV).

>> the battery energy storage system (BESS) division of EV supercar company Rima <<

ESS == stationary Battery Energy Storage System. So this would be comparable to Tesal's Megapack business unit. I mean 790kW in an EV? That's must be for a rocket.

>> Huawei was taking off like a rocket in Europe before the US kneecapped them. <<

Huawei was taking off mostly in China -- after the CCP forced Samsung out of China after 2013 under Xie's state industrial policy to protect their domestic industry. Samsung's China market share went from 20% to 1% in a span of a few years. (the same can be said for LG Chem's EV battery business in China and Hyundia/Kia's auto business). It's difficulty to say what would have happened in the EU though.

  Subsidizing some technology or another isn't new.

No, you just don't seem to understand how subsidies work. There are legal subsidies -- take for instance, food or defense industries, or anything that's produced and consumed domestically is up to individual country to decide.

Then, there are illegal subsidies: "export subsidies" or "import substitution." China, as a member of WTO, is prohibited from giving any subsidy contingent on export performance, or on the use of domestic over imported goods. So for instance, China's subsidies were only given to EVs with domestic batteries made by domestic companies over foreign companies -- even if they were made in China, since 2015. China forced out foreign competitors, eg LG Chem which had close to 50% of the Chinese EV battery market share prior to this now down to less 1%, despite being the world's largest EV battery maker outside China, and ensured that only their domestic champions received EV subsidies in a market where subsidies accounted for as much as 40% of new EV cost. This is all ok, so long as China never intends to sell their EVs over the water -- after all, it's their money. China's EV initiative however was geared towards exports and dominating the field. EV subsidies elsewhere are obviously legal b/c, unlike, China's, they don't violate those rules.

  Because its not just about cars, its everything from mine to the battery. And their policies weren't that anti-competitive, European and US car makers made a lot of money in China for quite a while and they didn't transfer much EV technology.

China's EV initiative didn't really start until 2009 when they first announced their EV subsidies. CATL for instance wasn't even founded until 2011; BYD was really nobody back then. The modern lithium ion batteries really became popular after SONY's first commercialization in the early 1990's -- the Japanese and Korean really kept the industry going since. And the leaders in the battery industry for instance were LG, Panasonic, Samsung, BASF, all of whom were asked to give up their IPR in exchange to access China's NEV market. This is detailed in the EU's WTO dispute against China's forced tech transfer - WT/DS549.

While China has long dominated the metal refining/processing industry largely due to developed countries' aversion to pollution, China's EV resource acquistion/spree likewise didn't really start until 2010's.

  Its funny how the EU is now 'investigating subsidies' in China.

There is nothing "new" here. The EU warned against China's "funny" NEV policies back in 2018 -- see the EU's WTO complaint WT/DS549, "China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology." You could also tell that Biden's response (aka, the IRA, enacted in 2022) to clean energy was inspired by and modeled on China's "funny" NEV policies -- ensuring that no Chinese EV/battery company set their foot in the territory, or receive tax credit/subsides. The EU is at least playing by the book.

  China has been building this sector for like 30 years

I wonder why forced tech transfer and other highly discriminatory/anti-competitive protectionist measures were necessary if China had so much time to build the sector.

  While Europe has basically no resource extraction related to batteries or much of any battery refinement for most of that period.

The West wants clean energy, but doesn't want to get their hands dirty. As usual, they outsource all the dirty work of resource acquisition, mining, refining to the 3rd world -- let China pollute their land, air, water for clean energy!

>> American cars may not be popular in Europe but they do sell in the Asia Pacific region. <<

America's brands such as Buick and Cadillacs are quite popular and sell well in China via local JV where their sales are so-so in the US.

The US, South Korea, Japan, etc.. China about 3.8% in the iPhone 14; and 4.5% in the 13:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/iPhone-14-teardo...

Chevy Bolt, now discontinued, was in the $20K's. In general, EVs won't get cheaper until various supply-chain constraints (eg, batteries) are relieved.

More like 85+% of the entire iPhone BOM are still made outside China. Most key high-value, high-tech components like OLED display, AP, wireless modem, storage (NAND/DRAM), camera sensors, etc, are designed and manufactured by non-Chinese companies. China makes mostly low-value, low-tech components and assembly/packaging.

>> American automakers have gone all in on pickup trucks because they are massively more profitable per unit. <<

They are massively profitable because foreign‐ made pickup trucks are subject to a 25 percent import tariff -- ie, limited competition:

  Since a 1964 spat over European tariffs on poultry, the US has levied a 25% tax on imported trucks, now known as the “chicken tax.” That surcharge largely cleared the road for Detroit’s truck titans — at least until Japanese brands established US factories to get around it — and today means tricky economics for any foreign automaker looking to crack the lucrative American truck market.

The EV subsidies Tesla received is actually quite different. In China, EV subsidies were conditioned upon having certain domestic parts by domestic suppliers (eg, batteries) on their "whitelist" -- which was highly discriminatory and anti-competitive -- to keep foreign battery competitors from participating in their market where as much as 40% of EV cost was subsidized. This is clearly spelt out in WTO's SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES. Teslas with foreign batteries (eg, LG Chem's NCM batteries) didn't qualify for any subsidy until 2020.

IMO, there is no reason to extend the benefits of free-market to a country that does not want to play by the rule, especially given China's repeated blatant violation. The US likewise instead of taking it to the WTO dispute to settle this, responded tit for tat with the IRA which discriminates against EVs/supplies not produced domestically or sourced from a free-trade nation.

>>For home charging, that is ... typical? <<

All lithium ion batteries, including LFP, degrade much faster under high SOC or high C (or even high DOD, extreme temp). In stationary energy storage systems under low SOC/low C-rates (eg, home powerwalls), LFP could last quite longer than other LIBs and this has been studied for years and widely accepted.

But, contrary to Jeff's Dahn's claim on Tesla's LFP battery pack, we don't really know much about LFP's true lifespan/performance in moving vehicles since they were deemed unsuitable for EV's with high SOC/high C-rates until China spiked them up a few years ago and they weren't studied as rigorously in that particular application/environment. Even as they are mostly limited to entry-level, low-range EVs, there are some early data indicating that LFP degradation in EVs is significant:

Tesla LFP Battery 10% RANGE LOSS PROBLEM? | Model 3 RWD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suw20wPrbL0

  The brand new LFP batteries will degrade substantially quicker.  There's not long-term retention data for LFP batteries on the market yet, but the trend tends to be substantially faster degradation.  Trends show them stabilizing around that 10% degradation mark in about half the time as non-LFP batteries - around 50,000 miles instead of 100,000 miles." 

There is also a study by Recurrent, "How Long Do Electric Car Batteries Last?" which seems to corroborate Tessie's finding.

Tesla LFP Battery 10% RANGE LOSS PROBLEM? | Model 3 RWD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suw20wPrbL0

  The brand new LFP batteries will degrade substantially quicker.  There's not long-term retention data for LFP batteries on the market yet, but the trend tends to be substantially faster degradation.  Trends show them stabilizing around that 10% degradation mark in about half the time as non-LFP batteries - around 50,000 miles instead of 100,000 miles."

There is also a study by Recurrent, "battery life study" which seems to corroborate Tessie's finding.

I'm pretty sure that anecdotal data would almost always indicate virtually no range loss, but, once you take the red pill, the reality looks quite different.

>> That's what Jeffrey Dahm stated back when Tesla was bragging about the million mile range battery pack. <<

He probably didn't tell you that Tesla LFP EVs would degrade and lose the first 10% of range twice as fast as non-LFPs because LFP EVs must be charged to full 100% frequently.