4680 General discussion - Range & $/kWh

[Buckminster]

Please limit this thread to high level discussion of the new battery architecture including the impact on vehicles.
Lower level discussion can be held here:
4680 Cathode & Anode discussion for investors
&
4680 cell design, chassis integration & factory discussion for investors

Battery day thread here:
Tesla Battery Investor Day

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Why would we discuss battery architecture in the investors forum?

 

[Buckminster]

2:16 in:
Battery Day | Tesla

Iron based cathodes - Long cycle life
Megapack
M2 (City driving)
M3 (Robotaxis)

Nickel + Manganese - Long range
MY
MS
MX
Powerwall

High Nickel - Mass sensitive
Cybertruck
Semi

Does everyone expect Tesla to actually follow this? Isn't high Nickel worth paying the extra for all?

 

[Buckminster]

Has 80mm height been selected because combined with the structural pack, it requires few changes to MY, MS and MX?

 

[garrett5688]

Has 80mm height been selected because combined with the structural pack, it requires few changes to MY, MS and MX?

I don’t remember them specifically saying the reason for 80mm height but I suspect designing them into existing platforms has something to do with it.

 

[Buckminster]

10 GWh run rate in a year is equivalent to 200,000 vehicles / annum. More than Cybertruck, Semi, Plaid and Roadster at the end of 2021. Where are the rest going? My theory is using TE products for a flexible pool of demand.

 

[ggies07]

2:16 in:
Battery Day | Tesla

Iron based cathodes - Long cycle life
Megapack
M2 (City driving)
M3 (Robotaxis)

Nickel + Manganese - Long range
MY
MS
MX
Powerwall

High Nickel - Mass sensitive
Cybertruck
Semi

Does everyone expect Tesla to actually follow this? Isn't high Nickel worth paying the extra for all?

I found it odd that Dahn and his team did all the work on Nickel (I think there were two papers on it, but can't find the links right now) but is not in Tesla's plan....

 

[Buckminster]

2:16 in:
Battery Day | Tesla

Iron based cathodes - Long cycle life
Megapack
M2 (City driving)
M3 (Robotaxis)

Nickel + Manganese - Long range
MY
MS
MX
Powerwall

High Nickel - Mass sensitive
Cybertruck
Semi

Does everyone expect Tesla to actually follow this? Isn't high Nickel worth paying the extra for all?

Are all of these likely capable of a million miles? Is Elon being conservative due to the unknowns on other technologies. Presumably DBE process could be a weak link. Also silicon expansion.

 

[Buckminster]

Guesses for 4680 deployment dates:

2020
Megapack - pilot only

2021
Powerpack
Powerwall
Semi
Cybertruck
Plaid - late 21

2022
MS
MX
Roadster

2023
MY
M3
M2

 

[Buckminster]

Can someone explain the 54% range increase?

It's not 54% increased range per cell
It's not 54% increased range per $ - I think..
It's not 54% increased range per kg - that would be a peculiar measure
Is it 54% increased range for a given volume? Part of this could be the impact from reduced kg/kWh.
ie. 44% increase in kWh plus 10% from a relative mass reduction per kg.

MY LR has a usable capacity of 72.5 kWh giving a range of 316 miles. Are Tesla saying that in the same space they can fit enough better batteries to achieve 487 miles? Approx 104 kWh (44% more kWh plus mass reduction).

Let's try this out on the Plaid:

520 miles is a 50% increase in range over the P100D. Therefore 95*1.44 = 137 kWh (usable).

On the flip side, an MY LR requiring 72.5 kWh should need 61 kWh to achieve 316 miles (10% down).

Cost per kWh is down 56%. This is a total cost reduction of 72.5/(61/1.56)=85% cost reduction in batteries.

Am I right? Is the 10% correct?

 

[Buckminster]

Slidepack:
Tesla Battery Day Slides 2020/09/22

 

[byeLT4]

Can someone explain the 54% range increase?

Sorry I couldn't be more 'helpful', but I marked your post that because I was wondering this as well.

 

[Buckminster]

Can someone explain the 54% range increase?

It's not 54% increased range per cell
It's not 54% increased range per $ - I think..
It's not 54% increased range per kg - that would be a peculiar measure
Is it 54% increased range for a given volume? Part of this could be the impact from reduced kg/kWh.
ie. 44% increase in kWh plus 10% from a relative mass reduction per kg.

MY LR has a usable capacity of 72.5 kWh giving a range of 316 miles. Are Tesla saying that in the same space they can fit enough better batteries to achieve 487 miles? Approx 104 kWh (44% more kWh plus mass reduction).

Let's try this out on the Plaid:

520 miles is a 50% increase in range over the P100D. Therefore 95*1.44 = 137 kWh (usable).

On the flip side, an MY LR requiring 72.5 kWh should need 61 kWh to achieve 316 miles (10% down).

Cost per kWh is down 56%. This is a total cost reduction of 72.5/(61/1.56)=85% cost reduction in batteries.

Am I right? Is the 10% correct?

Assuming that this is all correct what is the $ at the car level?

Battery in MY LR currently costs 75 kWh * ~120 $/kWh = $9k
New battery = (61+2.5)kWh * (120/1.56) = 63.5*77 = $4885

$4k price reduction ($50k to $46k). This accounts for only 1 of 3 gigacasting cost savings.

Cost of M2 battery:
47.5*(300/250)+2.5=59.5 (size of battery that M3 would require to reach 300 miles)
59.5/1.2 (20% smaller battery?)=50 kWh
50 * 77 $/kWh = $3800

Price of car = $25k
Cost of car = $20k
Cost minus battery = $16k

 

[Buckminster]

Assuming that this is all correct what is the $ at the car level?

Battery in MY LR currently costs 75 kWh * ~120 $/kWh = $9k
New battery = (61+2.5)kWh * (120/1.56) = 63.5*77 = $4885

$4k price reduction ($50k to $46k). This accounts for only 1 of 3 gigacasting cost savings.

Cost of M2 battery:
47.5*(300/250)+2.5=59.5 (size of battery that M3 would require to reach 300 miles)
59.5/1.2 (20% smaller battery?)=50 kWh
50 * 77 $/kWh = $3800

Price of car = $25k
Cost of car = $20k
Cost minus battery = $16k

Not sure where I got 300 miles from. According to Electrek he hinted it would have more than 200. Assuming 220, new calcs:
3800/(300/220)=~$3000. Therefore cost minus battery = $17k.

 

[Buckminster]

Disclaimer: This is just my humble opinion

* The first 4680 cells from the Kato road line will go to the Semi (100% confidence)
* Then any remaining capacity will go to Cybertruck & Plaid Model S (50/50 confidence)
* Berlin Model Y gets its own line in late 2021
* Fremont X,3,Y & Austin Y continue to get Giga 1 Pana 2170 cells until Tesla ramps up. Probably in 2022. My Twitter friend Louis tells me Pana contract expires in June 2023
* Standard Range+ Model 3 and Ys in EU, China, Hong Kong, Australia & China will be CATL supplied Lithium Iron Phosphate prismatic cells until such time Tesla can make their own (and have enough for $25k small car).

If Pana were to use Tesla Battery day tech, they will have to make additional investments plus write down the value of their 18650 lines in Giga 1, one of which was commissioned only recently

I saw the report too, but this seems strange to me in terms of replacing the S&X supply - why would they change the pack to 2170 after so long on 18650 when they'll just have to do it again soon when the 4680 ramps?


In terms of cells already produced. Drew said they had made 10s of 000s of 4680 cells. My understanding is that a 75KWh pack would take around 800 4680 cells - so a new plaid pack uses c.1,200-1,500 cells (as a rough guess) - That's only 6-8 plaid drivetrains per 10k cells.

At the moment the 4680s have probably just been used for test vehicles - a fleet of less than 80 would use up all that has currently been made - even less if going into semi prototypes. That said, Elon's new tweet confuses things a little - Is he just referring to having their cells in packs driving prototype cars, or is there more to it?
View attachment 592708


Maybe - but would those old lines be worth refurbishing given the extreme efficiency gain of roadrunner and their limited output potential?
Agree - it's quite difficult to get the numbers post 4680 introduction to align with the information we have.

Following Elon's latest tweet, which of these can be done by suppliers:
Discussion here:

Cell Design
4680 size - easy, no IP
Tabless - hard, Tesla would need to transfer IP. Without Tabless, you couldn't increase the size. Is Tabless the only change required by suppliers to prove 4680 size?

Cell factory
Hard - requires Maxwell IP which Tesla is unlikely to handover.

Anode
Hard - Tesla won't handover IP

Cathode
Easy - suppliers have 3 choices

Cell to structure
Easy - assuming 4680 as Tesla will do it
Medium - If 2170s, presumably Tesla could develop?

It seems to me that it all hinges on tabless. If Tesla sell them the IP or they can do it themselves then Tesla will use sub-std 4680s from suppliers. If not, Tesla, will move to provide 4680s on all products.

 

[Buckminster]

I'll take the latter on that.

1. Range is a result of energy (per pack), minus electrical losses, minus mechanical losses
   
2. Cell cost numbers are in $/energy
3. Factory costs are in $/energy (per time)

If these are not simultaneously applicable, there is a problem:
3 cannot be dependant on 2. If it were, DBE and increase in energy per cell bring almost nothing to the table (percentages are very similar). This is not logical.
3 and 1 cannot be linked. The manufacturing infrastructure cost does not impact vehicle efficiency.
2 and 1 cannot be linked. Having more kWh per pack would increase range. However, range is miles/wH (kWh/100km), not miles per $.

The cell is more efficent and lighter per unit energy, and the car is ligher due to pack design (with deoendancy on cell manufacturing):
Result: More range per kWh

Each cell hold more energy, the process steps are fewer, the supply chain is streamlined, and the factory amortized costs per cell are less (this is a linkage, but a small%):
Result: Less $/kWh

Each factory (both cell and vehicle) have multiple steps/ equipment removed and the quantity of cells is slashed (linked to cell design):
Less cost per GWh of build capacity.

Improvements are dependent on all the changes happening, but each aspect's improvement percentage stands alone.

Edit: finished post

In case you guys were wondering what applying Tesla's battery day slide:

with a baseline model 3 battery pack, it looks like this:

What you see above is the end of ICE.

The $/KWh of $108 is from Sandy Munro's estimate. (Same with the $250 for the Bolt)

For instance, a circa 2023/2024 Tesla Model 3 Plaid edition could not only easily be a 850hp monster with 450-500 miles of range, but it would cost less to build than the current M3P! Even with more powerful motors taken into account!

Using the bottom numbers as a baseline, they match up with Plaid S perfectly. You end up with a 630kg battery pack with ~150KWh of storage, 840 KW of power, and a cost of $7,128.

BTW, The 200KWh Roadster pack probably has ~1.1MW of power available!!!!!

 

[kbM3]

Can someone explain the 54% range increase?

It's not 54% increased range per cell
It's not 54% increased range per $ - I think..
It's not 54% increased range per kg - that would be a peculiar measure
Is it 54% increased range for a given volume? Part of this could be the impact from reduced kg/kWh.
ie. 44% increase in kWh plus 10% from a relative mass reduction per kg.

MY LR has a usable capacity of 72.5 kWh giving a range of 316 miles. Are Tesla saying that in the same space they can fit enough better batteries to achieve 487 miles? Approx 104 kWh (44% more kWh plus mass reduction).

Let's try this out on the Plaid:

520 miles is a 50% increase in range over the P100D. Therefore 95*1.44 = 137 kWh (usable).

On the flip side, an MY LR requiring 72.5 kWh should need 61 kWh to achieve 316 miles (10% down).

Cost per kWh is down 56%. This is a total cost reduction of 72.5/(61/1.56)=85% cost reduction in batteries.

Am I right? Is the 10% correct?

Has anyone worked out what the denominator for the 4680 54% range increase is? Is it ~44% increase in kWh for a given volume of assigned space plus a ~10% bump in range from reduced mass / kWh?

Jordan (The Limiting Factor) has started dissecting the presentation but hasn't got there yet.

My guess is that it’s gravimetric energy density at the pack level. I.e. 160 Wh / kg -> 250 Wh / kg.

I believe at some point in the presentation true specified it was an energy density increase when it comes to energy storage. It sounds like they were using range for vehicles to simplify for the audience.

I don’t think volumetric energy density improved that much. They quoted 5X Energy increase, but the cell is 5.5X larger.

 

[scaesare]

Incidentally, I suspect the 4680's are 25+Ah cells. That puts them in the neighborhood of 100Wh!

 

[Buckminster]

2:16 in:
Battery Day | Tesla

Iron based cathodes - Long cycle life
Megapack
M2 (City driving)
M3 (Robotaxis)

Nickel + Manganese - Long range
MY
MS
MX
Powerwall

High Nickel - Mass sensitive
Cybertruck
Semi

Does everyone expect Tesla to actually follow this? Isn't high Nickel worth paying the extra for all?

Elon has been consistent:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313855469719560192
We do expect to make heavy use of LFP for medium range cars & stationary storage

 

[Buckminster]

2m miles?
Tesla battery researcher shows new test results pointing to batteries lasting over 2 million miles - Electrek