Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Envia - Tesla "cannot bring the battery cost down with the chemistry they are using"

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
An interview with the CEO of Envia.

Mercury News Interview: Atul Kapadia of battery-maker Envia Systems - San Jose Mercury News

Q: What do you think of Tesla Motors (TSLA) and their battery?
A: Tesla has done a brilliant job of managing the manufacturing problem. But fundamentally, they are still using the wrong chemistry. They cannot bring the battery cost down with the chemistry they are using.

Yeah. LOL. I read that interview too. He's wrong. Tesla isn't married to any particular battery chemistry. Elon and team will use whatever is best at any particular time in the future. Up to this point, the standard laptop chemistry and 18650 form factor was best. In the future, they'll weigh their options.
 
Yeah. LOL. I read that interview too. He's wrong. Tesla isn't married to any particular battery chemistry. Elon and team will use whatever is best at any particular time in the future. Up to this point, the standard laptop chemistry and 18650 form factor was best. In the future, they'll weigh their options.
Exactly. Plus 18650 format is very flexible and Tesla has already had a chemistry change (from standard Lithium cobalt oxide to the newer NCA chemsitry, which is more energy dense and cheaper due to using less cobalt).

Envia is riding a wave of good PR, but I suggest they not set expectations so high lest they become the next a123.
 
Exactly. Plus 18650 format is very flexible and Tesla has already had a chemistry change (from standard Lithium cobalt oxide to the newer NCA chemsitry, which is more energy dense and cheaper due to using less cobalt).

Envia is riding a wave of good PR, but I suggest they not set expectations so high lest they become the next a123.

yep. Exhibit A. TM has already switched chemistry once and they will do again many times as tech evolves.
 
My understanding is that Envia, or any other improved battery technology that comes along would be used by Tesla if they felt it was an improvement on what they have now.

I don't believe so.
Tesla uses consumer batteries for a number of reasons. The technology is well proven, and the cost is lower. It also allows them the greatest flexibility in suppliers. A123 went bankrupt, Fisker now has major concerns about what the Chinese company that owns the remains of A123 is going to do.
 
In one interview Musk said that there is chemistry in development(last summer I believe) that have a real promise for delivering of much lower prices. But he right away made a remark that he could not discuss the subject(NDA?).

So Tesla is definitely open to propositions. But so do other automakers.
 
I don't believe so.
Tesla uses consumer batteries for a number of reasons. The technology is well proven, and the cost is lower. It also allows them the greatest flexibility in suppliers. A123 went bankrupt, Fisker now has major concerns about what the Chinese company that owns the remains of A123 is going to do.
As long as they make it in 18650 format, Tesla can pretty much use it. So Tesla can use A123 if they wanted to since A123 does make their cells in that format:
http://www.a123systems.com/lifepo4-battery-cell.htm

Apparently Envia can make their chemistry in 18650 format too:
Cell design and engineering capability to supply prototype 18650, 26700 cylindrical cells and 20Ah, 40Ah and 55Ah automotive grade pouch cells
http://enviasystems.com/company/about-us/
 
A123 went bankrupt, Fisker now has major concerns about what the Chinese company that owns the remains of A123 is going to do.

??? Are you aware that Fisker fought fiercely in a court in attempt to prevent Johnson Controls from acquiring A123? Fisker created lawsuit specifically designed to give Wanxiang more time to come up with competing bid. And Wanxiang was reluctant to bid, having it share of problems with Chinese authorities approving oversees investment. Plus doubting US legal system/authorities after first(summer) acquisition attempt failed.

Are you aware that first thing that Johnson Controls did after placing it bid was asking judge to dismiss contract between A123 and Fisker? Johnson did not like to be bothered by being forced to deal with smallish EV producers like Fisker...

How dose this constitute "major concerns about ... Chinese company"?

At the end Wanxiang was able to get approval in China and placed it bid virtually in a last minute of the auction. But with all anti-Chinese sentiments around Fisker & Wanxiang might get screwed again. There are lots of press that deal should not go through... And US authorities seems to still have a means of doing just that.

PS. Sorry, I missed your post on first pass. You might have posted after I started to type mine or something.:smile:
 
Yeah. LOL. I read that interview too. He's wrong. Tesla isn't married to any particular battery chemistry.
Actually he's right, and your last sentence brings home his point. He said Tesla cannot bring the cost down with the chemistry they are using. In fact they are using different chemistry in the S than they used in the Roadster, and future cost reductions will probably come from different chemistry as well. I'd say he's wrong when he says Tesla is using the wrong chemistry, they are using the most energy dense and cost effective chemistry at the moment. If Envia or anyone else comes up with something cheaper and better I'm sure Tesla will use it.
 
Actually he's right, and your last sentence brings home his point. He said Tesla cannot bring the cost down with the chemistry they are using. In fact they are using different chemistry in the S than they used in the Roadster, and future cost reductions will probably come from different chemistry as well. I'd say he's wrong when he says Tesla is using the wrong chemistry, they are using the most energy dense and cost effective chemistry at the moment. If Envia or anyone else comes up with something cheaper and better I'm sure Tesla will use it.

But his overall point is that Tesla isn't sustainable because Tesla is using the wrong chemistry (not his). Because Tesla isn't married to a particular chemistry, the overall point is wrong, and the fact that the particular chemistry Tesla is using now isn't likely to decrease in price doesn't enter into it.
 
Where did he say anything about Tesla being sustainable? All he said was Tesla did a great job working with the cells they have but that the current chemistry they are using doesn't have room for much cost reduction. I think you are reading more into it than was said.
 
I don't remember where, but there was a video with some interview with musk, and he said he sees no reason that the price of batteries can't come down, if the cost of raw materials is $80 per kWh, there is obviously a lot of room for improvements. Not sure where he takes the $80, but I assume he knows what he is talking about.