-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I've always disagreed with Chu as the the magnitude of improvement in cost and density necessary for EV's to hit an "exciting" price point. I think it happens much sooner than he does. Frankly I'm not sure you can buy the raw materials for an EV sized battery for the $1500 he quotes, and I doubt copper, aluminum, electrolyte, separators, and plastic are going to drop in price much, let alone the active materials. I would of course love to be wrong.
Last edited:
Norbert
TSLA will win
He is talking about plugin-hybrid batteries, so that would be maybe $100/kWh. I guess it depends on the achievable energy density (more energy rather than less material).
Design News - Blog - Superbattery: The Next Great Triumph of Engineering
More hype for lithium air...
More hype for lithium air...
I found a new to me old document: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/149.pdf
It is from way back in 2000 and has a bunch of interesting details on cell construction.
They look at different large format lithium cells that they assume would be appropriate for vehicles.
The 18650 is included I think because it is an example of the major lithium batteries in production at the time.
Some fun tidbits: The state of the art 18650 cell in 2000 was 1350 mAh.
If todays state of the art 18650 is 3400 mAh, thats pretty much bang on 8% improvement per year over 12 years.
They estimate the material cost for a LiCoO2 18650 cell at $1.28:
cathode: LiCoO2 : 48% of the cost. ( dominated by cost of lithium carbonate + cost of cobalt )
Separator: 11% ( polyethylene or polypropylene film - material actually cheap, this is manufacturing cost )
Electrolyte: 23% ( LiPF6 or other lithium salt, significant manufacturing cost included )
Anode: 19% ( graphite - just carbon: all manufacturing cost like separators )
They estimate the cost to produce 18650s at $1.70 each - thus $.42 per cell is manufacturing overhead ( which reduces with scale and process improvements ).
It would be interesting to see how the prices of all those components have changed over the last 12 years.
It is from way back in 2000 and has a bunch of interesting details on cell construction.
They look at different large format lithium cells that they assume would be appropriate for vehicles.
The 18650 is included I think because it is an example of the major lithium batteries in production at the time.
Some fun tidbits: The state of the art 18650 cell in 2000 was 1350 mAh.
If todays state of the art 18650 is 3400 mAh, thats pretty much bang on 8% improvement per year over 12 years.
They estimate the material cost for a LiCoO2 18650 cell at $1.28:
cathode: LiCoO2 : 48% of the cost. ( dominated by cost of lithium carbonate + cost of cobalt )
Separator: 11% ( polyethylene or polypropylene film - material actually cheap, this is manufacturing cost )
Electrolyte: 23% ( LiPF6 or other lithium salt, significant manufacturing cost included )
Anode: 19% ( graphite - just carbon: all manufacturing cost like separators )
They estimate the cost to produce 18650s at $1.70 each - thus $.42 per cell is manufacturing overhead ( which reduces with scale and process improvements ).
It would be interesting to see how the prices of all those components have changed over the last 12 years.
It is becoming obvious that Roadster with todays top battery technology could have 350 mile EPA range and even a bit better acceleration. But Tesla Motors would have lower margins or it would cost much more.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Why would it cost much more? Tesla said the $/kWh price is now half of what it was in the Roadster (at the beginning, I guess). By that number, anything less than 490 miles range should still be less expensive.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The $/kWh comment is probably referring to similar cells as the Roadster (in the 2200mah-2400mah range). The 3100mah cells in the 85kWh pack probably costs more per kWh in comparison, and such high capacity cells will be necessary if you want to build a Roadster with that kind of range (without a excessively huge/heavy battery pack).
Because Tesla Motors needs to make money. There is only so much time when a new company can afford to loose money i.e. only invest, invest and invest. Sooner or later investors demand profits or liquidation.
At the start of Roadster production they were selling them with very thin margins. To thin for 2000 roadsters to cover all investments. In the long run they needed much higher profit per car sold to survive.
Reducing the production cost and selling at same price is "the nice way" of increasing the margin. Raising prices always brings bad publicity.
I expect some of the first 2008 roadsters to pull their battery replacement warranty in 2013, even if Tesla charges $4k extra for being 2 years early. The replacement pack either has same capacity at reduced weight, increased capacity at same weight, or something in between. Reactions both in public and here will be interesting, perhaps leading to a bunch of roadster owners asking for a pack upgrade even if they have to pay full cost. The PR of a 400 mile pack cannot be underestimated, or of acceleration times sub 3.5 seconds.
I disagree. Most roadsters still retain plenty of range, and unless Tesla offers a killer pack(very doubtfull since it's a $16k pack), I don't see a $16k advantage to get that extra 10-40 miles of range.
If the replacement pack available does not offer some performance advantage, my current plan is to not replace my pack until the range is very low.
How low? I cannot say at this time - somewhere in the 120 to 150 mile ballpark.
I don't need the Roadster to have long range.
I don't need my Roadster to accelerate better either, but I would pay for a new pack that improved it.
How low? I cannot say at this time - somewhere in the 120 to 150 mile ballpark.
I don't need the Roadster to have long range.
I don't need my Roadster to accelerate better either, but I would pay for a new pack that improved it.
I agree 100%. The truth for me is that 100 mile range is more than enough for 99% of my driving. The only way I could be tempted to getting a new pack earlier is if it provided much better performance. But even then it would be a tough call as I don't really *need* the car to be faster. But whether I would buy it or not, I would like Tesla to offer the option because it would make the car more valuable to have that option.
jeffhre
Member
How will an upgraded pack deliver quicker performance unless the power electronics were also upgraded?
Because the limiting factor in the smaller-battery Model Ss is not the power electronics, but the rate of discharge from the cells. There are too few cells, with too low a discharge rate per cell, to push enough power out to saturate the power electronics. That's why the 40kWh car has a higher 0-60 time than the 85kWh car, even though they have the same PEM and motor.
Similar threads
