LG Chem 120kWh battery packs for sale to manufacturers "looking to exceed MS range"

[CHG-ON]

Let's hope it's true and competitive. Competition is what drives prices down. lTt's keep Tesla, who is in the lead, on their toes. We will all benefit, as will Tesla if they can stay on their game, which I am confident they will do.

 

[RobStark]

Yes, this announcement takes the Model S P120D one step closer to reality.

 

[Jeff N]

I read that story earlier this morning and it makes no sense to me. If somebody wanted to, why couldn't they take existing cells like the ones used in the Volt and build up a 120kWh pack? They didn't say anything about Ah capacity of the cells in question. Actually, this begs the question - is the Volt pack completely in series with no parallel cell connections at all? What about the Leaf? The only benefit to prismatic cells in my mind is that you could potentially build a single series string of cells to reach your target voltage and capacity. So, if they are saying that they now have cells that can be made into a 120kWh pack of less than 500VDC in a single string, now that's saying something. You would have to have 240Ah cells to make a 500V string come to 120kWh. I'm no expert, but I don't think they have reached that level yet.

The 1st generation Volt uses 96 groups of 3 parallel cells (P3S96) for 17.1 kWh. The 2nd generation Volt starting this fall will use 96 groups of cell pairs (P2S96) for 18.4 kWh. The cells are thought to be be around 180 Wh per kg.

 

[arg]

I would expect a bit more range.

So they're ready to supply Model S batteries with a reserve of 35 kWh? /confused

They don't say how large/heavy this 120kWh pack is. If it's so big that it needs to go in something like a full-size SUV, then they would need to assume an inferior Wh/mile compared to Model S.

 

[purplewalt]

Price per kWh? Energy density? Power density? How much capacity in gWh of production does LG have?

If there is a substantial amount of energy stored in the pack, is there a TMS (Temperature Management System) similar to what Tesla employs, where the pack can be either heated or cooled?
Existing Leafs tend to loose battery capacity and effectiveness in areas with very high temperature (Arizona).
My understanding is Leafs do not currently have any sort of TMS.

 

[ThosEM]

Price per kWh? Energy density? Power density? How much capacity in gWh of production does LG have?

+1! Anyone can claim to have a battery, but someone who actually has one can answer those questions convincingly, and should. If the answers aren't given, there probably isn't yet a real battery. But I do agree that such an announcement puts pressure on Tesla to produce bigger capacities at lower prices, which can only benefit everyone. Still, delivering the actual battery will do so much more powerfully.

 

[sandpiper]

Yes, this announcement takes the Model S P120D one step closer to reality.

Exactly. Elon has stated repeatedly that he sees no need for a longer range vehicle. This reminds me a bit of Steve Job's, "nobody needs a bigger phone screen" argument. Hopefully this will push them a bit harder into finding a way to produce one.

Although, I'm sure that LG will be a couple of years (at least) before we see a 120kwh pack on the market. So, Tesla has time to ignore our pleas for a while yet.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Exactly. Elon has stated repeatedly that he sees no need for a longer range vehicle. This reminds me a bit of Steve Job's, "nobody needs a bigger phone screen" argument. Hopefully this will push them a bit harder into finding a way to produce one.

Although, I'm sure that LG will be a couple of years (at least) before we see a 120kwh pack on the market. So, Tesla has time to ignore our pleas for a while yet.

I don't think that's quite true: Elon has made clear the 200 mile minimum, but I remember when asked about something like 400 mile range, he snapped back "Why not 500?". I don't think he sees no need for a longer range vehicle, but questions the value.

In any case, range/kWh varies with vehicle, demand and load, so even if you think Elon Musk thinks that 300 miles of range is sufficient, a 120kWh battery would still be useful for towing, a pick-up or a trackable peformance car, and therefore he'd see value in it.

 

[dpeilow]

If LG supplies Audi and Audi has the 280 mile R8 etron, maybe it's not a huge leap to assume they are supplying a bigger pack for a forthcoming Qx SUV?

 

[gavine]

Will this LG battery be able to accept Super-Charger-Level charging? If not, that's still a problem in my mind for mass adoption.

 

[scaesare]

Exactly. Elon has stated repeatedly that he sees no need for a longer range vehicle.

I'm not sure I've heard him take that stance... and although I don't have any direct quotations handy, it runs rather counter to many of the principals he has espoused.

Do you have a source for that... I suspect if he said something along those lines, there's some context needed to put it in perspective.

 

[techmaven]

Let's add some real numbers to get a sense of what LG is going to ship and how that compares to Tesla.

First, for reference, Tesla's current battery. It uses Panasonic cells, similar to the NCR18650BE, but with some normal parts removed. It uses nickel cobalt aluminum chemistry (NCA) and sports somewhere around 250-260 Wh/kg specific energy. Tesla puts 7100+ of these into a 85 kWh battery and the price point is somewhere around $280 / kWh retail consumer cost and somewhere around $220/kWh battery cost to Tesla and $160-180/kWh for the cells sourced from Panasonic's Osaka production plants. The resulting pack is about 1200 lbs, or 544 kg resulting a pack level density of 156 Wh/kg. The total retail cost of this battery as part of a new car is $23,800. Tesla allows about 5C max discharge and 1.7 C max charging (Supercharger for 60 kWh packs).

To use these cells to go to 120 kWh, assuming a linear addition of pack structure would then weigh 770 kg, or 1,700 pounds. That's a 500 lb increase for a 40% larger battery. It is also a volumetric increase which means you have to find somewhere to put the additional cells. Again, assuming linear cost increase, it would be $33,600 or a $9,800 price increase. Tesla obviously felt that going to a dual drive model was a better tradeoff than adding more cells of the current generation. Going to a bigger pack will increase range, but drivability will suffer, acceleration will suffer, and efficiency will suffer without the benefits of the second motor. Likely within the confines of the existing Model S design, additional battery structure will upset the center of gravity and the weight distribution as well as affect battery swap capability.

LG has been shipping cells for a number of EVs. They have roughly 6 GWh of cell production on tap but that capacity has been chronically under utilized. For more on that, see: #3
They have signed deals with GM, Ford, Renault, Nissan, Volkswagen, Volvo, Hyundai-Kia, Daimler Mercedes, and Volvo for cells. As a result, this presentation by VW on the "Future Mobility" is of particular interest because it likely highlights LG Chem's product roadmap:

http://www.volkswagenag.com/content...entation+Barclays+London+Steiger+TOP+COPY.pdf

We are in the middle of the transition to NMC chemistry for non-Tesla automakers. The 2nd generation of NMC is likely to hit 220-230 Wh/kg specific energy at the cell level, which means roughly doubling the range of current non-Tesla vehicles. Note that is still lower than Tesla's 2012 specific energy levels. It is possible, or even likely that some manufacturers like Nissan will forgo liquid thermal management in order to achieve a simpler, less costly pack while also getting pack level specific energy that rivals or beats Tesla's 2012 benchmark of 156 Wh/kg. Also, NMC typically supports higher C rates than Tesla's NCA pack and higher cycle life. Hence the daily cycle version of Tesla's PowerWall uses NMC chemistry. The downside is lower specific energy and higher cost.

The Kia Soul EV already has 200 Wh/kg cells supplied by SK Innovation.

As you can see from page 18 of that VW presentation, we are about to see products from the first level of the "Outlook" section. That's the 2016 Nissan Leaf with a 30 kWh battery. We'll then get the next generation of cell going into Leaf v2 and the Bolt. This will enable the city type of products... the e-Golf, Leaf, i3, Bolt and so forth to have real usable range (150 miles of EPA range) that covers most commutes even in winter, even with cell degradation. It will propel the BEV market significantly forward. But it isn't a long range capable setup, as it is still behind Tesla's current chemistry.

Here is an Autoline interview where LG Chem's Prabhakar Patil discusses with a notable panel the future of batteries:
The Charge of the Battery Brigade - Autoline This Week 1833 - YouTube

As a result, LG can talk about 120 kWh batteries, but that means likely a battery pack weighing 925 kg or 2,000+ lbs with cooling and pack structure using chemistry they are shipping in 2016 or 2017.

We expect that Tesla will push new chemistry for the Model 3. Who knows, they may introduce that chemistry into a Model X or Model S well before Model 3 introduction.

 

[ggies07]

Let's add some real numbers to get a sense of what LG is going to ship and how that compares to Tesla.

First, for reference, Tesla's current battery. It uses Panasonic cells, similar to the NCR18650BE, but with some normal parts removed. It uses nickel cobalt aluminum chemistry (NCA) and sports somewhere around 250-260 Wh/kg specific energy. Tesla puts 7100+ of these into a 85 kWh battery and the price point is somewhere around $280 / kWh retail consumer cost and somewhere around $220/kWh battery cost to Tesla and $160-180/kWh for the cells sourced from Panasonic's Osaka production plants. The resulting pack is about 1200 lbs, or 544 kg resulting a pack level density of 156 Wh/kg. The total retail cost of this battery as part of a new car is $23,800. Tesla allows about 5C max discharge and 1.7 C max charging (Supercharger for 60 kWh packs).

To use these cells to go to 120 kWh, assuming a linear addition of pack structure would then weigh 770 kg, or 1,700 pounds. That's a 500 lb increase for a 40% larger battery. It is also a volumetric increase which means you have to find somewhere to put the additional cells. Again, assuming linear cost increase, it would be $33,600 or a $9,800 price increase. Tesla obviously felt that going to a dual drive model was a better tradeoff than adding more cells of the current generation. Going to a bigger pack will increase range, but drivability will suffer, acceleration will suffer, and efficiency will suffer without the benefits of the second motor. Likely within the confines of the existing Model S design, additional battery structure will upset the center of gravity and the weight distribution as well as affect battery swap capability.

LG has been shipping cells for a number of EVs. They have roughly 6 GWh of cell production on tap but that capacity has been chronically under utilized. For more on that, see: #3
They have signed deals with GM, Ford, Renault, Nissan, Volkswagen, Volvo, Hyundai-Kia, Daimler Mercedes, and Volvo for cells. As a result, this presentation by VW on the "Future Mobility" is of particular interest because it likely highlights LG Chem's product roadmap:

http://www.volkswagenag.com/content...entation+Barclays+London+Steiger+TOP+COPY.pdf

We are in the middle of the transition to NMC chemistry for non-Tesla automakers. The 2nd generation of NMC is likely to hit 220-230 Wh/kg specific energy at the cell level, which means roughly doubling the range of current non-Tesla vehicles. Note that is still lower than Tesla's 2012 specific energy levels. It is possible, or even likely that some manufacturers like Nissan will forgo liquid thermal management in order to achieve a simpler, less costly pack while also getting pack level specific energy that rivals or beats Tesla's 2012 benchmark of 156 Wh/kg. Also, NMC typically supports higher C rates than Tesla's NCA pack and higher cycle life. Hence the daily cycle version of Tesla's PowerWall uses NMC chemistry. The downside is lower specific energy and higher cost.

The Kia Soul EV already has 200 Wh/kg cells supplied by SK Innovation.

As you can see from page 18 of that VW presentation, we are about to see products from the first level of the "Outlook" section. That's the 2016 Nissan Leaf with a 30 kWh battery. We'll then get the next generation of cell going into Leaf v2 and the Bolt. This will enable the city type of products... the e-Golf, Leaf, i3, Bolt and so forth to have real usable range (150 miles of EPA range) that covers most commutes even in winter, even with cell degradation. It will propel the BEV market significantly forward. But it isn't a long range capable setup, as it is still behind Tesla's current chemistry.

Here is an Autoline interview where LG Chem's Prabhakar Patil discusses with a notable panel the future of batteries:
The Charge of the Battery Brigade - Autoline This Week 1833 - YouTube

As a result, LG can talk about 120 kWh batteries, but that means likely a battery pack weighing 925 kg or 2,000+ lbs with cooling and pack structure using chemistry they are shipping in 2016 or 2017.

We expect that Tesla will push new chemistry for the Model 3. Who knows, they may introduce that chemistry into a Model X or Model S well before Model 3 introduction.

Great post, thanks for the links!

 

[ggies07]

This is page 27 of the PDF:
I see one BEV for the future and the rest PHEV....really!?!

This is page 28 of the PDF:
Why all this work when a BEV will suffice?

 

[techmaven]

This is page 27 of the PDF:
I see one BEV for the future and the rest PHEV....really!?!


View attachment 82437



This is page 28 of the PDF:
Why all this work when a BEV will suffice?

Simply BEVs don't yet work out for them across the wide portfolio of vehicles and the upcoming pollution requirements for zero emissions vehicles within European cities means that pretty much they must offer PHEV's across a wide range of products. So for the next 2-5 years, they will be electrifying more and more vehicles, mostly with PHEVs and offer some BEVs for those willing to take that plunge. With specific energy and cost on a per kWh basis worse than Tesla 2012's benchmark, they are hamstrung in terms of offering BEV alternatives across their entire product lines in the next few years.

 

[3mp_kwh]

Not wise to dismiss LG Chem

Will this LG battery be able to accept Super-Charger-Level charging? If not, that's still a problem in my mind for mass adoption.

Take one cell, put another next to it, and you have the ability to accept a higher amperage without a lot of tech. So, I don't think accepting higher DCFC is so much the issue. Who the next investor in DCFC build-out, at 120kwh levels of delivery capacity, is perhaps the bigger question.

To use these cells to go to 120 kWh, assuming a linear addition of pack structure would then weigh 770 kg, or 1,700 pounds. That's a 500 lb increase for a 40% larger battery. It is also a volumetric increase which means you have to find somewhere to put the additional cells. Again, assuming linear cost increase, it would be $33,600 or a $9,800 price increase. Tesla obviously felt that going to a dual drive model was a better tradeoff than adding more cells of the current generation. Going to a bigger pack will increase range, but drivability will suffer, acceleration will suffer, and efficiency will suffer without the benefits of the second motor. Likely within the confines of the existing Model S design, additional battery structure will upset the center of gravity and the weight distribution as well as affect battery swap capability.

You think dual-drive was a trade-off for battery cells? Those range gains were nominal, relative to what 120kwh would yield. No, it wouldn't be as efficient, but this market space is where that isn't so critical. I'd love to see Tesla get more BEV competition, too, but 120kwh in a bigger car, like a Model X, could cause net-harm to 85kwh MX sales. It's interesting because Tesla may soon find themselves making the "85kwh + SuperCharging" argument against another OEM with 120kwh, and far weaker DCFC. The other OEM might sell a lot of cars with uneducated answers.

 

[WarpedOne]

120kWh at 220Wh/kg = 545kg cells only
Add 300kg of housing etc and you end up with 800kg battery, 1700 pounds.

This is a bus battery, not a car battery.

 

[techmaven]

You think dual-drive was a trade-off for battery cells? Those range gains were nominal, relative to what 120kwh would yield. No, it wouldn't be as efficient, but this market space is where that isn't so critical. I'd love to see Tesla get more BEV competition, too, but 120kwh in a bigger car, like a Model X, could cause net-harm to 85kwh MX sales. It's interesting because Tesla may soon find themselves making the "85kwh + SuperCharging" argument against another OEM with 120kwh, and far weaker DCFC. The other OEM might sell a lot of cars with uneducated answers.

I don't see anyone shipping large quantities of 120 kWh battery packs using the next generation of NMC (2016/2017 introduction timeframe). The cost would be prohibitive, probably somewhere around $50,000 for the battery pack alone. It could go into some very expensive cars, but more as a gimmick than anything else. Then there is the fact that CHAdeMO and CCS currently are limited to 200 amp fast charging. A new standard, including a new connector would have to be established since the pins in the current standards won't be big enough to go to 300+ amps. Tesla is already at 333 amps.

Therefore, while it is theoretically possible for someone to ship a 120 kWh NMC v2 pack in a car sometime between now and 2018, it likely will be extraordinarily expensive, heavy, and will lack a suitable DC fast charging infrastructure. Maybe it can ship in the guise of a Bentley or something like that and charge at existing CHAdeMO/CCS at 80 kW. The discharge C-rate would be impressive. Maybe in the guise of an AWD armored limo. The chemistry itself is more stable than NCA (less prone to fire) and the cost issues are likely to be a much smaller issue for a luxury armored limo.

 

[roblab]

It's one thing to "supply" a battery to a car maker, but then the car maker has to build to fit the battery. So far, this noise from LG means nothing, unless a real car maker claims they want to use it. Until then, nothing happens.

It is also a very minor feat to claim that "we have a 120 kWh battery". I strongly suspect that Tesla already has a 170 kWh battery in testing: two 85s stacked. Tesla is simply waiting until they can build what they need before offering more. That LG has extra battery making ability means nothing. They don't have the ability to use what they "might" make, which is why they aren't making them. I would be worried if my factory was idling because I had no sales.

Interesting that there are no parameters given. We guess at the weight, but I don't see guesses as to size. Is it a flat brick like Tesla's, only thicker? Is it multiple small building blocks that car makers can wedge in around the motor, the trunk, the wheel wells, the center hump? The whole announcement smells like vapor.

And also interesting is that every major car maker says they are not interested in full BEVs, so only have plans for hybrids. How you gonna sell your 120 kWh battery to a market that doesn't care? Sure, Bentley could offer an armored carrier. Oh, they'll sell a ton of them. Unfortunately, a "ton" is only a third of a car.

Dumb.

 

[dpeilow]

I remember a year or so ago, LG put out a press release that they would be supplying the battery for a 200 mile car. It took a few months before rumours that it was GM were confirmed.

Perhaps this is their way of saying they have a customer in the bag without being allowed to say who.