I'm not an expert, but as far as I know the speed is a function of the AC frequency fed into it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
Maybe my mind takes me too much into conspiracy theory, but...
I'm surprised no one even suggested that maybe the reason Elon said that their wasn't any plans to put the 2170 into the S/X line wasn't driven by a technical reason. They are still in contracts with Panasonic for certain quantities of 18650 batteries. Maybe until the contract is up, there are no plans. Once the contract is up, maybe they will have some plans then? If Elon said ANYTHING other than what he said it would likely have a serious impact to MS/MX sales until they started shipping with the new cells. I don't know this is the true motivation, but it certainly is plausible. If Tesla really wanted to reduce the cost of batteries, would they really keep 2 different cell designs, and assembly lines going? Do we really think that there is enough difference in the designs to warrant keeping 2 designs going? I don't, seems like a way to complete the contracts with Panasonic and then switch... but I often parse what Elon says differently than most.
I'm surprised no one even suggested that maybe the reason Elon said that their wasn't any plans to put the 2170 into the S/X line wasn't driven by a technical reason. They are still in contracts with Panasonic for certain quantities of 18650 batteries. Maybe until the contract is up, there are no plans. Once the contract is up, maybe they will have some plans then? If Elon said ANYTHING other than what he said it would likely have a serious impact to MS/MX sales until they started shipping with the new cells. I don't know this is the true motivation, but it certainly is plausible. If Tesla really wanted to reduce the cost of batteries, would they really keep 2 different cell designs, and assembly lines going? Do we really think that there is enough difference in the designs to warrant keeping 2 designs going? I don't, seems like a way to complete the contracts with Panasonic and then switch... but I often parse what Elon says differently than most.
Contract was through 2017. However, more likely is Elon's concern that there's going to be a shortage/delays with 2170s which would adversely affect Model 3 ramp up and rollout.
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
To add some new information/confirmation - render from the first responder's guide shows a flat cabin heater.
Still can't help but look at that giant charge port area and think, what on Earth is Tesla doing with / planning for that?
That triangle in the bottom image corresponds to this already large cover. That graphic makes it clear that there's an even larger box underneath. Even makes it look like it's half empty.
That triangle in the bottom image corresponds to this already large cover. That graphic makes it clear that there's an even larger box underneath. Even makes it look like it's half empty.
Last edited:
Probably planning for the future. The supercharger cabling is already nearing its limits as evidenced by the frequent servicing and replacement of the cables. Eventually, Tesla will need to upgrade to a larger (more Chaedmo like) connector if it wants to support faster charging.
I'm thinking beyond CCS combo. Now that Tesla is part of CharIN, I'm hoping that the next connector standard will be global, well engineered and capable of scaling to the maximum that might be needed by normal passenger vehicles in order for their charge times to be considered "mainstream" (say, ~500-800kW) - even if most deployed chargers in the next few years will be significantly less capable than that. Namely, because I don't want to have to see yet another connector change five years down the road when everyone decides that they're ready for higher powers yet again. This means optional coolant and insulation rated for very high voltages, so that every company's design decisions can be met long into the future. Even if a given station can't max out a given vehicle, every vehicle should be able to connect with every station and get the maximum power that the two can negotiate.
That said, Tesla adding combo ports would be a nice touch at the very least, since - at least theoretically - CHAdeMO is going to start being phased out. Here in Europe we have to have a Type 2 connector regardless, so you might as well add the DC pins if you have the space....
Well, it was very simplified and it isn't applicable to any situation, but since Elon thinks he can use the mass of rocket engines with the weight of cars to prove their merlin engine is too expensive, I can do the same for batteries.
And generally energy density is one of the prime drivers in getting cell cost down.
https://www.theccc.org.uk/archive/aws/IA&S/CCC battery cost_ Element Energy report_March2012_Public.pdf
From the article:
Two main cost drivers have been identified:
-The improvement in material properties delivering higher energy densities
-The scaling up in production of large cell formats
Providing a reference from 2012 on the topic of batteries is like providing a reference from the middle ages on the topic of metallurgy.
The most expensive mass-produced batteries today tend also be the highest energy density - in general, the more cobalt in the cathode, the higher the energy density, but also the higher the price.
Improving energy density without increasing cobalt demand is key. Bonus points if you can reduce nickel as well.
Providing a reference from 2012 on the topic of batteries is like providing a reference from the middle ages on the topic of metallurgy.
The most expensive mass-produced batteries today tend also be the highest energy density - in general, the more cobalt in the cathode, the higher the energy density, but also the higher the price.
Improving energy density without increasing cobalt demand is key. Bonus points if you can reduce nickel as well.
Oh ok, maybe I should stick to providing no references next time and just make up stuff as I go along. Ok one last reference to disprove you, but watch out it's from a non scientist and dates back to November 2016, hopefully that's beyond renaissance in battery terms:
Elon Musk on Tesla/Panasonic’s new 2170 battery cell: ‘highest energy density cell in the world…that is also the cheapest’
So what is the most energy dense mass produced cell? Is it the cheapest, or the most expensive? Now I'm confused.
Dr. J
Active Member
1) Funny then that the M3's pack at least (the only thing that we have actual specs on to compare) appears to have a lower energy density than MS and MX's.
2) I'm sorry that you don't like the fact, but 2012 is grossly obsolete when it comes to batteries. Don't act offended that I pointed this out.
3) Here is modern research on the subject. In general, energy density tracks price, in that the highest densities are also the most expensive - not the least expensive as you claimed.
4) Tesla is distorting the price picture with sheer scale of production compared to its competitors. Much of the cost of battery production is capital, the per-unit cost of which declines with scale.
2) I'm sorry that you don't like the fact, but 2012 is grossly obsolete when it comes to batteries. Don't act offended that I pointed this out.
3) Here is modern research on the subject. In general, energy density tracks price, in that the highest densities are also the most expensive - not the least expensive as you claimed.
4) Tesla is distorting the price picture with sheer scale of production compared to its competitors. Much of the cost of battery production is capital, the per-unit cost of which declines with scale.
Last edited:
1) No it doesn't and that's the point I've trying to make here. The pack isn't 75kWh but more likely 80kWh usable.
2) Not sure what major changes in li-ion battery theory came since 2012. Since they are basically the same when it comes to manufacturing and since their energy/power/charging characteristics really haven't changed all that much I doubt there are many. Semi-conductor technology is really fast moving but general theories of research done back in 2012 are still pretty relevant.
3) Sorry my computer says no server found, could you try to post it again maybe the site where the pdf is?
4: Go back to my first comment.
Is really much of the cost in capital? As far as I can see it only 6% of the total pack cost, so maybe 12% of the cell cost is fixed costs, while 80% of the cell is raw materials. So making those raw materials 10% more expensive is equal to reducing fixed cost by 75%.
From the EPA docs it's about 78kWh. Which is a pretty insignificant difference vs. 75kWh.
I... seriously? Just... I'm not even going to touch this one. Sure, nothing meaningful has change with batteries in the past five years during an unprecedented massive surge of research and investment on the topic - let's go with that.
3) Sorry my computer says no server found, could you try to post it again maybe the site where the pdf is?
Trying again.
Historically, it has been. This has been changing with the sort of rapid scaleup exemplified by the Gigafactory development, which has been allowing to take NCA (normally expensive due to high capital costs) and get its price down.
Here's the main issue, however. Cobalt costs five times more than nickel. Nickel in turn costs 2,5 times what aluminum costs. And the oxygen fraction of the cathode is practically free. Unless your increase in energy density involves only a tiny amount of a more expensive material for a major increase in energy density, energy density is not your cost constraint. Your cost constraint is either:
1) Capital costs (the former greatest constraint)
2) Raw materials costs (increasingly the current greatest constraint)
E.g.: If you have a cathode with a non-oxygen fraction that's 15% cobalt, 80% nickel, and 5% aluminum, and you find that you can improve the energy density by going to, say, a 45% cobalt, 30% nickel, 5% aluminum mix, you literally have to double the cathode energy density in order to justify the expense. Those sorts of changes just aren't going to happen. Hence the improvements push in the opposite direction: minimizing the cobalt. We ended up at NCA (which has turned out to be a great chemistry) specifically because companies have stopped putting their research focus on high-cobalt chemistries, because they're going to inherently be unaffordable. And eventually the push is increasingly going to have to be cutting the nickel fraction down as well.
You see the same thing when you look at research into alternate chemistries to li-ion, looking to the time when lithium becomes a growing fraction of battery costs (as well as trying to find a way to plate out metal without suffering from safety / longevity issues like lithium is prone to). What sort of chemistries are they mainly looking at? Almost exclusively cheap ions - sodium for other monovalent chemistries, magnesium, calcium, etc for multivalent chemistries. It's not about "what packs the most energy density in", it's about "what can we get for cheap". E.g., beryllium for example would be awesome in a wide variety of roles in batteries, but nobody's going to use it because it costs an utter fortune.
Reciprocity
Active Member
When Tesla talks about price its always pack price and never cell pricing. This probably because you are right, the cells are are probably more expensive just from the shear fact that energy density comes from the ACTIVE raw materials that make up the battery and the larger cells would have a higher ratio of ACTIVE materials vs INACTIVE materials like the casing. So I cant imagine there being much savings at the cell level. But the new cell format makes the pack on the whole cheaper and more easily automated and/or the new pack architecture is more advanced which is where the massive scale comes into play. When you build 100,000 of something a year, you can justify investing X amount into custom machinery to build your pack, but if you are making 1M of something, you can spend 3-4xX and still save a ton of money vs either people or off the shelf systems that limit how automated the process can be. I would assume that the cells themselves have been automated for some time and they just scaled up the machines from 18650 to 2170. This is where the Ghromann acquisition pays off. They specializing in manufacturing automation for both auto and chip makings so they can help automated small things and large things. The pack and BMS are vastly more complex then a single battery cell and there was a lot of head room for automation.
Tesla's goal would be to have raw materials, sourced as close to the GF as possible, would come into one side of the factory on trains and complete drive trains come out the other side. When you can automate all of the steps in between, your cost is some small percent over the cost of the raw materials. This is what Tesla is working towards. There is some base cost for the raw materials where other companies would be able to compete, but its the automation and speed and to a greater extent, the actual technology that was designed from the ground up to be automated that will give the competition fits.
The Model S was not designed to be automated and neither was the pack. Model 3 is a big step in the right direction but I think the Model Y will make the final leap to Alien Dreadnought status where humans wont be allowed anywhere near the cars until very last steps. Raw materials in one side, finished cars out the other should be the goal of GF3 and beyond. The model 3 would probably have to be updated to do this after the Y comes out, so probably 2020-2021 time frame. Dont imagine they will ever make S/X outside the US, maybe some cases where the final assembly is in a foreign country to qualify for lower import duties/tariffs.
> render from the first responder's guide
This does not actually show any cables to be cut (to quickly disconnect battery). If the rear seat is lifted up there are 2 orange cables on the driver's side that might accomplish this but can First Responders actually do this?
--
This does not actually show any cables to be cut (to quickly disconnect battery). If the rear seat is lifted up there are 2 orange cables on the driver's side that might accomplish this but can First Responders actually do this?
--
Similar threads
