Confirmed: MIC Tesla Model 3 Will Have Prismatic LFP Cells
It look Tesla is going to lifepo4 prismatic cells for the M3 in China.
It look Tesla is going to lifepo4 prismatic cells for the M3 in China.
New Lifepo4 battery for M3
- Thread starter leodoggie
- Start date
Now its the same as legacy using prismatic cells, how can Tesla claim battery superiority now?
1) Cooling is worse
2) Battery pack puffing up can damage adjacent cells
Is this just a pure cost reduction game now?
1) Cooling is worse
2) Battery pack puffing up can damage adjacent cells
Is this just a pure cost reduction game now?
ord3r
Member
LFP's have significantly worse energy density, for the same size and weight as the 75kwh pack we may be looking at 40kwh. Time will tell, but this is likely all about cost savings. Tesla could be using this to make an affordable lower range (for a tesla at least) vehicle. Interested to see if it is true and how it plays out.
Tesla's current battery advantage is down to both their foresight in scaling battery production in partnership with Panasonic, and Cylindrical cells enabling them to use NCA. NCA is giving them a solid cost advantage, some analysts estimating 20-30% advantage, largely due to reduced materials cost (lower cobalt). NCA is not viable in pouch/prismatic due to safety concerns.
EDIT:
A decent if potentially not up to the latest comparison on NCA vs LFP from Types of Lithium-ion Batteries – Battery University
LFP
NCA
.jpg)
Tesla's current battery advantage is down to both their foresight in scaling battery production in partnership with Panasonic, and Cylindrical cells enabling them to use NCA. NCA is giving them a solid cost advantage, some analysts estimating 20-30% advantage, largely due to reduced materials cost (lower cobalt). NCA is not viable in pouch/prismatic due to safety concerns.
EDIT:
A decent if potentially not up to the latest comparison on NCA vs LFP from Types of Lithium-ion Batteries – Battery University
LFP
NCA
Last edited:
How about some quotes from the article you linked to, since there is no context in your post?
=============================
According to the YouTuber, Tesla has been talking to CATL for around a year to adopt the new cell format and chemistry in its entry-level MIC (Made In China) Model 3. The Chinese Standard Range will have a range of more than 155 mi (250 km) in order to be eligible for EV subsidies, will be much cheaper than the current derivatives for sale, and may also last longer, due to the lithium iron phosphate (LFP) chemistry.
============================
So, even according to this article you linked, this is for a china specific version of the model 3 that currently does not exist ANYWHERE else, with a top range of 155 miles....
This isnt relevant here other than as a discussion point, as there is virtually zero chance they will sell a "155 mile" EV here in the US or even in Europe.
You are correct this is a cost reduction exercise, but lifepo4 batteries are inherently much safer than li ion, also they are improving rapidly in energy density and weight.
Electric700
Active Member
I am sure Tesla is already or will be doing long-term testing to address any potential issues such as those that you outlined. Cobalt-free (from the article) is good, considering the limited sources and recent negative press about cobalt production. I understand Tesla is looking to go cobalt-free across all of their models too.
It's not just cost reduction - it's also about production volumes too. These manufacturers only have certain techniques available to them and if they have spare capacity in prismatic -- Tesla can at least build and sell cars if they have capacity ..
Thinking about it, LiFePO4 EV batteries are common in China, don't depend on nickel supply and don't catch on fire.
LiFePO4-batteries have several advantages over NCA:
- Better safety (tolerates far higher temp before thermal runaway)
- Better lifespan (2000 full cycles vs 500 on NCA)
- Better performance at low soc since they operate at 3.2V until nearly depleted
- Better lifespan when stored at high soc/temp due to low voltage
- Far cheaper due to lack of cobolt and more use if iron which is quite cheap
- Disadvantages are lower energy-density and hence higher weight pr kW, and there is some possibility of memory-effect due tovstable voltage so it requires a bit more advanced BMS than NCA.
I think moving to LiFePO4 is a smart move. The added weight is a slight problem, but all the other advantages outweighs that in my opinion.
- Better safety (tolerates far higher temp before thermal runaway)
- Better lifespan (2000 full cycles vs 500 on NCA)
- Better performance at low soc since they operate at 3.2V until nearly depleted
- Better lifespan when stored at high soc/temp due to low voltage
- Far cheaper due to lack of cobolt and more use if iron which is quite cheap
- Disadvantages are lower energy-density and hence higher weight pr kW, and there is some possibility of memory-effect due tovstable voltage so it requires a bit more advanced BMS than NCA.
I think moving to LiFePO4 is a smart move. The added weight is a slight problem, but all the other advantages outweighs that in my opinion.
I wouldn't even use the word "too". It is all about production. Tesla has a battery shortage, so the number of cars that they can sell is equal to the number of batteries that they produce. By importing batteries from a third party, they expand that number at no cost to them.
CertLive
Member
I think its good news when the number 1 battery supplier for EV's is out of supply for strong EV demand. I do not see any problems with using other cells if they prove to be as durable if not even more so for less or no cobalt. Cost savings and the ability to push out more cars as well. Even if they are not quite up there in energy density there is plenty of space for the lower range cars. I would be interested to see how Tesla improves the cooling solution for these type of cells if needed.
Similar threads
