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

Tesla Energy and utility scale projects

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Looks like the project at Moss Landing is moving along well. Looks like all the Megapacks are on-site. Hopefully, that means it will meet its Q2 2021 target.


PS. Check out the roll of copper wire and the kayakers at the end!
Around 4:30 you can see the Dynegy packs on the other side of the building. Their 300 MWs went online late last year, with another 100 MW slated to connect this August.
 
Every time I look at the big picture on the topic, it is very apparent that LFP based Megapacks can't come soon enough.

Overtime I am find more reasons why this is important in lots of ways.

So IMO Tesla has to bite the bullet and start up a LFP based 4680 Roadrunner factory as soon as it can be done.
A dedicated factory build cells for Megapack / Powerpack, will free up cells for Powerwall and give the energy storage business a boost.

I also think Megapack / Powerpack, will be needed an Megachargers and hence needed as part of the Tesla Semi project,

I have noticed Drew mentions energy storage batteries frequently, so I am optimistic.
 
Every time I look at the big picture on the topic, it is very apparent that LFP based Megapacks can't come soon enough.

Overtime I am find more reasons why this is important in lots of ways.

So IMO Tesla has to bite the bullet and start up a LFP based 4680 Roadrunner factory as soon as it can be done.
A dedicated factory build cells for Megapack / Powerpack, will free up cells for Powerwall and give the energy storage business a boost.

I also think Megapack / Powerpack, will be needed an Megachargers and hence needed as part of the Tesla Semi project,

I have noticed Drew mentions energy storage batteries frequently, so I am optimistic.
4680 cells probably not best size for LFP stationary storage.

Better than alternatives, but my understanding of the heat means that even larger cells could be made. Either way, any kind of LFP good, 4680 great, optimum better still
 
  • Like
Reactions: RabidYak
Every time I look at the big picture on the topic, it is very apparent that LFP based Megapacks can't come soon enough.

Overtime I am find more reasons why this is important in lots of ways.

So IMO Tesla has to bite the bullet and start up a LFP based 4680 Roadrunner factory as soon as it can be done.
A dedicated factory build cells for Megapack / Powerpack, will free up cells for Powerwall and give the energy storage business a boost.

I also think Megapack / Powerpack, will be needed an Megachargers and hence needed as part of the Tesla Semi project,

I have noticed Drew mentions energy storage batteries frequently, so I am optimistic.
I agree. LFP is the best solution for stationary energy storage. High cycle count and much safer.
I've decided to use LFP for my home backup system. LFP prismatic cells from China are close to $100/kWH.
 
4680 cells probably not best size for LFP stationary storage.

Better than alternatives, but my understanding of the heat means that even larger cells could be made. Either way, any kind of LFP good, 4680 great, optimum better still

I would like to see them stick with 4680 just in case there is a chance of LFP Powerwalls at some stage in the future.

I've given that some thought, and there is one architecture which might work.

2 kWh LFP Modules which dock with a wall mounted frame, to build a Powerwall in a "Lego Like" construction method.

Electrical connection and any cooling loop would be via the frame.

If a standard size frame accommodates up to 6 LFP modules, it has a capacity anywhere from 2 kWh to 12 kWh.

Take that one step further and frames could be designed for 2,4,6,8,9,10 Modules. So a capacity of 2kWh-20 kWh in a variety of form factors. Bad modules could be swapped out, and batteries, could be upgraded to higher capacity.

All that remains is the extra weight of LFP batteries, and the extra space required, as this design helps overcome installation issues, and makes Powerwalls more flexible.

With a modern design, LFP Powerwalls based on 4680 cells, might not be substantially thicker than a regular Powerwall.

Going back to my experience at building sites in my youth, the optimal (new build) design is build the battery frame into the wall frame, for a steel or timber framed house. So in this case the Powerwall is part of the wall, removing it would mean patching up a wall.

LFP based Powerwalls with swappable modules, are well worth this level of hassle and planning.

The energy density of LFP may continue to improve, and Tesla might have an even better solution.

One way or another, I hope they are considering LFP for home batteries.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see them stick with 4680 just in case there is a chance of LFP Powerwalls at some stage in the future.

I've given that some thought, and there is one architecture which might work.

2 kWh LFP Modules which dock with a wall mounted frame, to build a Powerwall in a "Lego Like" construction method.

Electrical connection and any cooling loop would be via the frame.

If a standard size frame accommodates up to 6 LFP modules, it has a capacity anywhere from 2 kWh to 12 kWh.

Take that one step further and frames could be designed for 2,4,6,8,9,10 Modules. So a capacity of 2kWh-20 kWh in a variety of form factors. Bad modules could be swapped out, and batteries, could be upgraded to higher capacity.

All that remains is the extra weight of LFP batteries, and the extra space required, as this design helps overcome installation issues, and makes Powerwalls more flexible.

With a modern design, LFP Powerwalls based on 4680 cells, might not be substantially thicker than a regular Powerwall.

Going back to my experience at building sites in my youth, the optimal (new build) design is build the battery frame into the wall frame, for a steel or timber framed house. So in this case the Powerwall is part of the wall, removing it would mean patching up a wall.

LFP based Powerwalls with swappable modules, are well worth this level of hassle and planning.

The energy density of LFP may continue to improve, and Tesla might have an even better solution.

One way or another, I hope they are considering LFP for home batteries.
I believe Sonnen and some other backup power systems use this approach to add LFP storage modules.
It doesn't require the 4680 format. Any format will work.
 
I believe Sonnen and some other backup power systems use this approach to add LFP storage modules.
It doesn't require the 4680 format. Any format will work.

It is easy for Tesla to standardize on 4680, and tab-less cell probably enhances the excellent thermal properties of LFP.

it is likely Tesla can use 4680 LFP in Megapack and Powerpack with only minor design changes.

Powerwall needs more of an overhaul, but that redesign is an opportunity to improve the product.
 
It is easy for Tesla to standardize on 4680, and tab-less cell probably enhances the excellent thermal properties of LFP.

it is likely Tesla can use 4680 LFP in Megapack and Powerpack with only minor design changes.

Powerwall needs more of an overhaul, but that redesign is an opportunity to improve the product.
I do not expect to see 4680 LFP in any products, and certainly not Megapacks.
 
I do not expect to see 4680 LFP in any products, and certainly not Megapacks.

Battery Day mentioned the Iron chemistry (LFP) for Megapacks (in pictures not words).

If Tesla can make our source 4680 LFP they can be used for entry level vehicles, Megapacks and Powerpacks, and eventually I hope also in Powerwalls.

Priority initial 4680 production is High Nickel for Model Y, Plaid+ Model S, Cybertruck and Semi as far as we can tell.

Again if we take Battery Day literally Berlin and Austin may make Nickel-Manganese cells for Model Y.

We don't know what additional issues arise when making 4680 cells with different chemistries.
 
Any idea what format Tesla uses for MIC LFP batteries?

These are some sort of Prismatic based battery pack made by CATL.

CATL doesn't make Cylindrical LFP cells, but others do.

The Chinese are well advanced in LFP R&D, they probably make the best LFP cells.

I still think a tab-less 4680 and a structural pack delivers a lot of advantages even for LFP.
So maybe the chemistry might not be as good as the CATL chemistry, but the end result at pack level might be better, that is because 4680 LFPs would be teamed up with Tesla's BMS and would be vertically integrated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
Any idea what format Tesla uses for MIC LFP batteries?
Prismatic, sized to fit crossways in a standard 3/Y module. This blog post has some info and grainy pics.

I've said for a while LFP will take over mainstream EVs. Short haul trucking, too. It already took over stationary storage -- Tesla is presumably using LFP at Moss Landing (if not, they need to fire someone).

But 4680 LFP? That makes no sense to me. Then again, I don't get any of the 4680 worship. It's just a bigger can. It reminds me of all the people arguing that 2170 would have 35% better energy density than 18650. That never made a lick of sense, but the true believers were adamant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave EV and mspohr
Speculation here:

It is possible that there may be three or four types of Tesla 4680 batteries produced. Panasonic will soon start building 4680 batteries that use Tesla's new tab-less design. And Giga Berlin may have LG Chem (NCMA) 4680 batteries produced for Berlin, and also Shanghai's new Model Ys. Plus maybe soon (within a year) CATL may produce less expensive 4680 format LFP batteries for the cheaper base versions of Asia Tesla models.
 
Prices drop with scale, and tab-less 4680 represents a massive increase in production capacity.
How do 4680 cells represent a massive increase in production capacity?

Either way, you have to build more production capacity, it could be done with 18650s or 2170s or prismatic cells.

4680s give you incremental reductions in cost to manufacture and have to be combined with tabless cell construction if you want to push high amounts of power through the cell (admittedly, not necessarily a requirement for stationary storage which typically deals with 0.5C charge/discharge rates).

The combination of 4680, tabless, structural cells, etc, all add up to significant reductions in cost to manufacture, improvements in energy density, etc. And certain improvements like structural cells don't fully apply to stationary products, where the structural strength requirements are much lower than a vehicle.

Are bigger cells important? Yes, but only one piece of the puzzle - and if no-one has equipment for 4680 cells, other formats will remain cheaper for now.

For stationary products, I would argue that cost and long-term capacity/power retention (which leads to low TCO over time) are the primary drivers.

For those reasons, I'm surprised that Tesla is not considering LFP for residential products like the Powerwall - but is for things like commercial products like Powerpacks and Megapacks. For things like Powerwalls I think people would happily give up a bit of capacity in the same package, or go with a larger package to get a lower price. For me, price is the #1 issue keeping me from buying a Powerwall right now.
 
Either way, you have to build more production capacity, it could be done with 18650s or 2170s or prismatic cells.

Tesla didn't spell this out but (Maxwell) DBE may work better with wider diameter cells. (Reports of cracking if wound too tight some years ago).
And the capex efficient scaling described in Battery Day is only optimal with DBE.

If you are saying a form factor doesn't have magical properties, I agree, and many overstate the importance of form factor.
In fact, an example of Tesla at their best is the regular Plaid Model S with 18650 cells, the specs are great.
Of course Plaid+ is likely to have 4680s, but we can't attribute the difference in specs purely to form factor.

What form factor does deliver is lower costs and a bit more energy density due to less packaging.

But long term Tesla decided on 4680 for their own cell production and as a form factor that suits vehicles and energy storage.

Compared to the CATL LFP pack a pack built with Tab-less 4680 cells has the following advantages:-
1. It can be a structural pack (lower weight, and cost)
2. Faster changing - due to Tab-less (really multi-tab)
3. Better integration with Tesla BMS, (easier to manage SOC, balancing, thermal management.)
4. In house production, or multiple external cell suppliers.
5. Structural packs built with 4680 cells are probably signicantly easier to recycle. (Standard form factor helps here)

So I think Tesla will gradually migrate to most or all products being built with 4680 cells, but this may take years.

Outside suppliers with 18650, 2170 or prismatic cells may migrate some of those production lines to 4680.
18650, 2170 or prismatic cells will still have some uses.

Eventually I can see Panasonic migrating most/all 2170 production at GF Nevada to 4680.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SageBrush
For me, price is the #1 issue keeping me from buying a Powerwall right now.

I agree on this.

But I concluded Powerwall needs a significant redesign to move to 4680 LFP cells, but in addition to reducing costs, that redesign can result in a much better product.

My impression is Powerpack and Megapack can accommodate the bigger cells with minimal redesign, price, and the high volume of cells are a factor.

If Tesla can organize new 4680 LFP cell production for Powerpack and Megapack, that allow energy storage battery volumes to scale rapidly with no impact on vehicle production. it also will free up some 18650/2170 cells for Powerwalls.

But I hope the Powerwall redesign for LFP and 4680 is a high priority...
 
Tesla didn't spell this out but (Maxwell) DBE may work better with wider diameter cells. (Reports of cracking if wound too tight some years ago).
And the capex efficient scaling described in Battery Day is only optimal with DBE.
Yes, but there is more:

I think the tab-less design was the other major innovation, along with DBE. I don't know if either or both can be implemented with a smaller form factor but it seems clear that Tesla did the work to get those technologies working with the 4680 form factor. So unless someone else successfully does the R&D necessary for a smaller cell, DBE/tab-les will be a 4680 innovation as a matter of on the ground capability.

And the differences in production throughput are profound. Giga Nevada is producing some 30 GWh a year in the biggest bldg in the world; Giga Berlin will use part of its footprint to produce 100 GWh, with plans to increase to 200 GWh a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MC3OZ