Ok, it looks like I was wrong about the 4680 batteries, it would appear that the Chinese
have out innovated us yet again.
CATL have created a battery 13% more energy dense than the 4680, and seem to have achieved
this with much less effort, in much less time, with a much lower budget, and much less talented
engineers.
I really thought I understood this industry, but it's here in black and white.
And they are even using percentages to prove it.
Oh wait, that's a good point, its a percentage.
Well we know percentages, we know they are the best way to lie, so what if on the odd
chance, there maybe some distorted information here too, and how about we get deeper down
on how someone may once again be trying to lie with statistics.
I know its easy to be complacent and immediately jump to dismiss any claims.
How can anyone at this stage come close to beating Tesla, especially the 4680 battery
which is about to soon be released.
So we should probably look into this.
We have been told
"Financial Associated Press on March 26, Wu Kai, chief scientist of CATL, said at the
China Electric Vehicle 100 Forum that CATL has launched the third-generation CTP technology
through continuous technical iteration, which is called “Kirin battery” internally.
Weight, energy density and volumetric energy density continue to lead the industry at the
highest level.
Under the same chemical system and the same battery pack size, the power of the Kirin
battery pack can be increased by 13% compared to the 4680 system.
The reporter was informed that this battery will be officially released in April this
year.
(Reporter Liu Yang from Financial Associated Press)"
Ok, so CATL have launched a new battery pack, and they are saying they can fit about 13%
more energy into this new battery pack, with their current cells, than if they used 4680
cells.
The chemistry is the same before, in fact it would appear the actual cells are also
the same too.
The 4680 battery is obviously cylindrical.
Now if you put cylinders together in a battery pack, compared to rectangular boxes, there
is always going to be space in-between each battery compared to how a rectangular box
will just fit in next to one another.
And to be honest, I think that is all CATL are talking about here.
The fact you can fit more volume of rectangles in an area, than you can volumes of cylinders.
I think that is pretty much it.
In addition to that prismatic cells are larger, and thus you can place more jelly roll into
the can if its shaped like a rectangle, than a cylinder, due to the volume to surface area
ratio.
In other words less casing required per kWh of cell.
Also when using LFP batteries, you have more options due to not have to be as concerned
with things like thermal management.
In fact CATL haven't given us any relevant
benchmark as to explain how much of an improvement this new battery pack is from their last.
It would have been far more relevant to have said something like a 5% improvement in power
from our previous battery pack, but no instead they just came at the 4680, as that is now
going to become the industry benchmark.
If this battery pack is any better than the CATL's previous version, it just means they
have found a way to place more cells within the battery.
In fact we are given the new gravimetric energy density of this battery pack is stated, it's
160 Wh/Kg.
So out of interest I was wondering how much of an improvement this was from their previous
battery pack.
And what's really strange is that it would appear to be about the same from 2 years ago.
So I am not quite sure what's going on here.
Just a new pack, and a way to market it as some massive jump in technology.
Perhaps.
To give you some comparison BYD's Blade Battery appears to only be about 140-150 wh/kg, remind
me again how Tesla will start using BYD's Blade Battery's and suddenly get 270 miles
of range on a Model Y AWD.
No, not happening.
Anyone tell you that this 270 mile range Model Y is running on LFP does not understand batteries.
Even if they turned out to be right, which is so unlikely, it would still mean they didn't
understand batteries, because it was too big a breakthrough to anyone to have expected.
And if they did actually understand batteries, and really believe in it, then they would
leverage everything they could to invest in this battery technology, as it literally is
too good to be true.
CATL are still using prismatic, which does
certainly have benefits like I have explained.
But they are so much slower in production.
They are easier to produce and you can squeeze more of them into the battery pack, which
is probably the reason all legacy autos are also opting for prismatic.
But look at the speed of those 4680 production lines.
That's what matters, remember everyone is battery constrained, there aren't enough batteries.
So even if you can make a battery with 13% more power, is it that big a deal compared
to a different form factor that is produced at 10 times the speed?
No, we need a lot of batteries, slowing down production by that much in order to squeeze
in slightly fewer more batteries is not a good business plan.
But I almost say it like they have a choice.
And that's the point isn't it, they don't, they cant'.
They can't make Tesla's amazing 4680 batteries with the incredible chemistry it offers, so
instead, they have to make what they can, and just market it as a better battery, with
statistics and press releases.
China is not going to out-innovate Tesla, never, ever.
There is no improvement in chemistry with
the CATL battery, that's what's really tough, that's the serious breakthrough that I don't
believe any other battery manufacturer has even mentioned, any new chemistry similar
to Tesla's Battery Day, dry battery electrode process, or tab less design.
These are the next level breakthroughs, that we are about to see Tesla achieve.
If LFP starts using silicon in the anodes then we will start seeing some actual jump
in efficiency with the battery cells.
Silicon may affect the cycle life of the batteries, and degradation maybe more susceptible with
a silicon anode.
Or if LFP cars were about to use structural battery packs too, that would make a difference.
You'd think that all the EV manufacturers would have been working on this, as it would
have provided the necessary range increase that they so desperately need, except we haven't
heard anything about them moving to cell to vehicle integration.
Maybe it's difficult or something?
But can't Tesla benefit from this CATL pack
in their LFP vehicles.
Well I think Tesla make their own battery packs anyway, and they may be even better
than this new CATL one for all I know.
But that isn't even the point.
Even if this pack was an improvement, then it would simply mean that Tesla could add
more cells into the battery pack, to get more range.
Except Tesla are already at a decent range, and don't want to be adding any more cells
in their pack.
Adding cells will add to weight, and will reduce handling, and of course add to cost.
In fact Tesla are so far ahead of everyone
else they are doing the opposite.
Whilst all other manufacturers are trying to find ways of squeezing more cells into
their battery packs, in order to improve range.
Well Tesla, they are removing batteries.
Tesla are done competing, trying to make cars with the longest range, it's a fools errand,
so leave it to the fools.
Tesla have found their market, and discovered the amount of range their drivers want.
Therefore why try and find ways of placing more batteries into the car to get a long
range, sacrificing performance and handling, safety, cost and margins.
Instead Tesla are going to maintain this mid 300 mile range, and find ways of using fewer
battery cells, whilst still delivering this range.
Thus ending up improving performance, handling, safety, costs and margins.
Just because the battery technology can improve range 54% or so, doesn't mean we are going
to have Tesla's driving around with 500 or 600 miles of range.
It means Tesla can maintain the range that they have discovered is best for the market,
and reduce the amount of cells.
I am not even sure people realize this yet.
I tell people the new Long Range with 4680 batteries, and battery day tech, is going
to have a lower kWh battery than the 2170 version, but they don't seem to understand.
Having fewer batteries means the batteries
can be concentrated into the center of the vehicle.
This means in an accident, it is less likely that you disrupt any battery as they become
very unlikely to be impacted in a collision, due to them no longer being on the outside.
But the handling too, what it would be like to have the lower center of gravity contained
further in the center of the car.
My Tesla handles absolutely incredible, I cant believe how well it grips the road and
corners, but if we get into physics and talk about how this would affect the polar moment
of inertia, then the handling is just going to become out standing.
I mean I would immediately replace my car with a 4680 battery day car as soon as I could,
if that was possible.
In fact like how there are some really avid iPhone consumers, who have to have the latest
iPhone every year, well there is a high possibility that there will also be a lot of Tesla consumers
like that too.
Especially if they can sell their Tesla for more than what they paid for them in the first
place.
I'd simply put a deposit down, and as soon as my new one was about to arrive, I would
sell my old one, and the upgrade cost may end up being minimal anyway.
Alright, so on closer inspection what have
we discovered?
I think this is nothing more than just saying that you can fit a higher volume of rectangles
in the same area as you can cylinders.
I am not even sure if this pack is much of an improvement from their previous version.
It seems to have 3 options though, where they can add different quantities of cells.
Perhaps that means CATL can re-use this same pack for a lot more of their customers, ranging
from perhaps 20 kWh to 80 kWh or something.
As usual, any of the EV data we get out of China, always tends to be somewhat coy.
They never like to give out too much information, almost as if they are hiding something.
But they do like to use statistics.
Anyway, for those of you that were asking, and wondering how CATL might have beaten Tesla's
4680 batteries, I hope that provides the answer you were looking for.
Obviously they are never going to beat Tesla.
Anyway, I know a lot of you also study batteries quite relentlessly so please comment and let
me know if you think I have inferred this all correctly.