Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#11

Post by MrDunham »

wffurr wrote: post #3

I found the point about the safer qualities of LFP battery chemistry reducing the overhead in the battery pack construction and thus preserving range despite lower capacity very interesting. Better range on a lower capacity means much better range per hour charging time.

Completely agree. I had a thermodynamics teacher in college say “in the history of transportation we’ve never switched to something powered by lower energy density [than the previous mode of transportation]"

in other words “energy density wins the day".*

That was running through my head when I read they were switching to technology with lower energy density but, to your point and to the article's point, it’s really about systems level energy density and not cell level energy density.

* with Tesla we have now seen that there is another factor, convenience, that my professor did not account for. I own a Tesla and the primary selling point… OK it was acceleration… But the secondary selling point was never having to go to a gas station again when I am just barely going to make the meeting and forgot to fill my gas tank the night before.

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#12

Post by IshKebab »

wffurr wrote: post #3

I found the point about the safer qualities of LFP battery chemistry reducing the overhead in the battery pack construction and thus preserving range despite lower capacity very interesting. Better range on a lower capacity means much better range per hour charging time.

> Better range on a lower capacity means much better range per hour charging time.

It doesn't work like that unfortunately. Unless you're using a low power charger charging time is limited by the C rating of the battery and that is independent of how big your battery is.

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#13

Post by rkangel »

wffurr wrote: post #3

I found the point about the safer qualities of LFP battery chemistry reducing the overhead in the battery pack construction and thus preserving range despite lower capacity very interesting. Better range on a lower capacity means much better range per hour charging time.

> Better range on a lower capacity means much better range per hour charging time.

That's not what they're saying, this is about space required to get the same capacity.

The relevant quote is "meaning that energy density at the pack level should compensate". What's going on is that the chemistry energy density is lower, so you need bigger batteries to get the same capacity (i.e. range). Normally this means you would need more space in your vehicle to get the same range, however you need less cooling so you save some space there so the overall space usage of the battery system ends up about the same.

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#14

Post by cinntaile »

MrDunham wrote: post #11
wffurr wrote: post #3

I found the point about the safer qualities of LFP battery chemistry reducing the overhead in the battery pack construction and thus preserving range despite lower capacity very interesting. Better range on a lower capacity means much better range per hour charging time.

Completely agree. I had a thermodynamics teacher in college say “in the history of transportation we’ve never switched to something powered by lower energy density [than the previous mode of transportation]" in other words “energy density wins the day".* That was running through my head when I read they were switching to technology with lower energy density but, to your point and to the article's point, it’s really a…

He said that before we had EVs I presume.

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#15

Post by MrDunham »

cma wrote: post #8
axus wrote: post #4

What will the Gigafactory be doing? Does this mean Tesla's battery-supply advantage is gone?

There is still no Tesla Semi after 4 years, so maybe the factory could be devoted to that, but even the gigafactory's battery cells don't make sense for a long range semi as originally shown. Bill Gates was right about the physics of it not making sense with those cells (too heavy for bridges with any decent payload), and they will need to turn it instead into a low range around-town Pepsi delivery tuck, as already a…

Even though I own a Tesla and love it I can’t see a fully electric, long-haul semi making sense for quite some time.

For consumers (at least in my own experience) there is a range threshold that, once surpassed, means I almost never have to worry about fill ups again. So the Every day convenience outweighs the once or twice a year inconvenience of longer “fill ups“ vs gas for extended drives.

I bought mine because I hate little annoyances like having to remember/go to the gas station and fill up periodically.

For long-haul trucking though Tesla's benefits would be in automation/assisted driving, not in electrification. Short of some sort of carbon credits/regulations it’s difficult to imagine widespread adoption of a technology that has more downtime and higher initial costs than a previous technology.

The stop/start of small truck deliveries (and subsequent energy recapture) makes sense but for long-haul I can’t see it feasible until the battery energy densities jump by a sizable margin without a corresponding increase in price.

And at that point there's still few financial advantages of electrification I can think of... what am I missing there?

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#16

Post by rkangel »

What is the situation these days with infringement of major IP by Chinese companies? If they've had a battery chemistry to themselves for a while it sounds like they're having their cake and eating.

I have first hand knowledge where at the small and medium scale, Chinese manufacturers will happily knock off major brands and steal technology to make products, and as a non-Chinese IP owner you have very little recourse. Is this situation still how it works for key IP from major companies or if you're (e.g.) Tesla and you had a patent on battery technology, could you realistically enforce it in China?

There are some old quotes from Elon Musk about Space X just keeping stuff secret rather than patenting it because otherwise he'd be just giving it away to his major competitor in China: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-patents-2012-11?r=...

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#17

Post by l30n4da5 »

cmurf wrote: post #7

Article notes worse cold weather range with LFP vs NCA. What's the approximate range hit at 0C for each type? -17C?

when I read the article this was what stood out to me, as well. Last winter it got _really_ cold where I live. Does that mean that if I got a Tesla with an LFP battery it would be drastically less useful in the winter? Seems problematic.

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#18

Post by [deleted] »

MrDunham wrote: post #11
wffurr wrote: post #3

I found the point about the safer qualities of LFP battery chemistry reducing the overhead in the battery pack construction and thus preserving range despite lower capacity very interesting. Better range on a lower capacity means much better range per hour charging time.

Completely agree. I had a thermodynamics teacher in college say “in the history of transportation we’ve never switched to something powered by lower energy density [than the previous mode of transportation]" in other words “energy density wins the day".* That was running through my head when I read they were switching to technology with lower energy density but, to your point and to the article's point, it’s really a…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#19

Post by rpmisms »

cmurf wrote: post #7

Article notes worse cold weather range with LFP vs NCA. What's the approximate range hit at 0C for each type? -17C?

I'm willing to bet this is why the Models 3/Y have the octovalve heat pump: to offset LFP cold weather performance.

Re: Tesla made $1.6 billion in Q3, is switching to LFP batteries globally

#20

Post by dnautics »

MrDunham wrote: post #11
wffurr wrote: post #3

I found the point about the safer qualities of LFP battery chemistry reducing the overhead in the battery pack construction and thus preserving range despite lower capacity very interesting. Better range on a lower capacity means much better range per hour charging time.

Completely agree. I had a thermodynamics teacher in college say “in the history of transportation we’ve never switched to something powered by lower energy density [than the previous mode of transportation]" in other words “energy density wins the day".* That was running through my head when I read they were switching to technology with lower energy density but, to your point and to the article's point, it’s really a…

Exactly how many data points did he have in this thesis? Running, horse, bike, car, train (coal, electric, diesel), plane? There's lots of places which have flip flopped, e.g. Italy going from train -> Alitalia -> high speed rail
Post reply on HN