Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

41–50 of 64 posts

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

#41
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…

Energy density must be calculated from useful energy (work) after conversion loss. By that metric gas burned in an ICE is not much better than lithium batteries. The latter store less energy but it’s extraction is over 90% efficient.

Most of the energy you buy with a tank of gas goes to heat the air around and behind the car as you drive.

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

#42
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The battery can be heated, so you can reduce the cold weather range problems by preconditioning the battery before a drive. Naturally this uses some power, so Tesla recommends keeping the car plugged in when it's cold so it can keep everything nice and warm.

No different than using a block heater or diesel coolant heater then. ICE vehicles use a lot more fuel in winter too, and take a long time to get up to temperature.

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

#43
post #40
post #9

Would be interesting to know whats going on in the industry with LFP. Pre-built lead acid replacement LFP battery prices have been dropping almost daily and are down to high end AGM prices [1] and quality has been going up [2], these batteries were twice the price a year ago. Will be replacing the lead acid in my RV soon with LFP's, it really a no brainer. 1. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FMTRYPT 2. https://www.youtub…

Can you help me understand why you wouldn't just stay with the old Lead-Acid batteries? You can get a 150Ah for $110, for example, whereas this 100Ah you linked to is $376. I'm sure there are benefits, but I don't know much about batteries to understand why you'd make that tradeoff.

Conventional Lead Acid or AGM batteries get somewhere around 500-700 cycles before the battery is bad.

With Lithium iron phosphate batteries the charge cycles are in the 5000-9000 cycle range.

TLDR: They can be discharged significantly more times than conventional lead acid batteries.

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

#44
post #4

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

Tesla is going to be using multiple battery chemistries for different vehicles.

LFP is just for lower range vehicles where the advantages of LFP outweigh the decreased energy density.

https://i.imgur.com/ycylklk.jpeg

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

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they'll be gobbling up any reasonably priced cell they can get their hands on for the foreseeable future. There was a part of Battery Day where they explain their approach to battery chemistry, here is the slide: https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/JvxPA/s1/2020-tesla-shareh... They say in the title "All Standard Range Teslas", but only the Model 3 has a standard range version and they're still like 2-3 years away…

The Y had standard range for about a month and it seems to have sold well, but since they have a 6 month wait on long range, why bother right now?

If batteries are the constraint, selling cars with smaller battery packs lets you sell more cars.

If other parts of the car production are the constraint, stick with the big batteries and high prices.

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

#46
post #34

The potential for a massive jump in battery chemistry is why I personally have not purchased a BEV yet. I'm leasing a LEAF, which has been great overall, but I'm not going to buy until the battery chemistry is settled here in a few years. There's a high probability that every BEV on the road today will be considered antiquated (and potentially unsafe) in 5 years.

Yep. I feel like buying an EV now is like buying a $50,000 PC that will be obsolete the minute I take it home.

EVs are insanely awesome though. I'm leasing a 2019 Bolt and after a month or so it's the best car I've ever driven. EV torque is a blast. With the type of driving I do I'm able to get by on a Type I charger at my apartment and a rare visit to a public charging station. I think one-pedal mode helps because I'm barely ever using the brakes.

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

#47
post #40
post #9

Would be interesting to know whats going on in the industry with LFP. Pre-built lead acid replacement LFP battery prices have been dropping almost daily and are down to high end AGM prices [1] and quality has been going up [2], these batteries were twice the price a year ago. Will be replacing the lead acid in my RV soon with LFP's, it really a no brainer. 1. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FMTRYPT 2. https://www.youtub…

Can you help me understand why you wouldn't just stay with the old Lead-Acid batteries? You can get a 150Ah for $110, for example, whereas this 100Ah you linked to is $376. I'm sure there are benefits, but I don't know much about batteries to understand why you'd make that tradeoff.

You can't discharge lead-acid as deeply as LFP without destroying longevity. So that 150Ah, probably only has 75Ah of useable capacity.

The LFP battery will also last for ~5000 cycles, after which it'll still have ~80% capacity, and thus is still valuable. Lead acid only has a life of 500~1200 cycles. In other words: you'll have replaced the lead acid battery 4~10 times before you need to replace the LFP.

IIRC, lead acid has a higher voltage drop when drawing a lot of current. Meaning that with LFP you can power larger loads.

Taken together, for most use-cases, the lifetime TCO of LFP is better than lead acid.

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

#48
post #40
post #9

Would be interesting to know whats going on in the industry with LFP. Pre-built lead acid replacement LFP battery prices have been dropping almost daily and are down to high end AGM prices [1] and quality has been going up [2], these batteries were twice the price a year ago. Will be replacing the lead acid in my RV soon with LFP's, it really a no brainer. 1. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FMTRYPT 2. https://www.youtub…

Can you help me understand why you wouldn't just stay with the old Lead-Acid batteries? You can get a 150Ah for $110, for example, whereas this 100Ah you linked to is $376. I'm sure there are benefits, but I don't know much about batteries to understand why you'd make that tradeoff.

Few things:

Peukerts law does not really apply to lithiums [1] so with lead acid your capacity is greatly reduced if you do high amp draws.

You can really only use 50% of lead acid capacity without significantly effecting their lifetime, so most people cut the capacity in half when discussing, lithium can be run to 80% without issue and really even 100% with minimal loss and LFP's have much greater cycle than lead anyway so you probably pay less in the long run with a LFP than buying multiple lead.

LFP hold their voltage pretty consistently right up to the end of the discharge cycle while lead acid will drop significantly, this increases amp draw and has other negative effects (dimming light etc). The low internal resistance makes them pretty stiff voltage sources.

LFP accept bulk charge much longer before hitting absorb than lead so they can be charged much faster, this helps when charging from a generator as you don't have to run it as long to get full charge. Also you don't really have to worry about partial charging, where as with lead you want to do a full absorb regularly to keep their capacity up.

At least half the wieght.

Top tier lead AGM like Lifelines are basically the same price, I have these in my RV now and are a out 7 years old and now need to be replaced due to not holding a charge. Lifelines are considered gold standard and have high charge and discharge capability for lead acid, but LFP still blow them away, so no reason to go that route again.

Those cheap lead acids are not going to be decent deep cycle and will be wet cells, so will have off gassing and cause corrosion. AGM solve that and good deep cycle AGM's are not cheap, see Lifeline, Trojan etc. You can get relatively cheep "golf cart" batteries but again wet cells that need water checked and have to vented properly.

There are downsides to LFP:

More complicated, they need a BMS to protect from over and under charge, the BMS has current limits due to using FETs to switch on/off, so most of the drop in replacements can only do 100 amp continuous with short burst of say 300 amps. So they are not great engine starting batteries. You can run in parallel to get more current capacity obviously. BMS is a full microcontroller with high current disconnect so much more to go wrong, although some have bluetooth with an app to monitor individual cells etc.

They can't be charged below freezing without damage, so most BMS have low temp disconnect to protect against that. Also there overall temp range is narrower than good lead acid, my lifeline are rated -40f to 160f I believe. Lead acid are simple tough and reliable.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peukert%27s_law

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

#49
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wouldn't it be more like running, horse, better horse because of improved diet, better horse because of improved medicine, bike, better bike because of gears, better bike because of better gears, car, better car because of better fuel, better car because of better fuel, better car because of better fuel, better car because of better fuel, better car because of better fuel, better car because of better fuel...

At some point economical aspects are also important. If fuel was available for gas engines but it was rare, it doesn't matter how energy-dense it is if it's expensive.

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

#50
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Energy density must be calculated from useful energy (work) after conversion loss. By that metric gas burned in an ICE is not much better than lithium batteries. The latter store less energy but it’s extraction is over 90% efficient. Most of the energy you buy with a tank of gas goes to heat the air around and behind the car as you drive.

The weight of a full gas tank that can drive you 1000km is a lot less than the weight of batteries that can do the same. even if you include the ICE engine.

In other words: even when you take conversion into account, energy density (both by weight and volume) is better in gasoline than battery.

(I love BEV, and I see it will win over most of the market, but gas wins on energy density)

Post reply on HN