> Their positive coverage of Tesla has been criticized by some automotive journalists.[3][4][5] Its main authors have disclosed ownership of Tesla stock, substantial profit from referrals to Tesla, and ownership of Tesla cars.[6][2] The owner, Seth Weintraub, also disclosed near total divestment from Tesla stock on January 14, 2020.
I would be less worried about their interest through stock ownership than how much this article and others like it reads like a passable re-wording of the press release.
I own stock in Tesla and other renewable technology companies (production, transport). I’d be shocked if anyone didn’t: either those industries win, or most places between the tropics are not compatible for human life, we have to deal with billions of deaths and billions of refugees (the IPCC report is ambivalent on other points, but this one is presented as highly likely). Electrek isn’t hiding which side of that bet they are taking. If there were many electric transport companies, owning stock in one over the others would be a source of bias, but there isn’t any meaningful competition yet.
If they wrote critically about battery swapping, I’d be concerned if they had stock on Tesla but not BYD. This is not that. In this case, CATL has proven anything but willing to sell to willing buyers: everyone can rejoice the offer is expanding; it might not fit everyone’s needs.
I’m worried that they show (in that article in particular and many others, but not always) a willingness to copy the contents of the CATL press release with little added value. They could highlight that CATL has not mentioned pricing, capacity, form factor, etc. Early technology tends to come with little production capacity, and suppliers tend to favor historical partners: they might not sell to anyone but Tesla and BYD for months. That restricted release and others like this one could unbalance the market in favor of more prominent players for a while.
Whether you are a cheerleader or a adversary, that lack of systematic grid to read a press release shows that Electrek lacks critical reading structure. That’s a concern.
Yeah, they have been pumping out quite a few pointless headliners recently. My favorite is:
Volvo’s heavy-duty electric truck runs 12 hours a day with one charge break, can haul 74 tons -- Jun 29 2023
I also see there is a bit too much hype around LFP's by Tesla's fanbois who seems to believe that LFP must be the holy grail in the battery world b/c Tesla uses them.
* Charge cycles before degradation are much better (typically 1000-3000 cycles, depending on how you cycle it)
* Can be charged to 100% without causing stress on the battery
* Extremely safe; you basically can't catch it on fire... unlike NMC batteries
The main downside is that you aren't supposed to charge it when the battery is below freezing, so this new tech that allows -10C charging would be a big improvement. It also has lower energy density vs. NMC batteries. The rest of the claims have pretty much been done before, honestly.
* Charge cycles before degradation are much better (typically 1000-3000 cycles, depending on how you cycle it) <<
Sure, but that's in ESS setting. We don't know anything about LFP's lifecyle in EV profile with higher c-rates.
>> * Can be charged to 100% without causing stress on the battery <<
All lithium batteries, including LFPs, degrade faster under high SOC in both ESS and EV settings. Tesla recommends charging to 100% full periodically because BMS needs to be recalibrated frequently to estimate accurate SOC, so to avoid potential safety and cell imbalance issues. According to Cleanwatt, citing Tessie's tracking data, Tesla's LFP EV's lose first 10% of range/battery capacity twice as fast as non-LFP batteries -- ie to 90% SOH. Recurent's study on Tesla's battery range degradation seems to corraborate this finding.
>> * Extremely safe; you basically can't catch it on fire... unlike NMC batteries <<
LFP has lower energy density and is heavier -- likewise LFP is mostly limited to entry-level, low-range EVs with lower c-rates or stationary energey storage system (ESS). It helps reduce thermal runaway in LFP, but they catch fire no problem. In 2022, two firemen died putting out LFP ESS fire at a shopping mall in Beijing, China. BYD also has PHEV fire problem with their blade LFPs operating at 3-5 c-rates.
LFP's key benefit at this point is their cost -- LFP has been fully commodified and mass-produced at scale under China's state industrial policy, but that's with a caveat, LFP's price competitiveness goes away when the prices of lithium/cobalt are lower than that of lithium, which has been kept artifically high by China (by shutting down lithium refineries) after its price collapse earlier this year.
POST: another caveat, LFP recyclying is also uneconomical, as there is no valuable, useful metal to recover in spent cathodes. The cost of recycling LFP would have to be subsidized by either gov't or EV OEMs.
> CATLs new fast-charging LFP battery is equipped with in-house technology, including fast ion ring technology, a new superconducting electrolyte formulation, and an ultra thin and safer separator.
... is the electrolyte actually superconducting or did something get lost in copy editing? Presumably it's not kept at super low temps and high pressure?
Safely and reliably putting that much energy into a mass manufactured automotive battery in that short of a time period is a pretty extraordinary claim based on where we are today. So I'm going to have to put it into the "That'd be great but we're gonna need some extraordinary evidence" category for now.
I kind of wonder at what point do batteries become too dangerous. If a battery can absorb that kind of power in such a time ... exactly what amount of time does it need to release that energy again?
In particular, does it release it fast enough to blow up a building?
These specs could catapult LFP above all other battery chemistries. "400km in 10min" for a 700km range battery would mean 60% charge in 10min, which is about 1.5x the speed of today's fastest-charging NMC batteries. Hopefully there's not too much weight or discharge rate penalty. Excited for the future of LFP!
Assuming 400km worth of charge needs maybe 60 kw/h of energy, to deliver that amount of energy in 10 minutes would require at least 360kw charger. Charging just a few cars simultaneously will require megawatts of power.
I wonder what are the implications in terms of city infrastructure or investment costs to building charging stations for that.
Teslas NMC chemistry already does 0-80% in 25 mins. Their LFP (which is made by CATL I think) does 10-80% in roughly 25 mins.
The impressive thing is the charging at -10C, where LFP typically doesn't like to be charged below 0C. I wonder what's special that allows this variant of LFP to be charged below freezing.
I just read the original press release and it mentions heating up the battery before charging. Apparently CATL added a system to warm up the battery ("evenly" - idk what does this mean) very quickly.
There is hardly anything ground breaking here and can't help noticing quite a few loopholes.
First, LFPs with high C rates is nothing new -- anybody remember A123? Even Samsung SDI developed their own LFP with much higher C over a decade ago, though it was never commercially successful (it was pre-LFP EV era). This is however going to probably end up reducing LFP's battery lifecycle. All lithium-ion batteries degrade faster under high SOC and high C; though NCM/A handles high C better.
Second, this PR also claims that the new chemistry would enable 700km without a single mention of energy density kWh/kg improvement? LFP has low energy density and is much heavier than NCM/A -- likewise they are mostly limited to entry-level, low-range EVs, under ~60 kWh. China's average EV battery capacity is just over 50 kWh and those EVs don't travel nearly that far. This maybe suitable for larger vehicles with light load (eg, city buses with no significant load; or the Tesla Semi's carrying potato chips), so their target users are also fairly small.
Third, they are throwing in Zeekr 001 with 1000km with CATL's Quillin structural battery for good measure in this PR. And of course, the trim with the claimed 1000km range doesn't even use LFPs. LFPs are not simply suitable for anything long distance (higher energy density and less weight) or performance (higher C discharge rate). And this PR shows CATL's new battery just nothing burger.
Indeed, CATL is a Tesla supplier. This will be an improvement over the existing LPF chemistry, which goes in standard range vehicles (and is about half the vehicles Tesla sells).
Some people in this thread have concerns about how hot the cable might get[0]
I’m curious if one could take the heat from the cable and use it to warm the battery. It feels way too much to ask for an already busy port, and the timing might be off (the cable gets warmer as the battery is already charging), but maybe store the heat between users and have a radiator under the carriage?
Electrek targets casual readers: distance remains what most people relate to—although I would recommend giving two values, one for a representative small car and one for a larger model, if only to hammer that larger cars are what makes charging so challenging.
IIRC there are water cooled cables that can do 350kW, the charging is generally done at pretty high voltages so you "only" need like 50 amps or something totally reasonable. Obviously the power delivery to a station simultaneously charging 10 of these would be challenging, but it's not outside of the realm of possibility.
No 350kW charging only needs 50 amps. That would mean charging at 7000V, which no car supports.
The existing 250kW charging from Tesla maxes out at 400V, which is 625 amps. The EA 350kW chargers run at 800V, so they use ~437 amps. The cables are thick, but not that thick honestly.
> Their positive coverage of Tesla has been criticized by some automotive journalists.[3][4][5] Its main authors have disclosed ownership of Tesla stock, substantial profit from referrals to Tesla, and ownership of Tesla cars.[6][2] The owner, Seth Weintraub, also disclosed near total divestment from Tesla stock on January 14, 2020.
Worth seeing whether their new investment is in CATL https://www.google.com/finance/quote/300750:SHE?window=5Y