CATL reveals ‘Superfast Charging Battery,’ boasts 250mi range with 10-min charge
electrek.co
electrek.co
> 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
Volvo’s heavy-duty electric truck runs 12 hours a day with one charge break, can haul 74 tons -- Jun 29 2023
* 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.
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.
... 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?
In particular, does it release it fast enough to blow up a building?
It applies for anything, whether it’s a battery, explosives or a tank of gas.
That’s why the question as posed specifically with regards to batteries only is neither here nor there.
this is an extraordinary claim if true.
I wonder what are the implications in terms of city infrastructure or investment costs to building charging stations for that.
It’s a big deal.
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.
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.
This is nothing burger.
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?
400km*16kwh/100km/10minutes
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.