https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/iron-m…
2 Likes
The U.S. electric pioneer disclosed that nearly half of the vehicles it produced in the first quarter were equipped with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries - a cheaper rival to the nickel-and-cobalt based cells that dominate in the West.
It flashed a strong signal that iron-based cells are finally starting to win global appeal at a time when nickel is blighted by supply concerns due to major producer Russia’s war in Ukraine and cobalt is tainted by reports of dangerous conditions at artisanal mines in Democratic Republic of Congo.
======================================================================
More reasons to buy Tesla stock. Glad I did.
Jaak
2 Likes
The revelation, eclipsed by the carmaker’s $19 billion revenue and Elon Musk’s Twitter charge, was the first time Tesla had disclosed such specifics about its batteries make-up.
Tesla investors have known about it for months.
It flashed a strong signal that iron-based cells are finally starting to win global appeal at a time when nickel is blighted by supply concerns due to major producer Russia’s war in Ukraine and cobalt is tainted by reports of dangerous conditions at artisanal mines in Democratic Republic of Congo.
The writer does not know his battery history. The problem with LFP batteries was that the Chinese owned the patents which are expiring making LFP available at reasonable cost to the rest of the world. BTW, one advantage of LFP chemistry is that the cells can be fully charged with little if any degradation of the cell – long life and it compensates for the lesser charge capacity. Nickel based batteries are recommended to be kept between 20% and 80% charge, a 40% reduction of stated capacity. No such issues with LFP.
The Captain
long TSLA
6 Likes
The writer does not know his battery history. The problem with LFP batteries was that the Chinese owned the patents which are expiring making LFP available at reasonable cost to the rest of the world. BTW, one advantage of LFP chemistry is that the cells can be fully charged with little if any degradation of the cell – long life and it compensates for the lesser charge capacity.
The Chinese didn’t ‘own the patents’ on LFP chemistry. It was invented and patented here in the US, with scientists at the University of Texas major contributors. China grew their domestic LFP battery industry under an agreement that allowed them to use the patented technology for domestic use only.
Former US battery company A123 pioneered commercialization of their “Nano-phosphate” lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries back about 10 years ago (?). They burst on the scene with a contract with Dewalt power tools to provide high-power battery power tools, and expanded into a deal to provide batteries for the Fisker Karma plug-in hybrid sports sedan. A manufacturing flaw led to a recall of all those automotive batteries and the bankruptcy of A123, and a Chinese company bought the remaining assets, a disappointing end to a promising US battery company.
Prior to their disastrous end, A123’s nanotech take on the LFP chemistry boosted both power and energy density, making them a seemingly ideal battery for plug-in hybrids and for at least a sizable portion of the EV market.
The US hasn’t been a player in the Lithium Ion battery manufacture arena due to that bankruptcy and to Japan’s dominance. Tesla partnered with Japanese battery maker Panasonic to manufacture battery cells in the US. They chose Panasonic with their NCM chemistry because it was a proven solution already in mass manufacture for laptops and the most energy dense battery available.
2 Likes
The Chinese didn’t ‘own the patents’ on LFP chemistry. It was invented and patented here in the US, with scientists at the University of Texas major contributors. China grew their domestic LFP battery industry under an agreement that allowed them to use the patented technology for domestic use only.
Thanks for the update but the effect was the same because China could/would not sell them to the West.
The Captain
1 Like