I still can’t believe we are so lucky to get content like this regularly. I can’t imagine what the state of battery news without people like you Jordan. Great work.
Back in the 90s I spent 7 years as an engineer for a battery R&D company. Very thin electrodes in an offset jelly roll very high power density format. I started in electrode prep and ended up in applications and product management. When I saw the 4680 presentation a while back I was amazed - the cell was like the Li-Ion version of that Bolder Tech cell design. Makes perfect sense. The coating process kicked our backsides. A spray was the best for cell performance due to excellent porosity but was hard to make flat and then still wind successfully. Roll coating was very manufacturable but had poor porosity and reduced performance. I'm not sure how a dry process would adhere to the metal current collector but might be more porous than a squished wet roll coat. Maybe there is a polymer in the mix? One thing I do remember is that when we got the electrode prep line dialed in it was best to run as much material as possible through right then as opposed to shut down and reset for a new day.
Love how you present very detailed info, you sight sources, you try to present possible flaws or areas to question, and all in a professional presentation. Far too many people presenting tech related content act as if they know it all. Keep up the great work Jordan.
Very well done Jordan. Its good to see the 'manufacturing lines' When correct there are some production capabilities for the 4680 near Fremont. Tesla's own production (with Panasonic) has the 2170 in Nevada. Everything else is coming from abroad when correct. The 18650 from Panasonic in Japan and the LiFePO4 mainly from Chinese vendors and China. What would be good, to have an orientation on the (increasing) total demand and the part the 4680 will have in the future. It seems the 18650 and the 2170 will last for the coming 10 years.
Do we know it the "Cyber" 4680 literally has "10% higher energy density", i.e. volumetrically, or 10% higher specific energy ('gravimetric energy density')?
I'm still on edge about the 4680 ramp, but more so because I really want to see Tesla solve the problem (not because I'm worried about the company failing, etc). It'll be a great gift to the transition to sustainable energy if they can crack it. Anyhow, glad to hear it!
Thanks Jordan. I had to block a certain Tesla Economist who became too manic depressive and was talking nonsense about the 4680s. You’ve helped to confirm my choice. Thank you and keep up the great analysis.
I live in France and it's been like a year that we know that the model Y standard range (it's called "propulsion" here) from Berlin comes with BYD Blade batteries
I'm not sure what your point is. What I was saying is that it was the first confirmation that we have from Elon. Tesla never publicly acknowledged it before explicitly. Yes, we essentially knew as consumers but that's something different.
@@thelimitingfactor and so we need confirmation from Elon to make it real ? I'm the one not getting your point now ^^ . We've known for a year that BYD supplies blade batteries to Tesla, and it wasn't a rumor. Anyhow I didn't mean to start a debate with you here. I love your work, it's awesome. Thank you so much for what you do.
As we have all come to expect from Jordon another superb unpacking of evidence, careful reasoning, and a state-of-the-art summary about what we can conclude in relationship to these important questions about the state of Tesla's battery universe. Although I have been nervous about whether the slow ramp of 4680 indexed hidden and difficult to solve technological problems it is great to hear that on the inside Tesla is thrilled with the 4680 ramp. That is good news.
"Advertising" for Sciencing Re-search thinking, not a share price sugar hit only the permanent challenge of Engineering.., which is going very well, +/- a bit. Thanks Jordan.
Great video Jordan. Are there any other battery manufacturers who have mastered the "dry cell" process? Does the "dry cell" process increase the power density of the cell or is it just a cost saving methodology?
Glad to hear it! No. There are lots of companies trying to solve it, but no one near Tesla's progress. It offers about a half a dozen benefits. Primarily cost
@@thelimitingfactor It is amazing to hear that Tesla, a non battery company, is leading in an area that is not their forte. It has to be Elon's imprint on his companies for the employees to excel in what they do.
Great analysis as always Jordan. Interesting as you have a differ of opinion to John from Cleanerwatt who thinks the 8 lines in total will include 4 coating lines & 4 assembly lines still only adding up to 100GWh. I hope you're right with 200GWh, only time will tell I guess!😊
Hi Jordan, great content as always and addresses the wet-electrode imports via courier from elsewhere to some extent. I keep hearing about Panasonic producing the 4680 in the future but would that just be the current/future 18650/2170 tech. in a bigger can or do you suppose that Tesla supplies machines or electrode material to Panasonic?
Panasonic's original plan was to use a wet process without tabless electrodes. I don't know if that's changed, but I suspect they aren't going to be getting any equipment or know how from Tesla
I suspect 4680 will be essential for the model2/robo. 4680s helps with charge/discharge per cell due to heat efficiency gains from tabbed electrodes. Assuming much smaller packs due to a lower range & lighter weight, getting a mile if charge will need a faster charging cell than the industry standard.
@@thelimitingfactor I'd thought the reason a 46 diameter was practical without throttling it's rates was the heat dissipation tabless provides? Which implies heat dissipation is if not a bottleneck.. then one of the variables to be balanced for maximising cycle life vs practical use. How would a smaller diameter, same chemistry & architecture fair? I may need to re-watch a few of your vids 😅
Munro mentioned during the Model S Plaid teardown that 18650 cells were used because of the peak energy requirements that the additional (smaller diameter) cells in parallel can provide. Essentially all form factors could be made tab-less in the future for better electron mobility, and of course thermal conductivity is a benefit too.
Well done! What is your educated guess on when Model Y Standard & Long Range (made at Giga Texas) will start to use 4680s consistently? Will 4680s be reserved exclusively for Cyber trucks for the foreseeable future?
Great summary! Thanks for keeping us updated on state of Tesla battery tech buddy. FYI, I have been seeing more applicants to our company with Tesla battery development experience. Not sure why specifically. Maybe Kato road is going well!
Thank you for the deep dive, as always execution is the limiting factor but the potential for 2020 Battery day aspirations is still not only possible but Tesla is building the battery infrastructure to achieve it. Good luck to the battery team. Another hockey stick upside hiding in plain sight
Wait wait. Why would Tesla go from NMC811 to NMC955? Jeff Dahn's team research has recently tested NMC955 in a paper and it only has higher capacity when charging to >4.04V (cell voltage). You can find it on the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, as linking seems to make YT go crazy. "When charging to 4.14 V vs Li/Li+ there is no benefit in switching to SC Ni95, which has less specific capacity than NMC811 at this UCV." However, this may explain whyL: "The normalized capacity vs cycle number panel shows cells with SC NMC811 charged to 4.06 V have slightly more capacity loss than cells with SC Ni95 charged to 4.04 V after 1700 cycles, however, SC NMC811 cells have better impedance control and seem to flatten out after many cycles, which convinces us they will overlap at some point later. SC Ni95 cells have more capacity loss than SC NMC811 when they were both charged to 4.18/4.2 V to access the capacity of the high voltage plateau region. In general, the cycling performance of cells with SC Ni95 with an advanced electrolyte recipe is very promising."
They're trying to eliminate cobalt and higher nickel tends to have higher overall energy density (but less stable). I don't know about the specifics of the paper above.
Hi Jordan, Thanx for all you do to try and keep us informed. I hope this request is feasible. I believe it was the initial battery day when Tesla shared their 4680 plans. It was exciting but had a fairly long timeline to get to where they wanted to be. Is it possible to estimate where on that timeline the production of today's cyber 4680 would be. And if you could do that, what would the expected energy density would be using the original timeline but sort of not worrying about the time estimates. So for example, if they are @ 25% of the original planned improvement we might expect another 75% which should thereby increase the cybertruck 123kwh pack to a xxxkwh pack, thus increasing range to a possible nnn miles given the same number of cells in the pack. It is my contention that the 500 mile range was perhaps achievable only after reaching the planned energy density goals. I'm not saying it is achievable, but it was what the mileage estimates were based on. Would make a fascinating post. Thanx again, Paul
I'm assuming you're just focused on energy density here in terms of progress. I think they actually started below the 0% line with the gen one cell. So I would say that with the current cell, the cyber cell, there are 0% of the roughly 20+% energy density increase they suggested at battery day. But, I don't think they're going to get an additional 20% by 2026, which was their target year. I think they're several years behind. My guess is it's going to be 2030 before they get another 20%
NMC 955 is finally being industrialised and I know GM and others are adopting it now. CAMX Power/Kenin Shahin own the technology and have licensing deals with all the big players.
Are the isotopes of Lithium important in Battery chemistry? I ask because I know a company seperating these isotopes (Li6 and Li7). And they need the Li7 isotopes for another purpose. Im thinking the Li6 isotopes would be useful for making extra low weight batteries.
The BYD blade was introduced in the Q1 2023 Model Y SR MiG. Thats a structural battery pack and it also means that the Y SR has a front casting. All Y SR from Germany came with that battery, Q4 2023 Tesla also started to ship the old CATL (on the LR production line without front casting and no structural pack) in german made Y SR as well. The BYD blade is now one year in production at Tesla. I got one, its far better than the Catl LFP and even outpaces the old LG LR battery in some things
hey Jordan Greetings from new zealand got a question for ya. the ct cells are currently sitting at 3.7 volts at 23.35 amps x 1424 cells per pack for the 123kwhs. The voltage of 3.7volts per cell i understand is "nominal" does that mean the 3.7 volts is the minimum voltage that the cell can be charged too? if they raise the voltage to 4 volts (4 v x 23.35 x 1424 =133kwh) is that possible ? 4.2 volts x 23.35x 1424=139.65kwhs 4.5x23.35x1424 = 149.6kwh 4.7 x 23.35 x 1424= 156.2kwhs are these accurate numbers and do you think tesla is able to boost the CT range, can it be boosted this way? i know they are still testing the reliability of the cells.
3.7 volts is the average voltage over the charge and discharge slope. Fully charged. It's 4.2 volts and fully discharged its 3.0 volts. So in order to calculate energy density throughout the charge and discharge cycle, you have to take the average. The only way to boost the ranges to increase the energy density of the cell by changing its chemistry and design.
@@thelimitingfactor so for arguements sake (to see if this old brain has the correct understanding) if they went to 4.7 volts max charge and 3 volts minimum the nominal voltage would be about 3.9 -4 volts which is the average between the 2 extremes. oh and thanks Jordan its helped a lot.
Excellent as always…definitely sounds like a step back short term…understand why they stopped MY production…to be blunt…missed the entire window for MY even with the delay in Ctruck. MY, they used line 1 and Kato roads to produce the little they had. So, they have line 2 running….ramp up and they are converting line 1…so it definitely caused a delay, but no impact on CT thus far. There are not 4 lines scaling up…back to the 3rd QTR plan…should have 4 lines running by 2Q24…then 4 line by yearend 2024…the bulk of the S-curve is sliding out…should not impact Ctruck but CT will ramp quickly in 2025. Still is an aggressive plan…will Cathode facility spool up this year….Lithium refining? China Cathod material sounds like a back up plan? NextGen going to use 4680…he mentioned future models…
I am wondering what is going to be the primary driver in battery developments moving forward for Tesla as well a the other manufacturers. Cost certainly, but for instance the form factor versus different chemistry and the necessary changes to the build process. I would assume that they are planning to use 4680 form factor battery designs for the foreseeable future, looking for incremental gains in performance in order to save millions to change pack and or vehicle design. I guess that it makes sense to not let better be the enemy of good sometimes. Can AI generate a better design AND justify the costs for new vehicles?
The form factor is nailed down for the 4680. They picked it to be future proofed. So long as they can scale the dry coating. It's about chemistry improvements
By the time the 4680 cell is completed and ramped, will competing battery tech have exceeded it? It sounds like solid state batteries will be coming in 1 to 2 years.
A little too much like fusion reactors there's the hype but no concrete product or serious production. This is unfortunate. I think companies like Toyota talk a lot (since several years now) just to delay people from shifting to current available technologies that are working fine for most people.
The future of humankind depends on how fast Tesla accelerates the switch to sustainable energy, and the future of Tesla is all the innovations shown in Battery day, which is the 4680, so it's understandable people consider how important this tech innovation is. So, when they found out it was overbuilt and they could make some reductions to reduce weight and improve energy density by 10% it was awesome news. So, given all the innovations in magnesium, I wonder if it could substitute aluminum in the battery cell can. Having pretty much the same material capabilities at 33% less weight could help improve energy density even more, what do you think?
Good question. An Al cell can would weigh less, but have worse volumetric energy density. And, it might actually cost more. Better to thin out the cell can and use cheap steel IMO
@@thelimitingfactor Thanks for replying! I thought the 4680 cell can was made of aluminum, so maybe it would be better if made of steel? What about magnesium? If thixomolded magnesium alloys can be so good to match aluminum gigacastings but with 33% less weight, wouldn't it make sense to try to make the cell canisters of magnesium as well and save 33% weight there as well? I mean, specially considering that the tech improvements for thixomolded magnesium alloys allow enough cost reductions to make it competitive with aluminum gigacasting, wouldn't it be possible to use similar techniques to keep the price low to make the 4680 cell can as well?
![BabyChiefDoit - Too Slow (feat. STAR BANDZ) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zayaxws7RPg/mqdefault.jpg)
I still can’t believe we are so lucky to get content like this regularly. I can’t imagine what the state of battery news without people like you Jordan. Great work.
Thanks for the kind words Joel! And thanks for the support over the years
@@thelimitingfactor not kind words, the truth!! The battery experts are inaccurate at best!!
@@thelimitingfactorcan you do a research video about benefits of cell size standardization?
"absolutely giddy" about the cell ramp? That's the thrill I get when I jump into my Frunk!💜
😁
I love your scientific rigour. You are a beacon of objectivity. This is much needed in today's information landscape.
Back in the 90s I spent 7 years as an engineer for a battery R&D company. Very thin electrodes in an offset jelly roll very high power density format. I started in electrode prep and ended up in applications and product management. When I saw the 4680 presentation a while back I was amazed - the cell was like the Li-Ion version of that Bolder Tech cell design. Makes perfect sense. The coating process kicked our backsides. A spray was the best for cell performance due to excellent porosity but was hard to make flat and then still wind successfully. Roll coating was very manufacturable but had poor porosity and reduced performance. I'm not sure how a dry process would adhere to the metal current collector but might be more porous than a squished wet roll coat. Maybe there is a polymer in the mix? One thing I do remember is that when we got the electrode prep line dialed in it was best to run as much material as possible through right then as opposed to shut down and reset for a new day.
Thanks for the comment! I love anecdotes like this
🙋♂️THANKS JORDAN,FOR THE UPDATE 😎💚💚💚
Great vid, thanks for the update Jordan :)
🙌🏼🤠
Love how you present very detailed info, you sight sources, you try to present possible flaws or areas to question, and all in a professional presentation. Far too many people presenting tech related content act as if they know it all.
Keep up the great work Jordan.
Yes, we're all in the dark 😁, we just have to do our best to point out what is confirmed and what is speculation
My TV moment 14:00
Thanks Jordan 🥳
😂 Thank you for contributing to the community!
Very well done Jordan. Its good to see the 'manufacturing lines'
When correct there are some production capabilities for the 4680 near Fremont. Tesla's own production (with Panasonic) has the 2170 in Nevada. Everything else is coming from abroad when correct. The 18650 from Panasonic in Japan and the LiFePO4 mainly from Chinese vendors and China.
What would be good, to have an orientation on the (increasing) total demand and the part the 4680 will have in the future. It seems the 18650 and the 2170 will last for the coming 10 years.
Yes! Those cells will definitely be around for a while
Thanks again Jordan
Do we know it the "Cyber" 4680 literally has "10% higher energy density", i.e. volumetrically, or 10% higher specific energy ('gravimetric energy density')?
Not yet. But, I've handled one of the gen 2 4680 cans and it's MUCH lighter. So, guessing gravimetric
Excellent reportage.
Ta muchly.
This really is a very well presented and thought-out presentation that dials back many of the insecurities I was feeling about the 4680 ramp.
I'm still on edge about the 4680 ramp, but more so because I really want to see Tesla solve the problem (not because I'm worried about the company failing, etc). It'll be a great gift to the transition to sustainable energy if they can crack it.
Anyhow, glad to hear it!
I am sure Tesla is looking at Nuburu's new Blue laser weld's perfect for copper welds no splatter no defects. I own a lot of $BURU...
Thanks Jordan. I had to block a certain Tesla Economist who became too manic depressive and was talking nonsense about the 4680s.
You’ve helped to confirm my choice.
Thank you and keep up the great analysis.
Yes, it's a shame.
I haven't blocked him, but I had to mute him.
He was unnecessarily bullish about the 4680 before, now he's unnecessarily bearish.
Thanks for the update Jordan! A long and twisty Road it has been for this 4680 but alas the end does seem near
God I hope so 😁
It's keeping me on the edge of my seat
When can we expect Si into 4680? Inorder for increase energy density higher than 2170.
Within the next couple of years is my guess.
More on this in the next video
Battery details to the moon diamond hands
I live in France and it's been like a year that we know that the model Y standard range (it's called "propulsion" here) from Berlin comes with BYD Blade batteries
I'm not sure what your point is.
What I was saying is that it was the first confirmation that we have from Elon.
Tesla never publicly acknowledged it before explicitly.
Yes, we essentially knew as consumers but that's something different.
@@thelimitingfactor and so we need confirmation from Elon to make it real ? I'm the one not getting your point now ^^ . We've known for a year that BYD supplies blade batteries to Tesla, and it wasn't a rumor. Anyhow I didn't mean to start a debate with you here. I love your work, it's awesome. Thank you so much for what you do.
As we have all come to expect from Jordon another superb unpacking of evidence, careful reasoning, and a state-of-the-art summary about what we can conclude in relationship to these important questions about the state of Tesla's battery universe. Although I have been nervous about whether the slow ramp of 4680 indexed hidden and difficult to solve technological problems it is great to hear that on the inside Tesla is thrilled with the 4680 ramp. That is good news.
🤜🤛🤠
"Absolutely giddy" sounds pretty positive. Thanks again, Jordan.
"Advertising" for Sciencing Re-search thinking, not a share price sugar hit only the permanent challenge of Engineering.., which is going very well, +/- a bit.
Thanks Jordan.
You're most welcome David!
Great video Jordan. Are there any other battery manufacturers who have mastered the "dry cell" process? Does the "dry cell" process increase the power density of the cell or is it just a cost saving methodology?
Glad to hear it!
No. There are lots of companies trying to solve it, but no one near Tesla's progress.
It offers about a half a dozen benefits.
Primarily cost
@@thelimitingfactor It is amazing to hear that Tesla, a non battery company, is leading in an area that is not their forte. It has to be Elon's imprint on his companies for the employees to excel in what they do.
Great analysis as always Jordan. Interesting as you have a differ of opinion to John from Cleanerwatt who thinks the 8 lines in total will include 4 coating lines & 4 assembly lines still only adding up to 100GWh. I hope you're right with 200GWh, only time will tell I guess!😊
Yes, reading the tea leaves, lol
@@thelimitingfactor it's the only way lol!
👍👍
Hi Jordan, great content as always and addresses the wet-electrode imports via courier from elsewhere to some extent. I keep hearing about Panasonic producing the 4680 in the future but would that just be the current/future 18650/2170 tech. in a bigger can or do you suppose that Tesla supplies machines or electrode material to Panasonic?
Panasonic's original plan was to use a wet process without tabless electrodes. I don't know if that's changed, but I suspect they aren't going to be getting any equipment or know how from Tesla
Great content Jordan! Any idea if Giga Texas cathode plant is LFP?
Given that most of their plans are for Nickel, it's probably nickel
Thank you so much for this 🙌
I suspect 4680 will be essential for the model2/robo.
4680s helps with charge/discharge per cell due to heat efficiency gains from tabbed electrodes.
Assuming much smaller packs due to a lower range & lighter weight, getting a mile if charge will need a faster charging cell than the industry standard.
No, it just allows a larger cell for the same charge and discharge rate.
If they want a faster charging cell, they'll need to change the chemistry.
@@thelimitingfactor I'd thought the reason a 46 diameter was practical without throttling it's rates was the heat dissipation tabless provides? Which implies heat dissipation is if not a bottleneck.. then one of the variables to be balanced for maximising cycle life vs practical use.
How would a smaller diameter, same chemistry & architecture fair?
I may need to re-watch a few of your vids 😅
Munro mentioned during the Model S Plaid teardown that 18650 cells were used because of the peak energy requirements that the additional (smaller diameter) cells in parallel can provide. Essentially all form factors could be made tab-less in the future for better electron mobility, and of course thermal conductivity is a benefit too.
Well done! What is your educated guess on when Model Y Standard & Long Range (made at Giga Texas) will start to use 4680s consistently? Will 4680s be reserved exclusively for Cyber trucks for the foreseeable future?
Thanks! Yeah, that's my view. Probably no 4680 back in the Model Y this year.
Cheers for that.
Wowzers 🎉🎉🎉
Great summary! Thanks for keeping us updated on state of Tesla battery tech buddy. FYI, I have been seeing more applicants to our company with Tesla battery development experience. Not sure why specifically. Maybe Kato road is going well!
You're welcome! 🤠
Interesting 🤔
Thank you for the deep dive, as always execution is the limiting factor but the potential for 2020 Battery day aspirations is still not only possible but Tesla is building the battery infrastructure to achieve it.
Good luck to the battery team. Another hockey stick upside hiding in plain sight
🤞
Thank you!
Wait wait. Why would Tesla go from NMC811 to NMC955?
Jeff Dahn's team research has recently tested NMC955 in a paper and it only has higher capacity when charging to >4.04V (cell voltage).
You can find it on the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, as linking seems to make YT go crazy.
"When charging to 4.14 V vs Li/Li+ there is no benefit in switching to
SC Ni95, which has less specific capacity than NMC811 at this
UCV."
However, this may explain whyL: "The normalized capacity vs cycle number panel shows cells with SC NMC811 charged to 4.06 V have slightly more capacity loss than cells with
SC Ni95 charged to 4.04 V after 1700 cycles, however, SC NMC811 cells have better impedance control and seem to flatten out after
many cycles, which convinces us they will overlap at some point later. SC Ni95 cells have more capacity loss than SC NMC811 when
they were both charged to 4.18/4.2 V to access the capacity of the high voltage plateau region. In general, the cycling performance of cells with SC Ni95 with an advanced electrolyte recipe is very promising."
They're trying to eliminate cobalt and higher nickel tends to have higher overall energy density (but less stable).
I don't know about the specifics of the paper above.
Hi Jordan, Thanx for all you do to try and keep us informed.
I hope this request is feasible.
I believe it was the initial battery day when Tesla shared their 4680 plans. It was exciting but had a fairly long timeline to get to where they wanted to be. Is it possible to estimate where on that timeline the production of today's cyber 4680 would be. And if you could do that, what would the expected energy density would be using the original timeline but sort of not worrying about the time estimates.
So for example, if they are @ 25% of the original planned improvement we might expect another 75% which should thereby increase the cybertruck 123kwh pack to a xxxkwh pack, thus increasing range to a possible nnn miles given the same number of cells in the pack.
It is my contention that the 500 mile range was perhaps achievable only after reaching the planned energy density goals. I'm not saying it is achievable, but it was what the mileage estimates were based on. Would make a fascinating post. Thanx again, Paul
I'm assuming you're just focused on energy density here in terms of progress.
I think they actually started below the 0% line with the gen one cell.
So I would say that with the current cell, the cyber cell, there are 0% of the roughly 20+% energy density increase they suggested at battery day.
But, I don't think they're going to get an additional 20% by 2026, which was their target year.
I think they're several years behind.
My guess is it's going to be 2030 before they get another 20%
Isn't the semi using 4680?
The early ones are using 2170, no clue as to what their plans are going forward
@@thelimitingfactor Tesla has the money to push / build more factories, but are there mines for them if they build them out.
NMC 955 is finally being industrialised and I know GM and others are adopting it now. CAMX Power/Kenin Shahin own the technology and have licensing deals with all the big players.
Interesting! Thanks for the input!
Are the isotopes of Lithium important in Battery chemistry?
I ask because I know a company seperating these isotopes (Li6 and Li7). And they need the Li7 isotopes for another purpose.
Im thinking the Li6 isotopes would be useful for making extra low weight batteries.
Interesting thought, but it wouldn't be cost effective for most batteries. Might be something in their for niche use case
The BYD blade was introduced in the Q1 2023 Model Y SR MiG. Thats a structural battery pack and it also means that the Y SR has a front casting. All Y SR from Germany came with that battery, Q4 2023 Tesla also started to ship the old CATL (on the LR production line without front casting and no structural pack) in german made Y SR as well. The BYD blade is now one year in production at Tesla. I got one, its far better than the Catl LFP and even outpaces the old LG LR battery in some things
Yes, I've heard good things about it.
It's good to hear Elon finally acknowledge it
meh, I know shorter and thinner is where lfp prismatic is going and catl is commercialising 1-2 years
I was 669 👍🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂
hey Jordan Greetings from new zealand
got a question for ya.
the ct cells are currently sitting at 3.7 volts at 23.35 amps x 1424 cells per pack for the 123kwhs.
The voltage of 3.7volts per cell i understand is "nominal" does that mean the 3.7 volts is the minimum voltage that the cell can be charged too?
if they raise the voltage to 4 volts (4 v x 23.35 x 1424 =133kwh) is that possible ?
4.2 volts x 23.35x 1424=139.65kwhs
4.5x23.35x1424 = 149.6kwh
4.7 x 23.35 x 1424= 156.2kwhs
are these accurate numbers and do you think tesla is able to boost the CT range, can it be boosted this way?
i know they are still testing the reliability of the cells.
3.7 volts is the average voltage over the charge and discharge slope.
Fully charged. It's 4.2 volts and fully discharged its 3.0 volts.
So in order to calculate energy density throughout the charge and discharge cycle, you have to take the average.
The only way to boost the ranges to increase the energy density of the cell by changing its chemistry and design.
@@thelimitingfactor
so for arguements sake (to see if this old brain has the correct understanding) if they went to 4.7 volts max charge and 3 volts minimum the nominal voltage would be about 3.9 -4 volts which is the average between the 2 extremes.
oh and thanks Jordan its helped a lot.
Excellent as always…definitely sounds like a step back short term…understand why they stopped MY production…to be blunt…missed the entire window for MY even with the delay in Ctruck. MY, they used line 1 and Kato roads to produce the little they had. So, they have line 2 running….ramp up and they are converting line 1…so it definitely caused a delay, but no impact on CT thus far. There are not 4 lines scaling up…back to the 3rd QTR plan…should have 4 lines running by 2Q24…then 4 line by yearend 2024…the bulk of the S-curve is sliding out…should not impact Ctruck but CT will ramp quickly in 2025. Still is an aggressive plan…will Cathode facility spool up this year….Lithium refining?
China Cathod material sounds like a back up plan?
NextGen going to use 4680…he mentioned future models…
Not sure what this is saying, but thanks for commenting.
I am wondering what is going to be the primary driver in battery developments moving forward for Tesla as well a the other manufacturers. Cost certainly, but for instance the form factor versus different chemistry and the necessary changes to the build process. I would assume that they are planning to use 4680 form factor battery designs for the foreseeable future, looking for incremental gains in performance in order to save millions to change pack and or vehicle design. I guess that it makes sense to not let better be the enemy of good sometimes. Can AI generate a better design AND justify the costs for new vehicles?
The form factor is nailed down for the 4680.
They picked it to be future proofed.
So long as they can scale the dry coating. It's about chemistry improvements
Great! As always!
😁 Hi Luca! Glad to hear it.
There is no soon! 😂😂😂
By the time the 4680 cell is completed and ramped, will competing battery tech have exceeded it? It sounds like solid state batteries will be coming in 1 to 2 years.
No, solid state batteries are a different use case entirely.
A little too much like fusion reactors there's the hype but no concrete product or serious production. This is unfortunate. I think companies like Toyota talk a lot (since several years now) just to delay people from shifting to current available technologies that are working fine for most people.
Byd batteries not safe, it blew up.....
They all will under the right circumstances. It's stored energy.
Absolute Perfection thank you so much🎉
You're most welcome!
Not a perfection. Graph at 12:00 seems mislabeled. Still, great job on the video!
my favorite channel
The future of humankind depends on how fast Tesla accelerates the switch to sustainable energy, and the future of Tesla is all the innovations shown in Battery day, which is the 4680, so it's understandable people consider how important this tech innovation is. So, when they found out it was overbuilt and they could make some reductions to reduce weight and improve energy density by 10% it was awesome news. So, given all the innovations in magnesium, I wonder if it could substitute aluminum in the battery cell can. Having pretty much the same material capabilities at 33% less weight could help improve energy density even more, what do you think?
Good question. An Al cell can would weigh less, but have worse volumetric energy density. And, it might actually cost more. Better to thin out the cell can and use cheap steel IMO
Al sheet can be drawn into cans like steel (Aluminum is used for most beverage cans). I'm not sure if that works with Mg, does anybody know?
Aluminum beverage cans have sprayed on plastic liners.
And the future of FRUNKENSTEIN inCORPORated depends on how fast we can ramp doll production!
@@thelimitingfactor Thanks for replying! I thought the 4680 cell can was made of aluminum, so maybe it would be better if made of steel? What about magnesium? If thixomolded magnesium alloys can be so good to match aluminum gigacastings but with 33% less weight, wouldn't it make sense to try to make the cell canisters of magnesium as well and save 33% weight there as well? I mean, specially considering that the tech improvements for thixomolded magnesium alloys allow enough cost reductions to make it competitive with aluminum gigacasting, wouldn't it be possible to use similar techniques to keep the price low to make the 4680 cell can as well?