A terrific and thoughtful piece. The world always wants simple answers when complexity rules. Nice job "simplifiying" the complexity without dismissing it.
One thing that this overlooks, however (more compelxity!), is that batteries have two parts, the cathode and the anode. This assumes the anode plays no part in the segmentation process - but it most certainly does and will.
The advent of silicon anodes, while lifting all boats, will tend to make LFP (and LMFP) not differentially more attractive, but still absoluely more so. And that may well move the line between those and the nickel-based cathodes. The definition of "good enough" for certain applications will matter.
Appreciate the thoughtful take. You are right, the anode matters just as much. Higher silicon loadings and, later, lithium metal make that side of the cell increasingly important.
Great summary! It is all well and good "simplyfying" the complex battery markete picture, but what about "quantyfying" it? I've been struggling with this for the past 8 years.
Chris, can you put (or attempt to put - you best guess) any GWh numbers for the 2030 market breakdown of the main chemistry families? What I read elsewhere varis a lot - e.g. for Na-ion I heard numbers as varied as 150 GWh all the way to 800 GWh.
"For a 60 kWh pack, a 20–40 USD/kWh cell-level price gap translates into roughly 1,200–2,400 USD of pack-level cost difference"
I think one thing that a lot of people miss is that this extra cost is before you even gain any range - a 60 kwh LFP pack will get roughly the same range as a 60 kwh NMC pack.
What really happens is you're compounding the pack price. If NMC costs 30% more than LFP and you want to build a car that gets 30% more range, that 30% of range boost ends up costing 69% more than the original LFP pack.
A terrific and thoughtful piece. The world always wants simple answers when complexity rules. Nice job "simplifiying" the complexity without dismissing it.
One thing that this overlooks, however (more compelxity!), is that batteries have two parts, the cathode and the anode. This assumes the anode plays no part in the segmentation process - but it most certainly does and will.
The advent of silicon anodes, while lifting all boats, will tend to make LFP (and LMFP) not differentially more attractive, but still absoluely more so. And that may well move the line between those and the nickel-based cathodes. The definition of "good enough" for certain applications will matter.
Appreciate the thoughtful take. You are right, the anode matters just as much. Higher silicon loadings and, later, lithium metal make that side of the cell increasingly important.
Love this!
Thanks Will!
would love your thoughts on some of my stuff. follow me back, I could DM you?
Nice piece, but solid-state isn't a "chemistry" - it uses LFP or NMC cathodes too
Yes, good point. I oversimplified it there. It a change in the electrolyte system (from liquid to solid).
Wh/kg is a good metric for transport. But for BESS, you should consider Wh/acre.
Interesting. For BESS, cost per cycle is a key metric as well.
Another good overview - thanks. Learned a lot about usage differences.
Thanks Al. Glad you find it useful.
Great summary! It is all well and good "simplyfying" the complex battery markete picture, but what about "quantyfying" it? I've been struggling with this for the past 8 years.
Chris, can you put (or attempt to put - you best guess) any GWh numbers for the 2030 market breakdown of the main chemistry families? What I read elsewhere varis a lot - e.g. for Na-ion I heard numbers as varied as 150 GWh all the way to 800 GWh.
Solid writeup.
"For a 60 kWh pack, a 20–40 USD/kWh cell-level price gap translates into roughly 1,200–2,400 USD of pack-level cost difference"
I think one thing that a lot of people miss is that this extra cost is before you even gain any range - a 60 kwh LFP pack will get roughly the same range as a 60 kwh NMC pack.
What really happens is you're compounding the pack price. If NMC costs 30% more than LFP and you want to build a car that gets 30% more range, that 30% of range boost ends up costing 69% more than the original LFP pack.