GM : battery cell cost $145/kWh now, $100/kWh by 2018

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

evnow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
11,480
Location
Seattle, WA
There is an explosively interesting piece of news that others are reporting (thr’ AP).

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/gm-plans-5-5b-in-cost-cuts-to-help-finance-new-mobility/

The company also predicted a 31 percent reduction in battery cell costs for electric cars that could speed price reductions. Currently its cost per kilowatt hour is $145, but that will drop to $100 by 2018, a reduction that could make the cars more competitive with internal combustion engines.
 
This is similar to the cost reductions Tesla says they will get with the satisfactory.

http://insideevs.com/analyst-gigafactory-tesla-battery-cost-will-fall-100-per-kwh/

Good news as it means EVs could become cheaper than conventional cars in the very near future.
 
LKK said:
This is similar to the cost reductions Tesla says they will get with the satisfactory.

http://insideevs.com/analyst-gigafactory-tesla-battery-cost-will-fall-100-per-kwh/

Good news as it means EVs could become cheaper than conventional cars in the very near future.
Yeah, yeah, and we'll get all the free ice cream we can eat. I'll believe it when it happens.
 
GRA said:
LKK said:
This is similar to the cost reductions Tesla says they will get with the satisfactory.

http://insideevs.com/analyst-gigafactory-tesla-battery-cost-will-fall-100-per-kwh/

Good news as it means EVs could become cheaper than conventional cars in the very near future.
Yeah, yeah, and we'll get all the free ice cream we can eat. I'll believe it when it happens.
Forget the future - that current price is a shocker.
 
LKK said:
Good news as it means EVs could become cheaper than conventional cars in the very near future.
Yep, even for just the manufacturing cost.

On top of the reduction in battery costs, the costs of the drive electronics are likely dropping at a similar rate while simultaneously improving in performance.

So a LEAF-sized 300-mile EV today will contain a battery which only costs $11,000 to manufacture. Compare this with the 2016 Toyota Mirai: the fuel-cell stack currently costs Toyota $50,000. You then need to add in the cost of the two 10kbar pressure tanks and a hybrid battery for fuel and energy storage to get to the equivalent of a battery Let's put those tanks and battery at $16,000. In other words, a 300-mile FCV today costs $66,000 for the "battery equivalent" versus $11,000 for a BEV with a same-range battery or 6X the cost to store and retrieve the energy.

Am I correct that the entire battery in a BEV now cost less than JUST THE PRESSURE VESSEL in an equivalent-range FCV? I suspect that is the case today.

In 2018, that 300-mile BEV will contain a battery which only costs $7500 to manufacture. By then, you will need an 8.6X decrease in the cost of the fuel-cell stack, pressure vessels and hybrid battery in the Mirai to achieve cost parity. It ain't gonna happen.
 
RegGuheert said:
the costs of the drive electronics are likely dropping at a similar rate while simultaneously improving in performance.

What do you base this statement on? Are you guessing semiconductor costs, e.g. discrete (IGBT) and I.C.s,
dropping because of what (increased BEV volume)? And what performance improvement are you forecasting,
i.e. like the motor controller really needs a faster processor or multithreading?

You didn't forecast controller efficiency. Maybe the IGBT Vsat will be reduced by 50% because of a new semiconductor
process technology?

More guessing like for future FCEVs, right?
 
More on this here.

http://insideevs.com/gm-chevrolet-bolt-for-2016-145kwh-cell-cost-volt-margin-improves-3500/

Note that GM does not have exclusive use of the LG battery. LG wants to sell it to everyone, so I believe battery EVs will become cheaper and longer ranges possible, at a price ordinary people can afford.

Interesting that GM is reporting this. If battery costs are dropping, doesn't that make extended range EVs like the Volt less appealing. That is, if you could add several hundred miles of EV range to the battery for the same cost, weight and space as an ICE and associated equipment, I'm not sure an extended range EV makes sense.
 
LKK said:
More on this here.

http://insideevs.com/gm-chevrolet-bolt-for-2016-145kwh-cell-cost-volt-margin-improves-3500/

Note that GM does not have exclusive use of the LG battery. LG wants to sell it to everyone, so I believe battery EVs will become cheaper and longer ranges possible, at a price ordinary people can afford.

Interesting that GM is reporting this. If battery costs are dropping, doesn't that make extended range EVs like the Volt less appealing. That is, if you could add several hundred miles of EV range to the battery for the same cost, weight and space as an ICE and associated equipment, I'm not sure an extended range EV makes sense.

This is great news, that the battery prices are coming down, but the internal combustion engine will be with us for a long long time. Think of the Volt as kind of kind of high fuel efficiency hybrid that's more fun to drive, and only requires gasoline for longer trips. This year, I've made driving trips that would be impossible even in a Tesla 85. There's just a lot of small town areas around here and around the Texas coast where you there are no EV chargers anywhere; plus a gasoline fillup only takes minutes. So a Volt makes sense to some of us. It lets me drive >80% electric.
 
lorenfb said:
RegGuheert said:
the costs of the drive electronics are likely dropping at a similar rate while simultaneously improving in performance.

What do you base this statement on? Are you guessing semiconductor costs, e.g. discrete (IGBT) and I.C.s,
dropping because of what (increased BEV volume)? And what performance improvement are you forecasting,
i.e. like the motor controller really needs a faster processor or multithreading?

You didn't forecast controller efficiency. Maybe the IGBT Vsat will be reduced by 50% because of a new semiconductor
process technology?

More guessing like for future FCEVs, right?
I'm not guessing. The technology to cut the losses in the drive electronics is already well-established in the power-electronics marketplace.

IGBTs have massive switching losses which cause excessive overall losses and limit the switching frequency of the inverter. By moving to twice the battery voltage (some companies are doing this already) and replacing the Si IGBTs with SiC MOSFETs, the efficiency of the inverter can go from 95% to 98% and allow for better performance at highway speeds (without the need for complex systems like are found in the Chevy Volt).
 
Valdemar said:
Nissan charges more than $300 per kWh for the bigger pack on the 2016 SV/SL, what's the deal?
The difference between cost and price? (Also, aren't there other features included in the price differential over the S?)
 
RegGuheert said:
Valdemar said:
Nissan charges more than $300 per kWh for the bigger pack on the 2016 SV/SL, what's the deal?
The difference between cost and price? (Also, aren't there other features included in the price differential over the S?)

It is a differential between 2015/2016 of the same trim, not between different 2016 trims. The SV is up by $2,100, and SL is by $1,700.
 
Couple of points. GM is talking about cell cost, not battery. So, add some 30% or so mote for packaging.

'16 SV costs the same as '15 SV + QC.

I expect Nissan's cost to be worse too - so have to wonder whether AESC can be competitive in the long run. We may get to a point where we have only 2 or 3 battery providers (Panasonic/Tesla, LG, Samsung).
 
Valdemar said:
RegGuheert said:
Valdemar said:
Nissan charges more than $300 per kWh for the bigger pack on the 2016 SV/SL, what's the deal?
The difference between cost and price? (Also, aren't there other features included in the price differential over the S?)

It is a differential between 2015/2016 of the same trim, not between different 2016 trims. The SV is up by $2,100, and SL is by $1,700.
But in this case, you've both increased the capacity of the battery AND moved to a new chemistry which offers much lower capacity degradation. Hopefully the new chemistry will eventually be cheaper, as well, but that likely won't happen until volumes ramp up quite a bit.
 
RegGuheert said:
But in this case, you've both increased the capacity of the battery AND moved to a new chemistry which offers much lower capacity degradation. Hopefully the new chemistry will eventually be cheaper, as well, but that likely won't happen until volumes ramp up quite a bit.

Hopefully, if 24kWh replacement pack cost drops to $3-4,000 buying one out of pocket will almost be a no-brainer.
 
RegGuheert said:
lorenfb said:
RegGuheert said:
the costs of the drive electronics are likely dropping at a similar rate while simultaneously improving in performance.

What do you base this statement on? Are you guessing semiconductor costs, e.g. discrete (IGBT) and I.C.s,
dropping because of what (increased BEV volume)? And what performance improvement are you forecasting,
i.e. like the motor controller really needs a faster processor or multithreading?

You didn't forecast controller efficiency. Maybe the IGBT Vsat will be reduced by 50% because of a new semiconductor
process technology?

More guessing like for future FCEVs, right?
I'm not guessing. The technology to cut the losses in the drive electronics is already well-established in the power-electronics marketplace.

IGBTs have massive switching losses which cause excessive overall losses and limit the switching frequency of the inverter. By moving to twice the battery voltage (some companies are doing this already) and replacing the Si IGBTs with SiC MOSFETs, the efficiency of the inverter can go from 95% to 98% and allow for better performance at highway speeds (without the need for complex systems like are found in the Chevy Volt).

First, your efficiency improvement of 3% hardly justifies:

1. Doubling the existing and standard 360 - 400 volt EV battery system with additional higher voltage overall
component costs.
2. Re-designing well proven motor designs whether it's the Tesla induction motor or the Leaf's PM motor.
3. Using a more costly switching device (SiC MOSFET), 5-10X more costly than IGBT, and less capable in
switching inductive energy loads is hardly a good trade-off.
4. More complex drive electronics with SiC MOSFETs, (Vgs is greater than typical logic levels as with IGBT).

The "complex systems" found in the Volt are not the result of not using SiC MOSFETs, The Volt is just a hybrid
copy of the Prius using two motors, a generator, three clutches, and an ICE, hardly an overall efficient design
as what one finds in a BEV, e.g. Tesla/Leaf. Single BEV motor systems, e.g. the Leaf, have more than
acceptable efficiency numbers which are not compromised at highway speeds. Only when you have a very
heavy BEV, e.g. Tesla, cruising at high speeds as a performance vehicle does a single motor become less
efficient requiring the second motor. Improved motor controllers (SiC MOSFETs) will not significantly
improve efficiencies in that case.

The improved "performance" aspect mentioned in the previous post hasn't been described?

So let's not conflate nascent battery technology evolution with the more mature EV motor & drive controller
technology.
 
Here's my exact quote again regarding the parallel improvements going on in the drive electronics:
RegGuheert said:
On top of the reduction in battery costs, the costs of the drive electronics are likely dropping at a similar rate while simultaneously improving in performance.
Here's what's going on:

APEEM_Drive_System_Targets.png


These advances are completely parallel to what is going on with EV battery technology. The rapid advances improve performance while simultaneously reducing costs.

Paying more for advanced switches results in significant reductions in system costs by improving the efficiency of the system and by reducing size and weight.

Switching losses are the most important losses to eliminate because they occur all the time while in drive mode. When you are sitting at a light not moving, the inverter in the LEAF wastes about 1 kW of electricity constantly from the battery. Most of this is due to switching losses and some is conduction losses in the IGBTs. SiC MOSFETS will eliminate the vast majority of this loss while cutting driving losses by over half. The switch drive electronics are EASIER to design and build due to greatly reduced losses there. System costs and weight are reduced due to the reduced cooling load.
 
RegGuheert said:
Here's my exact quote again regarding the parallel improvements going on in the drive electronics:
RegGuheert said:
On top of the reduction in battery costs, the costs of the drive electronics are likely dropping at a similar rate while simultaneously improving in performance.
Here's what's going on:

APEEM_Drive_System_Targets.png


These advances are completely parallel to what is going on with EV battery technology. The rapid advances improve performance while simultaneously reducing costs.

Paying more for advanced switches results in significant reductions in system costs by improving the efficiency of the system and by reducing size and weight.

Switching losses are the most important losses to eliminate because they occur all the time while in drive mode. When you are sitting at a light not moving, the inverter in the LEAF wastes about 1 kW of electricity constantly from the battery. Most of this is due to switching losses and some is conduction losses in the IGBTs. SiC MOSFETS will eliminate the vast majority of this loss while cutting driving losses by over half. The switch drive electronics are EASIER to design and build due to greatly reduced losses there. System costs and weight are reduced due to the reduced cooling load.

1. "When you are sitting at a light not moving, the inverter in the LEAF wastes about 1 kW of electricity constantly from the battery. "

Where did you 'pull' this from? So in stop-and-go traffic, one could significantly reduce the Leaf's range,
right? Please! Time for you to plug in the LeafSpy.

2. This proposed technology is seven years away, i.e. that's further out than the proposed Model E.

A discussion of EV battery cost reductions in the next few years is more realistic and meaningful!
 
lorenfb said:
1. "When you are sitting at a light not moving, the inverter in the LEAF wastes about 1 kW of electricity constantly from the battery. "

Where did you 'pull' this from?
It's pretty well-known: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13273&start=360#p332767 .
lorenfb said:
So in stop-and-go traffic, one could significantly reduce the Leaf's range, right?
No, the 1 kW draw is the minimum power draw of the drivetrain (without regenerating power from the kinetic energy of the vehicle), so, no, your assertion is absurd.
lorenfb said:
2. This proposed technology is seven years away, i.e. that's further out than the proposed Model E.
I guess you didn't read the presentation I just provided. These developments are being rolled out in real-time and are ahead of schedule:

APEEM_Delphi_Production_Inverter.png
 
Back
Top