Author: CBEA
Source: http://www.cbea.com/djgc/202006/161035.html
On 11 Jun, MIIT officially published 7th batch of models enlisted in “New Energy Vehicles Recommended for Promotion and Application Catalog” (Catalog) and Tesla’s LFP Model 3 officially showed its face.
Catalog revealed that LFP Model 3 battery density is only 125 Wh/kg, lower than previously estimated 140 Wh/kg. Worth noticing is that MIC model with LG Chem battery has battery density at 145 Wh/kg, while imported base Model 3 carrying Panasonic NMC has density at 153 Wh/kg.
As for range, LFP version can cover 468 km, which is higher than Panasonic’s 455 km and LG Chem’s 445 km. The range increased only 23 km compared to LG Chem’s range, but lower compared to previous estimates, which saw LFP range at 500 km.
As for why LFP version density is lower and yet the range is longer, we think that LFP version added more cells. That is, the catalog shows that LFP Model 3 curb weight is 1,745 kg, which is higher than Model 3 carrying Panasonic or LG Chem NMC that weighs 1,614 kg.
Insiders speculate that MIC LFP Tesla Model 3 used 75 kWh pack from Long Range Model 3 and simply replaced NMC cells with LFP ones, which then increased the pack capacity by 5–7 kWh.
When it comes to electricity consumption (EC) per 100 km, LFP Model 3 again does not show any advantages. Catalog shows that LFP Model 3 EC is at 12.60 kWh/100 km, which is higher than 12.40 kWh/100 km in base Model 3 with LG Chem NMC.
When we combine battery density, curb weight and EC per 100 km, we can conclude that LFP Model 3 capacity is at 58–61 kWh range.
However, Catalog still did not reveal cell supplier. But based on previously released information by Tesla and CATL, we can practically confirm that cells will come from CATL. When we know that CATL will start to supply batteries in July, we can estimate that LFP Model 3 will enter the market in August.
Judging from the above mentioned parameters, LFP battery density did not reach previously expected 140 Wh/kg nor did the range broke 500 km margin. Instead it only increased by 20 km.
As for the last speculation — does the cost meet the estimates? We are not that optimistic. Based on what insiders revealed, CATL LFP module price per kWh is already below RMB 500, while pack price is maintained at around RMB 600 per kWh. The price is clearly lower compared to NMC battery offered to Tesla by LG Chem. Provided that capacity is not changed, LFP pack might save Tesla Model 3 over RMB 10K. But, when capacity is increased by 5–8 kWh, the cost advantage is not that obvious any more.
Further, LFP Model 3 subsidies will also be lower. Based on 2020 NEV subsidy policies, LG Chem NMC Model 3 can get RMB 20,250 (battery pack density 145 Wh/kg can get 0.9 subsidy coefficient). LFP Model 3, since its pack density is just 125 Wh/kg, can get 0.8 subsidy coefficient. That is, LFP Model 3 as presented in the Catalog can only get RMB 18K or RMB 2,250 less than LG Chem version.
Increased capacity brings increased cost, just as lower subsidy does. When we add all that up, we estimate that the difference in cost between LFP and NMC Model 3 is not that big. Of course, our assumptions are based on these quotas and it might be that CATL gave Tesla discounts that surpass our estimates.
125Wh/kg! The lower limit of passenger EV subsidy
Catalog shows that LFP Model 3 pack density is only 125 Wh/kg. It is exactly this low energy density that made battery pack weight increase by around 130 kg, its capacity by 5–8 kWh and range by only 20 km, so it did not manage to break 500 km range margin. This is what surprised many people in the industry and one of the reasons that will make consumers unhappy.
So, what does 125 Wh/kg density amount to at this moment? When we consult 2020 NEV subsidy norms, passenger EVs below 125 Wh/kg pack density do not qualify for subsidy. In other words, 125 Wh/kg pack density is the entry level. Further, we have checked all LFP EV models that were enlisted in the catalog this year. Their battery density is as follows:
From the table above we can see that there were 10 models with density below 125 Wh/kg and 61 models with density above 125 Wh/kg, wherein 31 models had density above 140 Wh/kg (the highest with 143.7 Wh/kg).
Coincidentally, LFP Tesla Model 3 pack density is exactly at this margin of 125 Wh/kg. We can see that around 60 models have the same or higher density compared to this Model 3 or around 86% of the vehicles. So, judging from pack density, this model is not only average, but even somewhat poor.
If we assume that LFP Model 3 carries 140 Wh/kg pack, then with the same battery pack its range would be above 520 km. This would be a huge change for Model 3 and it would make a world of difference in the market. In fact, judging from the technical perspective, getting an LFP pack to 140 Wh/kg or a higher level is not that difficult any more. In fact, this level has become a mainstream among passenger vehicles.
Earlier, we thought Tesla Model 3 went for LFP as to cut costs and because LFP technology improved in the past years, but judging from these parameters it seems that Model 3 is not using high-level LFP battery, one of the industry insiders said.
In recent years, quite a number of EV models promoted their LFP versions, mainly to reduce the costs, but first they needed to improve LFP technology so it can rival NMC on lower ranges (500km and below). For example, BYD’s new BYD Han carries LFP blade battery. Its pack density reaches 140 Wh/kg and has a range at 605 km. Guoxuan also managed to make its LFP pack reach 140 Wh/kg and started to mass produce it in 2019.
From models published in Catalog this year, we can see that 31 models had 140 Wh/kg pack density, which made 43.66% of all listed models — you may say that this density has become mainstream. So, based on numbers provided, LFP version of Model 3 is really disappointing.
As one of China’s and even world’s market leader, CATL’s abilities in LFP market can hardly be questioned and the company should not have any issues in building 140 Wh/kg pack, let alone one over 125 Wh/kg. So, it is pretty odd that it would supply Tesla with a module that barely meets a subsidy margin.
Some industry insiders speculate that CATL and Tesla reported lower pack density on purpose. When Model 3 Standard Range RWD carrying LG Chem was reported, Tesla cited lower pack density. So, we should wait until Model 3 enters the market when everything will be revealed.
Of course, we cannot rule out that Tesla adopted this conservative strategy as it wanted to avoid situation in which higher density pack and the range significantly higher than 445 km would affect the sales of the current base Model 3 and Long Range Model 3 and cause anger among its customers. But then again, we have no proof of that.
Still, we think that LFP advantages will become more obvious in the coming days and that one of the things Tesla counts on is that it will be able to easily switch to higher density LFP pack and higher range with the same pack space.
Translation/edit: MoneyballR
