New Tesla battery? Jeff Dahn and 1 million miles


At the beginning of September, the distinguished
battery researcher Jeff Dahn, who runs a lab at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, released
a report about a new battery formulation that could power an electric vehicle for 1.6
million kilometers (or 1 million miles). And since Jeff Dahn and his team are Tesla
research partners, the public speculation of what this could mean for Tesla’s upcoming
battery tech kicked into high gear. I’ve put together several videos myself
on the future of battery technology, battery recycling, and where Tesla may be heading
with the Maxwell Technologies acquisition, so it should go without saying … I got pretty
excited when I saw this news spring up. While the 1,000,000 mile battery is a great
headline, my curiosity went into over drive, so I read through Jeff Dahn’s research paper
and talked to an expert to see if I could tease out some of the details. And it may not be exactly what you’re expecting. Before I dive in, take a moment and hit the
subscribe button and notification bell, so you don’t miss out on future videos just
like this one. I’m Matt Ferrell … welcome to Undecided. Jeff Dahn has been researching lithium-ion
batteries for decades, and is one of the people responsible for the batteries we all take
for granted in our laptops and mobile phones today. He knows his stuff, so when he and his team
publish a report like this, people listen. After reading through the report myself, there
were a few key things that jumped out at me. This formulation shows very little degradation
over time and can withstand full depth of discharge cycles better than your typical
lithium-ion battery. On a typical battery you can expect the equivalent
of 1,000 cycles from 100% to 0% charge and back again.(fn) Getting to 1,000-2,000 cycles
is considered good. The test formulation from Dahn’s research
was showing over 95% of the original capacity available after 1,000 charging cycles. Compare that to the standard formulation they
tested with about 50% capacity left after 1,000 charging cycles. Even after 4,000 charging cycles, the test
batteries were still showing capacities of around 90%. That’s … kind of crazy. One of the other pieces of the report that
jumped out at me was temperatures. We all know that batteries don’t like extreme
temperatures and it impacts performance. But it can also impact the overall lifespan
of a battery too. These tests showed that this battery is very
resilient and doesn’t take much of a hit. At 40C (104F) the test formulation showed
90% of the original capacity after 3,500 charging cycles. To quote directly from the report, “this
cell chemistry is extremely tolerant to extended periods at elevated temperatures.” So it really sounds like this may be the battery
we’ve all waiting for, right? Yes, but not exactly … because there’s
a nuance to this that wasn’t immediately clear at a quick glance. In fact, there are two things worth calling
out. First, the formulation tested was a 5 parts
Nickel, 3 parts Manganese, and 2 parts Cobalt recipe. NMC batteries are commonly used pretty much
everywhere today like our phones, laptops, power tools, and even some EVs. It’s a very effective battery formula that
has a solid track record, and the version tested has a specific energy of 200 wh/kg. The battery cells in the Model 3 are somewhere
around 250 wh/kg.(fn) While these tested batteries may be able travel 1,000,000 miles over their
lifetime, with the lower specific energy of the NMC battery, they won’t be able to travel
as far on a single charge as the current Tesla NCA battery. The difference may be something like 260 miles
versus the 310 miles we get today on the long range Model 3. The second thing that surprised me was that
the tested formulation has more cobalt than Tesla’s current batteries. And unless you’ve been avoiding the news
on cobalt, you’ll know that there’s some serious issues with cobalt mining. It’s very dangerous work and some mines,
like in the Democratic Republic of Congo, have been exploiting workers.(fn) The rarity
of cobalt also makes it very expensive. Tesla and other companies have been trying
to reduce their dependence on cobalt with new formulations, which is something that
Elon and his team have talked about on quarterly calls in the past. JB: “You know. Being on a path to reduce cobalt usage for instance. Has been something we’ve been working on for…” “For literally several years now. And…” “And this has been extremely helpful in the overall cost per kW/h” “Especially with recent commodity price movements.” “I think we can be completely quantitative, but it’s a pretty good trend.” Elon:”We think we can get the cobalt to almost nothing.” So with this tested formula using more cobalt
than Tesla’s current batteries, it raised the question: is this really a formula that
Tesla will even use? The answer is most likely no. As excited as everyone got over this report,
this specific formulation doesn’t align with Tesla’s stated goals. They’re committed to reducing or even eliminating
cobalt from their batteries, not increasing it. And they’re also committed to reducing the
cost of manufacturing their battery pack, and in turn the car, to make it more affordable
in the market. Cobalt is very expensive, so if you used this
formulation you might see the cost of the battery pack rise by $400 – $500. Which again, doesn’t align with Tesla’s
goals. I’m not trying to be wet blanket here and
make this report sound like it’s not worth celebrating. It _is_ exciting research, but it’s just
that … research. This is one piece of a much larger puzzle. We shouldn’t expect that this is exactly
what we’ll be seeing in our cars in a couple of years. This could be a good fit for Tesla’s Megapacks
and grid scale storage systems because they aren’t as constrained for size and cost,
but that doesn’t feel like the ultimate answer either. This report is surfacing some key findings
around a single crystal cathode with protective nano-scale coating. While it seems like the report may be giving
up what seems like proprietary information with the single crystal, it’s important
to remember that research like this takes time and is done in phases. It’s about methodically testing the different
building blocks of the battery to zero in on what combination will result in the perfect
fit for a certain use case. Jeff Dahn actually has a paper on single crystal
vs. polycrystalline in lithium-ion cells from 2017.(fn) So this current paper is an extension
of that previous work combined with other research and experiments that they’re doing. This latest paper was released to help the
research and automotive community to demonstrate the latest lithium ion technologies and benchmark
it. Battery research is extremely complicated
and the artistry comes with how you combine these different techniques and chemistries
together. That’s the secret sauce. And that’s why, after reading this paper,
it’s clear to me that there’s still another shoe to drop … or a couple more shoes to
drop. I have no doubt that Jeff Dahn and his team
have research currently in progress on single crystal chemistries that will make more sense
in Tesla’s cars. Combine that with Maxwell Technologies Dry
Battery Electrode manufacturing technique that Tesla acquired, and then we could be
talking about the million mile battery in Tesla cars. Something that lasts for the life of the car
and is cheaper to produce. Most likely a formula with very little or
no cobalt. The big tell will be what, if any, papers
Jeff Dahn releases around the end of this year or early next year. And we’re also waiting on Tesla to hold
their battery and drivetrain investor day event, which has been pushed into early next
year. This research paper isn’t the destination,
but it’s a sign post along the road towards that destination. It’s a very clear hint as to where things
are going. A million mile battery for a typical driver
is a little nutty. The average American driver puts on about
13,000 miles each year. That means it would take the average American
driver almost 77 years to drive 1,000,000 miles. Why would Tesla even want to have a car with
motors and battery packs rated for that number of miles? The answer is, it’s not meant for us, the
average driver. Tesla is looking towards things like the self-driving
robo taxi future. Let’s look at the average New York City
taxi cab, which travels over 70,000 miles per year. For that you’d be looking at about 14 years
of use before the battery and motor may need replacement. That’s longer than the average New York
City cabs lifespan of 3 to 4 years. Long distance semi-trucks can drive upwards
of 100,000 miles per year,(fn) so you can also see how this could tie into Tesla’s
Semi. But building out batteries this resilient
also benefits longevity and scenarios with high depth of discharge rates. Just take a look at grid-scale energy storage. The batteries that Dahn’s group tested could
last at least 20 years as part of an energy storage system, which are systems that will
be cycling charges _a lot_ over their lifetime. A perfect example for how this could benefit
grid scale energy storage would be something like the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia,(fn)
which Tesla built for $50 million. In the first six months of operation it was
responsible for 55% of frequency control and ancillary services in South Australia. And by the end of last year was estimated
to have saved $40 million is costs.(fn) Taxis and trucks will also be cycling a lot more
than the average drivers electric vehicle. Working and driving all day, rapid charge,
and then repeat. Not the 10 – 20% battery drain, sit and wait,
drive again scenario that the average driver does with a car. The longer these batteries last, the greater
the return on investment (ROI) the owner of the car or energy storage system will see. I was very excited when I saw the initial
reports of Jeff Dahn’s research, and it’s advancements like this that show there are
still big gains to be made in battery technology. But it’s always important to try and look
past the headline and understand what the research is actually doing, and to understand
that its arrival in our lives may not be right around the corner. But having said that, I’m really excited
to see what Jeff Dahn has cooking in his labs that will eventually end up in our cars and
probably powering parts of the electrical grid at some point in the future. It’s research like this that is not only
going to make our cars even better than they already are, but help to make a brighter future. Are you as excited for this type of advancement
as I am? I’m curious if you think this is a big leap
forward and how the competition will be able to match up? Jump into the comments and let me know. If you liked this video, be sure to give it
a thumbs up and share with your friends because it really helps the channel. There are some other ways you can support
the channel too. Check out my SFSF Shop for some cool Tesla,
Space X, science, and Undecided shirts. There’s also other links in the description
for some great gear and discounts. And as always, an extra big thank you to all
of my Patreon supporters. And a special welcome to my new producer,
Paul DuVilla. Your support is really helping to make these
videos possible. Be sure to check out my Patreon page for additional
details about joining the crew. And if you haven’t already, consider subscribing
and hitting the notification bell to get alerts when I post a new video. And as always, thanks so much for watching,
I’ll see you in the next one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *