GM Says New Battery Chemistry Will Enable 400-Mile Range EVs (theverge.com) 30
General Motors is partnering with LG to develop lithium manganese-rich (LMR) batteries, which are safer, denser, and cheaper than current EV battery tech. The automaker aims to begin U.S. production by 2028 and become the first to deploy LMR cells in electric vehicles. Ford also announced it would start adopting LMR batteries for its EVs, but not until 2030. The Verge reports: GM's current crop of electric Chevys and Cadillacs use high-nickel batteries, which supply enough energy for around 300-320 miles of range. The new LMR batteries are denser, with greater space efficiency due to their prismatic shape, enabling up to 400 miles of range, GM says. Prismatic cells are packed flat in rigid cases and are generally thought to be less complex to manufacture than cylindrical cells. Less complexity and cheaper materials will hopefully lead to lower-cost EVs, which has been a significant challenge for the auto industry's shift to electric vehicles. "The EV growth rate is really dependent on how quickly we can bring the costs down over time," says GM's VP for batteries Kurt Kelty. "And this is the biggest lever we have. Batteries make up roughly 30 to 40 percent of the cost of vehicles. And if you can drop that down significantly like we're doing here, then it ends up being a lower cost to the consumer."
Metric, please. (Score:2, Informative)
640 km.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the EU, consumer protection is strong enough that an EV battery only lasting 5 years (or only up to a certain mileage) would be considered a faulty product even if the warranty doesn't cover it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If car manufacturers were stupid enough to pull a move like this what do EVs have to do with it? They could just as well artificially limit the percentage of your gas tank that you're able to use.
Except one would be easy to check because it would require physical alterations. The other would be done in software which could potentially be protected under DRM. Not to mention the cost of figuring it out to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Metric, please. (Score:3)
If they're going to use LFP or the yet to be commercially available sodium ion batteries, they won't be bothered much by the cold. Sodium ion apparently handles minus 40 degrees Celsius without trouble.
The manganese part refers to the cathode, I think, not the whole battery. But since the cathode is the most expensive part, that makes sense.
640 KM should be enough for anyone (Score:3)
Oh, wait, am I thinking of something else?
standard false summary by /. "editor" (Score:2)
"...which are safer, denser, and cheaper than current EV battery tech."
No. This is what the article says:
"Battery engineers at GM and LG Energy Solution have developed a new LMR prismatic battery cell that unlocks 33% higher energy density compared to the best-performing lithium iron phosphate (LFP) based cells – at a comparable cost."
There is no claim in the article about safety, the article says "comparable cost", not cheaper AND while the new chemistry is denser than LFP, it is NOT denser than "cur
Re: (Score:3)
The summary also specifies that the batteries have "greater space efficiency", I.E. volume density, than what sounds like current lithium-cobalt batteries. Thus the extra range could be from a given size car getting extra range at the cost of making it even heavier.
So, what’s your excuse? (Score:2)
”Batteries make up roughly 30 to 40 percent of the cost of vehicles. And if you can drop that down significantly like we're doing here, then it ends up being a lower cost to the consumer."
Sounds like a plan, but I just have one question. If batteries are why EV prices are insane, the FUCK is their excuse for EVERY new car price right now, including all those old-fashioned gas guzzlers?
I see we still haven’t figured out why we don’t need stealerships. GM can rot in hell. As they should have the first time we bailed their asses out. Even a 30% reduction still isn’t enough when we’re still staring at MSRP+fuck-you pricing. And Ford plans to wait until 2030? They
Re: So, what’s your excuse? (Score:3)
All cars are expensive because they have to include new electronic safety measures, have structural reinforcements, and consumers like the very lucrative SUVs that are expensive by default, because if you buy one you're a dumbass, according to the manufacturer :) at least, when I worked for one, over a decade ago, that was the general opinion.
But the main thing is that those cars are paying for the transition to an all electric fleet. And that is expensive because car manufacturers have two issues:
1. Intern
Re: So, what’s your excuse? (Score:3)
BTW, here is a good explanation of how China came to rule the battery waves:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
They're exploiting the people who insist on having new cars.
They buy a new car for a year, take a huge hit on depreciation and then sell it off on the used market.
If you're price conscious, buy it after a year or two when the price has dropped.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK the majority of new cars are sold to lease companies and finance companies. Lease is particularly popular because you can take it as a job benefit, which basically means you don't pay any income tax on what goes into the lease payments.
The list prices are just made up nonsense to discourage cash buyers. They prefer lease or finance, and then after 2-3 years sell the car used at a more realistic price. Most cash buyers are getting those 2-3 year old models.
There are exceptions, some of the Chinese
Re: (Score:2)
To
Same here in Europe (Score:2)
Manufacturers seem to think normal people will pay almost 6 figures for some 4 cyl 2.0L hybrids (hello BMW, Audi, Merc).
How about instead (Score:2)
give me a 200mile EV at a lower cost. As it stands 99% of the customers of this car will have their state of charge permanently sitting between 70 and 90%. (Or 100% for those who ignore warning of not leaving a battery sit fully charged).
Re: How about instead (Score:2)
But what is already happening is that you can use that car as a storage battery for your home, given the right software, charger and a modern EV designed for that use case. LFP will make that even better. And in the case, the added capacity will be very useful indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
What is holding back better value short range models is FUD. At the moment BEVs are being made with very long range to brute force break the range FUD. People who think rationally, or have worked out the reality of BEV ownership and their real range needs, will now be aware that shorter range BEVs will be fine as their daily drive.
In a few years these people will look to replace or get a second BEV.
Range is good enough, its charging speed (Score:2)
And enough chargers. A range of 300 miles is fine if there are plenty of chargers and I can charge in 15 mins or so (we just have to accept the 2 min refuel of an ICE will never be matched by EVs) but thats not yet the case.
400 mile range is already being sold (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what their idea is why "enabling up to 400 miles of range" is something that has yet to be done. There are multiple vehicles being sold with > 400 mile range, Tesla Model S for one (410 mile EPA). It is all a question of how big of a battery do you want to install.
I think they should've worded it as "LMR can deliver ~30% more range and at lower cost." Which is great and all, but I was kinda hoping for more of a breakthrough by then.
Sodium Ion? (Score:2)