Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Power

GM Says New Battery Chemistry Will Enable 400-Mile Range EVs (theverge.com) 58

Posted by BeauHD from the next-gen-tech dept.
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."

GM Says New Battery Chemistry Will Enable 400-Mile Range EVs More | Reply

GM Says New Battery Chemistry Will Enable 400-Mile Range EVs

Comments Filter:

  • Metric, please. (Score:3, Informative)

    by denelson83 ( 841254 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2025 @03:19AM (#65375345)

    640 km.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
      So in winter (snowwy roads + the heater going full blast) we might get at lest 300KM, not bad, not ideal but would certainly cover daily driving for 90%+of people, and a stop now and again for a quick recharge on longer trips might not be that bad either.

      • 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.

        • Parent poster was referring to the fact (I assume) that electric cars have to use electric heaters since they don't have an ICE engine and radiator to scavenge heat from.

          I know we want to make them "electric" cars, but I don't see why they don't build in a small gas heater of some sort instead of using a wholly-inefficient electric heating element. My house is electric, but I still use gas for heat. And if we can make a safe 20 gallon gas tank, surely we can make a 5?

          • I know we want to make them "electric" cars, but I don't see why they don't build in a small gas heater of some sort instead of using a wholly-inefficient electric heating element.

            Because it would be useful for such a small fraction of driving that it isn't worth the added complexity and maintenance?

            FWIW, modern EVs use heat pumps, not just resistive heating elements.

          • I know we want to make them "electric" cars, but I don't see why they don't build in a small gas heater of some sort instead of using a wholly-inefficient electric heating element.

            They do make small diesel heaters, and the Chinese ones are relatively inexpensive. As to why it's not a factory-installed option, probably because it creates something of an optics problem for the auto manufacturers. It's basically like slapping a big sticker on the car that says "This vehicle has a workaround for cold weather that gas cars don't need."

            They are easy enough to install as a DIY option, and if I lived somewhere that experienced an actual winter, it's something I'd actually consider doing my

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          Sodium ion batteries are commercially available, you can buy them easily off AliExpress or Amazon right now.

          They just aren't available at the volumes required for BEVs or large scale adoption. They're still at the early adopter phase.

          Sadly, this is one technology that the Chinese have spent lots of money on for R&D on commercialization and likely one they will be poised to reap huge benefits from because US investment in that kind of battery technology is lacking. (At least you can't blame Trump for thi

    • 640 KM should be enough for anyone (Score:4, Funny)

      by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2025 @05:00AM (#65375453) Homepage

      Oh, wait, am I thinking of something else?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by CEC-P ( 10248912 )
      Yes, that makes sense. An American car made in America and sold in America covered on an American-owned news website better put it in KM.

  • "...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

    • The cost is being compared to lithium-iron-phosphate, which are relatively cheap while this new lithium-manganese chemistry has a very similar energy density/weight to lithium-cobalt batteries, so cheap batteries with good range seems accurate.

      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.
    • The editor doesn't write the summary, the submitter does. And we have you to fact check it for us. And the content from other sites is the whole point, so I'm not clear what your problem is on that score either.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zlives ( 2009072 )

      https://techcrunch.com/2025/05... [techcrunch.com]

      another article
      "Today, the Chevrolet Silverado EV uses nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) cells to drive 492 miles on a full charge. That impressive range comes with a hefty price tag. The electric trucks start at over $73,000 for the general public (a fleet version costs less). GM is planning a version with cheaper lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) cells, which would drop the price by $6,000, but also cuts range to 350 miles.

      The new technology would preserve the LFP price cuts withou

  • ”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

    • 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: (Score:3)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      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)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        New cars are a reasonable investment if you aren't buying a high end model and keep it long enough i.e. 10 or more years. I brought a new Suzuki Jimny in 2015 for the equivalent of about USD $15K and as my last ICE I was planing to sell it this year. If I got nothing for it that would work out at about $1,500 a year for trouble free motoring. The Jimny holds it's resale value better than most because of its market segment so that actual cost of ownership is probably going to be under to $1,000 year.

        To

    • Manufacturers seem to think normal people will pay almost 6 figures for some 4 cyl 2.0L hybrids (hello BMW, Audi, Merc).

    • 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?

      Two reasons:

      #1 We artificially restrict competition, with tariffs amounting to a de facto ban on BYD vehicles.
      #2 Inexpensive new vehicles don't sell well in the USA, so auto manufacturers don't bother bringing them to our market.

  • 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).

    • 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)

      by ukoda ( 537183 )
      Actually 100% is recommended for some battery chemistries, like the LPF cells they are comparing with.

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Junta ( 36770 )

        Yeah, going from gas to electric I certainly was thinking to have roughly the same amount I had before, since I was used to it. I'd drive a gas car basically until the light came on because I hated going to the gas station. Changing to home charging is a game changer that is hard to convince someone without first hand experience.

        After having had one a couple of years... Well actually I do like having at least 250 miles of range because every couple of months I do have a 200 mile round trip I make and I lik

    • give me a 200mile EV at a lower cost.

      It probably is a 200 mile EV the way people drive on most highways. I get about 2.5 miles per kWh in my Bolt if I try to keep up with traffic on Florida's 70 MPH roads. That's a loss of nearly 90 miles of range from the EPA rating (which it absolutely can achieve, provided I keep it under 65 MPH).

  • Range is good enough, its charging speed (Score:3)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2025 @05:05AM (#65375457) Homepage

    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.

  • 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.

    • Re:400 mile range is already being sold (Score:4, Informative)

      by MTEK ( 2826397 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2025 @07:51AM (#65375621)

      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:3)

    by CoolCash ( 528004 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2025 @07:49AM (#65375615) Homepage
    Seems already outdated. The major battery manufactures in China area already looking to move over to sodium ion. It eliminates the needs for cobalt and lithium. It charges faster and works just as well or if not better in cold weather. Plus they would be cheaper once in full production. https://insideevs.com/news/757... [insideevs.com]
  • Combining the flammability of manganese with the self sustaining conflagration of Lithium... In the words of Jeremy Clarkson, what could possibly go wrong?

    • Lithium isn't what makes it self sustaining, it doesn't do that except in moisture rich environments. It's other components of NCM electrolyte which emit oxygen which cause that. LFP batteries already don't have this problem, you can put them out with water to cool them followed by foam to smother them. They also already don't use cobalt, which is not relevant to the fire risk but is being touted as a benefit of this newer chemistry.

  • Its NOT range any more, Its charge time. Needs to be minutes not hours. Until thats fixed you have issues.

    • Its NOT range any more, Its charge time. Needs to be minutes not hours. Until thats fixed you have issues.

      The bulk of EV charging is done at home, while you're asleep. Most people don't need to hit a DC fast charger unless they're taking a longer road trip.

      If someone is having to regularly visit a charging station because they can't charge where they live, that's an infrastructure problem which needs to be addressed. In addition to the inconvenience, the value proposition of EV ownership goes right out the window if all your charging is being done at DCFC stations. They tend to be rather pricey compared to h

  • Its just a bit more expensive (you have to have more batteries in it.)

    Plus you have to have good aerodynamics. Low profile, low CD, don't tow things or put a roof rack on.

    And drive at an airspeed of less than 100KM/hr .

  • GM will use it to make very lousy EV's because that is all GM is able to make in 2025.

  • My understanding is that lithium manganese-rich batteries offer potentially higher densities, but much worse cycle lifespan. This could make the trade-off not worth it compared to LFP.

    Seems to me like, having allowed the Chinese to get many years ahead in LFP technology, GM/LG are trying to leapfrog them by going with something completely different. Time will tell if that makes any sense versus just buying the latest and greatest LFP cells from the Chinese.

  • This is yet another of the dozens of "new improved" batteries that are announced each year based on lab results, with little to no work done on actual production issues. Since they are expecting them to be ready for "preproduction" (whatever that means) in 2027, it is safe to say with better than 99% accuracy that you can completely ignore this and will never hear from it again, like the other thousand or so miracle battery technologies announced in the last 20 years that we've never heard from again after

  • This is about cheaper batteries, not about range. We already have cars with over 400 miles of range. They're just expensive. All that matters here is the lower cost per kWh. If they're saying a 30% cheaper battery, then that means automakers have options to reduce prices or extend range (or increase profits for a few years until other companies get similar technology). And is 30% the real number? I'm not clear on that, and even if that's the claim, it's hard to be sure they're not cherry-picking price

Slashdot Top Deals

Debug is human, de-fix divine.

Close