Pics/Info: Inside the Tesla 100 kWh Battery Pack

[Cloxxki]

As I've explained previously you can't build a 90-100kWh pack with high C rate chemistry because of the poor energy density. You're talking about building an impossible vehicle with existing technology. It's not going to happen for a few years. They can install all the 300kW CCS chargers they want, no vehicle will be able to use them to full capacity.

Elon seems to be indirectly hinting in the direction of 2170 for cars to be faster charging. 130kWh will fit in a (still very, aerodynamic and spaceous Model S) when optimizing the range from 2170's. With higher C cellls, 100kWh may well be on the cards, just not (yet) for Model 3.
Considering how heavy Model X is without being an issue, and how much interior space Model S has with the same pack considering how much it will tke, I doubt the lower density of high C cells will long remain a true obstacle to long range cars.

 

[JRP3]

With higher C cellls, 100kWh may well be on the cards, just not (yet) for Model 3.

You have that backwards. Higher C rate cells will have lower specific energy which means higher C rate cells on their own will make it less likely a 100kWh pack could fit in the Model 3. To fit a 100kWh pack in the Model 3 would require a much higher specific energy cell than exists today, even in low C rate chemistry, so it would require a significant improvement in specific energy and C rate to achieve. It will happen, eventually, but not in the next few years, unless there is a significant breakthrough in chemistry outside of the normal progression.

 

[Cloxxki]

You have that backwards. Higher C rate cells will have lower specific energy which means higher C rate cells on their own will make it less likely a 100kWh pack could fit in the Model 3. To fit a 100kWh pack in the Model 3 would require a much higher specific energy cell than exists today, even in low C rate chemistry, so it would require a significant improvement in specific energy and C rate to achieve. It will happen, eventually, but not in the next few years, unless there is a significant breakthrough in chemistry outside of the normal progression.

You got me wrong. I have zero doubt in my mind that in Tesla wants a traditional low C pack from 2170's that's 130kWh, they could build it today. Perhaps even with the exact cells used in the 2nd gen Powerwall and - pack.
I consider a 100kWh pack from 2170's LOW density. Because the cells are longer (5mm more pack height utilization) and more dense than the 18650's whch already accomplished 100kWh. So even witht he old chemistry from when the 90kWh cas were first produced, WAY over 100kWh should be expected from Plain Jane 2170 packs.

 

[scaesare]

You got me wrong...

...WAY over 100kWh should be expected from Plain Jane 2170 packs.

I think you have him wrong. @JRP3 was referring to Model 3 packs. Elon has already stated the footprint is too small for a 100kW pack, even using the new more energy-dense cells.

 

[Cloxxki]

I think you have him wrong. @JRP3 was referring to Model 3 packs. Elon has already stated the footprint is too small for a 100kW pack, even using the new more energy-dense cells.

As always with Elon quotes, it depends.
2170 is a more efficient for size, but unless the chemistry is the same as their automotive 18650's, they may not not necessarily be higher density for real.
Model 3 is not all that much smaller, and few will make a good case that Model S shouldn't fit 130kWh with 2170 cells focused at energy density by volume. The double stacked module may be missing in Model 3, but modules themselves could (if so desired) be more cleverly designed for a given floor surface.
The more I think of it, the more I expect Model 3 to get lower density 2170's, to enable much faster charging than seen in the 18650's. If someone hacks a PowerWall or - pack 2, its cells may well allow for a much bigger battery than they'll make available in cars commercially.

 

[stopcrazypp]

As always with Elon quotes, it depends.
2170 is a more efficient for size, but unless the chemistry is the same as their automotive 18650's, they may not not necessarily be higher density for real.
Model 3 is not all that much smaller, and few will make a good case that Model S shouldn't fit 130kWh with 2170 cells focused at energy density by volume. The double stacked module may be missing in Model 3, but modules themselves could (if so desired) be more cleverly designed for a given floor surface.
The more I think of it, the more I expect Model 3 to get lower density 2170's, to enable much faster charging than seen in the 18650's. If someone hacks a PowerWall or - pack 2, its cells may well allow for a much bigger battery than they'll make available in cars commercially.

I must be having deja vu, but didn't we discuss this already? The advantage of the extra 2170 height is almost exactly eliminated by Model 3's narrower width and shorter wheelbase. Then factor the loss of the double stacked modules and the Model 3 pack will only have 87.5% the volume of the Model S pack.
How many kWh can they squeeze into the Model 3...?

I did the math right here based on Straubel's claims of 1.3x density improvement on the original Model S (which on a Model S would mean 110.5kWh, which we don't have yet today) and got 96.7 kWh for the Model 3, not quite 100 kWh:
How many kWh can they squeeze into the Model 3...?

 

[Cloxxki]

Yeah, it come sup everywhere. Or I bring it up everywhere perhaps.

Straubel's claim may well have been overtaking but the CCS initiative, giving cause to a change in chemistry strategy, away from maximum range (energy density by pack volume) and cost, to charge speed, cost and range.
If you need to give up the 18% won in the change to 2170 to get 3x faster charging, would you? Road trips would be done quicker, and with a good charging network, range on a single charge is less important.
If Tesla doesn't offer faster chargers and faster charging cars, in 5 years they'll be the very slowest charging cars on the market.

 

[JRP3]

If you need to give up the 18% won in the change to 2170 to get 3x faster charging, would you?

No because energy density and cost are still the driving factors for EV's, regardless of your personal obsession with charge rates, and not only is 3X faster charging not necessary you wouldn't get anywhere close to that simply by giving up 18% density. You can push various parameters within a cell chemistry but you can't change them by that much without a major breakthrough.

 

[hiroshiy]

Elon Musk on Twitter
@kryniog The shorter wheelbase only allows for a 75 kWh pack in Model 3 at current cell/module energy densities

 

[Cloxxki]

No because energy density and cost are still the driving factors for EV's, regardless of your personal obsession with charge rates, and not only is 3X faster charging not necessary you wouldn't get anywhere close to that simply by giving up 18% density. You can push various parameters within a cell chemistry but you can't change them by that much without a major breakthrough.

Exactly how much worse is the density on the LG cells then? They get a tiny capacity Ioniq battery to charge as quickly as a Tesla twice the capacity.

 

[KJD]

Exactly how much worse is the density on the LG cells then? They get a tiny capacity Ioniq battery to charge as quickly as a Tesla twice the capacity.

99% of the time my car charges when I am home and asleep. It charges fast enough so that its full in the morning and thats all that matters.

Tesla has the supercharger network that is far and away better than any other car company and it will stay that way for a long time.

 

[Cloxxki]

99% of the time my car charges when I am home and asleep. It charges fast enough so that its full in the morning and thats all that matters.

Tesla has the supercharger network that is far and away better than any other car company and it will stay that way for a long time.

All true, but Tesla has been active on the CCS work group. 350kW chargers are coming. And with Powerpack 2.0 being so much better, why not improve SUC's as the network is expanded?

 

[techmaven]

Exactly how much worse is the density on the LG cells then? They get a tiny capacity Ioniq battery to charge as quickly as a Tesla twice the capacity.

Battery chemistries can be tuned for a variety of characteristics. Tesla tends to choose high energy cells with the highest specific energy with a sacrifice on volatility and charging c-rate. But since the pack is so big, the resulting charging rate is still pretty high. The smaller packs tend to opt for power density. The Volt's pack, for instance, can regularly handle 20C discharge rate with roughly the same degradation as the Model S pack, but they use a much smaller DoD window. Tesla limits the pack to just under 6C, but we don't know if that limit is the battery or the mechanical parts of the drive train including the fuses.

Also, we don't know the cycle life of the Ioniq's battery. The only other high charging rate recent generation NMC battery we know of with any real operational history is the Kia Soul EV and those battery packs have demonstrated degradation as bad as the early Leaf batteries.

You can peruse Panasonic's retail cell portfolio and see the variety of cells they offer, including high c-rate versions with lower specific energy.

 

[JRP3]

Yes, one basic way to maximize C rate at the expense of energy density within the same chemistry is to use a higher number of thinner layers to build the cell. Thin layers can charge and discharge faster.

 

[AWDtsla]

Yes, one basic way to maximize C rate at the expense of energy density within the same chemistry is to use a higher number of thinner layers to build the cell. Thin layers can charge and discharge faster.

And hugely increase the risk of a dendrite short destroying the cell in flames.

 

[JRP3]

I don't believe that is the case.

 

[miimura]

Exactly how much worse is the density on the LG cells then? They get a tiny capacity Ioniq battery to charge as quickly as a Tesla twice the capacity.

Ioniq EV does not use 18650 style cylindrical cells, so that may also be a factor.

 

[bjornb]

I saw this on Reddit:

However, the new 100 kWh packs have a built in 12v feed so the cycling on the lead acid batteries is greatly reduced. It doesn't have to throw the high voltage breakers and go through the DC to DC converter to charge the lead acid battery occasionally.

Does anyone have more info on this?
Where is this 12V feed connector?

Source:
Will Tesla ever engineer its way out of requiring a Lead Acid 12V battery? • r/teslamotors

 

[stopcrazypp]

I saw this on Reddit:

Does anyone have more info on this?
Where is this 12V feed connector?

Source:
Will Tesla ever engineer its way out of requiring a Lead Acid 12V battery? • r/teslamotors

This is very interesting information. The Roadster used to also have a dedicated part of the battery for the 12V (and no separate 12V battery), but it lead to uneven pack where so they dropped that idea. This would seem to by some sort of hybrid.

 

[JRP3]

I wonder if that means the 12V has a dedicated charger that runs directly off pack voltage, basically it's own DC/DC.