Lightning will switch to LFP Batteries (Lithium Iron Phosphate) says Jim Farley

[MAhauler]

CEO Jim Farley just revealed this during the recent Ford Q1 earnings call:

“We’ve been working on LFP for quite some time, so let’s just leave it at that,” Farley said. “What I mean by that is, engineering LFP solutions in our first generation of products (Lightning and Mach-E), something that we see as a big opportunity and to move quickly.”​

Sponsored

 

[beatle]

I wonder if we'll see them in the existing platform or if they'll wait for their next platform - either the next truck model or the Lightning refresh.

LFP are long-lasting and are less expensive than NMC (nickel manganese cobalt) or NCA (nickel cobalt aluminum) batteries but they are less energy dense and not as good at low temperatures so you need more battery for the same amount of juice, especially while cold.

https://poworks.com/a-comparison-of-nmc-nca-lithium-ion-battery-and-lfp-battery

With the Lightning being a retrofit (albeit a pretty good one) I think Ford left some room on the table for more batteries if they had a slightly different frame. Or maybe they just wanted to keep cost under control - or both. Perhaps the lower density of the LFP will be made up by better battery packaging or other efficiency gains like better aero or maybe an induction motor in the rear that they can put to "sleep" while cruising. It's clear that 320 miles is pretty good and enough for hauling things in the bed, but people will want more range still for towing.

It's good to see that Ford isn't resting on the apparent success of the Lightning and is already looking at changes.

 

[RonTCat]

I wonder if we'll see them in the existing platform or if they'll wait for their next platform - either the next truck model or the Lightning refresh.

LFP are long-lasting and are less expensive than NMC (nickel manganese cobalt) or NCA (nickel cobalt aluminum) batteries but they are less energy dense and not as good at low temperatures so you need more battery for the same amount of juice, especially while cold.

https://poworks.com/a-comparison-of-nmc-nca-lithium-ion-battery-and-lfp-battery

With the Lightning being a retrofit (albeit a pretty good one) I think Ford left some room on the table for more batteries if they had a slightly different frame. Or maybe they just wanted to keep cost under control - or both. Perhaps the lower density of the LFP will be made up by better battery packaging or other efficiency gains like better aero or maybe an induction motor in the rear that they can put to "sleep" while cruising. It's clear that 320 miles is pretty good and enough for hauling things in the bed, but people will want more range still for towing.

It's good to see that Ford isn't resting on the apparent success of the Lightning and is already looking at changes.

Existing.

 

[sotek2345]

Glad I am getting a lighting before they make the switch. LFP batteries really don't like the cold and it would suck to have a truck you can't drive below freezing or that need to draw constant power to keep them warm.

 

[jefro]

About half the new Tesla's are using them. I assume tech will provide better solutions at some point. Almost all new EV's maintain the battery if plugged in at some temperature range.
From a fire standpoint they are better.

 

[PiMatrix]

It's a bit concerning they are changing battery technology in the middle of a ramp up. Seems like a recipe for disaster unless this was the plan all along. This LFP battery technology could potentially add a second to the 0-60 times, give poor cold weather performance, increase charging times, and increase weight of vehicle also affecting load, towing, and acceleration, but perhaps better hot weather performance.

Here is a review of the two battery techs - NCM and LFP.

https://poworks.com/a-comparison-of-nmc-nca-lithium-ion-battery-and-lfp-battery

I assume all the lightnings being shipped and tested now are NCM9 as discussed in every press release in last two years. I wonder if the cost of nickel is making Ford reconsider going to the cheaper battery tech or there is some technical issue with their SKI-Georgia partner making NCM9? One big issue is the power density of these LFP batteries. They are typically lower energy density and therefore more space and weight for a certain target size battery. LFP power density is 130~190Wh/kg. The existing production is using NCM9 batteries in the range of 230-250 Wh/kg. At a temperature of -20℃, the NMC lithium battery can release 70.14% of its capacity; while the lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery can only release 54.94%. The discharge voltage plateau of NMC lithium battery is far higher, and it starts earlier than that of the LFP battery at low temperature. Therefore, NMC battery is a better choice for applications at low temperature.
The charging efficiency of NMC/NCA lithium battery is higher than that of LFP battery at higher temperatures.

This is the previous press release from May 21 -

The F-150 will be the debut vehicle for SK’s new “Nickel 9” NCM chemistry—incorporating cathodes that are nearly 90% nickel, along with just 5% cobalt and 5% manganese. It’s the first time such a battery, also called “nine-half-half,” has been commercialized, according to SK, and it means a higher energy density, longer range, and a makeup that’s better for the environment.

Perhaps they are not ready with NCM9 for 2022 and that will be on 2023 models?

Anyone have more info on this announcement?

 

[sotek2345]

It's a bit concerning they are changing battery technology in the middle of a ramp up. Seems like a recipe for disaster unless this was the plan all along. This LFP battery technology could potentially add a second to the 0-60 times, give poor cold weather performance, increase charging times, and increase weight of vehicle also affecting load, towing, and acceleration, but perhaps better hot weather performance.

Here is a review of the two battery techs - NCM and LFP.

https://poworks.com/a-comparison-of-nmc-nca-lithium-ion-battery-and-lfp-battery

I assume all the lightnings being shipped and tested now are NCM9 as discussed in every press release in last two years. I wonder if the cost of nickel is making Ford reconsider going to the cheaper battery tech or there is some technical issue with their SKI-Georgia partner making NCM9? One big issue is the power density of these LFP batteries. They are typically lower energy density and therefore more space and weight for a certain target size battery. LFP power density is 130~190Wh/kg. The existing production is using NCM9 batteries in the range of 230-250 Wh/kg. At a temperature of -20℃, the NMC lithium battery can release 70.14% of its capacity; while the lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery can only release 54.94%. The discharge voltage plateau of NMC lithium battery is far higher, and it starts earlier than that of the LFP battery at low temperature. Therefore, NMC battery is a better choice for applications at low temperature.
The charging efficiency of NMC/NCA lithium battery is higher than that of LFP battery at higher temperatures.

This is the previous press release from May 21 -

The F-150 will be the debut vehicle for SK’s new “Nickel 9” NCM chemistry—incorporating cathodes that are nearly 90% nickel, along with just 5% cobalt and 5% manganese. It’s the first time such a battery, also called “nine-half-half,” has been commercialized, according to SK, and it means a higher energy density, longer range, and a makeup that’s better for the environment.

Perhaps they are not ready with NCM9 for 2022 and that will be on 2023 models?

Anyone have more info on this announcement?

Exactly this. If you switch the Lightning to LFP, you will be looking at 70% or more range reduction in the winter. 50% from battery performance and then another 20%+.

Maybe fine in Southern California, but not in parts of the country that actually get winter.

 

[PiMatrix]

I'm beginning to think that these LFP batteries will be used in commercial fleet Pro models with short range. I believe Ford announced these last May and calls them IonBoost Pro lithium Ion Phosphate. Ford would dramatically have to change the specs of the other higher end extended battery non-fleet models if they switched from NCM9 to LFP causing many order cancellations.

On the other hand I understand Russia is a very large supplier of Nickel and the commodity has gone up 34% this year since the invasion. Tesla just made a big deal with Canadian VALE to supply Nickel last week. I guess it's possible that the standard battery has excess room and maybe Ford could increase cell volume on those models to makeup for lower power density? But last minute changes, if this is really a new announcement, would cause many unforeseen problems.


I read that Tesla is switching all their standard range (entry Model 3 and Model Y)cars to LFP battery cause it is cheaper and good enough. Their very efficient and light weight drive train allows them to get acceptable 270-330miles and 4.8-5.8sec 0-60mph. However their extended range and performance Model S and X are NCA battery chemistry similar to Ford NCM.

Guess we need someone with contacts at Ford to get some clarity on what exactly Jim Farley meant at the investor conference call about switching this years teslas to LFP because of an opportunity. Anyone on the board have a Lightning engineer contact they can ask?

 

[PiMatrix]

Here is the full transcript from the Ford 1Q earnings call, I don't see any immediate changes this year based on the discussion other than it's likely the fleet lightnings SR are already LFP as was previously announced and Ford will likely add a lower performance model with cheaper battery as Tesla does sometime in future to remove the battery raw materials inflation issue. It will take R&D to have LFP meet the current NCM specs that Ford announced on the shipping consumer models unless they lower the specs.

SGI, Fords battery partner in Gigabattery plants in KY, TN, GA does not make LFP, only NCM but SGI recently announced many customers are asking for a cheaper battery again and they started a spinoff to develop. This was only six months ago so Farley was just appeasing the stock analyst IMHO.

https://www.electrive.com/2021/10/30/sk-on-to-manufacture-lfp-battery-cells/

"SK On, the battery division of SK Innovation that was spun off at the beginning of October, is now also developing LFP batteries for electric vehicles. The company also expects its battery business to be profitable next year.

The cheaper and more stable LFP batteries are receiving more and more attention, among other things due to the continuing price increase for basic materials such as cobalt. So now SK On, SKI’s spun-off battery division, is also commenting on development plans for LFP batteries.

“We are developing high-performance LFP batteries with high energy density and fast charging speed, based on our technological capabilities that have led the market for high energy density NCM batteries,” Yoon Hyung-jo, SK On’s head of planning, told an investor conference.

Lithium iron phosphate cells have long been ignored by many carmakers because of their lower energy density – they were mostly concerned with being able to store as much energy as possible in the available installation space. Due to the price increases for raw materials such as cobalt, nickel and manganese and the increasingly dense charging network, the cheaper and more robust LFP cells are coming back into focus."


Ford 1Q Earnings call transcript -

Colin Langan

Great. Thanks for taking my question. As you mentioned, the EV battery costs have really dramatically increased. Has that changed your EV strategy at all? Do you think, you're going to need to maybe raise the pricing of the Lightning and the Mach-E? And what can you do about it or maybe switch to different chemistries, all out more hybrid? How can you address it if raw materials stay at these very high levels for that -- those battery materials?

Jim Farley

Thank you for your question. Well, first of all, the demand for EVs right now is extremely robust at Ford. So, we have the opportunity we believe for pricing. We're not going to get into those details now. But Doug said something very important, Colin, I want to emphasize, which is battery chemistry. We believe very strongly at Ford. The chemistry we have really key part of our protection against commodity price increases, and frankly, the benefits to the customer. Doug, do you want to add anything?

Doug Field

No. Ford, a number of years ago started Ion Park, which is a team of experts really focusing on chemistry. Lithium-ion phosphate, of course, we know from the industry is something that takes you away from the dependence on nickel. That will be a part of our battery, and we're also looking chemistries that give us an opportunity to be less dependent on the specific materials that everyone seems to be fighting over in the market.

Jim Farley

So in the short-term, we…

Colin Langan

Can you which two tells us please?

Jim Farley

Go ahead with your question. Sorry, Colin.

Colin Langan

Yes. I was just going to say you mentioned you're able to do LFP or that's in the plan. I mean, how quickly can you switch because nickel is spiked now? I mean, I'm just kind of wondering how flexible and how quick you could adapt to that $2 million target by 2025?

Jim Farley

Yes. We've been working on LFP for quite some time, so let's just leave it at that. What I mean by that is, engineering LFP solutions in our first generation of products something that we see is a big opportunity and to move quickly.

 

[beatle]

Exactly this. If you switch the Lightning to LFP, you will be looking at 70% or more range reduction in the winter. 50% from battery performance and then another 20%+.

Maybe fine in Southern California, but not in parts of the country that actually get winter.

When range really counts, you're likely to be leaving on a trip after fully charging and pre-warming the battery. The battery stays warm throughout the drive even in below freezing temperatures so effective capacity shouldn't be affected in cases where you really need it. Of course regular range reduction in cold temperatures persists, but that's always there regardless of battery type.

This LFP battery technology could potentially add a second to the 0-60 times, give poor cold weather performance, increase charging times, and increase weight of vehicle also affecting load, towing, and acceleration, but perhaps better hot weather performance.

The c-rate is what counts here which is a function of a battery's ability to deliver or accept current as it relates to its capacity. The ER truck makes 580hp out of a 131kwh (135kwh actual) battery. 580hp is 432kw. Divide 432 by 135 and you get a C-rate of 3.2. That's not very high. My 7 year old P85D has close to the same hp but has a battery that's much smaller, so the C rate is closer to 4.7. The Plaid has a C rate of 7.6! From a power standpoint I don't think we have anything to worry about. There is plenty of headroom in LFP, especially when you consider that LFPs perform better than NMCs at high temperatures.

As far as charging goes, again, the truck is already charging a relatively low C rate of 1.2. LFP batteries often charge at 1.5C. This puts the ER truck around 200kw (once Ford moves to 800v). You can still push an LFP to charge faster if you want. Ford may offer a lower DCFC rate (like 200kw) for those that want to preserve battery life. Porsche already does this with the Taycan.

https://www.onecharge.biz/blog/lfp-... and NMC Lithium Cells,0 to 100% charge cycle.

The lifespan of LFP batteries should also be longer than NMC, perhaps doubling it! Not trying to say LFP batteries don't have their tradeoffs, but I don't think it's all gloom and doom. Batteries are super ridiculously expensive and can easily total a vehicle if they fail outside of warranty. Personally, the longer lifespan of LFP is key to me as I'd like to be able to comfortably take my vehicles well past 200k miles without worry of a major component suddenly totaling it.

 

[vandy1981]

I'm beginning to think that these LFP batteries will be used in commercial fleet Pro models with short range.

I think you're exactly right. I think LFP makes a lot of sense for fleet and base models.

 

[Mr. Flibble]

LFP is pretty much a given for the base model. I cannot see how they are making money on it - they will want to limit sales until they can actually afford to sell it at that price.

 

[sotek2345]

LFP is pretty much a given for the base model. I cannot see how they are making money on it - they will want to limit sales until they can actually afford to sell it at that price.

I think they make money by offsetting the ZEV credit they would otherwise have to buy from Tesla. That is worth a few thousand.

 

[Mr. Flibble]

I think they make money by offsetting the ZEV credit they would otherwise have to buy from Tesla. That is worth a few thousand.

That is an extremely good point. I had not thought about that.

If they start making the base model en masse with LFP batteries, that will eat into Tesla's lunch something fierce.

 

[sotek2345]

That is an extremely good point. I had not thought about that.

If they start making the base model en masse with LFP batteries, that will eat into Tesla's lunch something fierce.

Only issue is that a base model with LFP batteries will have something like a 70 mile range in the winter. That is going to be an issue for a lot of people. You are also going to be running the battery heaters pretty much all the time in the winter which will drive charging costs way up.

Sponsored