It Seems Mainstream News Coverage Has Missed The Mark
Tesla 鈥?and essentially all other automakers 鈥?are dealing with battery cell constraints. There鈥檚 been lots of press lately about Panasonic investing or not investing in additional production capacity at Tesla Gigafactory 1 in Nevada. First, Nikkei Asia reported that Panasonic was freezing any further investment in Gigafactory 1. Then, Tesla combatted that, stating it would keep investing but steer focus on production rate. The quickest, easiest and most cost-effective way to increase production rate is to run the lines faster. But, not all battery-manufacturing equipment allows this luxury. Sometimes, you need to get multiples of the same equipment versus just cranking up the speed. It鈥檚 analogous to a toaster. You can鈥檛 just crank up the heat if you want more pieces of toast per hour. You need to buy more toasters. In our estimation, based on studying the solvent-drying process and an Argonne paper referenced later, the traditional solvent-drying process is like the toaster analogy.
If you want to increase thruput, you need to buy more solvent-evaporating ovens. More solvent-evaporating ovens cost money and occupy large areas of the production floor. Tesla鈥檚 cells are high energy density. This implies a thicker electrode coating. The thicker the coating, the more time it takes to drive off the solvent. Thick electrode coatings compound the drying problem. Also, in our estimation, the production capacity potential of Maxwell鈥檚 process is at least as important or possibly MORE important than the potential energy density increase. Let鈥檚 look at the traditional solvent-based electrode coating method in order to understand how we came to our conclusions. Traditional solvent-based electrode coating methods consume a large part of the production process. In the following figure, each processing step鈥檚 size on the page is approximately proportional to the plant area. The area just for the electrode preparation, coating, evaporation and evaporant recovery is almost 1/3 of the total plant area.
Special machines lay a thin layer of slurry onto copper or aluminum sheets to make the electrodes. Then, in a continuous manner, the coated electrode sheets go through a large, long oven used to evaporate the solvent. The solvent must also be recovered and reused. All this solvent-based slurry manufacturing equipment is expensive and consumes 15% of the total capital equipment costs. Also see: 鈥淢odeling the Cost of Lithium Ion batteries for Electric Drive Vehicles鈥?Argonne, ANL 11/32, section 5.4 Adjustment of Costs for Varying Production Volumes and section, table 5.4, and section 5.3.3, Electrode Coating on Current-Collector Foil. Have we solved the puzzle? We think its likely that Tesla likes this process because it allows them to squeeze more production out of an existing line and the new method of coating the electrode seems to be the key. However, there鈥檚 a fly in the ointment. We said that the traditional solvent-based electrode coating technique was not amenable to just cranking up processing speed. If you wanted to crank out more cells per hour, you have to buy multiples of that equipment. That appears to be true based on the Argonne study. However, the fly in the ointment is that it looks like most of the equipment on the line also has that problem (table 5.4 in the Argonne report). So, we are still missing a piece of the puzzle. We still don鈥檛 know enough about Maxwell鈥檚 new process to completely understand. Perhaps the traditional solvent-based coating technique has a limit to how thick the coating can be? Perhaps, with Maxwell鈥檚 new process, Tesla can increase the coating thickness a bit more and that鈥檚 how it'll increase energy density? At any rate, it's good food for thought. Let us know what you think in the comment section.
I drove the 2015 Land Rover Range Rover Supercharged LWB last week around New York, and I have nothing to report. No arguments with garage attendants over whether or not they 鈥渉ave room鈥?to keep the big rig for the weekend. No inter-car gestures with highway rowdies about who cut off whom on a blind spot along the FDR Drive. No sweat involving the long-shot parallel park. It鈥檚 a real problem when you鈥檙e trying to write a car review. It鈥檚 also admirable, considering that this Rover is an expensive tank. The LWB on this Range Rover stands for 鈥渓ong wheel base,鈥?123 inches long to be exact鈥?0 inches longer than a Porsche Cayenne. It鈥檚 very nearly as heavy as the 5,800-poundCadillac Escalade, which is the largest in the class. In fact, its rectangular body lines are about as low-key as you鈥檒l get in a six-figure SUV, depending on the color combinations you choose (mine was 鈥淐auseway Grey鈥?outside, with an ebony interior and trim). Its well-tightened chassis and instantaneous steering response make driving it less about elbowing a bull around a china shop than about smoking those truck drivers eyeballing you from across the stoplight.
115,000 Porsche Cayenne Turbo. If you鈥檙e looking for something that can hold its own around a racetrack but won鈥檛 embarrass you on a muddy overland expedition, this鈥檒l do. Sure, those others will do, too鈥攁nd well. Pumping through its eight-speed paddle-shifters feels like commanding a heavy souped-up speedboat. You hear the power initiate in the center of the machine then feel it propel everything forward. If there鈥檚 one thing you can say about the Range Rover Supercharged, it鈥檚 that it instills supreme confidence among its drivers. One of the things I like most about the Rover Supercharged is that from behind the wheel I felt incredibly protected. The car comes standard with front, side, and head curtain airbags, side-door impact beams, power-operated child locks on all doors and windows, front and rear park distance control, rear view cameras, and an anti-trip feature on the windows and sunroof. Failing all that, the 24-hour Land Rover road recovery service comes included.