How Tesla SOLVED a Serious 4680 Battery Problem | 4680 Battery Life
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 เม.ย. 2023
- Tesla has faced a number of manufacturing hurdles with 4680 battery manufacturing and progress has been slower than expected. Beyond manufacturing issues though, as I discuss in this video, Tesla also discovered and fixed a performance issue that was caused by a crucial component of the dry electrode manufacturing process, the polymer binder, which was breaking down at higher voltage, leading to a possible reduction in cell performance or outright cell failure.
Check out the Tessie Phone App (for your Tesla): www.tessie.com/
Support Cleanerwatt:
1. Join the Patreon Community: / cleanerwatt
2. Purchase Cleanerwatt Apparel: cleanerwatt.creator-spring.com/
Cleanerwatt Website: www.cleanerwatt.com/
** All video and pictures are used with permission or in accordance with the copyright owner's stated policies and use allowance, or applicable fair use laws. **
Image & Video Clip Sources:
1. Tesla Thumbnail battery image and other Tesla images and video clips used in the video Courtesy of Tesla, Inc. (where noted in the video).
Data Sources:
patentscope.wipo.int/search/e...
www.tessie.com/stats
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...
orioncarbons.com/batteries
NOTE: The content found in this video should NOT be regarded as financial advice. I am not a financial advisor, and this is NOT in any way a recommendation or offer to buy or sell securities. While the information in this video is believed to be accurate at the time of recording, no guarantees are being made about the accuracy of the information presented in the video. As of the recording of this video, I am NOT invested in Tesla stock or securities, nor any other company mentioned in this video. - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
I could be wrong, but this sounds to my ears like a defensive patent, rather than something Tesla thought up to improve 4680 cells.
You may very well be right
@@Cleanerwatt BTW none of my business, but somehow today it struck me that you could be one of the guys where a moustache would dramatically improve your looks. I know that all young men are experimenting, I shaved mine twice for some years, but my face without one was a worse choice. And of course, I love your conscise Tesla battery work! Thanks for all of it!
Given that Tesla have made all their patents ‘open’, how could it be?
@@fredbloggs5902 misconception. This is a confusion Elon himself has fostered.
None of Tesla's patents are 'open,' in the sense that the public owns them, or in the sense that they are registered with the Open Systems Foundation and can be used with legal restrictions.
Tesla still owns its patents, and still has the right to defend them in court.
What Elon meant about 'open patents' is only this: Tesla promised not to sue other entities for infringing on them.
You want to know how ironclad that promise is? Guess what? It's not legally binding. The promise itself could be weighed by a court if Tesla were to file an infringement lawsuit. But Tesla has signed no binding contracts ceding their patent rights.
You *could* argue that all of Tesla's patents are defensive. But that would be a less than thorough appreciation of what Tesla does, and can do, with them.
When Tesla files a patent, what motivates them is defense, above all else. But there are nuances. Some patents which describe IP Tesla is already using. Some describe IP they would *like* to use. And some are ideas they aren't sure they will ever use, but would like to control the IP in case they ever might.
To my ears (I could be wrong, mind you), this particular patent, discussed by Jon, falls into the category of IP they are already using. It may even be in common use in the industry. But nobody had patented it. (Speculation.) Tesla filed the patent to defend themselves from someone else swooping in, filing a patent, then litigating the hell out of Tesla.
I am drawing an imaginary line separating parents which represent something new and a patent which really doesn't represent something new.
It's an arbitrary distinction, because as you can learn in any engineering school, no idea stands on its own. They all stand on ideas generated earlier. All that is new under the sun are refinements.
Patent law is even worse than that, though. It's a mess. Perhaps we should have expected a mess when we tried to make it illegal to share and use ideas.
@@Urgelt If something is already in wide use then it cannot be patented.
Great technical deep dive.
What a tricky problem to detect and solve. Flouride and Sodium interacting to break down PTFE but only under a certain voltage and only under certain circumstances. I wonder if the existing 4680 packs are ok. Thanks again for waking my brain up.
"Expert detection alert!!!"
I have significant respect for your knowledge and focus on the topics you cover. Thank you!
Future Episode Idea:
Compared to each Battery Day improvement objective, status now and how long to reach each completion
Jon, you are kicking ass!!!! People reading this need to support this very intelligent, good person. Jon has gone to a new place in his TH-cam channel, his supporters need to show this. Wow!!!! Keep it up Jon, I am very happy you are killing it in your videos!!!!!
Thank you!
Got Tessie. Cool!
PTFE being affected by lithium ions is a total surprise to me. And covering it with a carbon-based material fixes this? Usually, you coat something with PTFE, not the other way around. It's almost like saying "water catches fire, to prevent this pour oil." This is so unconventional, I am thoroughly impressed. Thanks for covering this!
Yes, PTFE is practically inert under most conditions. Although lithium is a crazy reactive element.
Indeed, but when considering electrochemistry and material intereactions, stuff that is normally inert doesn't stay inert :)
@@ClockworksOfGL
Well, one is always wiser after the event, but considering Flouride / Lithium is (virtually) the most reactive combination of elements you can find in the Periodic Table, it is maybe not that great a surprise that the PTFE F-C-F chain loses it's F then breaks when constantly bombarded with (super-reactive) Lithium ions ...
Specifically, PTFE breaks down if used in the anode, because PTFE being electropositive, reacts in highly anodic conditions. Tesla wants to use PTFE in the cathode and anode, cathode is no problem, but we are still waiting to see if they accomplish this. If they can get PTFE to work in the anode with sufficient hard carbon coating, I'd be impressed. From what I've seen, they have leaned towards CNT.
Great video!
I have been very ccurious or concerned about the 4680 cells, cause it's hard to find info on them or if they're good. 4680 was supposed to be 40% better than 2170, then that story disappeared cause of 4680 complications. Been eagerly desiring the knowledge to 4680 truths, so this helped. I want 4680 cells to be great and Tesla to make their own cells, wishing Tesla the best.
No.
The 4680 has POTENTIAL to be better than the 2170 (as detailed in graphs/ charts shown on battery day)
It was never going to be an "instant fix".
It was envisaged as a sideways step allowing further progression.
That sideways step (consisting of at least 2 previously unseen innovations) has proved challenging, but they are getting there.
If you want information, The Limiting Factor channel goes into as much depth as anyone on the technology and comparison with other existing cells.
.
I expect the now previous iteration (as tested) to remain in the Model Y for probably 6-9 months, but the latest mechanical and "chemical" tweaks, as detailed by Jon, to be refined over the next few months and introduced at low volume in the Cybertruck.
They may even be ready now, but I expect extensive high load testing with that cell working at about 80% capability until the company is satisfied.
That will, I believe, still outperform an equivalent 2170 pack.
.
When it IS "sorted".... That's when all hell breaks loose with modular factory units pumping out high values of GWh.
Mostly 4680 is cheaper to make because fewer cells needed for a given battery pack capacity. The tabless electrode does increase potential power and charging rates. The rest of Battery Day was structural battery pack, which is not exclusive to the 4680 format, and future chemistry improvements, which could be applied to 1865 and 2170 also.
If this tends to happen at higher voltages it might explain why higher nickel chemistries have not yet shown up in the 4680.
I'm worried about the Model 3 that has already installed and shipped the unfinished 4680
Well done. It seems that Tesla has found a particle coating that will increase the longevity of batteries. This is a big deal as it takes the most expensive part in an electric vehicle and gives it a life that may likely exceed the life of the vehicle.
That's the ideal, then 2nd use, then recycle. Or Robotaxis only needing interior & Suspension refurbs.
A person with a 4680 Model Y on Twitter has 12.5k miles, 60% of which was Supercharging, has shown 0% degradation so far on his battery. I'm thinking that 5% deg number at 50k miles will surely be less. Maybe around 2% deg by 50k and 5% by 200k. Just my opinion based on the little data we have.
It’s probably because of the slow charging. I bought this model and all though I like the car it is really slow to charge. I guess if it saves the battery it’s worth it.
We generally applaud the speed and frequency of Tesla design upgrades but one possible negative is that it may be harder to track the future performance of a model from historic data as illustrated by your comments on model S/X battery life as a predictor for model 3/Y.
When considering cell degradation, Tesla have the services of arguably the best in the business with Jeff Dahn and his team having huge knowledge, test capability and probably the most extensive library of results.
I have no doubt they *KNOW* the degradation rates for 3/Y, including variations due to various cell upgrades.
I dont understand, if you coat your "glue" particles with another substance, doesn't your glue stop working, because it's not making contact with the particles you want to bind with it?
Help me out here, because this makes zero sense to me.
If you had a ball of glue, for example, but you surrounded it in another substance, how could that ball of glue bind to anything, since it is blocked by the substance covering it.
What am I missing.
Does this mean we can decompose and breakdown these ‘forever chemicals’ from our water supplies by just passing them through high voltages?
May also need the lithium to be a reactant with the fluorine atoms in those to form the lithium fluoride salts ...
"just". Let's just say that unlimited energy solves a lot of problems.
I'm more concerned about microplastics in water...... And the food chain.
This battery is already obsolete and not yet in mass production. Missed opportunity.
Was it Maxwell or Maxell?! It was Maxell who had the dry cell technology, so I wonder about which is which. Both companies still exist, so it seems Tesla bought just one of their technologies, not the entire company, correct? Easy to confuse both names.
It's Maxwell & they still exist separate to Tesla, producing Capacitors. Maxwell made cassette tapes & other stuff, but not the dry electrode process.
Is this improvement already in new cars bought in April 2023?
There's no way to know, but I doubt it.
I suspect the Kato Rd line and "Line 1" at Texas are chugging away on the "sufficient for Model Ysr" cell.
That leaves however many line they have over to be in constant development, moving as quickly as possible to produce the CT cell.
If one of those lines hits the sweet spot, they'll test, replicate, scale, test again and when it's in CT (+Semi?) production they'll supply the Model Y and retrofit the early lines.
I believe they already put them in MY's, as I remember a number of articles stating the 4680 vehicles actually had less range & slower charging than the equivalent 2170'at at that time. That was nearly a year ago IIRC.
Some early Tesla owners are going to have PTFE PTSD...
The battery recall will dwarf what happened to Bolt
Tesla is promoting the 4680 battery as a battery that can regularly be charged to 100% like a LFP battery. Any thoughts of the 4680 coming out having a different chemistry?
Maybe they could come up with a new formulation for Teflon that does not do this. “TESLON” as it were. ;-)
Leave now.
I'll get your coat.
Or just swap the f for an apostrophe:
T'Elon... My coat's hanging next to Jim's... 😁
Isn't CATL's Condensed Matter Battery what we have been waiting for? 500KW/kg is almost double the capacity of a current 4680. Even good enough for small planes. Any thoughts on that?
Wanted a TL;DR.
How about solving the problem of disposing of these giant batteries on totaled/old teslas. Any ideas? Maybe the environmentalists have some?
What problem??!! They can be 2nd use or recycled efficiently. Stop believing the oil funded Anti-EV propaganda.
Redwood materials is a large US based lithium battery recycler.
Tesla reps claim 4680 can be charged 100 percent without loosing efficiency, is this true?
I think the current model has a lot of spare capacity so there is enough margin so you can fully charge.
Also heat is much less of a problem with the tab-less design
They lie.
It’s not about efficiency or the form factor. Lithium-Ion batteries degrade if charged to 100%, Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries do not.
No. It's not true for any Lithium Ion battery mass produced today.
@@fredbloggs5902They degrade, just not as much.