Jump to content

Ford to build $3.5B factory that will make two kinds of batteries with Chinese partner


Recommended Posts

https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/13/ford-to-build-3-5b-factory-to-make-two-kinds-of-batteries-with-chinese-partner/

 



Ford said Monday it is investing $3.5 billion to build a factory in Michigan that will makes two kinds of batteries for its growing portfolio of electric vehicles.

The factory, which will be located in Marshall, Michigan, will notably build both nickel cobalt manganese (NCM) and lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries. Ford said it is working with Chinese company Contemporary Amperex Technology Co, known as CATL, confirming previous coverage that speculated on the partnership. Under the arrangement, Ford’s wholly owned subsidiary would manufacture the battery cells using LFP battery cell knowledge and services provided by CATL.

 

Guessing this was the plant they where planning on building in VA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Southwest Virginia was considered as a possible site for the CATL-Ford plant, but as mentioned in the article, they ultimately chose on south central Michigan.

 

Overview of NCM vs LFP chemistries.

lfp-vs-ncm-at-a-glance-1676311983.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trader 10 said:

I’m most unhappy that Ford is partnering with the Chinese. They’ve proven time and time again that they can’t be trusted. 

 



Ford’s decision to manufacture LFP batteries in the United States is part of a trend among automakers to adopt this older, cheaper and safer technology. Tesla, for instance, already uses LFP batteries in the EVs it makes and sells in China.


China has owned the LFP market for nearly a decade due to an agreement with a consortium of universities in the U.S. and Canada that hold patents on the technology. But that is poised to change as access to patents open up and the cost of battery materials rise.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trader 10 said:

I’m most unhappy that Ford is partnering with the Chinese. They’ve proven time and time again that they can’t be trusted. 

 

From the Detroit Free Press:

 

State Rep. Andrew Fink, R-Hillsdale, raised such concerns, questioning the company's independence from the Chinese government. "The Chinese government is not an entity that Americans can trust," he said. "It's categorically different than other types of potential partnerships."  Quentin Messer Jr., who heads the state's economic development agency, rejected the criticism.  "Any incentive dollar will be going to a 100% wholly-owned Ford subsidiary. Not a dime will go to a Chinese entity," he said. "By this licensing of technology that Ford is doing, we are bringing this capability to the U.S."

 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/13/whitmer-celebrates-ford-battery-plant-in-michigan/69898177007/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mackinaw said:

"By this licensing of technology that Ford is doing, we are bringing this capability to the U.S."


Maybe if we as a country had focused on battery research over the past 30 years the way the Koreans and Chinese have done we wouldn't have needed to partner with outside companies. 

Our University's have been come obsessed with the Theoretic aspects of science not the marketable types of it; and Industry led by accountants and MBAs have become obsessed with the bottom line and out source every component them can because they care more about the quarter and year than year 5 and 10 or even 20. Then you get into grant agencies of funding research labs that is focused on the person who runs the lab than what actually the lab produces and worse even after it is published YOU CAN'T DUPLICATE THE RESULTS! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:


Maybe if we as a country had focused on battery research over the past 30 years the way the Koreans and Chinese have done we wouldn't have needed to partner with outside companies. 

Our University's have been come obsessed with the Theoretic aspects of science not the marketable types of it; and Industry led by accountants and MBAs have become obsessed with the bottom line and out source every component them can because they care more about the quarter and year than year 5 and 10 or even 20. Then you get into grant agencies of funding research labs that is focused on the person who runs the lab than what actually the lab produces and worse even after it is published YOU CAN'T DUPLICATE THE RESULTS! 

 

Huh?



China has owned the LFP market for nearly a decade due to an agreement with a consortium of universities in the U.S. and Canada that hold patents on the technology. But that is poised to change as access to patents open up and the cost of battery materials rise.

 

Boils down to that the market was for small electronics, that haven't been built in the US for well over 40 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Huh?


Basically, we have to use Chinese and Korean Companies for batteries as no U.S. company has patents to make them so OEMs MUST go to these companies if they want to build the electric cars the government is mandating. We didn't invest in it over the past 30 years so it is stupid to complain about it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to  me I have heard of  some other aspect of this deal that as usual leaves the Chinese holding an upper hand??  Or am I imagining things??

 

As for the patents they hold, how old are they? 

I  guess as Farley is betting the farm on EV's at other than a measured pace, any concern about China as a noble partner is the furthest thing from his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2023 at 4:49 PM, Trader 10 said:

I’m most unhappy that Ford is partnering with the Chinese. They’ve proven time and time again that they can’t be trusted. 

I know China likes to act a fool, especially lately. But it would be extremely difficult to form large scale partnerships without them being involved in one form or not. They're the industrial powerhouse of the world, so we have to put up with them. Even if they're shadier than a tweaker in a back alley. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jasonj80 said:


Basically, we have to use Chinese and Korean Companies for batteries as no U.S. company has patents to make them so OEMs MUST go to these companies if they want to build the electric cars the government is mandating. We didn't invest in it over the past 30 years so it is stupid to complain about it.

The tech was invented here but given how everyone and their brother who is in manufacturing offshored it due to costs/profit margins, that is why these companies exist. Given the shift to onshoring manufacturing as of late, I’m sure that once solid state batteries are a thing, maybe we will see more domestic manufacturers. 
 

This is the point-up until recently, there has been no demand for battery manufacturing here because the vast majority of them went into low profit consumer products that where built in China or South Korea. My LED flash light uses a cell similar to what is used in a Tesla battery pack. 
 

The patents that the universities hold on these items expire in few years which will also allow them to be built cheaper going forward also. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Video explaining LFP and NCM configurations for lithium-ion batteries, featuring Ford engineer Charles Poon.

 

 


Hasn’t lithium iron phosphate been around over a decade?  I believe it is new to Ford, but not others.  What I hear in video is that Ford will now use LFP to reduce cost, though range will also be reduced.  Video doesn’t say by how much (unless I missed it); just that Lightning is up to 320 miles, as to say there is opportunity to reduce cost for those who can function with less range.  Wasn’t the original Nissan Leaf powered by LFP, which made it more affordable but lacked the range of higher-cost NCM competitors?  Obviously range wasn’t as high back then for other reasons as well, but it seems we are seeing a “partial” 180 on LFP use.

 

A concern is that some EV costs are going up instead of down as previously projected, which will likely slow adoption rate unless EVs are made much more efficient so they need less battery capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:


Hasn’t lithium iron phosphate been around over a decade?  I believe it is new to Ford, but not others.  What I hear in video is that Ford will now use LFP to reduce cost, though range will also be reduced.  Video doesn’t say by how much (unless I missed it); just that Lightning is up to 320 miles, as to say there is opportunity to reduce cost for those who can function with less range.  Wasn’t the original Nissan Leaf powered by LFP, which made it more affordable but lacked the range of higher-cost NCM competitors?  Obviously range wasn’t as high back then for other reasons as well, but it seems we are seeing a “partial” 180 on LFP use.

 

A concern is that some EV costs are going up instead of down as previously projected, which will likely slow adoption rate unless EVs are made much more efficient so they need less battery capacity.

 

LFP uses less rare earth minerals (e.g. Cobalt) than lithium Ion battery, it is cheaper and has lower child slave labor content. 

 

Nissan Leaf battery had low performance because it used air cooling instead of liquid cooling. Also, it wasn't a particularly well engineered car with rudimentary power management software so not nearly as efficient as later EVs like Tesla or Mach E.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

A concern is that some EV costs are going up instead of down as previously projected, which will likely slow adoption rate unless EVs are made much more efficient so they need less battery capacity.

 

Going by Ford's comments about EV's, I think they might be banking on making cars charge quicker in the near term (next 10 years) then adding more battery capacity.

 

Being able to go only say 200-250 miles but being able to recharge to 80% of that in say 10-15 minutes would really remove any requirement for larger batteries in most situations

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that increased efficiency will also play a role.

I don't get the one speed transmissions. Logically, I would think you would have one gear for around town, and an overdrive gear for highway driving. An electric motor spinning slower would use less energy than one spinning faster. Or is my logic flawed?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AGR said:

....I don't get the one speed transmissions. Logically, I would think you would have one gear for around town, and an overdrive gear for highway driving. An electric motor spinning slower would use less energy than one spinning faster. Or is my logic flawed?.

 

Two-speed transmissions for EV's are out there, Eaton and other manufacturers make them.  Not sure if any EV is using them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

Going by Ford's comments about EV's, I think they might be banking on making cars charge quicker in the near term (next 10 years) then adding more battery capacity.

 

Being able to go only say 200-250 miles but being able to recharge to 80% of that in say 10-15 minutes would really remove any requirement for larger batteries in most situations

 

 

In the 50's and 60's, it was all about adding cubic inches are horsepower.  Today and tomorrow, it will all be about making batteries smaller, cheaper, charge faster, more powerful, better cold weather performance, lighter, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, AGR said:

I think that increased efficiency will also play a role.

I don't get the one speed transmissions. Logically, I would think you would have one gear for around town, and an overdrive gear for highway driving. An electric motor spinning slower would use less energy than one spinning faster. Or is my logic flawed?.

 

Doesn't quite work that that way?

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/10097517.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bzcat said:

Nissan Leaf battery had low performance because it used air cooling instead of liquid cooling. Also, it wasn't a particularly well engineered car with rudimentary power management software so not nearly as efficient as later EVs like Tesla or Mach E.


I did not mean to suggest Nissan Leaf was that inefficient because of LFP battery, particularly when we consider it came out about 12 years ago.  Range of 73 miles was poor by present standards, but it came from only 24 kWh battery, so 3 miles per kWh (data from Wikipedia).  The larger batteries that came soon after had specific range of over 3.5 miles per kWh, so competitive with many present EVs, and better than some.  If we consider the battery in a single ER Lightning would power 5 original Nissan Leaf, it suggests they were not that bad or inefficient.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...