Photo: GM | Edited
General Motors still bets big on EV production, especially more affordable models that would help it to conquer market share. Nevertheless, its current Ultium batteries, developed in partnership with LG Energy Solution, rely on an expensive NMCA chemistry. If GM wants to sell a $30,000 model, the carmaker must switch to cheaper LFP chemistry.
General Motors and its CEO Mary Barra have been bullish about the prospects of surpassing Tesla in the EV market. The Detroit carmaker has pledged billions in battery and EV production facilities, and everybody was almost convinced that Barra means business. Nevertheless, things didn’t go exactly as she wanted, considering the very limited number of Ultium-based vehicles GM produced in 2022. More specifically, GM reported 122 Cadillac Lyriq and 854 GMC Hummer EVs delivered in 2022, which rounds up the number of Ultium EVs to less than 1,000.
On the other hand, GM reported 38,120 Chevrolet Bolt deliveries in the same period. While the Bold doesn’t use the Ultium platform, it’s still built with battery cells supplied by LG Energy Solution (LGES). We’re not sure what kept GM from producing more EVs on the Ultium platform. Nevertheless, it’s a sign that having a good strategy on paper doesn’t mean things would go great in the real world.
GM wanted to build no less than four battery factories in partnership with LGES, which is puzzling. Tesla can sustain a much bigger EV production with just one battery production line, if we don’t count the technological lab at Fremont and its limited cell production. It’s probably a good reason why General Motors suspended plans to build the fourth battery production facility. Other reason would be to try something new with another partner.
If GM is serious about producing a $30,000 electric vehicle, as Barra promised, and still wants to do it for profit, it needs cheaper batteries. There’s no way GM could pull this off with NCMA cells in the pouch format like the Ultium cells it produces with LGES. The NCMA (nickel-cobalt-manganese-aluminum) chemistry is the most advanced, but expensive technology for EV battery cells. Combine this with the pouch cells, which are costlier to produce than cylindrical cells, and you understand why you’d want these batteries for the more expensive, performance EVs rather than mass-market models.
The cost-conscious alternative is to go the Tesla way and use lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries instead. The LFP batteries are heavier because of the iron, which makes them less energy dense. That’s why Tesla uses the LFP cells for the base versions of the Model 3 and Model Y. The main advantage is the price, thanks to the ubiquity of iron and phosphorus. Nevertheless, LFP cells are produced almost exclusively by Chinese companies, with CATL as the market leader. That’s why switching to the new chemistry means GM must also change partners.
GM revealed that the Ultium platform could accommodate a range of cell form factors and battery chemistries. Mary Barra went even further and said the platform is chemistry-agnostic and can take pouch, cylindrical or prismatic cells. According to Automotive News, Barra said GM is considering using all three in EV production. But can GM still call it a Ultium cell if it’s produced with a different partner than LGES? We’re still looking for an answer. In the meantime, the same source cites LGES as saying the discussions on the fourth battery plant are ongoing, but we have doubts they would lead anywhere.
On the other hand, GM reported 38,120 Chevrolet Bolt deliveries in the same period. While the Bold doesn’t use the Ultium platform, it’s still built with battery cells supplied by LG Energy Solution (LGES). We’re not sure what kept GM from producing more EVs on the Ultium platform. Nevertheless, it’s a sign that having a good strategy on paper doesn’t mean things would go great in the real world.
GM wanted to build no less than four battery factories in partnership with LGES, which is puzzling. Tesla can sustain a much bigger EV production with just one battery production line, if we don’t count the technological lab at Fremont and its limited cell production. It’s probably a good reason why General Motors suspended plans to build the fourth battery production facility. Other reason would be to try something new with another partner.
If GM is serious about producing a $30,000 electric vehicle, as Barra promised, and still wants to do it for profit, it needs cheaper batteries. There’s no way GM could pull this off with NCMA cells in the pouch format like the Ultium cells it produces with LGES. The NCMA (nickel-cobalt-manganese-aluminum) chemistry is the most advanced, but expensive technology for EV battery cells. Combine this with the pouch cells, which are costlier to produce than cylindrical cells, and you understand why you’d want these batteries for the more expensive, performance EVs rather than mass-market models.
The cost-conscious alternative is to go the Tesla way and use lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries instead. The LFP batteries are heavier because of the iron, which makes them less energy dense. That’s why Tesla uses the LFP cells for the base versions of the Model 3 and Model Y. The main advantage is the price, thanks to the ubiquity of iron and phosphorus. Nevertheless, LFP cells are produced almost exclusively by Chinese companies, with CATL as the market leader. That’s why switching to the new chemistry means GM must also change partners.
GM revealed that the Ultium platform could accommodate a range of cell form factors and battery chemistries. Mary Barra went even further and said the platform is chemistry-agnostic and can take pouch, cylindrical or prismatic cells. According to Automotive News, Barra said GM is considering using all three in EV production. But can GM still call it a Ultium cell if it’s produced with a different partner than LGES? We’re still looking for an answer. In the meantime, the same source cites LGES as saying the discussions on the fourth battery plant are ongoing, but we have doubts they would lead anywhere.
Google News