(Click to Get a Quick Quote!)
It is said that CATL has started mass production in the lithium iron phosphate batteries with 12,000 cycles in 2019 which are used for energy storage.
First of all, this technology has indeed been implemented, but it has not yet been implemented in cars, because the energy storage technology can ensure a constant temperature, and at the same time, it can also charge and discharge a very reasonable amount of electricity, just like the promotion of an air-conditioning company One kilowatt hour of electricity per night, which can only be achieved in a laboratory situation, is difficult to achieve in actual user use. Low cycle times and battery degradation are one of the pain points in the electric vehicle industry, affecting the user experience.
At present, the ternary battery of many models can be charged and discharged about 500 times, and relatively strong companies can do it 800 times. Lithium iron phosphate batteries are around 2,000 times, and some can reach 2,500 times, but most batteries cannot achieve 800/2,500 cycles. The cruising range in the initial state is still maintained because the battery will decay and the cruising range will decrease as the number of cycles increases.
At present, no vehicle-mounted lithium iron phosphate can achieve a lifespan of 12,000 cycles, and the energy storage lithium iron phosphate battery in the news can achieve 12,000. My personal guess is that it is mainly because the working environment is relatively friendly, such as the charge and discharge rate is low enough, and the charging and discharging rate is low enough. The discharge depth is shallow enough and the ambient temperature is stable enough. Batteries used for energy storage do not need to be charged and discharged at high rates like car batteries, nor do they need to be deeply charged and discharged. The use environment is not as complex as car batteries, so I think it is normal for the cycle number to be higher.
Of course, it can achieve 12,000 cycles. CATL must have made some material and process optimizations for energy storage batteries, but these optimizations should have a much smaller contribution to lifespan than shallow charging, shallow discharging and a stable use environment. . And no matter how good the working environment of the energy storage battery is, I personally think that the number 12,000 is still on the high side. I wonder if there is any actual cycle data of the products that will eventually be put into use to verify this statement.
