One of the biggest challenges automakers like Ford face as each works to transition away from ICE-powered vehicles and toward all-electric ones pertains to the raw materials that are used to make EV batteries. Aside from the fact that China currently controls the vast majority of this market, supply chain issues and increased demand have rendered those more difficult to obtain, as well as more expensive. One potential solution to this problem comes in the form of lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which don’t use nickel or cobalt in their construction and are generally cheaper, safer, and can be charged to 100 percent without worrying about speeding up battery degradation, though they’re also not as energy dense as lithium-ion batteries. As a result, Ford is planning on switching over to LFP batteries soon – with the Ford Mustang Mach-E leading the way this spring.
“And more good news for customers today. We’ll begin offering LFP batteries in the Mach-E starting this spring. And we’re going to scale up the supply in a couple of years when we open Marshall,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said while speaking about yesterday’s announcement that the automaker will soon begin construction of its first LFP battery plant – Ford BlueOval Battery Park Michigan.
That new plant isn’t expected to begin producing LFP batteries until 2026, however, which means that in the meantime, these units will likely come from China via CATL – the company that The Blue Oval is teaming up with in the creation of its new battery plant. As Ford Authority previously reported, FoMoCo plans to continue utilizing LFP batteries in its EVs into the next decade, at the very least, and also intends to team up with a variety of suppliers – not just its joint-venture partner, SK On – as it aims to circumvent ongoing supply chain issues.
Late last month, The Blue Oval slashed Ford Mustang Mach-E prices in an attempt to stay competitive with its chief rival – the Tesla Model Y – which also received its own substantial price cuts recently. As Ford Model e chief customer officer Marin Gjaja pointed out days later, the EV crossover’s many price fluctuations over the past couple of years can be directly attributed to commodity costs, meaning that the arrival of LFP batteries should help drive pricing down even further.
We’ll have more on the Mach-E soon, so be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for more Mustang Mach-E news and non-stop Ford news coverage.
Comments
As a First Edition owner, I guess my MME has a lithium ion battery? I haven’t read anything about performance or range differences with LFP batteries. I understand they can be charged to 100% with minimal degradation. But with the hp be the same? Range? Do they weigh more?
Generally LFP has less energy density, so the size of the battery has to increase to get the same range. They are safer and cheaper. the chemistry is lower cost and less likely to experience thermal runaway. It is still possible if heat during charging is not managed properly, but less likely. In addition LFP has a higher number of recharge cycles generally, so they last longer in layman’s terms. This of course is the struggle for balance…do you make the cars heavier, but the batteries less likely to catch fire and last longer? or do you sacrifice range, which is the current major argument with regard to BEV’s.
Good summary, thx.
Pls correct me if wrong but AFAIK LFP charges faster too.
I have not read that they charge faster as that is usually dictated by the inverters or controllers in the system for fast charging. I would say because of the reduced concerned with runway Heat, they could in theory accept a higher charge more safely. but I am only speculating.
Appreciate the technical point of view. I suspect ‘the struggle for balance’ is exclusively centered on cost controls. The deal breakers are risk of fire and dangerously unsafe heavy weights. I still wonder how the insurance industry will weigh in on the increased damages to persons and property as a result of accident claims wrought by large (heavy) BEV. You have to worry that if their is no discussion around this issue, waiting for the problem to present itself will be expensive for consumers in the cost of insurance.
I Honestly see the lugging around of 1,000’s of lbs of battery as the growing pains of EV’s. either the batteries will get much smaller over time, or their will be ways to extend range for trips so the average car only holds 100-150 miles of range. I am not sure if it will be some new battery technology, or wireless charging, or something else, but I do not see what we have today lasting more than a decade in it’s current format. with self driving being something some of the world seems to want, I could even see electric rails for the long hauls with last mile batteries for in town use where the BEV part of the vehicles nature shines the most.
Brilliant move by Ford, I would expect them to use the LFP batteries in lower end (range) models and continue to use NMC in higher spec options similar to what Tesla does with the Model 3.
Agreed, and by not putting all eggs in one battery supplier’s basket or chemistry/design, Ford can play the suppliers for incremental improvements and cost reductions.
As soon as Ford’s Ion Park develops better chemistries or designs, or Ford licenses better tech from a 3rd party, it can take over process in these facilities and dismiss the supplier partner if it wants (subject to contract exit clauses of course.)
The DOE gave a 2 billion dollar loan to mine lithium in Nevada. Since there are local source for iron and phosphorous to make LFP, these will be fully North American sourced batteries and prices will drop. BTW, LFP is a U.S. invention.
+1.
Interestingly though, Chinese bought the patents and currently holds a monopoly on the things. Those patents are running out though.
Original patents ran a couple years ago.
Newer patents built on the experience are likely still in force because if they weren’t, Ford would just find a way to use that IP directly without the political backlash.
Gord’s got a very cagey battery strategy, the full dimensions of which we haven’t seen yet
It currently relies on temporary competitive dependence on multiple battery suppliers with proprietary solutions but it heads in the direction of in house IP and independence.
We’re seeing a repeat of Ford’s own early days when in 1903, at its start it bought engines and rolling chassis from the Dodge Brothers.
Big difference here is, unlike the Dodges, CATL doesn’t own 10% of Ford.
LFP is also a form of lithium-ion battery technology. The currently models use NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt), which is also lithium-ion.
I suppose it would be better if the guy said NMC Li-Ion, but since most automobile batteries are already NMC, the inference was valid for comparing LFP to NMC.
I’m curious if Ford will experience any range degradation by using LFP batteries. Tesla switched to the for the Model 3 recently and hasn’t experienced any EPA-estimated decrease (which admittedly in Tesla’s case, tend to be overstated). Charging to 100% rather than 90% helps, but LFP density is much lower than NMC (which varies depending upon the amount of cobalt used).
I own a 2021 Mach-E Premium and while I’m very happy with it – best vehicle I’ve ever owned, by far – it’s also extremely heavy and has many opportunities for weight reduction. LFP won’t help the latter unless Ford makes some technical changes – heat pump, better motors, etc. – to compensate for it.
Farley have some examples of the over engineering on the MME that added greatly to weight and cost.
He indicated that a great many of the things learned on going the Lightning and MME are already rolled into the soon to come 2G vehicles.
Decreasing the range is just about the most undesirable feature for any EV. I think most of the public wants an EV that can last 300 miles on a charge based on the low volume of usable fast DC chargers currently out there (not considering Telsa SCs) The fact that there does not appear to be any significant increase in the number of EV chargers (even with the FED attempts to push incentives) makes me question why someone would purchase an EV in a rural area or even suburb if they plan on using the vehicle for a trip. Any long distance trip would require pre-planning of routes and limit the road choices, unlike an ICE vehicle. Those in large populated areas like CA may find no issues with a short range EV but just about every other state would be a problem for short range EVs. If it can’t go 300 miles I don’t want to even consider the vehicle. Getting stuck on a freeway for hours with limited charging locations would be very stressful for anyone. Getting Telsa to open up their SCs for other vehicles also looks like it is not going to happen now….if it were to happen it would already have taken place knowing Musk.
Did i miss something in the news in the last day or two?
On Wednesday news had it that Tesla would get 7.5b$ to open up the supercharger network to all BEVs.