- Joined
- Jun 13, 2022
- Messages
- 6,615
- Reaction score
- 9,639
- Points
- 2,714
- Location
- Paignton, UK
- Driving
- MG4
In theory, LFP batteries should last for many more cycles than NMC, giving them a longer life.
However, I am increasingly hearing that this isn't always true in practice and I am curious if anyone has any more evidence on this.
The reasons put forward why LFP doesn't do as well in the real world compared to NMC:
This is how the argument goes as I have heard it.
I accept that chemistry doesn't really matter that much and all battery types are good enough for most people. We will no doubt look back in a few years time and laugh at ourselves for being concerned with it, like debates on the type of oil we used to put in an ICE engine.
But I am curious nonetheless about how theory is translating into practice. All views welcome but particularly anyone with evidence to back them up.
However, I am increasingly hearing that this isn't always true in practice and I am curious if anyone has any more evidence on this.
The reasons put forward why LFP doesn't do as well in the real world compared to NMC:
- Manufacturers use LFP batteries as a low-cost option with little or no "buffers" whereas NMC typically have significant upper and lower buffers (as much as 7-10%) to protect against degradation. So while LFP commonly drops to the low 90%ish range after 2-3 years, NMC can still be at 100% (just with smaller buffers).
- NMC is typically charged to 80% most of the time, limiting the damage from high states of charge. LFP is typically charged to 100%, something it can tolerate much better, but which still causes some degredation (people do not typically know this), particularly when left at 100% for a long period of time.
- NMC tolerates high discharge and charge rates much better, so even with the higher charge speeds possible with NMC, less damage may be done through lots of public charging.
- LFP performs relatively poorly in cold weather, with more dramatic range drops than NMC, affecting real world range in colder climates.
- Battery aging effects are more dominant than was expected for all types of chemistry, so the benefits are less than were predicted.
- NMC real world ranges have held up better than all the predictions.
This is how the argument goes as I have heard it.
I accept that chemistry doesn't really matter that much and all battery types are good enough for most people. We will no doubt look back in a few years time and laugh at ourselves for being concerned with it, like debates on the type of oil we used to put in an ICE engine.
But I am curious nonetheless about how theory is translating into practice. All views welcome but particularly anyone with evidence to back them up.