The Lithium-Ion Saga: How Battery Technology Sparked an EV Revolution and Reshaped Global Industry

The air hung heavy with unspoken tension. It was late August 2019. Forty minutes into a meeting fraught with sighs and veiled sparring, a reporter following Elon Musk realized the Tesla CEO had disappeared. Yet, his Gulfstream G650 remained parked on a special apron at Shanghai Pudong International Airport. Musk was still in Shanghai. And, quietly, the person Musk truly intended to meet had also arrived in the city. It wasn't Jack Ma.

More than two months later, Bloomberg's reporting unveiled the mystery of Musk's disappearance. Musk had traveled to Shanghai in late August and, as Tesla's CEO, reached a non-binding agreement. The person he met with for 40 minutes and reached the agreement with was Zeng Yuqun, Chairman of CATL. By February 3, 2020, CATL announced it would become a battery supplier for the new Tesla Model 3. Subsequently, CATL's market value surpassed 700 billion RMB.

And the key to that 40-minute meeting, the battery that Musk wanted to buy and that would even change Tesla, was just one cell. Codenamed LP6228082 with a capacity of 161 Ah.

What was so special about this battery? Dismantle the cell, and its core is composed of two "jelly rolls." Each jelly roll contains an anode current collector foil and a cathode current collector foil. The anode and cathode current collector foils are connected by ultrasonic welding, then laser-welded to the top cap. Resin is used to isolate the weld seam from the inside of the cell. All that remained was assembly. The two jelly rolls are folded upwards, the battery components placed into the casing, then sealed, and electrolyte injected.

Looking at it this way, the battery still doesn't seem particularly special. Perhaps the dismantling wasn't thorough enough. Just as I initially didn't understand what "jelly roll" meant. It translates to "卷心" (juǎn xīn), meaning "rolled core." This strip is actually a soft rolled object formed by materials resembling a chemical reaction strip, wound together. It's formed by winding the battery's positive electrode sheet, negative electrode sheet, and separator in a specific order.

If we zoom in further on the anode, cathode, and separator of the jelly roll, we discover that the anode is composed of natural flaky graphite particles with a particle size of about ten micrometers. The use of natural graphite is likely due to its significantly lower cost compared to synthetic spherical graphite powder. The cathode is made of spherical nanoscale particles. According to the teardown report by Central Stock et al., it contains 11.4% iron atoms, 13.5% phosphorus atoms, 59.26% oxygen atoms, and 8.6% carbon additives.

From this, we can conclude that this is a Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) battery, employing technical strategies such as reduced particle size, carbon coating, and including natural graphite. The entire battery pack is assembled from a total of 106 such cells. Four modules are connected together to form a complete unit with a total energy of 55 kWh, which is then embedded into the chassis of the Tesla Model 3.

So, compared to the Panasonic 18650 and 2170 NCM (Nickel Cobalt Manganese) ternary lithium batteries that Tesla used previously, what advantages did this LFP battery offer? Why did Lithium Iron Phosphate, a cathode material discovered back in 1996, experience a resurgence starting in 2020? Why was it CATL specifically? Why did Japan, once the dominant force in lithium batteries, gradually decline? How did China take the lead in the new energy era? Can China's power battery industry gain a chokehold on overseas markets and become the master of new energy?

The Evolution of Power: A 50-Year Saga of Lithium-Ion Batteries

In the past decade, there have been three mainstream power batteries for electric vehicles: LFP, NCA, and NCM. NCA stands for Nickel, Cobalt, and Aluminum. NCM represents Nickel, Cobalt, and Manganese. Because their cathode materials are composed of three elements, these two types of batteries are collectively referred to as ternary lithium batteries.

In fact, the vast majority of early electric vehicles used ternary lithium batteries, such as the 2170 batteries used in the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y. They have higher energy density and maintain better discharge capacity and output power in low-temperature environments. However, from 2016 to 2024, the market share of ternary lithium batteries has been squeezed to less than 60%, while the rapidly growing segment is LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) batteries, which have relatively shorter range and lose charge faster in low temperatures, despite being an earlier technology.

Why did an seemingly "outdated" technology experience such rapid growth in the past four years? I found an important article written by Professor Goodenough et al. in 1997, titled "Phospho-olivines as Positive-Electrode Materials for Rechargeable Lithium Batteries." This paper concluded through experiments that at a closed-circuit voltage of 3.5V, approximately 0.6 molar units of lithium ions per chemical formula unit could be extracted and that the same number of lithium atoms could be reversibly reinserted into the structure during discharge.

From the electrochemical charge-discharge curve presented in the paper, it can be seen that from the first to the 25th cycle, the cycle voltage and battery capacity remain relatively stable. Lithium ions can seamlessly detach from and reinsert into the lithium iron phosphate crystal structure, like a couple breaking up and getting back together repeatedly without prior notice, and doing so dozens of times without capacity fading or diminished "affection."

How exactly do they break up and get back together? This is the crystal structure of Lithium Iron Phosphate shown in the paper. Let's model and rotate it. It is composed of octahedral structures formed by iron atoms and oxygen atoms, and tetrahedral structures formed by phosphorus atoms and oxygen atoms. The small dots represent the lithium ions embedded in the structure.

Let's take a Lithium Iron Phosphate-Graphite battery as an example. The cathode is Lithium Iron Phosphate, and the anode is Graphite.

• During charging: Lithium ions deintercalate from the Lithium Iron Phosphate crystal and move towards the anode through the electrolyte. The number of lithium ions in Lithium Iron Phosphate decreases, and iron ions are oxidized to trivalent iron ions, releasing electrons simultaneously. Upon reaching the anode, lithium ions intercalate into the graphite lattice, forming a lithium-carbon compound with graphite. At the same time, electrons flow from the positive electrode to the negative electrode through the external circuit ¹ to balance the charge.

• During discharging: The movement of lithium ions and electrons is opposite to that during charging. Lithium ions leave the anode (graphite lattice) and reintercalate into the cathode (Lithium Iron Phosphate) through the electrolyte. The number of lithium ions in Lithium Iron Phosphate increases, and electrons flow from the negative electrode to the positive electrode through the external circuit.

If we look at the cross-section of the cathode, it is actually a process where lithium ions gradually wrap inward and permeate.

What is so remarkable about this high school chemistry content? There are so many materials that can achieve stable capacity without fading. In the report by Central Stock et al. dismantling CATL's battery, there is a passage that says: "The cost of electric vehicles must be comparable to that of fuel vehicles, which means the cost of battery packs must be reduced to below $125 per kilowatt-hour."

What does this price really mean? Why is price important?

When I searched the history of lithium battery development over several decades, I found that the development of lithium batteries is a process of searching for materials. But it is far more than just materials.

The lithium battery began with the oil crisis, yet it is far from escaping it.

• 1968: M. Stanley Whittingham, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford, discovered that lithium ions could be reversibly intercalated and deintercalated in the layered material titanium disulfide. It could work at room temperature and was lightweight.

• 1972: Exxon hired him. Using titanium disulfide and lithium metal as electrodes, they developed the world's first lithium battery. Why did Exxon hire him? In 1973, the first oil crisis erupted completely. As an oil giant, Exxon needed to find alternatives to fossil fuels. However, Exxon later abandoned this technology path.

• 1978: Whittingham did not give up. He published a paper titled "Chemistry of Intercalation Compounds: Metal Guests in Host Structures." On page 95 of the conclusion, he wrote: "In the coming years, considerable research effort will likely be devoted to oxide compounds in the search for materials applicable as energy storage or display electrodes." He even listed three criteria that these compounds should satisfy for future researchers: 1. Possess a layered structure or have channels for ion entry and exit. 2. Have a usable electronic band structure and high synthesis energy. 3. Contain transition metal ions in a higher oxidation state.

• 1980: John Goodenough and researchers replaced titanium disulfide with Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LiCoO2), doubling the voltage of the lithium battery. According to the formula: Energy Density = Specific Capacity × Voltage, doubling the voltage also doubles the energy density. The first two references in their co-authored paper are precisely Whittingham's research. Yet, in 1980, no one believed that LiCoO2 could change the world, leading to universities and institutions in the United States and Europe all refusing to sponsor Goodenough.

• 1981: Finally, the UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment agreed to provide funding to Goodenough, on the condition that they abandon their patent and financial rights. Thus, the UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment obtained the patent, and the future profits from LiCoO2 batteries would have nothing to do with Goodenough.

• 1982: Scholars at the Illinois Institute of Technology discovered that lithium ions have the characteristic of intercalating into graphite, and this process is fast and reversible. Graphite could replace lithium as the anode. The first usable lithium-ion graphite electrode was successfully prototyped by Bell Labs. In the same year, Goodenough and his postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, Michael Thackeray, found a material, Lithium Manganese Oxide (LMO), that was cheaper and safer than LiCoO2. Also in 1982, Akira Yoshino, a scientist at Asahi Kasei, while cleaning his desk, discovered the paper published by Goodenough in 1980. The previously ignored LiCoO2 would bring the main storyline to Japan.

• 1983: Akira Yoshino used the LiCoO2 discovered by Goodenough as the cathode and polyacetylene as the anode to make a battery prototype.

• 1985: He replaced the anode material with carbon material and successfully produced the first commercially viable lithium-ion battery prototype, completely solving the earlier problem of flammable and explosive metallic lithium anodes. By this time, consensus on anode materials had also been reached in different branches of research.

The First Lithium Battery World War: Japan Takes the Lead

• 1986: Hideki Shirakami (丽灵公), research director at Asahi Kasei, appeared on the scene. He and three colleagues flew to Boston with three jars containing cathode, anode, and electrolyte slurry respectively. They found a small company called Battery Engineering to turn these slurries into cylindrical batteries. However, Asahi Kasei's executives resisted the promotion of lithium batteries based on this unknown technology, because some companies like Moli Energy had previously commercialized metallic lithium batteries, but the phone batteries sold to NTT kept catching fire. But Shirakami did not give up.

• 1987: He visited Sony's camcorder division and demonstrated a battery. Sony immediately proposed a collaboration with Asahi Kasei, but Asahi Kasei refused. While negotiating the collaboration, Sony internally established at least six technical project teams, using a horse-racing mechanism for technology development.

• 1987-1989: During these two years, led by engineer Hidetoshi Yoshii, the Sony team collaborated with suppliers to develop binders, electrolytes, separators, and additives. They independently developed a thermal treatment process for the anode and a process for mass-producing cathode powder. The core of their battery was identical to the popular design at the time: the cathode was LiCoO2, the anode was petroleum coke, and the electrolyte contained lithium ions. Now there was only one issue: the technical patent for LiCoO2.

• 1989: A Sony executive called the UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment. This executive inquired about a patent from the lab that had been gathering dust for 8 years. The UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, confused, had not expected that this patent, reluctantly acquired back then, would actually generate value, and huge value at that.

• 1991: Sony officially announced the commercialization of lithium-ion batteries. Subsequently, lithium-ion batteries completely disrupted the entire consumer electronics industry.

Interestingly, in 2023, an article titled "Who Really Invented the Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Battery?" had the subtitle, "Before Sony finally crossed the finish line, many companies dropped out along the way." Thus, on Asahi Kasei's official website, we can see a satirical picture of a battery prototype with a caption: "Asahi Kasei's world-changing invention." But in reality, looking back at the companies that fell before Sony, most of them didn't just give up; they became the cost of trial and error in the process of technological advancement.

From titanium disulfide to LiCoO2, there were actually many less successful materials in between. Some intercalation compounds caused electrolyte decomposition at high voltages, leading to safety issues. Others were in a metastable state after charging, resulting in unstable power performance at different temperatures. As for iron-based research before LFP, layered lithium ferrite had poor stability, while ferrous phosphate sulfide, ferrous oxychloride, and ferric oxyhydroxide either had poor charging performance or excessively low discharge voltage.

As for why research shifted to iron in the 1990s, meaning why Lithium Iron Phosphate became popular again in 2020, the reasons were already pointed out in Goodenough's 1997 paper: "Availability and cost."

I have mentioned these keywords: voltage doubled, process is fast and reversible, cheaper and safer.

The Price Point: $125/kWh and the Rise of LFP

At this point, let's return to the key point mentioned earlier about battery pack cost: reducing it to below $125 per kilowatt-hour. What does this price mean? Why is price important?

Returning to why Tesla partnered with CATL, and why CATL, after mass-producing 811 ternary lithium batteries, began mass-producing cost-effective Lithium Iron Phosphate products.

Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries, while meeting the basic requirements of power batteries (safe, stable), represent the most cost-effective option, perhaps the only one, for quickly achieving a total vehicle cost (including battery) that is lower than gasoline cars. After all, for a pure electric vehicle, the battery cost can account for about 40% of the total vehicle cost. Looking at CATL's prospectus regarding raw material procurement, the cost of cathode materials (which is the cathode in LFP) accounts for over 50% of all raw materials.

Globally, the proven and unproven reserves of lithium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel are essentially the oil of the new energy era. On the surface, we are discussing science and technology; in reality, we are talking about a lithium battery oil crisis. At its core, it's a game of thrones based on resource control.

According to Bloomberg data, the average price of LFP cells is 32% lower than that of NMC cells. And with the rapid growth of LFP batteries' market share, the capacity-weighted average price of global lithium-ion battery packs finally broke through the aforementioned critical threshold of $125 per kilowatt-hour in 2024, dropping to $115 per kilowatt-hour.

John Goodenough and his Lithium Iron Phosphate technology conquered the world more than 20 years later. However, there was a significant hidden danger that directly triggered the Second Lithium Battery World War.

The Second Lithium Battery World War: Patents and Disputes

The authors of that important 1997 paper were actually three people.

• 1993: 71-year-old Goodenough moved from Oxford University to the University of Texas at Austin to conduct research. That year, he received an application from a Japanese materials scientist from NTT, Okada, who wanted to self-fund and join his group to study. Goodenough agreed and arranged for him to work with an Indian postdoctoral fellow named Akshaya Padhi. Yes, Akshaya Padhi was one of the authors of that important 1997 paper (Akshaya K. Padhi).

• 1996: Goodenough's team had already determined that Lithium Iron Phosphate could be used as a stable and safe cathode material. The University of Texas, on behalf of Goodenough's lab, applied for a patent in the United States that year, and it was granted in October 1997. This patent, numbered WO1997040541, is almost the first fundamental patent for LFP batteries. Why "almost"? Because also in 1996, Japan's NTT company also first publicly disclosed LFP battery technology.

Was LFP technology truly independently developed by NTT in a parallel timeline?

• 2001: The University of Texas sued NTT. They had applied for patent protection in seven countries: the US, Japan, Germany, Italy, the UK, France, and Canada. They believed that NTT had infringed on their patent.

• 2008: The result of the patent litigation was that both parties reached a settlement. I found a press release from NTT in October 2008. They stated that the settlement did not imply that NTT admitted any wrongdoing. NTT would pay the plaintiffs $30 million in settlement money. NTT retained ownership of the patents involved in the lawsuit and would grant the plaintiffs an exclusive license to these patents.

While it is now impossible to prove that NTT engaged in technology theft, why would they generously license their patents to others and still pay $30 million in settlement money? Another version of the story found online is that Okada had been leaking research results to NTT during his time studying with Goodenough, and in the subsequent litigation, Akshaya Padhi refused to testify for Goodenough. Some articles tell a more dramatic story: when Goodenough discovered that Okada was the one leaking information, he blamed Padhi, who replied in a somewhat dramatic manner, "Sorry, he is my friend."

However, what was worse than NTT was that multiple companies appeared globally, producing LFP batteries. Professor Jiang Yet-Ming from MIT founded an LFP battery company called A123 Systems. In just a few years, A123 held large orders exceeding $100 million. American company Valence Technology also began producing LFP batteries and grew rapidly. The University of Texas also sued A123 and Valence. But globally, there were already thousands of battery factories producing LFP batteries.

When searching for related lawsuits, I also found a sentence on the Wikipedia page for Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries: "NTT's patent is associated with an iron-based LFP. Now used by BYD Company." Does this mean BYD is using NTT's patent?

Looking at the lawsuit results, the University of Texas lost the case against A123 because A123's startup capital included $100,000 from the U.S. Department of Energy. General Motors not only invested in A123 but also used A123's LFP batteries in their Volt, which was launched in 2010.

• December 9, 2009: The European Patent Office even ruled to revoke the European patent ownership of the LFP battery granted to the University of Texas.

One can only say that the end of science is never just science.

Thus, due to various factors, LFP battery technology had essentially become an open-source technology. When countries around the world already had the blueprints for powerful ships and cannons, the focus shifted to who could actually produce effective power batteries and win the Second Lithium Battery War.

China Enters the Arena: The Rise of BYD and CATL

At this point, the main story moves to China, and to BYD's automotive iron battery.

• 2009: A report on a certain automotive website was titled, "BYD F3DM: We Continue the Global First 'Iron Battery' Myth." Note the use of quotation marks, which is very insightful. The article stated that BYD, for the sake of being "global first," engaged in concept-swapping, calling LFP batteries "iron batteries." Based on BYD's various concept-hyping rather than down-to-earth working style, some automotive experts believed that it would take at least 20 years for BYD's electric vehicles to become marketized. Despite the doubts of various experts, the article concluded that this time, the BYD F3DM was also trying to get a slice of the pie from the government's investment in new energy vehicles, especially when it was facing funding shortages. Honestly, I didn't understand the editor's syntax. I can only suggest they take a sharp review course.

But where did BYD's battery technology come from? Was it just a fake facade?

I found BYD's prospectus for its A-share IPO in 2011. As of the end of 2010, BYD held 4401 patents in China, including 261 core patents, 101 of which were related to batteries. So, I downloaded all 101 battery patents. From the titles, it's easy to see that they are almost all patents related to lithium batteries or certain preparation methods. For example, this patent for the preparation method of lithium ferrophosphate-based lithium salt. The patent mentions that previous patents disclosed methods using certain raw materials in certain environments at certain temperatures, adding other raw materials for calcination. Japanese patents also disclosed heat treatment at lower temperatures first, followed by high-temperature calcination, etc. BYD's patent optimizes the preparation process: treatment time, heating rate, tablet pressing pressure, optimal flow rate for inert atmosphere, and so on.

These approximately 100 core patents also involve how to perforate the cathode to better avoid lithium dendrites and facilitate heat dissipation, and how to improve the conductivity and specific capacity of Lithium Iron Phosphate through preparation method optimization. After reviewing these patents, I re-validated my previous conclusion: at the foundational technology level, LFP was indeed open source. The key to winning lies in how to turn this verified chemical equation into a more user-friendly battery, and who can produce a better battery with lower costs and more advanced manufacturing processes.

This meant that BYD, despite insufficient policies and charging infrastructure in 2006, could still develop the F3DM. It meant that in December 2008, BYD launched its first new energy vehicle, the F3DM. When it listed on the A-share market in 2011, BYD could become the first Chinese new energy vehicle company targeting ordinary consumers. It also meant that under the same rules of the game, whoever could improve the technical process could become the leader.

The same story also happened with CATL's predecessor, ATL.

• 1999: Eight Japanese companies, led by Panasonic, launched their own polymer lithium-ion batteries. ATL, founded in the same year, had no battery technology. They could only scrape together $1 million to buy a battery technology patent from Bell Labs in the United States: "Rechargeable lithium battery using a hybrid polymer electrolyte." However, after ATL bought the patent license, they found that the batteries produced would bulge and deform after repeated charging and discharging. ATL contacted Bell Labs, and Bell Labs said that the batteries produced by the other 20-plus licensed companies also bulged. This was a fundamental problem that this technology could not solve. The implication was, just make do with it.

So, what to do? The essence of a crisis is that if you overcome the danger, it becomes an opportunity. Zeng Yuqun plunged into the lab and repeatedly experimented. He found that the boiling points of certain ion components in the original electrolyte formula were very close to the battery's upper temperature limit of 85 degrees Celsius. The electrolyte would produce gas at high temperatures, causing bulging. He worked with an electrolyte manufacturer to develop seven new formulas. After 14 hard days and nights, he luckily found two formulas that did not cause bulging. The direct result of this technological optimization was that ATL's built-in lithium battery was first applied in Bluetooth earphones in 2001, then in portable DVDs in 2002, and in MP3 players in 2003. It was an order of over 18 million batteries for what MP3 player? The great product that saved Apple and Steve Jobs: the iPod.

• 2000: Japan, with 500 million batteries, accounted for 90% of global lithium-ion battery production, while China produced only 35 million.

• After 2005: Chinese battery companies like ATL, BYD, BAK Power, Lishen, etc., rapidly replaced brands like Sony and Sanyo, becoming suppliers for Apple, Motorola, and Nokia.

It was during these five to ten years of technological optimization by Chinese companies that a new lithium battery war was ignited.

• 2002: Sanyo sued BYD for infringement.

• 2003: Sony sued BYD for infringement. Japanese companies both lost.

• 2007: Zeng Yuqun and his founding team, due to their low shareholding ratio, watched as ATL was sold and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan's TDK.

• 2011: Zeng Yuqun spun off the power battery division from ATL and founded CATL.

The third lithium battery war truly began.

China's Rise: Policy, Research, and Manufacturing Prowess

So, why were Chinese companies able to rise against the tide in these ten-plus years? While seeking the answer, I discovered another thread.

• March 3, 1986: An important report would change the process of Chinese scientific research. The report on the High-Tech Research and Development Program, formed based on this report, is known as the 863 Program.

• 1987: The 863 Program included the launch of the "Seventh Five-Year Plan" Energy Storage Materials Project, with Chen Liquan as the overall负责人 (person in charge).

• 1988: The first batch of solid-state lithium batteries was born in the laboratory. They temporarily put aside the still immature solid-state lithium batteries and turned to researching lithium-ion batteries. In the same year, the laboratory faced a funding gap.

• 1995: China's first "A-type" lithium-ion battery was born at the Institute of Physics. This battery received positive evaluations in Motorola's tests in 1996.

• 1997: The pilot-scale production of lithium-ion batteries finally began at the Institute of Physics. Also in 1997, Chen Liquan and his students Li Hong et al. internationally first proposed using

• 2004: Chen Liquan, Huang Xuejie et al. also first publicly announced the technology of using aluminum oxide interface coating to increase the operating voltage of Lithium Cobalt Oxide cathode material to 4.5-5V and achieve stable cycling. This technology is still one of the core solutions for commercial Lithium Cobalt Oxide today. Looking at Huang Xuejie's aluminum proportion, from 2001 to 2005, he was the负责人 of the 863 key project "Research on Phosphate Cathode Materials."

Chen Liquan's team has continuously made significant contributions to the development of lithium batteries in China. In a discussion session in 2009, in a report titled "How China's Lithium Batteries Should Break Through," Zeng Yuqun, who was still at ATL at the time, made a vow to achieve the breakthrough of China's lithium batteries, starting from ATL. Thus, in 2011, CATL emerged.

In fact, Chen Liquan was Zeng Yuqun's doctoral supervisor at the Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, from 2002 to 2006.

Behind each successful enterprise is a generation of scientific researchers. Behind the inheritance of generations of scientific research are choices that determine the destiny of the nation – choices about direction and trade-offs.

As Qian Xuesen wrote in a letter to the state in 1992, saying that at that time, the United States, Japan, and Western Europe were all organizing their technical forces to develop high-efficiency rechargeable battery plans to develop battery-powered cars. China's automotive industry should skip the gasoline and diesel stages and directly enter the new energy stage to reduce environmental pollution.

By 2008, power batteries became the key to the third lithium battery war. Under the guidance of these policies, China became the leader.

• 2008: When Tesla launched its first electric vehicle, the Roadster, its battery pack was composed of 7000 Panasonic 18650 cells.

• 2010-2012: A123 successively established supply relationships with mainstream automakers like Fisker, GM, and BMW.

• As early as 2007: NEC and Nissan established a joint venture, AESC, to produce power lithium batteries for electric vehicles.

• Late 2010: Nissan's first pure electric vehicle, the Leaf, was launched. Nissan had even introduced the Prairie Joy EV concept car in 1996, which was the first and only pure electric vehicle equipped with cylindrical lithium batteries at the time.

The pioneers of power batteries were clearly Japan, and the first to receive orders were clearly the United States. Yet, 15 years later, the winner is China. What happened in between?

An important model, the Zinoro 1E, was launched. It was the first pure electric compact SUV launched by Brilliance BMW's joint venture brand. CATL, with its excellent technology, met BMW's stringent 800-page German battery production standards and became a first-tier power battery supplier in one fell swoop. However, this was not the main point.

The "Automotive Industry Adjustment and Revitalization Plan" was introduced. When it was launched, the goal was to make developing new energy vehicles a national strategy. It's important to note that in this year (around 2009-2010), BYD's power battery business had not yet formed a scale, and CATL did not exist. South Korea's LG Chem, with its mature technology, secured orders from SAIC, FAW, and Changan, accounting for 60% of the Chinese market supply that year.

• 2010: The "Notice on Piloting Subsidies for Private Purchases of New Energy Vehicles" was issued, designating six cities including Beijing for pilot programs, offering subsidies of up to 60,000 RMB for purchasing new energy vehicles.

What was Japan doing that year? They released their "Next Generation Vehicle Development Strategy," shifting from focusing solely on pure electric vehicles to betting on both fuel cell vehicles and pure electric vehicles. Thus, Toyota and Honda both concurrently focused on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which was later criticized as being "overhyped," with a future market share of perhaps only 30% at most. Japan's attempt to "dual-skill" naturally led to a diffusion of effort.

• 2015: China introduced another important document, the "Requirements for the Automotive Power Battery Industry," commonly known as the Power Battery 'White List'. This document stipulated that new energy vehicles produced by automakers could only receive subsidies if they were equipped with power batteries that met the requirements and were included in the White List. The first four batches of companies entering the White List were all domestic Chinese companies.

Over the years, the market share of the four major power battery giants from Japan and Korea—Panasonic, LG Chem, Samsung SDI, and SK Innovation—in the Chinese power battery market gradually decreased. The White List was abolished at the end of 2019, but these five years served as an important period of protection for domestic Chinese power batteries.

• 2017: CATL, founded just 17 years prior, officially surpassed Japan's Panasonic to become the world's number one power battery producer.

• February 2020: CATL officially partnered with Tesla, solidifying its position as the global battery leader.

Lessons from China's Success: Beyond Technology

If we analyze retrospectively, Chinese companies won due to many factors. For example, the reason Musk turned to CATL was simple: Panasonic's cost margins had been squeezed dry, while CATL offered a lower price and still had room for cost reduction. The core of low cost, extending from the ATL era, is supported by a low-cost supply chain for separators, electrolytes, cathodes, and anodes.

Overall, China produces nearly 70% of the world's power batteries. A key factor in reducing costs is scale effect, as well as the bargaining power and influence of Chinese brands in the global industrial chain. For instance, Chinese companies purchase lithium mines globally. In 2023, CATL even launched a "lithium rebate" program, offering a portion of profits to sign agreements with automakers in advance. Then, leveraging its large volume of orders, it demanded a 10% price reduction from upstream lithium mining companies.

But these are just results. They are the result of China's determined push to develop new energy vehicles, the result of a series of policy guidelines, and the result that the global market has no choice but to accept.

Industrial Alliances and Strategic Tensions

In February 2023, Ford pledged a $3.5 billion investment to build its first U.S.-based LFP battery plant, in technical collaboration with CATL. The move triggered political backlash, with CNBC questioning the deal and the U.S. House of Representatives initiating a formal investigation.

Policy Timeline:

2022: The Inflation Reduction Act restricts tax credits for batteries involving “foreign entities of concern.”

June 2024 (proposed): The Decoupling Act aims to bar procurement from six Chinese battery firms, including CATL.

1. Raw Material Strategy

Top lithium reserve holders: Chile > Australia > Argentina > China

China sources 70% of its lithium salts from Australian mines and South American brine.

Critical gap: Absence of pricing power in upstream lithium markets.

2. Innovation in Battery Architecture

3. Scalable Production Advantage

Rapid R&D cycles: CATL Shenxing (4C) → Zeekr “Golden Brick” (4.5C) → Blade Gen 2 (5.5C+)

End-to-end supply chain integration: Control from raw materials to delivery

Market scale: China holds a commanding 60% share of the global NEV market

4.Geopolitics Meets Industrial Logic

The embargo dilemma: Volkswagen aligns with Gotion cell standards for 2030; Toyota adopts China’s DM-i hybrid tech.

Cooperative pragmatism: CATL expands globally via local plants and licensing deals—circumventing trade barriers.

Competitive bottom line: Once Chinese battery penetration surpasses 60%, its technology becomes the de facto global benchmark.

5. Milestones in Battery Evolution

Foundational Scientific Advances

1980: John Goodenough’s team publishes pioneering work on lithium cobalt oxide

1991: Akira Yoshino brings lithium-ion batteries into commercial use

2019: Nobel Prize in Chemistry honors the field’s three founding scientists

Industry Landmarks

2004: BYD’s ET concept introduces four-wheel independent drive

2019: CATL’s 21C Lab receives recognition from Nobel laureates

2023: Yangwang U8 rolls out tank-turn technology into production

6.Future Technology Trajectory

Material Frontiers: From sodium-ion battery scaling to breakthroughs in solid-state designs

Structural Integration: The evolution from CTP → CTC → CTB (Cell-to-Body)

Charging Revolution: From 4C fast charging → 6C ultra-fast → Mainstream adoption of 800V high-voltage platforms

Thermal Performance: How well the battery operates across a range of temperatures. Performance degrades in extreme heat or cold, and efficient thermal management is essential for optimal performance, lifespan, and safety, especially during fast charging.

Charging Speed: How quickly the battery can be recharged. This is linked to power density and the battery's ability to handle high charging rates without excessive heat or degradation.

The Reign of Lithium-ion: Understanding the Workhorse Chemistries

Today, the vast majority of electric vehicles are powered by Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries. This technology, originally commercialized for portable electronics, has been scaled up and refined for automotive use. At its core, a Li-ion battery works by shuttling lithium ions between a positive electrode (cathode) and a negative electrode (anode) through a liquid electrolyte.

However, "Lithium-ion" is a broad category encompassing various chemistries, primarily differing in the material used for the cathode. These different cathode materials result in distinct performance trade-offs:

• NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide):

• Principle: Cathode material uses a blend of Nickel, Manganese, and Cobalt. Different ratios (e.g., NMC 111, 532, 622, 811, NCA which is sometimes grouped with NMC) affect performance. Higher nickel content generally increases energy density but can reduce thermal stability and lifespan.

• Advantages: High energy density, good power capability, widely used. Higher nickel versions (NMC 811, NCA) offer some of the best energy density currently available for long range.

• Disadvantages: Contains Cobalt, a relatively expensive material with ethical sourcing concerns. Less thermally stable than LFP, requiring more sophisticated thermal management and safety systems. Lifespan can be shorter than LFP, especially with frequent fast charging.

• Role: Dominant chemistry in many high-performance and long-range EVs due to its high energy density.

• LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate):

• Principle: Uses Lithium Iron Phosphate for the cathode.

• Advantages: Excellent safety record (more resistant to thermal runaway), longer lifespan (can handle more charge cycles) than many NMC types, lower cost (does not use Cobalt or Nickel in the cathode), good thermal stability.

• Disadvantages: Lower energy density (compared to high-nickel NMC/NCA), which can mean shorter range for a given weight/volume, or requires a larger/heavier battery pack for the same range. Less performance at very low temperatures unless actively heated.

• Role: Increasingly popular, particularly in standard-range EVs, commercial vehicles, and stationary storage, due to its cost advantages and safety benefits. Manufacturers are improving LFP energy density and cold-weather performance.

• NCA (Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide):

• Principle: Cathode material uses Nickel, Cobalt, and Aluminum. Similar to high-nickel NMC but with Aluminum.

• Advantages: Very high energy density, good power capability.

• Disadvantages: Contains Cobalt. Can be less thermally stable than LFP and some NMC types.

• Role: Used in some high-performance and long-range EVs, notably by Tesla in certain models.

• LMO (Lithium Manganese Oxide):

• Principle: Uses Lithium Manganese Oxide for the cathode, often with a spinel structure.

• Advantages: Good power density, better thermal stability than some other chemistries, uses abundant Manganese.

• Disadvantages: Lower energy density, shorter lifespan compared to NMC and LFP.

• Role: Sometimes blended with other chemistries (like NMC) to improve power capability or safety. Less common as a standalone chemistry in mainstream EVs today.

Manufacturers carefully select battery chemistries based on the vehicle's target market, desired performance characteristics (range vs. power), cost targets, and safety requirements. The trend is towards increasing nickel content in NMC/NCA for higher energy density and increasing adoption of LFP for cost and safety advantages.

Beyond the Cell: Packaging and Managing the Powerhouse

Turning individual battery cells into a functional, safe, and durable EV battery pack is a complex feat of engineering. It involves integrating thousands of cells with sophisticated management and thermal systems.

• Cell to Pack Design: Individual cells (which can be cylindrical, prismatic, or pouch format) are grouped into larger modules. These modules are then assembled, along with the Battery Management System (BMS), thermal management components, and safety features, into a single battery pack, typically housed in a robust enclosure mounted in the vehicle's floor. Design choices here impact energy density, cost, manufacturing complexity, and safety. "Cell-to-pack" or "cell-to-body" approaches, which reduce or eliminate modules to integrate cells directly into the pack structure or vehicle chassis, aim to increase energy density and reduce cost and weight.

• Thermal Management System (TMS): The Lifeguard and Performance Enhancer. Batteries perform optimally within a specific temperature range. Extreme heat can accelerate degradation and pose safety risks (thermal runaway), while extreme cold reduces performance, capacity, and charging speed. The TMS, often using liquid cooling/heating (glycol-water mix), air cooling, or even phase change materials, is vital for:

• Maintaining optimal operating temperature during driving for peak performance and efficiency.

• Cooling the battery during fast charging to prevent overheating and degradation.

• Heating the battery in cold weather for better performance and enabling fast charging.

• Ensuring uniform temperature distribution across the pack to prevent uneven degradation.

• Providing critical cooling during a thermal event to contain or slow its progression.

• Battery Management System (BMS): The Brains of the Operation. The BMS is the electronic "brain" that monitors and controls the battery pack. Its functions include:

• Monitoring cell voltage, temperature, and current.

• Balancing the charge level of individual cells to maximize capacity and lifespan.

• Calculating the State of Charge (SOC) and State of Health (SOH).

• Managing charging and discharging processes to prevent overcharging, over-discharging, and over-current conditions.

• Implementing safety protocols and fault detection.

• Communicating with the vehicle's powertrain control unit.

The TMS and BMS work in concert to ensure the battery operates safely, reliably, and at peak performance throughout its life.

The Charging Challenge: Faster, Further, More Conveniently

Recharging an EV battery is fundamentally different from refueling a combustion engine vehicle. Reducing charging time and improving convenience are critical factors for wider EV adoption.

• AC vs. DC Charging:

• AC Charging: Uses the vehicle's onboard charger to convert AC power from the grid (standard household outlets or Level 2 chargers) into DC power that the battery can store. It's slower, typically used for charging at home or destination charging overnight or during the workday.

• DC Fast Charging (DCFC): Uses an external DC fast charger that converts AC power to high-voltage DC power before it reaches the vehicle. This high-voltage DC power bypasses the onboard charger and goes directly to the battery pack, enabling much faster charging rates.

• Fast Charging Principles: High power DCFC relies on high voltage architectures (400V, 800V, and even higher). Higher voltage allows for charging at higher power levels (kW) without increasing current proportionally, which helps manage heat. However, fast charging generates significant heat within the battery, making the TMS absolutely critical. The charging curve (how fast a battery can charge at different states of charge) is also important; charging is typically fastest up to about 80% SOC, slowing down afterwards to protect the battery.

• Wireless Charging: Emerging technology that allows EVs to charge simply by parking over a charging pad. It uses electromagnetic induction to transfer energy without physical cables. While less efficient and generally slower than wired charging currently, it offers significant convenience and potential for integration into public parking or even roadways ("dynamic charging").

Ongoing development focuses on increasing charging power, optimizing charging curves, improving the efficiency and cost of charging infrastructure, and advancing wireless charging capabilities.

The Horizon: Next-Generation Battery Technologies

While Li-ion technology continues to evolve, research and development are pushing towards battery technologies with the potential to offer step-change improvements in performance, safety, and cost.

• Solid-State Batteries (SSBs): The Holy Grail?

• Principle: Replace the liquid electrolyte in Li-ion batteries with a solid material (e.g., ceramic, polymer, sulfide). Lithium ions move through the solid electrolyte.

• Potential Advantages: Higher energy density (potentially enabling longer ranges for smaller/lighter batteries), improved safety (solid electrolyte is less flammable than liquid electrolyte), faster charging capability (potentially), longer lifespan.

• Challenges: Significant engineering hurdles remain for mass production – achieving good contact between the solid electrolyte and electrodes, manufacturing solid electrolyte materials uniformly and affordably at scale, managing volume changes during cycling, achieving long cycle life and high power at various temperatures.

• Outlook: Many see SSBs as the future of EV batteries, offering significant performance gains. However, widespread commercialization at automotive scale is still likely several years away, requiring breakthroughs in manufacturing processes and material science.

• Lithium-Sulfur (Li-S) and Lithium-Air (Li-Air) Batteries:

• Principle: Utilize sulfur or oxygen from the air as the cathode material, coupled with a lithium anode.

• Potential Advantages: Theoretically offer much higher energy densities than current Li-ion batteries due to the light weight of sulfur and oxygen.

• Challenges: Significant technical hurdles exist, including short cycle life, degradation of the lithium anode, and managing complex chemical reactions. These technologies are generally considered to be further from commercialization than SSBs for automotive use.

Key Challenges Facing EV Battery Tech Today

Despite the rapid progress, the EV battery industry faces several critical challenges that must be addressed for widespread, sustainable EV adoption:

• Cost Reduction: While costs have plummeted, the battery remains the most expensive component of an EV. Continued cost reduction is essential to make EVs price-competitive with combustion engine cars across all segments.

• Energy Density Limits: Pushing energy density further requires trade-offs, often impacting safety, lifespan, or cost. Achieving significantly longer ranges at affordable prices and reasonable battery sizes/weights remains a challenge.

• Charging Time: While fast charging is improving, it still takes longer than refueling a gasoline car. Reducing charging time further, especially for vehicles with very large battery packs, is crucial for driver convenience.

• Lifespan and Degradation: Ensuring batteries maintain sufficient capacity and power over the vehicle's lifespan (10-15 years or more) and thousands of charge cycles is vital for customer confidence and total cost of ownership. Managing degradation, particularly from fast charging and extreme temperatures, is key.

• Sustainable Sourcing and Recycling: Increasing demand for battery materials like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese raises concerns about resource availability, mining impacts, and ethical sourcing (especially for cobalt). Developing efficient and economic battery recycling processes is essential to create a circular economy for batteries and reduce reliance on virgin materials.

• Cold Weather Performance: Battery performance, capacity, and charging speed are significantly reduced in cold temperatures. Improving cold weather performance and the efficiency of battery heating systems is important for drivers in colder climates.

The Future Outlook: Evolution and Revolution Hand in Hand

The future of EV battery technology will likely involve a combination of continued evolution of existing Li-ion technology and potential revolutionary breakthroughs from next-generation chemistries.

• Continued Li-ion Advancements: Expect to see incremental improvements in Li-ion batteries: higher energy density through new cathode/anode materials and cell designs, faster charging capabilities, longer lifespans, improved safety features, and continued cost reduction driven by scale and manufacturing innovation. LFP chemistry will likely continue to grow in market share due to its cost and safety advantages, while high-nickel NMC/NCA will remain important for long-range applications.

• Solid-State Battery Commercialization: While timelines vary depending on the specific technology and manufacturer, solid-state batteries are expected to begin entering the market in the coming years, initially perhaps in niche or high-end applications, before potentially becoming more widespread in the longer term, offering significant improvements in energy density and safety.

• Integration with the Grid (V2G/V2H): EV batteries represent a massive distributed energy storage resource. Technology enabling Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) and Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) power flow will allow EVs to not only draw power from the grid but also supply it back (e.g., to power a home during an outage or sell power back to the grid during peak demand), providing valuable services and creating new revenue streams for EV owners and grid operators.

• Focus on Sustainability: The industry will increasingly focus on sustainable sourcing of materials, ethical supply chains, and developing efficient and economically viable battery recycling processes to minimize the environmental footprint of battery production and disposal.

Conclusion: The Engine of the Electrified Age

The battery is the undeniably complex and rapidly evolving heart of the electric vehicle. Its development is a critical determinant of EV performance, capability, and ultimately, widespread adoption. From the nuanced trade-offs between different Lithium-ion chemistries and the intricate engineering of battery packs and management systems, to the challenges of fast charging and the promising horizons of solid-state technology, the field is characterized by continuous innovation.

Understanding these technical foundations is crucial for appreciating the capabilities and limitations of today's EVs and recognizing the immense potential for future advancements. The ongoing effort to balance performance, cost, safety, lifespan, and sustainability in battery technology is central to realizing the vision of a cleaner, more efficient, and electrified future for transportation.

The journey of the EV battery is far from over. It's a story of scientific discovery, engineering ingenuity, and industrial scale-up that continues to unfold at a breathtaking pace. The challenges are real, but the potential – to power a global fleet of vehicles with clean, reliable energy – is immense.

If you're fascinated by the technology making the EV revolution possible, or if you have questions about the specifics of battery chemistry, charging infrastructure, or the future of automotive energy storage, we encourage you to delve deeper. Understanding the powerhouse within the EV is key to understanding the future of mobility itself.

For further discussion or inquiries regarding electric vehicle technology and its components, including battery systems, we invite you to reach out to experts in the field. You can contact us directly for more information and tailored insights into how these advancements are shaping the future of transportation.

Contact us at: +8618669778647

Exploring the nuances of these critical technologies is crucial for selecting a vehicle that truly matches your expectations and operational demands. Let's continue the conversation.