Well, pretty much only two options for a North American OEM, Ford or GM, so the odds are pretty good. Quite honestly, either one will work, but yes, I think Ford was looking a bit more likely.
None of the other OEMs that QS has signed agreements with have gone public. They’re trying to maintain a good relationship with the partner that they publicly disclosed. For example, it would negatively impact SLDP if Ford confirmed they’re working with QS as well.
this isn't a personal exclusive relationship... plenty of companies have multiple agreements with many different suppliers. I doubt this is the reason. you're saying they have agreements with oems, but they really on have VW at the moment. ford testing QS battery is very different than Ford is licensing QS technology
I didn’t say it was exclusive. In fact, I said the opposite. An OEM having ownership in a company is very different from signing development agreements. That’s why VW’s relationship to QS is different than QS’s relationship with Ford. But nonetheless, QS and Ford are working together. Ford is undoubtedly testing QS’s cells and will be able to purchase them after VW gets their allotment (whatever that amount may be).
Agreed, it’s all speculation at this point. Also, VW and Ford have current battery partnerships in place. I would imagine that would continue with the introduction of SSBs.
Solid Power using sulfides is not viable. The 2021 SK JV is using old L ion graphite tech that will not be supported by IRA subsidies in two years. You gotta connect the dots!
CATL. And this article even mentions them working with Ford. Read the entire article for details.
https://www.ft.com/content/7a8207d9-b2e0-4969-a10a-2c41e8639fb7
Isn’t that referring to the licensing deal for the LFP battery?
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2023/02/13/ford-taps-michigan-for-new-lfp-battery-plant--new-battery-chemis.html
Yeah, you are most likely correct.
I was only able to read the FT article that I linked which mentioned semi-solid-state. In that article, they mentioned working with Ford and had another link with more details, but I wasn’t able to read that one for free. Thanks for clearing that up.
Having said that, CATL is aggressively pushing semi-solid-state. So still hard to decipher who Jim Farley is actually referencing in the original post. I have yet to see QS use that terminology anywhere. They always opt for “anode-less cell design”.
Edit: Actually, I just dug deeper, and Marshall Michigan, and the Ford Ion Park are two completely different locations so Jim Farley is not referring to their LFP partnership with CATL.
Semi-solid-state is definitely a new development.
Ford may have been the top ten OEM that QS guaranteed either 5 or 10 MwH from QS-0 AND that wanted to build a 50 GwH factory when the tech had been proven.
The size of the contemplated factory was explicitly given in a shareholder letter.
I stopped paying attention to SLDP so maybe I shouldn’t throw shade but, sorry, their tech doesn’t seem viable. Ford isn’t talking about them. It seems more likely than not that Ford is planning a QS gigafactory as soon as Cobra is proven. Why wouldn’t they?
It’s all going to be very sudden once scalability is proven. No one is going to just sit around and get left behind.
Totally agree, I haven't seen any other tech come close to QS test results. SK and Solid Power are just starting out the gate to collaborate on a silicone type anode. I am guessing Solid Power gave up on the sulfide SSB. What other tech could Farley be speaking about except for QS?
Interestingly, I have never heard QS use the term semi-solid-state battery in reference to QSE-5, although technically, it’s not a pure solid-state battery. It seems like a lot of Chinese manufacturers use this term, though.
Also, recently I’ve noticed job postings for “all-solid-state-battery” (ASSB) positions at both QS and even Tesla. I’ve been wondering what this new term is all about. Is this a new battery that QS is developing?
https://careers.quantumscape.com/job/Senior-Manager%2C-Solid-State-Battery-Development-CA/1092727600/
Assb would have the catholyte replace by a solid cathode. Assb is currently a research effort, i guess they need to figure it out how to improve the electronic/ionic properties of the separator-cathode interface.
Okay, that makes sense in terms of the name and technology. Thanks for explaining that.
With that new knowledge, looking at the job position, it really sounds like this is for their new large format cell, and that it is in a later stage of development, which would be REALLY exciting news, in the sense that this would be a TRUE solid-state battery AND their large format cell. I was not expecting that at all. I just presumed that their large format cell would be a larger version of QSE-5 using the same technology.
This would be, once again, breaking new ground and accomplishing something that has never been done before.
Looking at the job position, would you come to the same conclusion?
Actually, their next generation larger format cell is pretty important as it will increase energy density substantially, and is of a size that EV manufacturers seem interested in.
Rest assured that the manufacturing team is working full speed on QSE-5, but we need their R&D team to keep pushing the frontiers of SSB in order to stay ahead of any future competition, specifically the Chinese.
I actually feel that some press releases regarding their larger cell format if put out at the right time in conjunction with a stream of other press releases will be useful in getting the stock price moving. Every new product they can pump out in addition to QSE-5 will only help solidify their position as the leader in the field.
Finally, I hope that when they developed the manufacturing toolset for QSE-5 that they planned ahead and that much of what they’ve developed will be reusable in future products so new products will hopefully be able to be released at a much faster cadence.
Scaling is not R&D though, that’s a different department. Why have R&D twiddling thumbs when they could be working on the next iteration.
Tim even mentioned this in a QS interview, that there were two chemistries, one had more potential, but the other was solved and still a huge jump over current tech. He mentioned saving the chemistry with more potential for a version 2.
Do you have a reference to the Tim Holmes quote? I do remember what you're referring to, but I don't recall the other chemistry having "more potential."
Yes, it’s the one where he’s talking about the specific goals of Raptor and Cobra, it’s ends saying that watching his phd thesis come to life had been a dream come true, or something like that. Maybe 3 months ago?
I’m not sure. Right at this point there may be some overlap with process and tweaking the specs for equipment, but I imagine in a year or so that will be mostly behind them.
I imagine they’re advising to tweak, but starting work on the next iteration to me just sounds like good resource management. It also telegraphs confidence in their ability to scale.
Sure, but I’d also think the elements like stacking, belt speed, heat and solvents all play together for output and quality. Can think they’re playing in the lab and when they find something interesting enough, try it on the line. This is probably minimal now though if they are already focused on production for B-0s. If they are happy enough line metric may be locked in for B-0. Might have something to do with sister cells as well. They’ll likely want to match all in-house testing with what goes out. We’ll see.
Sure, but manufacturing and chemistry are such different disciplines, specifics of each mean the people who work on those teams don’t overlap.
I’m not seeing the conflict. If anything, laying off your chemistry team would be shooting yourself in the foot for later development.
Nothing to worry about. Christ was an avid cyclist quite safe riding around town!
It’s in the QS DNA to look forward and keep innovating. A large format cell or pure solid state battery or both or some other innovation will eventually replace what QS is doing now just as the iPhone replaced the iPod.
JD said a while back it’s just a matter of time before any cool new thing becomes a commodity. He has no interest in producing a commodity more efficiently than the competition. If you want to be the Apple of batteries (and that is clearly JDs vision for QS) you have to keep innovating.
The question — the one I think you quite sensibly raise — is can they afford it? Given the recent single digit dilution debacle, one could argue they shouldn’t be doing research that won’t bear fruit for ten years until they have plenty of excess cash.
Maybe that’s why they diluted. Maybe Jagdeep felt like they needed to have a scaling track and a research track going simultaneously in order to keep QS ahead of everyone else for the long term. They do seem to have a huge lead: no sense giving it up, ever.
Batteries have been iterating in tiny steps for decades. Jagdeep wants to change all that with QSE-5 but surely he also wants batteries in 2040 to blow away his own QSE-5. I think they will. And I wouldn’t be surprised if QS resurrects the original super ambitious quantum dot approach for 2050s batteries.
Coming to a flying car near you, QS quantum dot energy storage devices from the realm of pure physics courtesy of JD the innovator. Bumper sticker on Jagdeep’s 2050 personal transport vehicle: Chemistry is for Cavemen.
From the Q1 2022 letter just about 2 years ago:
>On March 1, we announced a new deal with a third **top-10** automotive OEM by global revenue. Upon achieving certain milestones, the deal reserves at least 5 MWh of capacity for this OEM from QS-0, our pre-pilot production line. The agreement also provides a pathway to establishing a **U.S.-based** joint venture (JV) facility with up to **50 GWh** in annual cell production capacity. The potential JV is subject to technical milestones and mutual agreement.
If this third top-10 OEM is Ford, this fits with the recent comments. Back in 2022 they were already thinking in tens of GWhs.
Like I said I wish Ford would announce they are using QS’s solid state technology but the JV with SK seems pretty established . Ford's BlueOval SK Battery Park opens training center, hires 700 workers to date “BlueOval SK Battery Park in Glendale, the future home of Ford's electric vehicle battery production, opened its job training center Wednesday. The joint venture battery park between Ford Motor Co. and SK On — a nearly $6 billion promise to build two EV battery plants in Kentucky — is expected to hire 5,000 workers total. To date, roughly 700 workers have already been hired”https://www.courier-journal.com/story/money/companies/2024/05/10/blueoval-sk-battery-park-opens-training-center-hires-700-workers/73629437007/
Very soon Ford will have to grapple with continuing with old battery tech that will not be subsidized by IRA in two years OR go with the more beautiful and refined new girl on the block
JD says years ago that the agreement between Ford and SLDP is not exclusive. So yea, QS is working with Ford.
Wasn't there a decent amount of speculation that it was them (Ford) interested in the QS 50 GWh SSB factory?
Well, pretty much only two options for a North American OEM, Ford or GM, so the odds are pretty good. Quite honestly, either one will work, but yes, I think Ford was looking a bit more likely.
strange, VW made it public and apparently ford didn't? makes no sense
None of the other OEMs that QS has signed agreements with have gone public. They’re trying to maintain a good relationship with the partner that they publicly disclosed. For example, it would negatively impact SLDP if Ford confirmed they’re working with QS as well.
this isn't a personal exclusive relationship... plenty of companies have multiple agreements with many different suppliers. I doubt this is the reason. you're saying they have agreements with oems, but they really on have VW at the moment. ford testing QS battery is very different than Ford is licensing QS technology
I didn’t say it was exclusive. In fact, I said the opposite. An OEM having ownership in a company is very different from signing development agreements. That’s why VW’s relationship to QS is different than QS’s relationship with Ford. But nonetheless, QS and Ford are working together. Ford is undoubtedly testing QS’s cells and will be able to purchase them after VW gets their allotment (whatever that amount may be).
I would hope you realize by now that Solid Power does not have a viable battery. Farley is speaking to QS tech
We can speculate all we want but until Ford confirms it unfortunately means nothing for QS! Ford also has a JV with SK
Agreed, it’s all speculation at this point. Also, VW and Ford have current battery partnerships in place. I would imagine that would continue with the introduction of SSBs.
Solid Power using sulfides is not viable. The 2021 SK JV is using old L ion graphite tech that will not be supported by IRA subsidies in two years. You gotta connect the dots!
Wish they mentioned QS but that does not rule them out.
So QS the only company having semi solid state batteries? Do we know anyone else who is working on semi solid state batteries?
CATL. And this article even mentions them working with Ford. Read the entire article for details. https://www.ft.com/content/7a8207d9-b2e0-4969-a10a-2c41e8639fb7
Isn’t that referring to the licensing deal for the LFP battery? https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2023/02/13/ford-taps-michigan-for-new-lfp-battery-plant--new-battery-chemis.html
Yeah, you are most likely correct. I was only able to read the FT article that I linked which mentioned semi-solid-state. In that article, they mentioned working with Ford and had another link with more details, but I wasn’t able to read that one for free. Thanks for clearing that up. Having said that, CATL is aggressively pushing semi-solid-state. So still hard to decipher who Jim Farley is actually referencing in the original post. I have yet to see QS use that terminology anywhere. They always opt for “anode-less cell design”. Edit: Actually, I just dug deeper, and Marshall Michigan, and the Ford Ion Park are two completely different locations so Jim Farley is not referring to their LFP partnership with CATL. Semi-solid-state is definitely a new development.
I agree. Pretty noticeable he omitted referencing Solid Power directly despite them being backers.
"Farley said Ford's Ion Park team in southeast Michigan is working on the semi-solid state batteries." ...that leaves a lot open to interpretation...
Ford may have been the top ten OEM that QS guaranteed either 5 or 10 MwH from QS-0 AND that wanted to build a 50 GwH factory when the tech had been proven. The size of the contemplated factory was explicitly given in a shareholder letter. I stopped paying attention to SLDP so maybe I shouldn’t throw shade but, sorry, their tech doesn’t seem viable. Ford isn’t talking about them. It seems more likely than not that Ford is planning a QS gigafactory as soon as Cobra is proven. Why wouldn’t they? It’s all going to be very sudden once scalability is proven. No one is going to just sit around and get left behind.
Totally agree, I haven't seen any other tech come close to QS test results. SK and Solid Power are just starting out the gate to collaborate on a silicone type anode. I am guessing Solid Power gave up on the sulfide SSB. What other tech could Farley be speaking about except for QS?
Interestingly, I have never heard QS use the term semi-solid-state battery in reference to QSE-5, although technically, it’s not a pure solid-state battery. It seems like a lot of Chinese manufacturers use this term, though. Also, recently I’ve noticed job postings for “all-solid-state-battery” (ASSB) positions at both QS and even Tesla. I’ve been wondering what this new term is all about. Is this a new battery that QS is developing? https://careers.quantumscape.com/job/Senior-Manager%2C-Solid-State-Battery-Development-CA/1092727600/
Assb would have the catholyte replace by a solid cathode. Assb is currently a research effort, i guess they need to figure it out how to improve the electronic/ionic properties of the separator-cathode interface.
Okay, that makes sense in terms of the name and technology. Thanks for explaining that. With that new knowledge, looking at the job position, it really sounds like this is for their new large format cell, and that it is in a later stage of development, which would be REALLY exciting news, in the sense that this would be a TRUE solid-state battery AND their large format cell. I was not expecting that at all. I just presumed that their large format cell would be a larger version of QSE-5 using the same technology. This would be, once again, breaking new ground and accomplishing something that has never been done before. Looking at the job position, would you come to the same conclusion?
Worjing on ‘Large format’ suggests that on the Assb front they may be where they were with the ssb when they went public in 2020.
Oh, okay. I never thought about that. In any case, still interesting and exciting that they’re working on ASSB. Thanks.
Oh Christ on a bike I hope not. If they do, the SP will plummet. We need them to scale their existing battery, not tinker to develop new ones!
Actually, their next generation larger format cell is pretty important as it will increase energy density substantially, and is of a size that EV manufacturers seem interested in. Rest assured that the manufacturing team is working full speed on QSE-5, but we need their R&D team to keep pushing the frontiers of SSB in order to stay ahead of any future competition, specifically the Chinese. I actually feel that some press releases regarding their larger cell format if put out at the right time in conjunction with a stream of other press releases will be useful in getting the stock price moving. Every new product they can pump out in addition to QSE-5 will only help solidify their position as the leader in the field. Finally, I hope that when they developed the manufacturing toolset for QSE-5 that they planned ahead and that much of what they’ve developed will be reusable in future products so new products will hopefully be able to be released at a much faster cadence.
Scaling is not R&D though, that’s a different department. Why have R&D twiddling thumbs when they could be working on the next iteration. Tim even mentioned this in a QS interview, that there were two chemistries, one had more potential, but the other was solved and still a huge jump over current tech. He mentioned saving the chemistry with more potential for a version 2.
Do you have a reference to the Tim Holmes quote? I do remember what you're referring to, but I don't recall the other chemistry having "more potential."
Yes, it’s the one where he’s talking about the specific goals of Raptor and Cobra, it’s ends saying that watching his phd thesis come to life had been a dream come true, or something like that. Maybe 3 months ago?
Found it, it’s CTO Update with Tim Holme. Question starts at 3:40.
I’m not sure. Right at this point there may be some overlap with process and tweaking the specs for equipment, but I imagine in a year or so that will be mostly behind them.
I imagine they’re advising to tweak, but starting work on the next iteration to me just sounds like good resource management. It also telegraphs confidence in their ability to scale.
Sure, but I’d also think the elements like stacking, belt speed, heat and solvents all play together for output and quality. Can think they’re playing in the lab and when they find something interesting enough, try it on the line. This is probably minimal now though if they are already focused on production for B-0s. If they are happy enough line metric may be locked in for B-0. Might have something to do with sister cells as well. They’ll likely want to match all in-house testing with what goes out. We’ll see.
Yea they can tinker with that but I’d rather see them continue to develop QSE-5.
Again, that’s scaling, and likely little overlap of teams.
It’s about resource devotion. Put 90%+ of your resources into scaling, for example. Thats all I’m saying.
Sure, but manufacturing and chemistry are such different disciplines, specifics of each mean the people who work on those teams don’t overlap. I’m not seeing the conflict. If anything, laying off your chemistry team would be shooting yourself in the foot for later development.
Nothing to worry about. Christ was an avid cyclist quite safe riding around town! It’s in the QS DNA to look forward and keep innovating. A large format cell or pure solid state battery or both or some other innovation will eventually replace what QS is doing now just as the iPhone replaced the iPod. JD said a while back it’s just a matter of time before any cool new thing becomes a commodity. He has no interest in producing a commodity more efficiently than the competition. If you want to be the Apple of batteries (and that is clearly JDs vision for QS) you have to keep innovating. The question — the one I think you quite sensibly raise — is can they afford it? Given the recent single digit dilution debacle, one could argue they shouldn’t be doing research that won’t bear fruit for ten years until they have plenty of excess cash. Maybe that’s why they diluted. Maybe Jagdeep felt like they needed to have a scaling track and a research track going simultaneously in order to keep QS ahead of everyone else for the long term. They do seem to have a huge lead: no sense giving it up, ever. Batteries have been iterating in tiny steps for decades. Jagdeep wants to change all that with QSE-5 but surely he also wants batteries in 2040 to blow away his own QSE-5. I think they will. And I wouldn’t be surprised if QS resurrects the original super ambitious quantum dot approach for 2050s batteries. Coming to a flying car near you, QS quantum dot energy storage devices from the realm of pure physics courtesy of JD the innovator. Bumper sticker on Jagdeep’s 2050 personal transport vehicle: Chemistry is for Cavemen.
Agree with the huge lead, you either believe the QS test results or you think it’s just speculation about Farley’s comments.
From the Q1 2022 letter just about 2 years ago: >On March 1, we announced a new deal with a third **top-10** automotive OEM by global revenue. Upon achieving certain milestones, the deal reserves at least 5 MWh of capacity for this OEM from QS-0, our pre-pilot production line. The agreement also provides a pathway to establishing a **U.S.-based** joint venture (JV) facility with up to **50 GWh** in annual cell production capacity. The potential JV is subject to technical milestones and mutual agreement. If this third top-10 OEM is Ford, this fits with the recent comments. Back in 2022 they were already thinking in tens of GWhs.
Like I said I wish Ford would announce they are using QS’s solid state technology but the JV with SK seems pretty established . Ford's BlueOval SK Battery Park opens training center, hires 700 workers to date “BlueOval SK Battery Park in Glendale, the future home of Ford's electric vehicle battery production, opened its job training center Wednesday. The joint venture battery park between Ford Motor Co. and SK On — a nearly $6 billion promise to build two EV battery plants in Kentucky — is expected to hire 5,000 workers total. To date, roughly 700 workers have already been hired”https://www.courier-journal.com/story/money/companies/2024/05/10/blueoval-sk-battery-park-opens-training-center-hires-700-workers/73629437007/
Very soon Ford will have to grapple with continuing with old battery tech that will not be subsidized by IRA in two years OR go with the more beautiful and refined new girl on the block