以下是内容翻译： The Limiting Factor 的 Jordan Geisigee 分析了特斯拉生产和使用 LFP（磷酸铁锂）4680 电池的可能性，特别是为 CyberCab 设计的。他深入探讨了 LFP 4680 电池是否可行，因为普遍认为 LFP 化学性质更适合于能量密度较低的方形（prismatic）电池。尽管存在这种明显的局限性，Geisigee 认为 LFP 4680 仍然具有吸引力，主要原因是成本节约、寿命以及供应链方面的考虑。 他首先指出，特斯拉可能正在努力制造自己的 LFP 电池。他引用了一项专利申请，该专利详细介绍了特斯拉的阴极生产工艺，明确提到了 LFP 阴极材料的生产。他还引用了前特斯拉高管 Drew Baglino 的评论，他建议美国和欧洲的 LFP 供应链应该采用特斯拉的专利方法，以降低成本，避免从中国进口。进一步调查发明人后发现，特斯拉已经进行了多次 LFP 阴极材料的试点和生产试验，表明其有商业化内部 LFP 电芯生产的强烈意愿。 针对电池外形尺寸的争论，Geisigee 重新审视了特斯拉过去关于 LFP 电池的声明。他承认埃隆·马斯克和 Drew Baglino 都曾表示 4680 并非适用于所有情况的终极外形尺寸，特别是对于铁基电池而言。然而，他将此解读为并非完全拒绝 LFP 4680，而是基于特定用例考虑最佳外形尺寸。 Geisigee 引用了一份报告，该报告称特斯拉计划推出四个版本的 4680 电池，其中包括一款适用于 CyberCab 的主力电池，LFP 化学体系最适合于这种电池。 他承认特斯拉可能正在从 CATL 采购设备，用于生产用于 Megapack 的方形 LFP 电池。虽然承认可以使用方形电池用于电动汽车，但他认为这种可能性较小，因为电网储能和电动汽车应用对电池尺寸的要求不同。电动汽车电池组需要较小的电池串联连接以实现高电压，而 Megapack 可以使用较大的电池。 LFP 4680 的核心论点围绕成本展开。Geisigee 断言，CyberCab 电池组的主要要求将是每千瓦时每循环的成本，这意味着最便宜且循环寿命最长的电池将胜出。LFP 4680 有可能在这方面表现出色，它结合了最低成本的化学体系、相对低成本的圆柱形电池外形以及特斯拉潜在的低成本干电极涂层制造工艺。 Geisigee 指出了 LFP 4680 的成本劣势，例如由于电池尺寸较小，电池组中需要更多的电芯和焊接点，以及中国在精炼电池材料方面的优势。然而，他认为额外的焊接成本将是最低的，并且特斯拉的垂直整合努力旨在降低与运输、关税和利润率相关的成本。最终，特斯拉 LFP 4680 电池组有望成为市场上最便宜的电动汽车电池组之一。 他研究了使用镍基电池与 LFP 电池的长期成本影响，特别是考虑到 LFP 能量密度较低导致的电力消耗。他的计算表明，镍基电池在节约电力方面略有成本优势，但会被镍基电池组更高的初始成本所抵消，尤其是考虑到 LFP 更长的循环寿命时。他还指出，特斯拉可以改进技术，使高循环寿命的镍基电池技术同样应用于LFP电池，从而进一步降低每千瓦时每循环的成本。 Geisigee 指出，LFP 电池不含钴，与含钴的镍基电池相比，它们更容易被公众接受。此外，LFP 阴极无毒，可以减少长期处置对环境的影响，但是，与镍基电池组一样，它们仍然会被回收以获取其他有价值的材料。作者还指出，特斯拉已经申请了一种混合阴极的专利，通过添加少量不含钴的镍材料（占阴极的 2-3%），可以在不增加显著成本的情况下提高循环寿命。 Geisigee 解决了 LFP 电芯能量密度较低的问题，估计配备 LFP 的车辆的续航里程约为使用镍基电池的同类车辆的 63%。然而，他指出特斯拉的车辆经过工程设计，具有很高的效率，并且可以进行调整以弥补能量密度较低的缺陷。他认为使用 LFP 4680 电芯的 CyberCab 可以拥有超过 300 英里的续航里程，超过特斯拉 200 英里续航里程的目标。 最后，他列出了 LFP 4680 电池的其他优点，包括其固有的安全性、潜在的结构刚性、易于温度控制以及商业使用周期的耐久性。他总结说，LFP 4680 可能是成本最低、最安全、最耐用的电池组。他预测，如果特斯拉镍基 4680 电芯的量产顺利进行，那么明年可能会看到 LFP 4680 的出现。

Jordan Geisigee of The Limiting Factor analyzes the potential for Tesla to produce and utilize an LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) 4680 battery cell, specifically for the CyberCab. He dives deep into whether an LFP 4680 battery is plausible considering common perceptions that LFP chemistry is better suited for prismatic form factors due to their lower energy density. Despite this apparent limitation, Geisigee argues that an LFP 4680 presents a compelling case, primarily driven by cost savings, longevity, and supply chain considerations. He starts by stating that Tesla is probably working on manufacturing their own LFP batteries. He refers to a patent application detailing Tesla's cathode production process, explicitly mentioning the production of LFP cathode material. He backs this up with former Tesla executive Drew Baglino's comment suggesting that US and European LFP supply chains should adopt Tesla's patented approach to reduce costs compared to importing from China. Further investigation into the inventors reveals that Tesla has run multiple pilot and production trials of LFP cathode material, indicating a serious intent to commercialize in-house LFP cell production. Addressing the form factor debate, Geisigee re-examines past statements from Tesla regarding LFP batteries. He acknowledges Elon Musk and Drew Baglino's comments suggesting that 4680 is not the ultimate form factor for everything, particularly iron-based cells. However, he interprets this not as a complete rejection of LFP 4680, but rather as a consideration of the optimal form factor based on specific use cases. Geisigee references a report that Tesla plans on introducing four versions of the 4680 cell, including a workhorse cell for the CyberCab, which an LFP chemistry is best suited for. He acknowledges that Tesla may be purchasing equipment from CATL to produce prismatic LFP cells for megapacks. While acknowledging the possibility of using the prismatic cells for EVs, he considers it less likely given the difference in cell size requirements between grid storage and EV applications. EV battery packs require smaller cells wired in series to achieve high voltage, while megapacks can use larger cells. The core argument for the LFP 4680 revolves around cost. Geisigee asserts that the primary requirement for the CyberCab battery pack will be cost per kilowatt-hour per cycle, meaning the cheapest battery with the highest cycle life will win. An LFP 4680 could potentially excel in this metric, combining the lowest cost chemistry with a relatively low-cost cylindrical form factor and Tesla's potentially lower-cost dry electrode coating manufacturing process. Geisigee addresses the cost disadvantages of an LFP 4680, like the need for more cells and welds in a pack due to smaller cell size, and China’s dominance over refined battery materials. However, he argues that the cost from additional welding would be minimal, and that Tesla's vertical integration efforts aim to reduce costs associated with shipping, tariffs, and profit margins. Ultimately, a Tesla LFP 4680 pack is posed to be one of the cheapest EV battery packs available. He examines the long-term cost implications of using nickel-based cells versus LFP, specifically regarding electricity consumption due to the lower energy density of LFP. His calculations show a slight cost advantage for nickel cells in terms of electricity savings, but this is offset by the higher initial cost of a nickel battery pack, especially when the longer cycle life of LFP is factored in. He also points out that Tesla could apply improvements to make high-cycle life nickel cells to making LFP cells last even longer, reducing their cost per kilowatt-hour per cycle even further. Geisigee notes that LFP batteries are cobalt free, making them more publicly palatable than cobalt-containing nickel batteries. Also, LFP cathodes are nontoxic, potentially reducing the long-term environmental impact of disposal, however, like nickel battery packs, they would still be recycled for other valuable materials. The author also notes that Tesla has patented a hybrid cathode by adding a small amount of cobalt-free nickel material (2-3% of the cathode) it would increase the cycle life without adding significant cost. Geisigee addresses the issue of lower energy density in LFP cells, estimating that an LFP-equipped vehicle would have approximately 63% of the range of a comparable vehicle using nickel-based cells. However, he points out that Tesla's vehicles are engineered for high efficiency and that adjustments can be made to compensate for the lower energy density. He believes a cybercab using LFP 4680 cells could have more than 300 miles of range, more than Tesla’s goal of 200 miles of range. Finally, he lists other advantages of LFP 4680 cells, including their inherent safety, potential for structural rigidity, ease of temperature control, and durability for commercial duty cycles. He concludes that an LFP 4680 could be the lowest cost, safest, and most durable battery pack. He predicts that if Tesla’s nickel-based 4680 cell ramp-up goes well, a LFP 4680 could be seen next year.