The 4680 Hits a New Energy Density High // But how does it stack up? 🤠

Welcome back everyone, I'm Jordan Geisigee and this is The Limiting Factor. In the last video I showed the tear down of the Generation 2 4680, or Cyber Cell, that I received from Monroe and Associates. One thing I didn't show in that video was that the battery cell had a voltage of less than half a volt, which meant that it was likely damaged. Due to that damage, doing electronic tests to calculate its energy density would have provided inaccurate results, so we didn't proceed with those tests. That won't stop us of course from doing materials testing on the cell, and I'll release all that data in the next video, but it does mean that we have to look to another source for the energy density of the 4680.

欢迎大家回来，我是Jordan Geisigee，这里是"The Limiting Factor"频道。在上一个视频中，我展示了Monroe and Associates给我的第二代4680电池（也叫Cyber Cell）的拆解过程。但有件事我没在视频中提到，那就是这个电池的电压小于半伏，这意味着它很可能已经损坏。由于这个损坏，如果我们进行电子测试来计算其能量密度，结果会不准确，所以我们没有进行这些测试。当然，这并不会阻止我们对这个电池进行材料测试，我会在下一个视频中发布所有测试数据。不过，这也意味着我们需要从其他来源获取4680电池的能量密度数据。

Luckily, Monroe and Associates shared their own results for the energy density of the Cyber Cell on YouTube, which was 272Wh per kilogram. I was able to contact the person who ran the energy density tests and confirmed that the testing procedure that was used was nearly identical to the procedure that UC San Diego used for the Generation 1 4680 cell, which returned an energy density of 244Wh per kilogram. That means the Generation 2 4680 has an energy density that's 11.5% higher.

幸运的是，Monroe and Associates 在 YouTube 上分享了他们对 Cyber 电池能量密度的测试结果，为每公斤 272 瓦时。我联系到了进行能量密度测试的人，确认他们使用的测试程序几乎与加州大学圣地亚哥分校用于第一代 4680 电池的程序相同，而第一代 4680 电池的能量密度为每公斤 244 瓦时。这意味着第二代 4680 电池的能量密度提高了 11.5%。

The question is, how does that compare to other battery cells on the market? I've decided to devote an entire video to the topic because I found that, as you'll see, the EPA data that much of the Tesla community has been relying on for energy density appears to be highly inconsistent and often inaccurate. After correcting for that, the conclusion I've come to is that, in terms of energy density, the Cyber Cell is significantly better than the average 2170 battery cell, and highly competitive with the cells that Tesla buys from Panasonic, even with generous assumptions. That's not only at the cell level, but also the pack level. Let's get into the video and I'll walk you through exactly how I came to that conclusion.

问题是，这与市场上的其他电池单元相比如何？我决定将整个视频都用于探讨这个话题，因为我发现，如你所见，许多特斯拉社区依赖的EPA数据在能量密度方面显得非常不一致，且常常不准确。在修正这些数据之后，我得出的结论是，Cyber Cell的能量密度显著优于平均的2170电池单元，甚至在一些大致假设下，也能与特斯拉从松下购买的电池单元高度竞争。这不仅仅在电池单元层面，在电池组层面也是如此。让我们进入视频，我会详细解释我是如何得出这个结论的。

Before we begin, a special thanks to my Patreon supporters, YouTube members and Twitter subscribers, as well as RebellionAir.com. They specialize in helping investors manage concentrated positions. RebellionAir can help with covered calls, risk management, and creating a money master plan from your financial first principles.

在我们开始之前，我要特别感谢我的Patreon支持者、YouTube会员和Twitter订阅者，以及RebellionAir.com。他们专注于帮助投资者管理集中头寸。RebellionAir可以帮助处理备兑认购期权、风险管理，并基于您的财务基本原则创建一个理财总体规划。

Much of the data that I've used in the past to benchmark the energy density of Tesla's battery cells was derived from certificates that are publicly available on the EPA website. I'd never questioned that data in the past and assumed it was well vetted, but for my analysis of the Cyber Cell, I decided to double check it to make sure my benchmarks were rock solid.

我过去用来评估特斯拉电池能量密度的许多数据，都是从美国环保署网站公开的证书中获得的。我以前从未质疑这些数据，认为它们经过了充分验证。但在分析Cyber Cell时，我决定重新核实这些数据，以确保我的评估结果非常准确。

That analysis turned up some surprises. To understand that analysis, let's start by doing a quick walkthrough of how I source the EPA data so that if you'd like, you can have a look for yourself and cross-check my analysis. Battery pack data for EVs is contained in the EPA's Transportation and Air Quality Document Index system, or DIS. The compliance document type that it's contained in is the Certificate Summary information, and the manufacturer is Tesla. After hitting the search button, it returns the documents that we're looking for. If we open any of these documents, there are two places where we can find information about the energy capacity of Tesla's battery packs.

那个分析结果出现了一些意外。为了理解这个分析，我们先快速了解一下我是如何获取EPA（美国环境保护署）数据的，这样如果你愿意的话，可以亲自查看并核对我的分析。电动汽车的电池组数据包含在EPA的交通和空气质量文件索引系统（DIS）中。相关的合规文件类型是证书摘要信息，制造商是特斯拉。点击搜索按钮后，我们找到了需要的文件。如果我们打开其中任何一个文件，有两个地方可以找到特斯拉电池组能量容量的信息。

The first is by looking at the end state of charge information, which provides the exact pack energy in kilowatt hours down to the third decimal based on discharge tests. The second, which I became aware of since my last tear down video thanks to Troy Tesla Nikon X, involves multiplying the total voltage of battery packs by the battery energy capacity. That returns an exact figure in watt hours. Then it's just a matter of dividing by 1000 to get kilowatt hours. This page also provides the battery-specific energy, which is in watt hours per kilogram at the pack level. With the EPA data in hand, it's just a matter of combining it with information from tear downs and other public information, such as cell weights and pack weights, to work out most of the key stats of Tesla's battery packs.

第一种方法是通过查看充电状态的最终信息，该信息提供了基于放电测试结果精确到小数点后三位的电池组能量（以千瓦时为单位）。第二种方法是通过观看我的上一期拆解视频后得知的，感谢Troy Tesla Nikon X，他讲解了将电池组的总电压乘以电池的能量容量。这会得到一个精确的瓦时数值，然后只需要除以1000就能得到千瓦时。本页面还提供了电池的比能量，即每公斤电池组的瓦时数。手中有了EPA数据，就可以将这些数据与拆解视频和其它公开信息（例如电池单体重量和电池组重量）结合起来，计算出特斯拉电池组的大多数关键参数。

Let's now take a look at my analysis of the accuracy of the EPA data. In order to interrogate the data, I pulled up the Certificate Summary information for all of Tesla's vehicles and trims, loaded it into a spreadsheet, and began noticing some discrepancies and quirks, which are shown on screen. First, the calculated energy capacity rarely aligns with the end state of charge energy capacity. That doesn't surprise me because my assumption is that the end state of charge capacity is usable energy capacity, or the energy available to the customer. Whereas the calculated energy capacity is the nominal energy capacity, or the total energy including any safety buffers for both overcharging and over discharging. If that's the case, it appears the fields aren't being used correctly, and at the very least aren't being used consistently.

现在让我们来看一下我对EPA数据准确性的分析。为了检查这些数据，我调出了所有特斯拉汽车和车型的证书摘要信息，并将其导入电子表格中。我发现了一些差异和奇怪之处，如屏幕上所示。首先，计算出的能量容量很少与终端充电状态的能量容量一致。这并不让我惊讶，因为我假设终端充电状态下的能量容量是可用的能量容量，或者说是客户可以使用的能量。而计算出的能量容量是标称能量容量，即包括防止过充和过放的安全缓冲在内的总能量。如果是这样的话，这些字段似乎没有被正确使用，至少没有被一致地使用。

That's because I found at least two instances where the calculated energy capacity is the same or lower than the end state of charge capacity. If calculated energy capacity is meant to show nominal or total energy capacity, that figure should always be higher than the end state of charge or usable energy capacity figure. Second, the pack level energy density figures are inconsistent. For example, as far as I'm aware, the 2021 Model Y and Model 3 long-range vehicles use the same battery pack. That's so Tesla could use the packs interchangeably and maximize economies of scale. However, the Model Y pack shows 180Wh per kilogram, and the Model 3 pack shows 165Wh per kilogram, which doesn't make sense if it's the same pack. I think both of those numbers are wrong and I'll provide my own estimate later in the video.

这是因为我发现至少有两次计算的能量容量与最终的充电状态容量相同或更低。如果计算的能量容量是要表示标称或总能量容量，那么这个数字应该总是高于最终的充电状态容量或可用能量容量。其次，电池组层级的能量密度数据不一致。举个例子，据我所知，2021款的Model Y和Model 3长续航版本使用的是同样的电池组。这是为了让特斯拉可以互换使用这些电池组，并最大化规模经济效益。然而，Model Y的电池组显示每公斤180瓦时，而Model 3的电池组显示每公斤165瓦时，这不合理，如果它们是同一个电池组。我认为这两个数据都是错误的，我会在视频后面提供我自己的估算。

Third, even if the end state of charge figure is meant to show usable energy capacity, it doesn't seem to align with other data sources. For example, for the 2021 US-made long-range Model 3 that uses Panasonic battery cells, which I have, the TESSI app shows that the average original capacity is 77.8KWh of usable energy capacity. Note the 81KWh showing in the 2021 EPA documents. That TESSI data is backed up by several charging tests that can be found online, including this one by Out of Spec Reviews, which shows 76KWh of usable energy capacity for the 2021 US-made long-range Model Y, which had the same battery pack as the Model 3. Although 76KWh is lower than what's showing in the TESSI app by 2KWh, the vehicle has had 13,000 miles on it, which means it would have seen about 2 to 3KWh of initial capacity loss.

第三，即使终止充电状态的数字是为了显示可用的能量容量，它似乎与其他数据来源不一致。例如，我的2021年美国生产的长续航版Model 3使用松下电池，TESSI应用程序显示其平均原始容量为77.8千瓦时的可用能量容量。注意，2021年EPA文件中显示的是81千瓦时。TESSI的数据得到了几个在线充电测试的支持，包括Out of Spec Reviews的这个测试，显示2021年美国生产的长续航版Model Y的可用能量容量为76千瓦时，Model Y和Model 3使用了相同的电池组。尽管76千瓦时比TESSI应用程序中显示的少了2千瓦时，但这辆车已经行驶了13,000英里，这意味着它可能已经损失了约2到3千瓦时的初始容量。

With all that in mind, it leaves me with two takeaways. First, we can't blindly rely on the EPA data. If we do use a figure from the EPA documents, it needs to be carefully selected and with an explanation of why it was used. Second, the only way to get a true measure of a battery cell or pack is from sources like Monroe and Associates or UC San Diego, where we can guarantee an Apple's-to-Apple's comparison by controlling for testing conditions. Now that we have an understanding of the EPA data, let's take a look at my energy density table. For the generation 1 4680 cell, all of the data was from testing by UC San Diego, so it's a solid benchmark. For the generation 2 4680 cell, the nominal energy density of 272Wh per kilogram was from Monroe and Associates.

考虑到这一切，我有两个结论。首先，我们不能盲目依赖EPA（美国环境保护署）的数据。如果我们确实要使用EPA文件中的某个数据，就必须仔细选择，并解释为什么使用它。其次，要真正测量电池单元或电池组的性能，只能依赖像Monroe and Associates或加州大学圣迭戈分校这样的来源，因为他们能够通过控制测试条件来确保苹果对苹果的对比。现在我们对EPA数据有了一定的了解，让我们来看一下我的能量密度表。对于第一代的4680电池单元，所有数据都来自加州大学圣迭戈分校的测试，因此是一个可靠的基准。对于第二代的4680电池单元，272瓦时每千克的标称能量密度来自Monroe and Associates。

For the usable energy density, I used the 122.4KWh calculated pack energy from the EPA documents, divided it by 1,344 battery cells in the Cybertruck pack, and then divided it again by the cell weight, which is 350 grams or 0.35 kilograms. The end result was 260Wh per kilogram. In this instance, why did I use the 122.4KWh figure from the EPA document? Because real-world charge tests of the Cybertruck showed that from 0 to 100%, the total charge replenished came to 122KWh, so it matches the EPA documentation and provides double verification. Next, let's skip to the LG 2170 battery cell, which has been used in China-made, long-range Tesla Model 3s and WISE. Once again, all of the data shown here was from UC San Diego, so it's a reliable benchmark.

为了计算可用能量密度，我使用了EPA文件中计算出的122.4千瓦时的电池组能量，将其除以Cybertruck电池组中的1,344个电池单元，然后再除以每个电池单元的重量，即350克或0.35千克，最终得出每千克260瓦时。在这种情况下，我为什么使用了EPA文件中的122.4千瓦时的数字？因为实际的Cybertruck充电测试显示，从0到100%的充电量总共是122千瓦时，所以这与EPA文件一致，并提供了双重验证。接下来，我们跳到LG 2170电池单元，它已经被用于中国制造的长续航版特斯拉Model 3和Model Y。同样，这里显示的所有数据都来自加州大学圣地亚哥分校，因此这是一个可靠的基准。

That finally brings us to the Panasonic 2170 cell, which many people consider the gold standard for energy density when it comes to Tesla vehicles. The nominal energy density of this cell is often said to be around 280Wh per kilogram, but I couldn't find any reliable data that backed that up. Let's take a look at my calculation. For the usable energy capacity, as I showed earlier, according to Tessie, the average original capacity of a long-range Model 3 battery pack using Panasonic cells is 77.8KWh. That pack contains 4,416 cells, and each cell weighs at minimum around 68 grams each. The cells are actually probably more like 69 grams each. That means, aspirationally, the usable cell-level energy density of the Panasonic 2170 cells is 259Wh per kilogram, which is surprisingly a tad lower than the cybercell's usable energy density of 260Wh per kilogram.

这最终引出了松下的2170电池，许多人认为这是特斯拉车辆在能量密度方面的金标准。通常说这种电池的标称能量密度大约是每公斤280瓦时，但我找不到任何可靠的数据来支持这一说法。让我们来看一下我的计算。根据Tessie所示，使用松下电池的长续航版Model 3电池组的平均原始容量是77.8千瓦时。这个电池组包含4,416个电池，每个电池的重量最少大约是68克。实际上，这些电池的重量可能更接近69克。这意味着，理想情况下，松下2170电池的可用能量密度是每公斤259瓦时，这竟然比Cybercell的每公斤260瓦时的可用能量密度还要略低一些。

For the nominal energy capacity across multiple sources, the most common figure I've seen claimed for the long-range Model 3 and why is 82KWh, which would mean at the cell level, the total energy density would be 273Wh per kilogram. Again, I think that's generous because the cell is probably slightly heavier than I've listed here. What all this means is that the second-generation 4680 cell is right up there with what many people consider the best high-nickel battery cell that's used in Tesla vehicles. It's 272Wh per kilogram compared to 273Wh per kilogram for Panasonic, which as far as I'm aware is so far untested and may actually be lower.

在多个来源中，声称长续航版Model 3的名义能量容量最常见的数字是82千瓦时，这意味着在电芯层面，总能量密度为每公斤273瓦时。我认为这个数字很慷慨，因为电芯的实际重量可能稍微重于此。所有这些意味着第二代4680电芯与许多人认为的特斯拉车辆中使用的最好的高镍电池电芯不相上下。它的能量密度为每公斤272瓦时，而松下电池的能量密度则为每公斤273瓦时，至今我知道的是，后者尚未经过测试，实际数值可能更低。

As a side note, yes, there are other cells on the market with higher energy density, but at least for the time being, the vast majority won't meet Tesla's requirements in terms of other factors, like cost, cycle life, charging speed, form factor, or availability. Moving along, cell-level energy density is one thing, but what really matters is pack-level energy density. The EPA documentation states that the Cybertruck battery pack is 170Wh per kilogram. That information appears to be reliable because it's backed up by battery passport information, which includes a weight figure. A 721 kilogram battery pack with an energy density of 170Wh per kilogram would have a total pack energy of 122.6 kilowatt hours, which is right in line with the 122.4 kilowatt hours from the EPA documentation.

顺便提一下，确实市面上有能量密度更高的电池，但至少目前，大多数电池在其他方面（例如成本、循环寿命、充电速度、形状或供应情况）都无法满足特斯拉的要求。继续说，单体电池的能量密度是一回事，但真正重要的是电池包的能量密度。根据环保署（EPA）的文件，Cybertruck的电池包能量密度为每公斤170瓦时。这一信息似乎是可靠的，因为它有电池护照信息支持，其中包括了重量数据。一个重量为721公斤、能量密度为每公斤170瓦时的电池包，其总能量为122.6千瓦时，这与EPA文件中的122.4千瓦时数据非常吻合。

It also aligns with the 122 kilowatt hours we've seen in real-world charge tests, which means that 170Wh per kilogram appears to be usable energy density. That means the nominal or total energy density would actually be higher. At the cell level, if the ratio of usable to nominal energy density is 95.5%, that means the nominal energy density of the Cybertruck pack is more like 178Wh per kilogram. How does that compare to Tesla's other battery packs? As I showed earlier, for the 2021 Model 3 and Y that used the Panasonic 2170 cell, despite presumably sharing a common pack, one has an energy density listed of 165Wh per kilogram and the other 180Wh per kilogram.

这也与我们在实际充电测试中看到的122千瓦时一致，这意味着每公斤170瓦时的能量密度是可用的。这意味着标称或总能量密度实际上会更高。在电池单元层面上，如果可用能量密度与标称能量密度的比率是95.5%，那么Cybertruck电池组的标称能量密度大约是每公斤178瓦时。那这与特斯拉的其他电池组相比如何呢？正如我之前所展示的，对于2021款的Model 3和Model Y，它们使用了松下2170电池单元，尽管假设共享一个电池组，但一个的能量密度列为每公斤165瓦时，而另一个是每公斤180瓦时。

So what's the reality? BatteryDesign.net, which I find to be reliable, calculated the energy density to be 171Wh per kilogram. That was based off a total capacity of 82KWh, which matches my assumptions and a pack weight of 481 kilograms. If that's all correct, then the energy density of the Cybertruck battery pack is higher than the 2170 battery packs that use Panasonic battery cells and by a solid 4% margin. What about the Model S, which according to the EPA data is 186Wh per kilogram? Most of the plaid Model S show that the battery pack can accept at least 96KWh, but it's probably closer to the 96.9KWh listed in the battery management system. The EPA documents show 97.8KWh, which is, as I often saw in these documents, on the high side by about a kilowatt hour, or 1%. I suspect the same is true for the calculated energy capacity of 104.5KWh. It translates to a pack-level energy density of 184Wh per kilogram rather than 186Wh per kilogram.

那么，现实是什么呢？我认为可靠的BatteryDesign.net计算出的能量密度为每千克171瓦时。这是基于总容量82千瓦时和电池组重量481千克的假设。如果这些都正确，那么Cybertruck电池组的能量密度比采用松下电池的2170电池组高出4%。那么Model S呢？根据环保署的数据，它的能量密度为每千克186瓦时。大多数Plaid版的Model S显示电池组至少可以接受96千瓦时，但更接近于电池管理系统中列出的96.9千瓦时。环保署的文件显示为97.8千瓦时，这通常比实际值高出约1千瓦时或1%。我怀疑同样的情况也适用于计算出的104.5千瓦时的能量容量，这意味着其电池组的能量密度是每千克184瓦时，而不是186瓦时。

But it could be even lower. Monroe and Associates claim the plaid battery pack has an energy density of 181.5Wh per kilogram. However, I don't know how Monroe calculated that figure, so I'll be using 184Wh per kilogram instead to give the plaid battery pack the benefit of the doubt. That means the plaid battery pack only has about a 3% advantage over the Cybertruck battery pack. Considering that the plaid pack has been through several revisions over the past decade to reach this point and Tesla's structural battery pack is only on its second revision in two years, Tesla's making excellent progress. That's especially true if we take into consideration other factors beyond pack-level energy density.

但是它可能还会更低。Monroe和Associates公司声称Plaid电池组的能量密度为每公斤181.5瓦时。然而，我不知道Monroe是如何计算出这个数字的，所以我将使用每公斤184瓦时来给予Plaid电池组一些信任。这意味着Plaid电池组只比Cybertruck电池组多了大约3%的优势。考虑到Plaid电池组在过去十年中经历了多次修订才达到现在的水平，而特斯拉的结构电池组在两年内仅进行了第二次修订，特斯拉的进展非常显著。特别是如果我们考虑到除了电池组层面的能量密度之外的其他因素。

What do I mean by that? First, the 4680 pack is cheaper and easier to assemble than Tesla's other high-nickel battery packs. That's because, among other things, it uses battery cells that hold about 5 times more energy, which means 80% fewer parts, which in turn means fewer welds and faster manufacturing speeds. Second, the plaid Model S uses a bulky structural floor pan above the lid of the battery pack, which is redundant and adds weight. For the Cybertruck, the top of the battery pack is the floor, which cuts a lot of weight. That means despite the slightly lower energy density of the structural battery pack in the Cybertruck, it reduces weight at the vehicle level by replacing part of the vehicle structure.

我的意思是什么？首先，4680电池组比特斯拉其他高镍电池组更便宜且更容易组装。原因之一是它使用的电池单元储能量大约是普通电池的5倍，这意味着零件数量减少了80%，从而减少了焊接点并加快了制造速度。其次，Plaid Model S使用一个笨重的结构地板，位于电池组的顶盖上方，这既多余又增加了重量。而在Cybertruck中，电池组的顶部就是车辆的地板，这大大减轻了重量。这意味着尽管Cybertruck的结构电池组能量密度稍低，但它通过替代部分车辆结构，在整车层面上减轻了重量。

Third, because the Cybertruck bolts the seats directly to the battery pack, it makes the vehicle faster and easier to manufacture, because the seats can just be lifted into the cabin on top of the battery pack. That's as opposed to the Model S, where the seats have to be awkwardly shoehorned in as a separate manufacturing step. As a side note, my guess is that the reason why the measured energy density figures in the EPA documents often come in 1-2kWh over what customers are finding is that for the EPA and state of charge, they could be draining the battery packs past 0% until they die. However, if that were true, it should also be true for the Cybertruck, but it's not, because the EPA and customer data matches. Once again, there seems to be some inconsistency, either in how the testing is being done or how the EPA documents are being completed.

第三，因为Cybertruck直接将座椅固定在电池组上，这使得车辆的制造速度更快、更容易。座椅可以直接放到电池组顶部并抬进车厢内。而在Model S中，座椅需要作为一个独立步骤被笨拙地装进去。顺便提一下，我猜测EPA文件中测得的能量密度数字比客户实际使用中高出1-2kWh的原因是，EPA在测试电量和电池状态时，可能将电池电量耗尽到0%以至于电池彻底没电。然而，如果这种情况属实，那么它也应该适用于Cybertruck，但事实并非如此，因为EPA和客户数据是一致的。再一次说明，测试方法或EPA文件的编写过程似乎存在某种不一致。

In summary, at the cell level, Tesla's Generation 2 4680, or Cybert cell, is on par with the Panasonic 2170, which is the highest energy density battery cell that Tesla currently sources from their suppliers. At the pack level, my view is that the battery pack used in the Cybertruck is now the best high energy density battery pack in Tesla's fleet. That's because although it doesn't have the highest energy density at the pack level, it saves weight at the vehicle level and will be cheaper and easier to manufacture thanks to 80% fewer cells. Beyond that, given that this is only the second iteration of the 4680 battery pack, there's likely still more room for optimization. Overall, the cell and pack level energy density results were a nice surprise, because I had assumed that the Generation 2 4680 cell and pack were still about 6 to 9% lower than the high nickel cells and packs used in Tesla's other vehicles. But a closer interrogation of the EPA data shows that those assumptions were likely incorrect. As always, if I'm incorrect here and I've made an error in my calculations, let me know in the comments below.

总结一下，从电芯层面来看，特斯拉的第二代4680电池（又称Cyber​​电池）与松下2170电池相当，后者是特斯拉目前从供应商处采购的能量密度最高的电池芯。而在电池包层面，我认为现在用于Cybertruck的电池包是特斯拉车队中最高能量密度的电池包。尽管它在电池包层面的能量密度不是最高的，但由于车用电池数量减少了80%，这可以节省车辆重量，并且生产成本更低，制造也更容易。另外，考虑到这是4680电池包的第二代版本，仍有更多优化空间。总的来说，电芯和电池包层面的能量密度结果是个惊喜，因为我原以为第二代4680电池的能量密度比特斯拉在其他车型中使用的高镍电池和电池包低6%到9%左右。但仔细查看EPA数据后发现，这些假设可能不正确。如果我这里有错误计算，请在评论中告诉我。

With all that in mind, the next question is, how did Tesla achieve such high energy density with their 4680 cell in terms of both design and chemistry and what are the implications? That's what I'll cover in the next video in two weeks, so stay tuned. If you enjoyed this video, please consider supporting the channel by using the links in the description. Also consider following me on X. I often use X as a testbed for sharing ideas, and X subscribers like my Patreon supporters generally get access to my videos a week early. On that note, a special thanks to my YouTube members, X subscribers, and all the other patrons listed in the credits. I appreciate all of your support, and thanks for tuning in.

考虑到以上这些，下一个问题是，特斯拉是如何通过设计和化学手段实现其4680电池如此高的能量密度的，又有什么意义？我将在两周后的下一个视频中讨论这个问题，请大家继续关注。如果你喜欢这个视频，请考虑通过描述中的链接支持我的频道。还可以考虑关注我在X上的动态。我经常使用X平台来分享想法，X的订阅用户和我的Patreon支持者一样，一般可以提前一周看到我的视频。在这里，我要特别感谢我的YouTube会员、X订阅用户和所有在片尾字幕中列出的赞助者。感谢大家的支持，谢谢收看。