Welcome back everyone, I'm Jordan Gisegi, and this is the limiting factor. One of the biggest surprises of investor day was Tesla's claim that the motor and their next generation platform will be using no rare earth metals. I see three pathways for Tesla to do that. First, by using next generation iron nitride magnets from Niron Magnetics. Second, by developing their own in-house magnet material with their world class materials team. And third, by leveraging their in-house software to develop a motor using cheap, low-strength fairite magnets instead. As you can guess by the thumbnail, my money is on the fairite magnets. So today, I'm going to walk you through how I came to that conclusion. Before we begin, a special thanks to my Patreon supporters and YouTube members. This is the support that gives me the freedom to avoid chasing the algorithm and sponsors. As always, the links for support are in the description.
First, what's a rare earth metal? Rare earth is a term that's archaic and not accurate. As you can see in this image, some rare earths like Neodymium are actually about as common as copper. So why are they called rare? Two reasons. First, it's because they tend not to form rich, highly concentrated deposits. It makes them more expensive to mine because there's more dirt and rock to sort through to get to the rare earths. Second, their chemical properties are similar to each other, which makes them difficult to chemically isolate and extract. That means additional process steps are required to tease each element from the mind material, which means they're also expensive to refine. The combination of the high mining and refining costs means some rare earths can cost hundreds of dollars per kilogram. However, because rare earths have so many useful and unique properties that make them well suited to high dollar products such as EV motors, wind turbines, and cell phones, companies are willing to bear the high costs.
With regards to the earth part of rare earths, earth is an archaic term for materials that couldn't be altered by the heat sources available thousands of years ago, but rather could be altered through other means, such as acid. And because rare earth elements are usually bound up as oxides that dissolve in acid, they were called earths. So why is it a big deal that Tesla's removing rare earths from their next generation motor? Several reasons. First, as I said a moment ago, they're expensive. The second reason is scalability, that a man for rare earths will double in the next decade. That's only a 6.9% growth rate, but it's difficult to open and or expand mining operations to extract and refine rare earths. If Tesla wants to continue growing at 50% per year, it'll make their life a lot easier if they can find an alternative to rare earths, that's easier to scale. The third reason that Tesla's moving away from rare earths is environmental. On the mining end, their mind and large open pits that are disruptive to ecosystems, and on the refining end, they require large volumes of noxious chemicals for processing.
So for rare earths have so many drawbacks, why does Tesla use them in their motors in the first place? Rare earths like neodymium, which is the primary rare earth in EV motors, have high magnetic strength and high coercivity. High coercivity means that neodymium can be exposed to strong magnetic fields and still maintain its own magnetic field. That is, it's difficult to demagnetize. One measure of magnetic strength is mega-cost or stents, or MGE units, but it also indirectly measures coercivity because a magnet with a higher MGE value will generally have a higher coercivity as well. However, that varies between magnet times. We'll come back to that later. As a side note, my area of expertise is generally batteries rather than magnets and motors, so if I'm getting anything fundamentally incorrect here, let me know in the comments below.
Neodymium or NDFEB magnets are typically around 35-40 MGE, which puts them towards the top of the performance range for magnets, but they're also cheaper per unit of MGE than most of the other magnet options. So for the price, neodymium magnets are powerful and stable, which makes them the best choice for high efficiency, high power motors at a reasonable price.
However, as you can see, there is one other potential option here when it comes to cost per performance, which is ferrite magnets. But with an MGE of around only four, ferrite's lack of magnetic strength and stability means it's difficult to make an EV motor with it, the high efficiency and high power.
What all this means is that if Tesla wants to move away from rare earth magnets like neodymium, they have two options. First, find a new, high MGE low-cost material that's a drop-in replacement for rare earths. Second, there's no first principles reason why ferrite can't be used for an EV motor. So Tesla could invest the engineering resources to make that happen. They could do some combination of these two, but I won't get into that today because there's so many possibilities and it wouldn't provide much additional insight.
With that background out of the way, let's get into the technical and practical details of each of those options. First, there's been a lot of chatter about a company called Niron. Niron claims to be able to make a magnet out of iron nitride, which is just iron and nitrogen that's better in every respect than neodymium magnets. Iron nitride has a long history. It was discovered in 1951, explored as a magnetic material in the 1970s and 1990s, and now Niron intends to bring it to full commercial reality.
Let's look at Niron's performance and commercialization plans. First, in early 2022, Niron said that they were going to start sending out small samples of their iron nitride products so that commercial partners could assess their technology. Second, I found articles from both 2021 and 2022 saying that Niron had begun construction of a pilot facility that should have been completed in 2022. I couldn't find confirmation that's happened yet, but rather they still seem to be pooling funds for pilot production. I reached out to Niron to gain clarity here, but didn't receive a response.
Third, their intent is to offer their first commercial product in late 2024 with an MGE of 10, which is suitable for some motors but not to directly replace rare earths and EV motors. Rather, these magnets are better suited to other applications like speakers and sensors. Following that, they intend to roll out their second commercial product in 2025 with an MGE of 30, which could be a suitable replacement for neodymium and electric motors. More on that in a moment.
What all this tells me is that there appears to be a misalignment between Niron's plans and Tesla's plans. Based on the public statements by Tesla, their Mexico factory is expected to be in production next year, and that's likely where vehicles using Tesla's next-generation motor will be produced. If Niron's most current advice is correct, they plan on being in pilot production producing 10 MGE magnets in 2024.
Let's look at the two misalignments that it creates. First, because those magnets are only 10 MGE, they wouldn't be a suitable drop in replacement for neodymium and would require a completely reworked motor. At that point, if Tesla has to redesign the motor anyways to use weaker magnets, they may as well use ferrite. Yes, Niron does have plans for a 30 MGE magnet that's competitive with automotive grade neodymium in 2025, but that appears to be too little too late. Tesla already has estimates for the factory footprint and cost for their next-generation rare earth-free motor, which means that not only is the motor designed, but likely also the production system for the motor. That is, it's in the final stages of commercialization and has likely been in development for years. Beyond that, Tesla's already removed a lot of the rare earths from their motors, and that's past tense. They did it without any help from Niron. As far as we can tell, no new materials were required, just better engineering with better motor design software.
The second misalignment between Niron and Tesla is that Tesla's a global behemoth that will require an enormous amount of material for even one compact vehicle line producing a million units per year. It's doubtful that Niron's pilot-scale facility will be able to handle that kind of volume.
Some might argue that Tesla could license Niron's technology and manufacture the iron nitride magnets themselves. However, in my view, that argument quickly falls over because there's nothing there to license. Niron's magnets aren't commercially proven, and neither is the manufacturing process to produce those magnets.
But let's assume Tesla decided to try some type of licensing deal anyways. That would mean solving the manufacturing challenges of bringing iron nitride to market while Niron themselves would be doing the same for the pilot plant. That would be a duplication of effort and a waste of resources. It would make more sense for Tesla to just buy Niron and combine forces.
Even then, it would still be a stretch to manufacture enough material from that pilot plant by 2024 for hundreds of thousands of vehicles. Beyond that, licensing also poses capture risks. Tesla wants to be the master of their own destiny.
If Tesla was a licensee of Niron, Niron could wag the dog or make Tesla's life difficult. This is part of the reason why Tesla gave mobile-y the boot years ago and started developing their own in-house self-driving software, why they prefer to use highly available materials and why they're increasingly vertically integrated.
Anything mission-critical can't be left to chance. Even if the relationship between Niron and Tesla was excellent, Niron would still represent a single point of failure that's outside of Tesla's full control. With that in mind, I view it as unlikely that Tesla would trust the ramp of arguably their most important vehicle ever to a product that's never been manufactured at scale.
But there's one more nail in the coffin for collaboration between Niron and Tesla. Earlier, I said that MGE measures magnetic strength directly and is generally a good indicator of coercivity, which is the ability to resist demagnetization. Fire nitride is the exception to that rule.
As per the CEO of Niron, their 2025 product will have the coercivity of ferrite. That comments a big deal because ferrite has relatively low coercivity. Low coercivity is one of the main reasons why ferrite isn't used in EV motors. Ferrites tend to demagnetize which causes the motor to lose power.
As we'll see later in the video, that's a solvable problem, but it means that Niron's magnets are definitely not a direct replacement for neodymium and would require a lot of engineering effort to adapt to EV motors.
So as an interim summary, I think what Niron's doing is impressive and useful for the world. And more broadly, I'm excited to see the commercialization of the first new class of magnet material in decades. However, just because a technology is exciting doesn't mean that it can and will immediately be used for everything. Niron still has to prove that their iron nitride technology is a good choice for EV motors, improve its performance characteristics, and improve that it can be scaled. And in my view, that could take years.
Let's look at the second option for Tesla, which is leveraging their in-house materials team to produce a magnet material of their own design, whether that be iron nitride or something else. Tesla's materials team is actually a shared team with SpaceX and it's one of the best materials teams in the world.
It consistently pull rabbits out of hats from the Pika ablite of material used on the dragon capsule to the stainless steel used on starship and cybertruck to the special alloy used in their gigapresses to make gigacastings. In my view, it's certainly possible that Tesla could make their own magnet material, but it has a similar likelihood to Tesla using Niron magnets, which is low.
Let's look at the arguments for and against Tesla developing their own magnet material. As Elon said at Battery Day, the materials team is working on a number of materials that they're not ready to share. Although developing magnetic materials is one of the most difficult challenges Tesla's materials team could undertake, it's been clear for over a decade that rare earths would eventually become a bottleneck.
That is, it's a problem they've had time to work on, and there's no reason for Tesla to in-source a material, part or software package when they can do it in-house, better and cheaper, and be the master of their own destiny. That's the point of having one of the best materials teams in the world if you don't use it. The only good reason would be that you have a better idea, but we'll come back to that in a moment.
The first argument against Tesla developing their own iron nitride material would be that Niron has been working on iron nitride magnets for over a decade, and they have patents which would protect their technology.
My view is that too many people assume that because a company has a patent on something, it's game over for everyone else. And what I've seen, there are generally ways to sidestep patents if you have a clever engineering team.
So a better way to look at it isn't that Niron has patents. It's that so far I haven't seen any patent applications from Tesla for high-strength magnetic materials or the production of them.
Then again, sometimes Tesla patent applications don't show up until after they've unveiled the product. So we have a potential blind spot.
然而,有时特斯拉的专利申请直到他们推出产品后才出现。因此,我们可能存在潜在的盲点。
With all that in mind, why do I think it's unlikely that Tesla is developing their own magnetic materials like iron nitride for their next generation rare earth-free motor? It's because from my perspective, the cost-benefit ratio is questionable. It would take a lot of engineering resources and capital to develop and scale their own material. And it doesn't appear to be necessary. So it's not that I think Tesla couldn't develop a magnetic material. It's that I don't think it would be the best use of resources because I believe there's a better option.
With that, let's get into fair-ite motors. As I said earlier, based on cost per performance, there are currently only two viable options for EV motors, neodymium and fair-ite.
Fair-ite magnets are made of ceramic iron oxides and so they're cheap at about one-tenth the cost of neodymium per unit of weight. But they're also low strength at about one-tenth the MGE of EV motor-grade neodymium.
So it comes out in the wash, right? Not quite because MGE isn't calculated by weight. It's calculated by volume. Fair-ite has a density of about 5 grams per cubic centimeter, whereas neodymium has a density of about 7.5 grams per cubic centimeter. That means fair-ite costs about 33% less per unit of performance. That is, if you're looking to drive down cost, fair-ite is the way to go.
The problem is, as I said earlier, fair-ite just doesn't have the magnetic strength and stability to create a motor that's as efficient and powerful as a neodymium motor. Let's take a closer look. With the neodymium magnets in a Tesla motor, there are 12 magnet slots oriented around the rotor and a relatively simple design to shape the magnetic fields.
With fair-ite, you'd have to stuff in 10 times the volume of magnets in a much more complex arrangement to get the same effect. Furthermore, because fair-ite has lower coercivity than neodymium, it's easily demagnetized when exposed to competing magnetic fields. This makes fair-ite motors quite the engineering puzzle because they require a high packing density of magnets in a small area, but arranged in such a way that they don't get demagnetized.
What further complicates the challenge is that EV motors have high demands in terms of power, efficiency, and weight. So although there are already fair-ite motors on the market, making one that meets the needs of the automotive industry is a jigsaw puzzle that no one solved yet, despite a lot of attempts.
Let's look at the research on fair-ite motors. Generally, if I want to learn about a topic, I look for a review paper. In this instance, I googled fair-ite motors review paper, and the top hit was right on the money.
It was titled, Low Cost, High Performance, Fair-ite Permanent Magnet Machines, and EV Applications, a comprehensive review by Patrick Chi-Kwang-Luk at Al.
One of the key takeaways of the paper was that fair-ite motors are approaching the torque density of a 2004 Prius motor, a comparison to a Model 3 motor would have been better, but the Prius motor is still automotive grade.
So an automotive grade fair-ite motor has been possible since about 2013, which was a decade ago. It's just that neodymium motors have continued to improve since the 2004 Prius. That is, there's no physics that say a high-performance fair-ite motor isn't possible. It's just about getting the right engineers in the room with the right modeling software to make it happen.
And as we know from investor day, Tesla built their own in-house modeling software, and this is what they said about it. Quote, our custom software lets us simulate the rotating magnetic field, and getting that simulation exactly right is central to the cost, weight, size, and even the sound of the drive unit.
You can buy software that'll do this, but our tools are faster and they're more accurate, and that allows us to quickly iterate through millions of possible drive unit designs to find the best one. End quote.
In other words, if researchers were able to make a good fair-ite motor 10 years ago, what can Tesla do now with some of the best engineers in the world, the best software, and deep pockets? In my view, the answer is a fair-ite motor that's perfect for a compact Tesla.
Notice that I'm not saying that it'll be some type of high-performance motor that will crush or dominate a neodymium motor in efficiency and power. That's because I don't think that would be Tesla's design goal, because that's not what a compact Tesla would need.
The top priorities for a high-volume budget vehicle will likely be cost, scalability, efficiency, and power output. Roughly in that order, let's take a look at each.
As I said earlier, a fair-ite motor will have magnets that cost about 33% less per unit of performance. Since the compact vehicle needing a smaller motor, I expect this is one of the major ways that Tesla was able to bring the cost of the next generation drive unit below $1,000.
Next, scalability. Fair-ite magnets are made of iron and oxygen. That means the material supply for fair-ite magnets is quasi-infinite. That would also be true of iron nitride magnets, but there's currently no one making those magnets at scale, and they'll take time to scale.
Furthermore, besides the raw materials, Tesla can dip into what's already a massive fair-ite magnet market with dozens of suppliers. So in terms of the scalability of fair-ite, Tesla can expect stable prices, no issues with a single point of failure, and minimal issues with expanding supply as their production grows.
With regards to efficiency, a Patreon supporter sent me a recent white paper on a fair-ite motor that achieved 93% efficiency. This isn't necessarily the best fair-ite motor I've seen, but it provided good visuals that hit the key specs.
How does 93% compare to a Tesla motor? It's the same efficiency as the induction motors and the older versions of the Model S. However, it's short of the reported 97% motor efficiency that was achieved with the Model 3 motor in 2019.
If we also factor in that Tesla's newest motors are using hairpin technology, which should increase efficiency by 1%, the current production motors are probably achieving around 98% efficiency. That is, the lowest efficiency we could possibly expect for a Tesla fair-ite motor would be around 93%, which served the Model S well, but it likely wouldn't be as high as the 98% in newer Teslas.
But those newer Teslas are luxury EVs which can afford to use more expensive neodymium magnets, for a budget compact vehicle and efficiency rating in the mid 90% range may be acceptable because smaller cheaper vehicles gain efficiency improvements in so many other areas.
For example, just switching from 19-inch rims to 15-inch rims can increase efficiency by 10%, and that doesn't include the lower rolling resistance of narrower tires, less wind resistance from a smaller vehicle cross-section and lower weight. So although motor efficiency is important, it's one of many factors.
Some might point out that Tesla's slide says, higher efficiency drive units using zero rare earths. The question is, higher efficiency than what? I'd be surprised if Tesla can best the 98% efficiency of a rare earth-based motor with a rare earth-free motor, regardless of whether it's using fair-ite magnets or neuron magnets.
If they are able to hit 98% or greater efficiency with a rare earth-free motor that may mean my theory about fair-ite is wrong, and Tesla has their hands on a new material. I'd love to be wrong here and the use of a new material would definitely be more exciting than fair-ite. But for me, it would be jumping to conclusions off of what may be in precise squirting.
Finally, power. A compact vehicle doesn't need to do zero to 60 in under six seconds like Tesla's other vehicles, which is another reason why the next generation motor will be so cheap. It'll be small in the first place because it'll be for a compact vehicle, and again, smaller still because it won't need to be a hot rod.
The same paper that described a 93% efficient fair-ite motor showed that it offered 90% of the torque of a neodymium-based motor. That is, if Tesla designed a fair-ite motor, it would have plenty of torque for the needs of a compact vehicle.
It's likely that the compact vehicle will have a motor that's around half the power of a Model 3 motor, which has roughly 280 horsepower and 310 foot-pounds of torque. So Tesla could use a motor that's both smaller and less power dense.
This is much the same way that the Performance Model 3 has less than half the power of a Plaid Model S using motors that are less power dense. If they did want to make a performance version of the compact Tesla, they could just make an all-wheel drive version with double the power.
这与性能版 Model 3 在使用功率较低的电机的情况下,与 Plaid Model S 相比的动力不足一半类似。如果他们想制造一款紧凑型特斯拉的性能版本,他们可以只需要制造一款具有双倍功率的全轮驱动版本。
Some people might suggest Tesla's carbon-overwrapped rotor technology, but I expect that'll only be used on high-end vehicles in the Tesla semi. That's because the process to make the motor involves the extra process step of wrapping the steel rotor of the motor with carbon fiber under high tension, which adds time, cost, and complexity to the manufacturing process.
Overall, the only potential showstopper I see with ferrite motors is demagnetization. With that said, the severity of demagnetization is dependent on motor design. The ferrite motor paper that showed 93% efficiency and 90% of the torque of a neodymium motor used what's called a spoke-type ferrite motor, which is a design that's prone to demagnetization.
Despite that, the researchers showed that their design suffered negligible demagnetization at the rated current, and only saw a decrease of induced voltage by 0.5% when the inverter current was exceeded. I would caution that they didn't advise how long that demagnetization took to occur, or how it would evolve over time. But again, bear in mind that it's a design issue rather than a physics issue.
In summary, as much as NIRON's iron nitride magnets are exciting, they just don't appear to be ready for prime time yet to compete with neodymium in electric motors. Most both in terms of their magnetic strength, which isn't expected to be on par with neodymium until 2025, and scaling. So far, the plans for their pilot production plant are unclear.
But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say they're intending to commission a pilot plant in 2024. Even then, that'll take time to scale. Pilot production means low volume, and they'd still need to build a full-sized factory to meet the demands of a company like Tesla. Meanwhile, Tesla appears to have the skills in-house to develop their own iron nitride or other magnetic materials, but the cost benefit of developing them probably isn't worth it.
Not only would it involve Tesla developing a process to make that material, but also develop the supply chain and factories to scale it, whether that's in-house or contracted. That's as compared to the alternative, ferrite, which has an existing supply chain that's extensive. Tesla has the know-how in-house to develop a ferrite motor. That ferrite motor likely won't be as efficient or as powerful as a neodymium motor, but it would be within a few percent.
That would likely be acceptable for Tesla because a compact budget vehicle would be inherently efficient and have lower power requirements. Instead, the priority will likely be cost and scalability. The point of a compact budget vehicle will be to democratize EVs, and that means making it as cheap as possible, and at production volumes that will likely be higher than any other vehicle in history.
Ferrite magnets can deliver on both, because they cost 33% less per unit of performance than neodymium and are made of iron oxide, which is abundant and easily scalable. Some might argue that Tesla would simply never use a lower performance motor in exchange for cost and scalability. However, we've already seen Tesla enthusiastically take that trade in the past with LFP battery cells.
Around half of Tesla's vehicle production now uses iron-based LFP battery cells that have lower vehicle level efficiency and power than nickel-based battery cells. Why? First, scalability and cost. Iron-based LFP has fewer resource constraints than nickel-based cells, and due to that tends to be cheaper over time. Second, Tesla's standard range vehicles don't need to maximize performance and range. They just need enough performance and range to create an appealing product for the price point.
I see the same dynamic with neodymium-rare Earth versus ferrite-based motors. With great engineering throughout the vehicle and powertrain, Tesla can use cheap, easily scalable, lower performance materials to make the best-selling vehicles in the world.
As usual, this is my opinion. Let me know what you think in the comments below. If you enjoyed this video, please consider supporting me on Patreon with the link at the end of the video or as a YouTube member. You can find the details in the description. A special thanks to my YouTube members and all the patrons listed in the credits. I appreciate all your support and thanks for tuning in.