CATL Battery Production Expansion

China’s CATL will spend up to 29 billion yuan ($4.49 billion) to build or upgrade domestic factories to meet growing demand. This is in addition to Contemporary Amperex Technology 2020 plans to boost capacity at a cost of up to 65 billion yuan. CATL’s battery capacity was projected to triple to 336 gigawatt-hours in 2023 from 109-gigawatt hours in 2020, according to a January report by Chinese brokerage Shengang Securities. The latest investment plans will further increase production by about 58 gigawatt-hours.

CATL will open a 25 gigawatt-hour factory in Zhaoqing, Guangdong Province, using 12 billion yuan in investment. Another plant in Yibin, Sichuan Province will get a similar upgrade.

CATL signed an agreement with the Jiang’an county government in Sichuan province in China to build a new lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cathode materials plant. The investment is $280 million and the plant should be completed within three years

CATL is targeting a production capacity of 230 GWh in 2021 and 1,200 GWh in 2025. They will expand in Japan, Indonesia, the USA and Europe.

The 121 GWh increase would be able to provide batteries for 1.5 to 2 million cars for 60 kWh to 80 kWh pack cars.

In 2025, 77 GWh Volkswagen is contracting for 77 GWh (6.5 percent of CATLs planned 1200 GWh in 2025). In 2020, VW’s share received 2.2 percent of 110 GWh (2.42 GWh).

CATL wants to increase its production capacity between 2020 and 2025 as follows:

110 GWh (2020), 
230 GWh (2021), 
380 GWh (2022), 
540 GWh (2023), 
830 GWh (2024) and 
1,200 GWh (2025).

SOURCES- Electrive, Nikkei Asia, Inside EVS
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture,com

33 thoughts on “CATL Battery Production Expansion”

  1. Texas has generating plants down for maintenance. They normally have a surplus of generation this is an anomaly to have this cold a winter. I think the lesson learned is to tighten the outage schedule and limit the generation off line. That can be done by their grid managers. Until then wait for it to warm up.

  2. I think the Chinese are progressive and will succeed at reducing air pollution and improve their lives. Battery technology will only improve and coupled with technology in the way energy is created and consumed make the future bright.

  3. "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

    Absolutely. Total fan of that. But to do that they need to work with farm equipment manufacturers to produce electric machinery. The farmers and ranchers can't buy what is not for sale.

    Or they need natural gas powered equipment if they are going to get systems that capture methane from the animals or their waste.

  4. "Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."

    Vague. They mostly use the grid like everyone else. There is a Borax mine in California that has their own coal power plant. I suppose, that is partly what this is after. It is just a small plant, but it is the last coal in California. The 99.99% coal-free is making them itchy.

  5. "Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."

    (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; ? No problem there. I assume they mean manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles. I don't like the hedging. They need to say electric vehicles, the rest of these "zeros" are stupid.

    (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; Sorry, this is yesterday. Obsolete. Except where you have to have it…in absurdly congested inner cities. And the 40% of the population that is fat, will not walk the blocks necessary to get on and get off the things. And if the pandemic has proven anything it is proven that these are a deathtrap.

    (iii) high-speed rail." Big fat union boondoggle. They have no intention of ever actually making a working system. It is all about milking the public for billions of dollars.

  6. "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."

    Whoever chose the wording "all buildings", clearly is not much of a thinker. There are lots of buildings people don't live in. An outhouse is a building. Are they going to buy more comfortable seats for all the outhouses? They are going to spend a lot of money to insulate barns? Going to heat all the aircraft hangers with electricity?

    And "water efficiency" sucks. That is time wasting is what that is. That is 15 second to fill one cat dish with water vs 4 seconds. I have at least 17 cats and 17 dishes of water. It achieves nothing to have the water flow slower. Those dishes need just as much water every day.

    And how does upgrading them make them more affordable? The utilities are used to getting the money they have been getting. They will just raise the prices so they get the same amount they got before.

  7. "Building or upgrading to energy efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."

    Could be great. Devil is in the details. That "affordable access to electricity." part sounds like helping people pay, which would be a disaster, as the utilities would just find more loopholes to charge people more, as long as the government is paying. That is the kind of scenario which has lead to high priced health care. Though, maybe that is not what they have in mind.

  8. "Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."

  9. "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."

    100% is a guaranteed fail. 90-95% maybe that could be done in the 10 years they have planned. Not a good plan though. Better to keep combined cycle natural gas, and replace the rest of the fossil fuels. But I would build nuclear rather than many thousands of wind turbines and thousands of acres of solar. Though there are certainly places in the US where those are reasonable.
    Putting them were they don't make sense, will be a problem. Putting solar where it is overcast all the time or wind where there is seldom any wind is just stupid.

  10. "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
    Biden has mentioned what he intends. He wants to give Black colleges truckloads of money. That just is not a solution. You need trade schools where people who are not College material can learn a skill that can enable them to support their family. There are a lot of people who are not "college material". Democrats are deluding themselves if they think funding colleges will solve the problem.
    Even the people who got the new GI Bill mostly failed when they got into colleges. 
    "Out of an estimated 800,000 veterans enrolled in collegiate institutions, approximately 80% struggle, only to leave after just one year, according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education and
    Labor and Pensions.. Only about 3% make it all the way and receive diplomas". Seems more like a recruitment scam. 3%?
    Not a racial thing. Only about 35% of people are going to get a 4-year degree. Maybe another 5% are capable, but way less than will make the Democrats happy.

  11. "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
    Not sure how you are going to provide people "nature". The only way you can get high-quality healthcare for all, is with single payer…anything else and you are writing a blank check, and you won't be able to be much else, without going into profound debt. "affordable, safe, and adequate housing". You can't gift that. Just get a lot more built and sell at market. The pressure from demand will come down and so will the prices. I do think we need to remove any lead in old housing. As far as safety is concerned, other than a sturdy door, the danger comes from the community and family members. The only way to guarantee safety is to incarcerate everyone…which is obviously ludicrous.
    Big fan of clean water and air, and this will cost. Lots of pipes to replace.
    "Economic security"? Get real. People are their own worst enemy when it comes to saving.
    Food is quite affordable if you don't buy processed stuff. Chicken is a little over $1/lb. Most fruits and vegetables are $1/lb or less, if you have any skill at shopping. We have some of the cheapest food in the World. You can get flour, rice, beans, and some other things in 25 lb bags and save a bundle. There are a few healthy foods that are expencive like salmon, but there is always tuna.

  12. It is hard to get a description of what they want to do. I have heard this repairing bridges thing many times, but it appears their plans are mostly to pay for people to do jobs they are incapable of and pay them to take classes they can't pass.

    I'd like to take it sentence by sentence:
    "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
    Social Security is supposed to be retirement security…if you want to provide to "all", that is already in place, fund that more, if you want. "Family-sustaining wage" is more complex. It is not a mater of paying people, it is about supply. You need to build more housing, so the cost of housing can come down. You have to do utilities differently. They are expensive exactly because they are permitted to pour money into retirement plans and other benefits and pass on all that expense to the public. If you want affordable healthcare, single payer will reduce the cost by 2/3. Medical leave and paid vacations? Well, I suppose you can legislate that. Medical leave is already guaranteed in California, no big deal to make that national. Paid vacation? I don't see a compelling reason to put that hardship on employers, if you want to do this it should come directly from the fed. Require people be given the vacation but pay them from the Fed say $1,500.

  13. The whole thing is about "economic inequality". Excuse me, but what does that have to do with infrastructure? Squat. It means their main interest is in paying the people they believe deserve it, to do…well…it does not mater what…because getting something is not really the point, only paying.
    I never said we need to ignore all maintenance. I just don't believe in overpaying for it. And the numbers they are quoting are insanely more than is necessary to blast off some rust then paint.
    And I am going to make a prediction here. If they get a bunch of unskilled American workers of the types they want to hire, there are going to be a lot of accidents and many people are going to die. Most of the people who could not hold a job when the economy was booming, couldn't because their IQs were below 80. I am not blaming them for that. If you want to pay them because they are dim because of lead poisoning, or their mother was on crack when they were born, fine. Just don't expect things to go great around heavy equipment. It is serious business when tens of tons are being slung around. The military will not accept recruits with the equivalent of below 80 IQs, because it costs lives, and equipment.
    If they just want to set up solar farms in the desert…fine. The foremen will still need opiates to sleep through the night…but fine. I am very concerned with stuff falling on traffic during bridge and highway work. 
    And others here will tell you, I am no easier on Republicans.

  14. Yes, this is true. However, air, water, soil quality stuff is genuinely important. Preserving dubious archaeology sites exactly like ever other one, NIMBY stuff, allowing years and years of hearings after hearings of ridiculous crack pots making ridiculous claims, and then there is promising jobs, usually far more than are really needed, to get a whiny community onboard, sucking up to union labor overpaying them to take 3 times longer than necessary, is just ridiculous stuff.
    It is not that I don't care about archaeology. I have done archaeology. There is a room in Balboa Park that is not open to the public. In it is the result of every new construction requiring an Archaeology survey in the county. Row after row of virtually identical grinding stones. What are we going to learn from one more grinding stone that we don't already know? Location…that's about it. Well, do the survey, it actually usually doesn't take that long, but all the hearings, with squawking NINBYs we need to do away with.

  15. That looks like a nice solution for you. If you can weld, you can probably make one. The hard part, I suspect, is clearing it of debris and keeping it in place.
    How about wind? Any wind in the winter? Those vertical axis windmills might work well…and probably less maintenance headaches.
    Not much of a deal compared with solar, but works when the sun is not shining.
    I have seen people make these out of cut 55 gallon drums. Probably pretty cheap that way, if the neighbors don't mind. 
    If I lived in the boonies, I would try all kinds of crazy stuff. I have been thinking a few IBC totes could be sliced up and turned into a fairly powerful wind turbine. People have turned them into all sorts of stuff, but so far I haven't seen anyone try that.
    If there are high speed winds, it probably will find its way to next county, but if you know there will be high winds, you can probably take it down until it passes.
    Better would be a big squat steel tank cut like the barrel wind turbines. That would be something. Even a big plastic one would be interesting starting from a tank like this:
    You would need some sort of welded metal frame to hold the halves of it in place, and all the other hardware.

  16. I live in Alaska, and agree with you. There are not many people here and power distribution is a problem. In the summer, fall and spring solar is actually pretty good because we get a lot of daylight. Winters are a problem, with the sun being low on the horizon and many times blocked by mountains.
    We get around it personally by using AGS controllers and generators with a battery bank for now, but would like to use a micro hydro rig because we have high flow no head moving water on our property. Regulations state we are not allowed to block or divert water (to protect salmon hatchery areas more than anything) to power our hydro, but that is not necessary with this type of generator below.
    There really is not a simple solution as you point out. Most people in Alaska do not have moving water on their property.

  17. See reply above. This is a failure on a national scale. If this were the 1950's they would be building infrastructure without all the drama and little consideration except the most efficient and effective way to accomplish it. Politics is hamstringing our country and keeping us from doing even basic, necessary renovations and infrastructure. In the meantime China is surpassing us, even on issues like new trade deals with our traditional allies like Europe and in Asia (including New Zealand and Australia). The failures we can directly attribute to our cannibalistic hyperpolitics are legion. I am not sure exactly how this could be argued against.

  18. Actually national. Texas has a mostly stand alone power grid that depends 80-90% fossil fuels and nuclear and 10% renewable. In this case it was a lack of winterization, with uninsulated wells, pipes (water and nat gas) and failing meters and sensors that are causing this issue.
    If Texas were hooked up to a nationwide 1.1 MV infrastructure like China then they could have used power from a much broader geographic range to balance out their power. Same with California or any other state.
    If we had built infrastructure instead of giving tax breaks, especially at the scale of the tax breaks, we would have a screaming great infrastructure to deal with regional power issues. Not to mention more jobs.
    We could have also hooked it up to large nuclear plants, geothermal heat sources and solar arrays in remote locations. All this would balance out our power distribution grid far more efficiently and with obviously better resilience.

  19. Essentially, you are arguing we should let it break and create a huge, more expensive disaster before you fix it, rather than just maintain it. Also, the green new deal type stuff is a an for pretty much entirely new infrastructure. The Democrats have had control for 1 month, you must believe in magic. Republicans had it for 2 years of complete control and 2 years partial control and didn't do jack for infrastructure, literally nothing. Though the GOP did pass tax cuts that increased the deficit by 800 billion per year though, so now we can't afford infrastructure.

  20. It does not make sense to run very expensive wires to Alaska, and to Hawaii is just loony. I debated Puerto Rico (pop 3.4m), but I think the voltage is too high to put in the ocean, and too much of a hazard and too vulnerable to storms to put above the ocean. I would have floating/submerged ship-power plants with small modular reactors…and some rooftop solar (always good to have more than one kind of power).
    Not only are Alaska and Hawaii distant, they are low population. Alaska has 730k. And Hawaii has 1.4m. Hawaii should be powered by rooftop solar, geothermal, and nuclear from floating/submerged small modular reactors. 
    Alaska is more of a puzzle because of the climate. Solar does not make much sense. Small modular reactors, possibly make sense, but there is a cost–benefit question there. Maybe for Anchorage, the rest seems dubious. Juneau and Fairbanks are only around 30k population and everything else is very small. There is lots of potential hydro. Juneau is hydro. I don't know how reasonable it is to try to get most of it hydro powered. Long power lines and small sparse populations is not a good fit, so the Hydro sources would have to be reasonable close.
    I am not one of those who is obsessed with making everything 100% non-fossil. We don't have to do that. The last 5% is going to be very awkward to do. It makes more sense to be capturing carbon by ocean fertilization and plankton collection and charring.

  21. Absolutely correct. They avoided any federal regulations in taking the path they took. And here we are, a lack of investment leading up to their present problems. No worries, a few people made out big with this route, and now everyday Texans are suffering.

  22. Vision is also a problem with government. Most politicians are people, people. They know squat about infrastructure and they certainly don't have the common sense to know how to fix things, or even what we need. They just verbally duel, and play Political Party games. Accountability to reality, is not a concept they would even understand.
    Gridlock, for now, is not an excuse. The Democrats have near complete control of the government. So far they are using it for purely political BS. Even their infrastructure plan is a joke. There are no crumbling bridges. 600,000+ bridges, if they were crumbling, some would be falling every year. But in the last 20 years, not one has failed because of deterioration.

    28 bridges failed:
    5 due to flooding or storm surges 
    4 due to gasoline tanker trucks crashing into them and
    catching fire
    4 construction accident/stupidity 
    2 barge collisions
    2 absurd overloading 
    2 got their girders grabbed by oversized cranes pulled under them 
    2 demolition accidents 
    2 tornadoes 
    1 construction flaw 
    1 ship collision 
    1 train collision 
    1 landslide 
    1 arson of construction materials left under the bridge 
    So why aren't the Democrats talking NEW infrastructure…which we need? They are sucking up to NIMBYs and the most extreme environmentalists. They don't want to see infrastructure growth.

  23. Interconnects would help, but the main problem there is Texas deregulation/privatization efforts led to a deliberate island effect due to specifically avoiding federal regulations which are associated with interconnects, to reduce requirements on the infrastructure (and thus reduce costs and improve profits). Some of those interconnect requirements also dealt with things like standby standards for gas turbines as well, which would have partially mitigated the weather effects on the peaker plants.

    For lack of a better explanation, they screwed themselves in pursuit of greed.

  24. The West will need to build its own Battery production capacity, this is another area that is going to become critical and that China will use to its advantage in the coming cold and warm wars. Outside of S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Tesla it doesn't seem that enough is being done in this area.

  25. I believe most people would agree with you. I think the biggest hurdle to this, as among other necessary things, is government gridlock.

  26. I am going to go off topic here. I think the Texas power problem needs discussed. I don't know how many articles were devoted to the Northern California outages, but still nothing on Texas.
    People are talking about spending a lot of money to winterize Texas power. I think that is the wrong lesson to learn from this. What we need is a very high voltage…probably 1,000KV…national energy backbone connecting all the lower 48 States. If one area has bad weather, energy can be sent to them from the other States. There would be a lot of energy providers so energy would be more competitive and lower cost…to the utilities anyway. You or I will probably still get gouged by the utilities. This is also better for making renewables a larger share of energy production, as shortfalls and excesses can be addressed more easily. There are more suppliers that can help in a shortfall and more that can buy the excess. China has a 1.1MV system. We need a 1-1.1MV system as well.

Comments are closed.