Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germanynationale-plattform-elektromobilitaet.de/fileadmin/user... · 2018. 4. 18. · 6 Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and

Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany

WG 2 – Battery TechnologyWG 2 – Battery Technology

Publication of the National Platform for Electric Mobility (NPE)’s

WG 2 – Battery Technology and SWG 2.2 – Cell and Battery Production

Publication of the National Platform for Electric Mobility (NPE)’s

WG 2 – Battery Technology and SWG 2.2 – Cell and Battery Production

Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany

2Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 4

1 Market and competition 8 1.1 Current competitive situation 9 1.2 Prognosis for sales and production of electric vehicles (BEVs/PHEVs) 10

2 Cell performance and suppliers 15 2.1 Customer expectations regarding the performance and

costs of traction battery cells 16 2.2 Requirements for a battery cell manufacturer producing in

Germany and Europe 16

3 Development of cell and production technology 18 3.1 Developing battery technology further 19 3.2 Production technology 21 3.3 Research and development projects 24

4 Germany as a production location – a cross-country-comparison 25

4.1 Germany as a production location 26 4.2 Lessons Learned – Experiences for the establishment of a cell

production in Germany 28

5 Risks in the value chain of raw materials required for lithium-ion battery cells 29

5.1 Dependency on raw materials 30 5.2 Implications for a new manufacturer’s sourcing strategy and for the

securing of resources 31

6 Exemplary establishment of a cell production 33 6.1 Timeline and milestones 34 6.2 Comparison of manufacturing costs for battery cells 37


7 Exemplary business planning and realisation strategy 40 7.1 Business planning and description of possible scenarios 41 7.2 Scaling of production capacities 45 7.3 Potential market risks and market potentials 46

8 Employment effects 48

9 Organisation of WG 2 and SWG 2.2 50

10 Closing remarks 52

11 Glossary 54

12 Bibliography 57


Executive SummaryExecutive Summary


Executive Summary

Assignment In 2015, the steering group of the NPE commissioned Working Group 2 – Battery

Technology (WG 2) to develop a roadmap for a long-term strategy for integrated cell and

battery production in Germany. Following validation and basic technological decisions,

this strategy for value creation and employment is to be jointly continued.

The roadmap was to be elaborated by the newly-appointed NPE Sub-Working Group

(SWG) 2.2 – Cell and Battery Production in cooperation with partners from academia,

industry, the ministries (Advisory Board) and with the support of the consulting firm

Roland Berger. The central focus was the battery cell including cell technology, produc

tion and production technology.

-

Executive SummaryThe technology of the battery as a whole and thus also of the traction battery cell is a key

element for individual electric mobility. The traction battery presently constitutes one of

the most important components of electric vehicles, covering up to 30–40 % of their

added value. The traction battery cell, in turn, is responsible for a crucial 60–70 % of the

battery pack’s added value. It is therefore of great importance to maintain the entire

value chain at the German location.

Traction battery modules and systems are already successfully developed and manufac

tured in Germany today. In the last few years, targeted research and development efforts

in the field of traction battery cells have yielded considerable progress – particularly in

terms of technology and performance. However, since the end of 2015, Germany can no

longer boast a factory for traction battery cells producing significant quantities.

-

At present, there are overcapacities in battery cell production (battery cell generation 2),

a field clearly dominated by Japanese and Korean manufacturers. Expanding the

production of the current traction battery cell generation is, from today’s point of view,

not an economically viable option. Investments in the production of this battery cell

generation, now firmly established on the market, therefore do not seem to make much

sense. The OEMs are concentrating on further developing and expanding the production

of battery packs.

Without the new entry of a further supplier in Europe, the Asian battery cell manufactur

ers will continue to dominate the market in the subsequent technology generation. At

present, competition is thriving between the battery cell manufacturers; therefore, there

is no dependency on individual suppliers. However, a growing specialisation of traction

battery cells could eventually result in a dependency on Asian manufacturers, even

though the respective companies are likely to expand their production to Europe in the

next few years. The present reticence regarding the consideration of systemic relevance

will not hold forth in future.

-

Growing market success will increase the number of electric vehicles, resulting in a surge

in the demand for traction battery cells that will make a further expansion of global cell

production necessary.


Executive Summary

On this basis, a cell factory could be operated sustainably in Germany. We recommend an

initial launch of production in 2021, to be followed by the incremental establishment of

a cell factory of approximately 13 GWh/a (about 325,000 BEV/a) until 2025. This market

entry is to be realised with the next battery cell generation (3a or subsequent).

This requires an investment of around 1.3 billion Euros. According to an initial estimate, a

break-even point (EBIT) can be achieved in 2025; an amortisation is possible as of 2030.

Under the assumptions of the business plan, a minimum utilisation of 80 % is necessary for

a sustainably profitable cell production. Also, the positive operating cash flow must be

reinvested in new battery cell and production technologies.

During the ramp-up phase, the produced traction battery cells might be considered for

use in stationary storage systems.

Assuming a cell production of approximately 13 GWh/a, an employment effect of around

1.050–1.300 employees can be expected in the factory (production, R&D, sales, etc.). In

addition, up to 3.100 jobs could be generated in the vicinity. This, however, largely

dependends on the structural strength of the location.

We should begin to set the course for implementation in 2016: Not only are the Asian

battery cell manufacturers already expanding to Europe, they are also strengthening their

position by vertically integrating module and battery pack production schemes and cell

materials.

The establishment of a battery cell production in Germany offers the chance to closely

link the competences of the research facilities and companies (e. g. material manufactur

ers, machine and plant engineering) located here. Their geographical proximity will allow

for the fullest possible coverage of the battery value chain. There is also the chance to

expand the German systems expertise in the field of batteries and to foster the respective

innovative capabilities.

-

The Federal Government can support the entrepreneurial decision-making process that is

to balance the chances and risks of establishing a battery cell production in Germany and

will be launched as of 2017. Further market observation is required in order to adjust

political and economic targets if necessary.


Executive Summary

Recommendations for actionIn order to secure the know-how and ensure the attractiveness of Germany as a

production location, we recommend that the research and development of future

generation cell and battery technology and -production is continued with assiduity. This

includes promoting the training of experts in cell chemistry and production technology.

The 28 project plans (around 220–230 million Euros) which the NPE SWG 2.2 and the

Scientific Committee identified during the roadmap process will be submitted to the

ministries and project managers for examination and subsequent implementation.

Due to existing overcapacities, investments in the production of the current battery cell

generation (generation 2) are not recommended from today’s point of view. Rather, a

continual close monitoring of the market situation with regard to the market ramp-up

and of the investment- and location decisions of established manufacturers is indicated.

Should a noticeable change occur in the market situation (for instance, due to the

establishment of “copy-paste” factories), politics and industry must jointly examine the

next steps, and, if necessary, readjust the strategy.

It is up to the respective companies to assess specific business models for the incremen

tal establishment of a cell factory of approximately 13 GWh/a and a battery cell

generation 3a and to validate them in a cost calculation. The possibility of government

funding must be explored and considered in the decision-making process.

-

If the green light is given for the establishment of a cell production in Germany, the

opportunities and risks described in the roadmap (e. g. location, capital, technology,

customer acceptance) are to be considered along with aspects of sustainability.

A possible monitoring of the Federal Government’s relevant actions should be effected

by the NPE-SWG 2.2. To this end, the results of the roadmap for integrated cell and

battery production need to be followed up without delay, a process to be carried out in

partnership with the automotive and automotive supplier industry, the plant and

mechanical engineering sector, the chemical industry, consortia and investors. The

overall organisation of the NPE SWG 2.2 (including academia, industry, politics and

business consultancy) has proved its worth and should be maintained.

It is recommended to introduce a permanent monitoring of the supply relationships for

the critical raw materials natural graphit, cobalt and lithium. In order so secure the

supply in the long run (including possible investment projects), the responsible

ministries, i.e. the Federal Government, must provide close political support.

It is suggested that an industry meeting be convened under the direction of the Federal

Government to foster an entrepreneurial decision (as of 2017).


Market and competition

1Market and competition

1




1.1 Current competitive situationThe competitive situation in the market for traction battery cells for automotive

traction applications is currently marked by the dominance of Asian manufacturers.

Currently, a relevant part of the production locations for the large format cells

dominating in the field of automotive traction applications are situated in Japan (26 %),

Korea (24 %), China (22 %) and the USA (22 %) (cf. Figure 1). (Anderman, 2013)

-

-

Hitherto, the situation was marked by global overcapacities in cell production, with a

clear dominance of Japanese and Korean battery cell manufacturers (cf. Figure 2).

However, the Chinese demand for electric buses, mostly with LFP (lithium iron phosphate)

cells having grown considerably, the capacities are increasingly taken up.

At the same time, established as well as less established manufacturers from China are

announcing a significant increase in their capacities – for instance BYD, CATL, CALB,

Coslight and Lishen. It should, however, be regularly checked whether the announce

ments have actually been carried out. In the past, the Chinese manufacturers’ focus in the

field of traction battery cells was on LFP cell chemistry. Here, we can currently observe a

change, since these manufacturers are increasingly extending their offers to NCM-based

cell chemistry.

Rising sales figures will make further additional capacities necessary in the future. These

will be created, on specific orders, by the currently active competitors, which are already

investing in the further expansion of their production capacities. Capacities are currently

being expanded above all in China (fulfillment of “local content”-requirements) and

Korea, followed by North America and Europe. Following a demand for module assem

bling, Korean manufacturers are planning to establish according units in Eastern Europe

(e. g. Poland), which are to be expanded to cell manufacturing facilities in the event of a

market ramp-up.

Dominance of Asian

manufacturers in

battery cell production



-

-

-

Since a number of suppliers are in fierce competition on the cell market, the automo

tive industry considers it unlikely that the absence of a German/European competitor

will result in Asian manufacturers “dictating the prices”. While no threat is perceived

from these quarters, there is the possibility that, in the long run, the market may be

dominated by only three competitors (Panasonic, Samsung, LG Chem). Such a develop

ment is clearly not desirable; the aim should rather be that further suppliers enter the

market and stimulate competition. In addition, the German OEMs are planning to

continue to use battery cells or modules to produce battery packs.

According to the

market demand for

cells, further cell

factories will be

established around

the world.

Hitherto, there have been global overcapacities in cell production, with a clear

dominance of Japanese and Korean manufacturers.

The growing market demand for cells will determine the establishment of further cell

factories around the world. Currently, Asian manufacturers are building production

capacities for battery modules and -packs in Eastern Europe, with further expansion

expected towards the field of cell production.

1.2 Prognosis for sales and production of electric vehicles (BEVs / PHEVs)In order to estimate the market for traction battery cells, the development of the sales

and production figures of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs)

was determined on the basis of current prognoses.

Owing to BEVs and PHEVs, the demand for batteries is expected to rise significantly

after 2020/2021.

The analysis includes the sales regions NAFTA, Europe, China as well as Japan and Korea,

which cover well over 90% of the global market. The development of the sales figures

for electric vehicles strongly depends on regional carbon emission limits and on

government support measures. Therefore, two scenarios were examined – (“conserva

tive” and “optimistic”).



The conservative scenario is based on the minimum sales rate of electric vehicles

required to meet the regional carbon emission limits and assumes the absence of

government subsidies for the purchase and maintenance of BEVs and PHEVs.

The optimistic scenario, on the other hand, includes government subsidy programmes

for PHEVs and BEVs as well as the fulfillment of regional carbon emission limits. This

results in a cost advantage of electrically powered drive trains compared to conven

tional ones.

-

The total amount of cells required for mild and full-hybrid vehicles is significantly lower

than the difference between the conservative and optimistic scenarios. This demand is

therefore not explicitly taken into account in the following considerations.

Figure 3 shows the results of the analysis.

In the conservative scenario, global sales rise to 2.2 million electric vehicles/a in 2020

and to 6.4 million vehicles/a in 2025; the optimistic scenario assumes 3.5 million

(2020) and 17.8 million vehicles (2025) respectively.

Expectations for sales prognoses differ regionally. We can assume that the conservative

scenario is the more likely option for Europe, while in other regions (especially China)

the odds are that the optimistic scenario might be realised.

In order to better meet customer expectations with regard to the cruising range, an

increase in battery capacities in both BEVs and PHEVs is to be expected in the coming

years. On the basis of an average cell capacity per vehicle of 40 kWh (BEVs) and 17 kWh

(PHEVs) respectively, a significant demand for cell production capacity is to be expected

from 2020 onwards (cf. Figure 4), even after taking the current overcapacities into

account.

Significant increase in

electric vehicles in all

regions by 2025



In the conservative scenario, the global demand increases by approx. 5 GWh/a in 2020

and up to 100 GWh/a in 2025. In the optimistic scenario, the additional demand would

exceed 300 GWh/a. Buses and stationary applications generate additional demand.

With this demand situation, competitive cell production would also be possible in

Germany.

Additional global

demand for cell

factories between

2019 and 2021

In the conservative scenario, the sales figures for BEVs and plug-in hybrids are expected

to increase globally to 2.2 million vehicles/a in 2020. This entails an increase in the

demand for cells to about 155 GWh/a (2025) and allows for a new player to enter the

market as of mid 2021.

The business case continues the conservative scenario.

Prognosis for Europe: About 600,000 electric vehicles are produced in 2020/2021 In order to estimate the amount of traction battery cells required in Europe, the vehicle

production in Europe must be assessed on the basis of the worldwide sales figures. For

this purpose, it is assumed that the PHEVs and BEVs will be produced in the respective

vehicle models’ parent plants. Since vehicle numbers will remain low in the medium

term, splitting up the production volumes between different plants would require a

disproportionate amount of additional investments in plants and infrastructure. The

bulk of the electric vehicle production in Europe will therefore be realised by European

manufacturers, while Asian producers, in particular, will continue to import electric

vehicles to Europe from Japan or Korea.

As production volumes

of electric vehicles

increase in the EU,

on-site cell production

becomes an interes-

ting option.



The successful implementation of the planned emission targets for 2020/2021 in the

European Union will require an optimisation of the conventional power train as well as

electrified vehicles (PHEVs, BEVs). The latters’ percentage of the European sales volume

varies according to the manufacturer: Whereas the Asian volume producers reach a low

single-digit percentage, the European premium manufacturers manage to cover a high

and European volume manufacturers a medium single-digit range.

Accordingly, the European production of electric vehicles will increase to around

250,000 BEVs/a and 350,000 PHEVs/a by 2020/21 in the conservative scenario, with

Germany covering about 50,000 BEVs/a and 300,000 PHEVs/a (cf. Figure 5).

Based on a (conservative) estimate of the requirement for the production of BEVs and/

or PHEVs, an according cell demand is presumed (cf. Figure 6). It is assumed that the

different PHEV/BEV vehicles of a certain model are manufactured in that model’s parent

plant and that manufacturers with a low diesel share or indeed a high percentage of

SUVs in their fleet will have a correspondingly higher proportion of electrification.



China and USA: Demand driven primarily by customers and/or regional/local guidelines The other core markets do not require a broad-scale introduction of electrified vehicles

to comply with emission provisions in the time horizon until 2020. There are, however,

other mechanisms. In China, the central government has issued guidelines for “New

Energy Vehicles”; further activities promoting or calling for electrified vehicles are to

be expected at the regional or local level. In October 2015, the State Council of the

PRC determined that around five million BEVs are to be registered in China by 2020

(German Industry & Commerce Greater China, Beijing, 2015).

As of 2018, the U.S. state of California has introduced the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV)

standard. It specifies the yearly ratio of zero-emission vehicles every manufacturer must

produce and sell. The share of vehicles to meet the ZEV standard is annually increased

until 2025, but is limited to a maximum of 22 %. A further distinction is made according

to the number of vehicles a manufacturer sells in California and with respect to the

extent to which the according regulations apply to a manufacturer (Californian Air

Resources Board, 2014).

Outlook 2025: Electric vehicles are cost competitive in certain fields of applicationBy 2025, technology costs (particularly for batteries, but also for battery management

systems or power electronics, etc.) will have further gone down. As a result, electrified

vehicles gain in cost competitiveness compared to conventional vehicles, with the

latters’ technology becoming more expensive in consequence of emission regulations.

The increase in the performance of traction battery cells expected in the next few years

constitutes an essential basis for this development.

A sufficient production volume of electrified vehicles in Germany / Europe until

2020/2021 is a necessary precondition if a new battery cell manufacturer is to enter

the market. This also requires global and long-term competitiveness (both in terms of

technology and costs).



2Cell performance and suppliers

2

Cell performance and suppliers



2.1 Customer expectations regarding the performance and costs of traction battery cellsThe car manufacturers have determined objectives regarding the performance and

cost-effectiveness of traction battery cells at the battery cell and battery packaging

levels in the coming years.

Figure 7 provides an overview of the performance and cost parameters vehicle

manufacturers expect at the battery cell and battery packacking level. With battery cell

capacity increasing substantially while the according installation space remains

unchanged, today’s safety targets represent an increasing challenge. More “intelli

gence” in the traction battery cell is an essential prerequisite if the same safety

standards are to be achieved. In this respect, Asian suppliers currently have no

advantage. In addition, parameters such as performance during cold start, durability,

and fast-loading capability must be maintained at a high level. Nevertheless, a doubling

of the range or a halving of the costs is expected over the cell generations by 2025.

-

Prognosis for 2025: It

is expected that from

one cell generation to

the next, either the

cruising range will be

doubled or the costs

halved.

2.2 Requirements for a battery cell manufacturer producing in Germany or EuropeCell production in Germany can only be successful if it is competitive in the long term.

Long-term competitiveness implies e. g. a supplier’s proficiency in the current and

future cell technologies (with regard to cell chemistry and cell structure) as well as in

the necessary process and production technologies and possible alternatives.

In addition to know-how regarding BEV- as well as PHEV cells, their processes and their

production, a supplier needs to fulfil additional criteria to be selected by the OEMs.

These include:

A local cell production

must be globally

competitive

• The cell concept/design meets the requirements of the vehicle manufacturer.

• The production know-how and concept suggest a high quality standard.

• The supplier’s offer is economically competitive (price).



• The company is economically sound.

• The market for lithium-ion cells being basically global, new providers will have to

face global competition – which implies the necessity to rapidly reach a critical size

(cf. chapter 6 ff.).

• Plant expansions for larger production volumes in order to achieve cost-reduction

effects.

Car manufacturers are bound by long-term contracts. For a new battery cell manufac

turer, the challenge therefore is to obtain competitiveness and gain the necessary entry

into the OEMs’ supplier pool.

-

Experiences with the production of traction battery cells show that from a commercial

point of view, a market share of at least 5–10% is necessary to achieve competitive

purchase prices for active cell materials. This is also the minimum limit required to

secure a sufficiently large basis for the apportionment of overhead costs, in particular

the expected research and development expenses.

Moreover, in the first years of cell production, the cash flow will probably be negative

(cf. chapters 5 and 6 of the report). A new player will require sufficient capital to bridge

this period of up to ten years until a cumulative positive cash flow is reached. Also,

additional funds may be needed to cover special expenses and necessary further

developments in cell and production technology, and to ensure continuous investments

in the production.


Development of cell and production technology

3


3Development of cell and production technology



3.1 Developing battery technology further Cell technology is expected to evolve further in the next few years (cf. Figure 8).

The majority of the vehicles currently on the roads use a generation 1 or 2a cell

chemistry. These are traction battery cells with cathodes mainly based on lithium iron

phosphate (LFP), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide

(NCA) or lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM in the “Euromix cycle” –

NCM111). The respective anodes are usually made of natural graphite or amorphous

carbon. The various cell manufacturers frequently combine different cathode materials

(so-called “blends”) in order to achieve OEM-specific features.

Research and develop

ment in the fields of

cell technology and

cell production must

be further promoted in

Germany.

-

Generation 2b, increasingly featuring cathode materials with a higher nickel content

and hence a higher energy density, is about to be launched onto the market. The

introduction of generation 3, which uses carbon-silicon anodes, is expected to mark a

further step forward. Even in the (layer oxide-based) generations 2b and 3a, we can

eventually expect a slight increase in the upper cut-off voltage, which will, in turn,

enhance the energy density. Moreover, a doubling of the current range or a halving of

the costs is possible in the medium term, particularly with generation 4 traction battery

cells.

Lithium-sulfur (or other generation 4 conversion materials) may gain in importance

vis-à-vis an optimised lithium-ion technology and enter the market alongside the

lithium-ion technology. This requires satisfactory solutions to the issues of cycle

durability, lifetime and safety requirements in lithium-sulfur technologies. Today’s

findings, however, suggest that while the gravimetric energy density will increase

compared to the further developed lithium-ion technology expected by about 2020,

this is not the case for the volumetric energy density.

The energy density can

be increased by means

of new materials or

material combinations.



Whether the theoretically proven advantage of a higher energy density at the cell level

can indeed be implemented – particularly into a functional battery at the pack level –

remains to be seen. In consequence, the question whether and when a transition to

“post” lithium-ion technologies (generation 4 traction battery cells with conversion

materials and generation 5 lithium/oxygen) cells will take place cannot be answered.

From today’s perspective it is, however, much more likely that the development will

move towards solid-state systems (generation 4). Interest is therefore currently

focussing on these systems, in which the liquid electrolyte and the separator are

replaced by solid electrolytes, e. g. on a polymer and ceramic basis, while a lithi

um-metal foil serves as anode. It is assumed that additional cost-, weight- and volume

reductions, in particular at the vehicle battery level, can be achieved – for instance by

the renouncement of cooling systems (Ishiguro, 2014).

-

However, there are still possibilities of disruptive developments, for post-lithium-ion

batteries as well as in lithium-based battery chemistry. These should not be neglected

by research and development.

These foreseeable advances in the development of cell technologies are a key factor in

meeting the OEMs’ expectations regarding future cell generations.

Cell technology will evolve further in the coming years. A technology transition is to be

expected between 2020 and 2025.



3.2 Production technology A rapid and economically successful launch of new cell generations requires the

simultaneous and concurrent development of the respective production technologies in

the sections of electrode production, cell assembly, formation and testing. This is not

limited to the case of technological leaps such as the transition from generation 3 to 4 or

4 to 5, but is also highly significant in the systematic evolution of the lithium-ion

technology. If we consider a cell generation and the according production technology

simultaneously in an interactive approach, it becomes apparent that a leap in cell

technology affects the production stages of electrodes and cells to different degrees.

About 50 % of the

production plants can

remain in use once the

transition from cell

generation 3 to 4 has

been effected.

Future development efforts should therefore focus on modular systems allowing for the

replacement or incremental expansion of individual modules without changing the entire

system. Along with flexible production machines and plants, such a modular system

would make it possible to produce new cell generations with only minor modifications to

the machines and systems.

Efficient manufacturing processesAccording to current knowledge we must assume that developments in cell technology

affect the modules of the production process to different degrees. In the case of

lithium-ion-optimised systems (starting with generation 3), for instance, the production of

the electrodes becomes increasingly complex with every generation (due to e. g.

multilayer structures, post treatment or the absence of solvents in the process). This

enables a better cell performance and allows for the assembly of a further form of cells,

i.e. prismatic cells. Changing the cell type (round cell, flat cell and prismatic cell) would

also have a significant bearing on the production process.

The different structure of the cell types affects not only the production process but also

the assembly of the cells. Therefore, adequate individual manufacturing resources are

required, especially regarding the cell assembly. This implies that there is only a limited

scope for scale effects across different cell types. Rather, every cell type will engender

investments in new assembly systems. In order to make the greatest possible use of the

lessons learned and of the money invested, it is important that the evolution towards

new cell generations is effected without changing the cell type.

Production technology faces a further challenge, i.e. to enhance the efficiency of the

production processes for different cell types. Efficiency gains in terms of time, costs and

quality can especially be achieved in the following areas:

Production technology

faces the challenge of

enhancing the

efficiency of the

production processes

for different cell types.

• Solvent-free or water-based production of electrodes for the environmentally-friendly

production of lithium-ion cells.

• Continuous mix- and high-throughput coating and drying procedures for the

electrodes in order to reduce the production costs. The intermittent coatings, crucial

in stacking processes, are of particular relevance.



• New stacking processes and packaging principles, ensuring the best possible

energy- and power density and durability while reducing the manufacturing costs to a

minimum.

• Efficient wetting and forming strategies in order to curtail the wetting and forming

periods, which account for a large part of a cell’s total manufacturing time

• Determining intermediate product properties to enable the early detection of

production waste.

From a technological point of view, optimised lithium-ion systems (without solid-state

approaches, generation 3) merely require the continuous systematic modification of the

entire plant technology. This does not exclude the necessity to adjust the process

parameters or extend the technology in specific sub-areas of cell production. These

plants should be steadily improved and developed in terms of efficiency and production

quality.

In principle, comparable production plants can also produce conventional lithium-sulfur

battery cells (generation 4); here, the challenge lies in the assembly of the cells with

lithium foils and in the thin-film coating of the lithium-metal to minimise roughness. The

following product developments will significantly influence the changes in production

technologies:

• Electrode production and cell assembly for solid-state concepts of generation 4

lithium-ion batteries

• Electrode production and cell assembly for generation 4 lithium-sulfur batteries

• Production processes for metal-air systems (focus: lithium-oxygen, generation 5).

Here, the German companies have the chance to catch up with Asian manufacturers by

offering “faster or better” solutions. Indeed, the domestic machine and plant engineering

sector is a key factor for the successful development of a large cell production in

Germany and has recently discovered Asia and North America as prosperous new sales

markets for machines for cell production. German companies are internationally

competitive, their combined portfolios covering all process steps of cell production:

mixers, coating and drying, calendering, the complete cell assembly for wound and

stacked cells including forming and ageing as well as the necessary control technology.

When it comes to providing the system as a whole, however, German manufacturers are

not yet fully successful (acatech – German Academy of Science and Engineering, 2015).

It implies a structure consisting of various, interchangeable modules. This modular

architecture is necessary, since it allows for the integration of process modules without

requiring modifications in the overall structure. Such a modularisation involves clearly

defined mechanical, control and data interfaces.

A modular plant design

is expedient in terms

of profitability and

future viability.



-

-

-

With a modular structure, some of the experiences gained with optimised lithium-ion

cells (generation 3) also can be applied to generation 4. However, owing to the sol

id-state technology, the leap from generation 3 to generation 4 will also imply a leap in

production technology. The new production technology differs significantly from the

existing methods, particularly in electrode production (e. g. regarding the production of

the covering layer for the lithium-metal anode). Modular systems likewise offer the

chance to determine whether experiences made with previous cell generations can be

used in the solid-state technology and for which process stages this might be the case.

Various research

institutes are develo

ping pilot process

modules

Implementing the technological transition in the field of battery cell production is

more likely to succeed on the basis of previous experiences with the large-scale

production of generations 3a/b.

Any changes in production technology that might ensue from a transition to the solid

state technology (generation 4) are expected to become apparent in the market as of

2020.

A leap in production technology is likely to occur once technologies that are currently

still subject of strong research efforts are introduced into the market. This is the case

e. g. for cells with solid-state technology (generation 4) or lithium-oxygen technology

(generation 5).



3.3 Research and development projects Upholding and developing the existing expertise in battery cell and manufacturing

technologies is a major prerequisite for a competitive traction battery cell production.

This requires further investments in research and development. With view to establishing

a close alliance with the scientific institutions, the NPE and acatech convened a Scientific

Committee, which supported the work of SWG 2.2 with expertise on research topics.

Industry and academia develop the research topics together. For this purpose, several

SWG 2.2 workshops were requested to draw up project plans that were subsequently

discussed and voted on. The result of this process are 28 project sketches (about

220–230 million euros), that were clustered around the topics agreed with the minis

tries.

-

1. Material- / Process technology (Li-ion Technology)

• Pretreatment and processing of current and future active materials

• Process parameters and measuring technology for the production of large batteries

• Applications in electric vehicles and stationary storage devices

• Second Life

2. Materials for high-performance and high-energy battery systems

• Stability of the electrolyte at higher voltages

• Material systems for HV and HE batteries

• Polymer batteries

• Integration of materials, solid-state approaches

• Protected Li-anodes

3. Future battery systems (basics 2025 – …)

• Metal-sulfur batteries

• Metal-air batteries

• Solid-state approaches

A possible public funding of the projects is subject to the usual tendering and authorisa

tion procedures. Both the Roadmap and the project sketches will be handed over to the

ministries represented on the Advisory Board of SWG 2.2.

-


Germany as a production location – a cross-country comparison

4


4Germany as a production location – a cross-country comparison



4.1 Germany as a production locationAn assessment of Germany as a production location for cells must take qualitative as

well as quantitative factors into account. From the manufacturers’ point of view, a cell

production in regional proximity to the vehicle assembly plant makes sense if produc

tion reaches a certain minimum of units. This certainly suggests a locational advantage

for Germany, situated at the geographic centre of Europe. The customers’ appraisal of

the qualitative advantages and disadvantages of a cell production in Germany will

cover quantifiable logistics costs and customs effects as well as risk considerations.

Such considerations can include, for instance, interruptions in the production due to

difficulties in the supply chain, longer response times in the event of quality problems

or recalls, or, possibly, the easier communication with the supplier.

-

A production in Germany can have positive effects for the cooperation with the OEMs,

especially if communication is possible in the same language and without time lag. To

be sure, this is not the decisive point in the choice of a supplier; however, the existence

of an according “ecosystem” of users (OEMs), battery manufacturers, material and

equipment suppliers and research / training institutions can help towards establishing

and maintaining a technology leadership or a leading market position. The proximity to

leading premium OEMs can foster the formation of a globally competitive “research

cluster”. A cell production in Germany could further contribute to rebalancing the

global value chain, currently still unilaterally orientated towards Asia, towards the

European markets.

-

The production

location Germany

benefits from an

ecosystem of users

(OEMs) and battery

manufacturers.

The establishment of a battery cell production offers chances for Germany’s develop

ment as a production location. On the basis of a well-developed R&D landscape,

synergy effects can be achieved by integrating locally based companies that are part of

the value chain of the battery. These include, in particular, the material manufacturers

as well as those mechanical and plant engineering companies that currently consider

relocating their activities to Asia. By contributing to preserving Germany’s systems

expertise, a battery cell production can thus play an important role for the country’s

future as an innovation location. In the field of stationary energy storage, moreover,

there are possibilities of expanding the sales markets for the energy transition.

-

Highly automated manufacturing processes, such as the production of cells, require

highly qualified staff. Germany certainly boasts a high education level and great automo

tive expertise. The challenge lies more in the availability of qualified battery experts (both

in terms of cell chemistry and production know-how). Both industry and research

consider that there are currently very few such experts in Germany. Experts with specific

experiences or specialised know-how are mainly available in Asia. The lack of production

experience is reflected not least in significantly longer ramp-up phases. A German

production site will therefore require the development of a sufficiently large pool of

experts. There are several ways how the existing cell production research facilities can be

used to establish know-how and extend the training schemes for specialised personnel.

We may also resort to academic teaching in relevant subject areas.



Notwithstanding these challenges, Germany has significant know-how, e. g. in the field of

mechanical engineering (plants for cell and material production), in the automotive and

supplier industry (both for the manufacture and design of the cells) or in the chemical

industry. As a rule, the OEMs (and some of the suppliers) are already developing and

assembling battery packs for PHEVs and BEVs in Germany and Europe. Moreover,

Germany’s attractiveness as a production location was assessed by comparing it to other

potentially attractive locations.

Alongside the current champions of battery cell production, Japan and South Korea, the

comparison included the USA, France, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.

As part of the European Union, these countries have built up a significant automotive and

automotive supply industry over the last 20 years. In addition, these potential production

locations are likewise situated at easy distances to relevant vehicle assembly plants and

have good transport connections. Also, Korean suppliers selected Poland and Hungary as

locations for the production of traction batteries and battery packs.

Figure 10 provides an overview of location factors for Germany, Japan and Korea, the

USA, and of alternative potential locations within the European Union.



In a cross-comparison, Germany would, in a best-case scenario, draw level with Korea,

Poland and the USA. The main advantage Poland has over Germany lies in its personnel

costs, taxes and subsidies; Germany, on the other hand, outstrips Poland in terms of

logistical performance and research structures. The best-case scenario for Germany

assumes East German wage levels and has cell production exempted from the EEG levy.

For comparison purposes, the base case for Germany is also presented, featuring an

all-German wage level and no exemption from the EEG levy.

Next to the above-mentioned locational advantages and disadvantages, the development

of a possible business model for battery manufacture in Germany likewise depends on

risks in the supply chain for lithium-ion battery cells.

Only under best-case-

assumptions could

Germany as a produc

tion location potenti

ally compete with

countries like Korea

and Poland.

-

-

In an international comparison with locations like Korea, Poland and the USA, Germany

(including the new Länder) can be an attractive production location. This, however,

presupposes that possible assets are brought to bear, e. g. by omitting the EEG levy on

the energy costs. Also, the low wage cost level in the new Länder must be maintained.

4.2 Lessons Learned – Experiences for the establishment of a cell production in GermanyIn order to assess a production site, the existing experiences with cell production need

to be evaluated. Unsuccessful cell productions in Germany teach us that scale effects

require a certain dimension, especially regarding the purchase of materials. Further

experiences can be summarised as follows:

• Developing a technically competitive traction battery cell is challenging but temporally

feasible.

• The support of partners with high process know-how and experts is expedient for the

industrialisation of this traction battery cell.

• At present, all major manufacturers can deliver technically comparable traction

battery cells.

• Competitive cell prices are a key marketing criterion. The material costs and the

depreciation on plants are crucial factors to achieve them. A new player entering the

market should be particularly aware of the fact that his competitors are producing with

plants that are at least partly depreciated. Also, significant scale effects need to be

realised in the material sector by means of the purchase quantities.

• Both plant availability and yield rate must (clearly) lie above 90 % to be competitive.

In terms of manufacturing processes, production should be run around the clock.

An economically sustainable production requires above all that possible cost disadvan

tages vis-à-vis competitors are removed.

-


Risks in the value chain of raw materials required for lithium-ion battery cells

5


5Risks in the value chain of raw materials required for lithium-ion battery cells



An analysis of the risks in the value chain for raw materials required for lithium-ion battery

cells (Paskert, Loois, Beyer, Weimer & Specht 2015) was carried out by the German Raw

Materials Alliance Ltd. (Rohstoffallianz). It reveals that even in the conservative baseline

scenario, we will be confronted with, or are already facing, a critical to highly critical

supply or processing situation for the raw materials graphite, cobalt and lithium.

5.1 Dependency on raw materialsGermany is highly dependent on the import of a large number of raw materials and

their refined products. This dependency was exacerbated as a consequence of the

global liberalisation policy the EU has engaged in since 1989. Even in the conservative

scenario, the supply situation for raw materials such as natural graphite, cobalt and

lithium must be considered critical.

High supply risk

regarding the raw

materials natural

graphit, cobalt and

lithium

Natural graphite supply1 very critical:In about 90 % of the lithium-ion batteries, graphite is currently used as active material in

the anode . The remaining 10 % are based on amorphous carbon, lithium titanate or

silicon. Hence, graphite dominates the market for anode materials.

Approx. 75 % of the graphite used is natural graphite, 25 % is synthetic graphite. The

latter is created on the basis of coke and pitch – products of the coal and petroleum

industries for which there is no risk of a supply shortage, even in the long term. The

graphitisation process is classified as energy intensive.



Natural graphite as well as synthetic graphite are currenty the standard anode material

for electric mobility.

In the case of natural graphites, on the other hand, there is a very strong dependency

on China – with regard to mining production as well as in terms of the chemical

treatment necessary to obtain the product “uncoated spherical graphite battery grade”

(SGB). This dependency comes with a high country risk. The processing into xEV-battery

graphite is highly complex, polluting and requires a lot of know-how. The final finishing

takes place almost exclusively in China, Japan and South Korea.

In the medium to long term, a massive market failure of natural graphite-based

xEV-battery graphite is likely to occur. Technologically, the natural graphite in the

battery can be replaced by synthetic graphite. Production capacities for synthetic

graphite are internationally available. The high purity of the synthetic graphite is

ensured in situ by means of the high-temperature graphitisation process.

Cobalt supply very critical:There is a very strong dependency on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

and on China in the fields of mining and refining – coming, once again, with high

country risks. Despite positive feasibility studies, several projects in the DRC failed to

reach the implementation phase. The overall battery market is already responsible for

45 % of the market demand for refined cobalt. With a view to the growing demand for

batteries, a supply shortfall is possible even before 2020. In 2020, the demand for

xEV batteries will be facing a slight market deficiency (demand rising to 115 % of the

predicted production in 2020); in 2025, a higher deficiency is likely (cf. Figure 11).

Lithium supply slightly critical with decreasing tendency Hitherto, lithium mining has been concentrated in the hands of very few countries; this

concentration is, however, currently being mitigated to a certain extent. In either case,

the country risk is innocuous. Market demand for lithium is strongly determined by the

battery production sector. New projects are very capital-intensive. Due to the high

quality requirements, the production of xEV-specific “lithium carbonate equivalent”

(LCE) may suffer from bottlenecks. The technological focus on NCM811 makes

investments in lithium hydroxide production capacities a priority. With a view to the

available capacities, a market deficiency in 2020 appears unlikely (demand covering

about 85 % of the production predicted for 2020). The slight market deficiency that

could arise in the refining industry in 2025 can be avoided by timely investments (cf.

Figure 11).

5.2 Implications for a new manufacurer’s sourcing strategy and for the securing of resourcesThe market and risk analysis has shown that considerable investments in processing

capacities and mining are necessary to secure the supply of raw and other production

materials for global cell production. With a view to the high uncertainty pertaining to

the market ramp-up of electric mobility, these investments will only take place when

the right time has come and in line with the market, i.e. when capacities are hedged by



price-volume models along the individual stages of value creation. Investments in the

establishment of battery cell production capacities (market overview: cf. Figure 4) will

require predictable costs for raw materials and assured quantitaties. The same applies

to investments in the upstream stages of the value-added process. A sourcing strategy

based solely on current market conditions will not provide the necessary security to

realise the respective investments. The success of a battery production in Germany or

Europe depends not least on the level of supply risk this location is exposed to

compared to other locations.

From the German perspective, it will be important to secure the necessary resources at

an early stage by means of long-term price-volume models. This will ensure all

stakeholders at the different stages of the value-added process security for their

investments. Economically, a key criterion for investments in a sustainable energy

supply will be its value for money. Here, too, models of a long-term energy supply

outside of market structures should be considered at an early stage.

A permanent monitoring of the supply relationships for the critical raw materials

natural graphite, cobalt and lithium should be introduced. In order to secure the supply

with raw materials as well as possible investment projects in the long-term, the close

political support of the Federal Government will be required.

1 Exemplary description of assumptions made: The baseline value for the demand for xEV for 2015 was assumed with reference to the B3 study; for 2020, the assumption was based on the NPE’s target value plus the B3 research results and for 2025, on the NPE’s target value. Recycling quotas were not taken into account. The basic capacity for flake production was calculated according to the 2012 capacity/production ratio and assumed as a constant basis for all subsequent years. The basic production of flake graphite was assumed to be constant on the 2014 level. With regard to the additional capacity for flake graphite for projects still in the the project pipeline, a maximum capacity utilisation of 80 % (= 100 % production) was assumed; the capacity was calculated accordingly. With regard to the additional production of flake graphite for projects still in the the project pipeline, only projects with BFS and DFS status were taken into account until 2020; as of 2021, projects with PFS status are likewise included. For the additional production of flake graphite for projects still in the project pipeline, a ramp-up curve proportionate to the overall capacity was taken into account. The share is 20 % of the maximum capacity in year 1, 40 % in year 2, 60 % in year 3 and 80 % in year 4. As of year 4, the maximum production equals 80 % of the capacity. The share of flake production for the battery market was assumed to be 21 % in 2015, with a growth rate of 9 % p.a. The calculations for 2012 are based on the assumption that 80 % of the Li-ion batteries were manufactured with battery graphite; this assumption remains the same for all subsequent years. The ratio of spherical grade graphite and flake graphite was assumed to be 3.33/1. As regards coated spherical graphite, it was assumed that 75 % of the spherical graphite is available for coating. The market ratio of flake graphite to synthetic graphite was assumed to be 60/40.


Examplary establishment of a cell production

6


6Examplary establishment of a cell production



Provided that electric mobility is successfully established in the market, the launch of a

generation 3a (or subsequent) cell production could be economically viable after

2020/2021. The expected market ramp-up creates an additional market potential for

further cell production.

6.1 Timeline and milestones In order to successfully supply traction battery cells for standard vehicles after 2021,

the lead time of individual decisions for the planning and establishment of a cell

production must be taken into account. This regards the OEMs – decisions as to the

choice of suppliers and the delivery of samples – as well as the suppliers.

The selection of possible cell suppliers takes place about 3.5–4 years before the produc

tion of the vehicles begins. Incidentally, the SOP (start of production) of the traction

battery cell must be scheduled about six months before the SOP of the vehicle.

Prototype cells from the respective production must be available on time for the cell

supplier assessment and selection. Also, an evaluation according to the above-men

tioned economic criteria must be possible.

-

-

Two scenarios are conceivable for the planning and construction of a cell production

(cf. Figure 12):

Possible cell suppliers

need to be selected

about 4 years before

the start of produc

tion.

-



1. Construction of a cell production by an established manufacturer (or consortium)

already operating comparable plants (scenario I).

2. Construction of a new cell production by a manufacturer (or consortium) that is not

yet operating a plant but can prove its expertise and financial securities (scenario II).

It must be borne in mind that there is no chance of a “commodity cell” being devel

oped in the forseeable future. In other words, new procurements will continue to

involve the further development of existing technologies. In both scenarios, the

supplier must therefore provide B-samples, which the OEM will evaluate.

-

A manufacturer with an existing parent plant (“Scenario I”) can provide for B-samples

by resorting to that plant’s prototype line. The C-sample (series compatibility) can also

be realised in the parent plant. At the same time, a new plant can be constructed as a

“copy-and-paste”-version. It will take about 16–24 months from the start of the factory

construction to the SOP of the traction battery cell or about 20–30 months from the

start of planning to the SOP of the traction battery cell. The D-sample will then already

be produced in the new plant.

A new manufacturer (“Scenario II”) must necessarily have the competency to produce

B-samples to have a chance to be awarded the contract for the series by an OEM. To

this end, existing production capacities can also be resorted to (e. g., the research

production line at the Centre for solar energy and hydrogen research Baden-Württem

berg (ZSW)). The C-sample would already have to be manufactured in the new plant. On

the assumption that “SOP 2021” is the aim, this gives us the timeline for “scenario II”

presented in Figure 13: It spans about 48 months, taking further activities into account.

-

Different starting

times for estab

lished and new

manufacturers

-



The design of such facilities should aim at a modular structure of the production

process, making it possible to exchange or extend individual modules of existing

production systems in the case of new product technologies.

Start of the initial

planning phase for

a new manufacturer

in 2016

An established manufacturer has a lead time of approximately 24–30 months before

the launch of a cell production. A new manufacturer needs a lead time of about 42–48

months. Accordingly, an established manufacturer should start the initial planning

phase in 2019, whereas a new supplier should begin in 2016.

In order to meet the demand for

• the production of C-samples in serial systems,

• an incremental ramp-up to the minimum competitive size of a factory

• as well as a maximum use of the plant investments,

the further analyses are based on the assumption that the production is incrementally

developed to a nominal capacity of approx. 90.2 million cells/a2 (cf. Figure 14).

2 Assuming an according output of about 180 cells per minute (CPM) and 100 % plant utilisation (Overall Equipment Effectiveness, OEE)



The investment sum depends on the production volume to be established. This, in turn,

must be linked to the capacity development of the top five battery cell manufacturers.

The aim is to achieve a rapid ramp-up, that will allow for the use of large coaters

as essential scarce resource. With a view to gaining the necessary know-how and to

gradually acquiring commissions, the following expansion stages are assumed:

• Step 1 (2020):

Plant capacity for C- and D-samples with a coater output of 18 m / min with 0.6 m

coating width, theoretical output about 2.3 million cells/a type PHEV2 (as BEV cell);

Total investment about EUR 75 million (including drying room)

• Step 2 (2021):

Capacity of about EUR 40 million for initial ramp-up and SOP, additional investment in

winding, cell assembly and forming to achieve a theoretical output of approximately

6.8 million cells/a

• Step 3 (2022):

Expansion with two additional coaters (40 m/min with 1.2 m coating width) and

according equipment, theoretical output about 34.6 million cells/a, additional

investment of approx. 280 million EUR (including drying room)

• Step 4 (2023):

Further expansion with an additional two coaters (40 m/min with 1.2 m coating

width) as well as corresponding equipment, theoretical output about 62.6 million

cells/a, additional investment about 280 million EUR (including drying room)

• Step 5 (2025):

Further expansion with an additional two coaters (40 m/min with 1.2 m coating

width) as well as corresponding equipment, theoretical output about 90.2 million

cells/a, additional investment about 280 million EUR (including drying room).

In the ramp-up phase, the produced traction battery cells might be considered for use

in stationary storage systems. It must be taken into account, however, that traction

battery cells are not designed and specified for these applications. While boasting an

oversized energy density, they are undersized in terms of durability. This combination

makes them too expensive. In the event of an according demand (approx. 0.5 to 1

GWh), therefore, special cells are developed and produced for stationary applications.

For stationary uses, lithium-ion technology competes with other storage technologies

(such as redox flow, lead-based or nickel metal hydride-based technologies), depending

on the specific application.

6.2 Comparison of manufacturing costs for battery cellsAs we have seen in section 3.1, it can be assumed that generation 3a traction battery

cells will be available in the market by 2020. In order to assess the launch of a cell

production, the technology costs were roughly estimated as a percentage of the

marginal costs at the various expansion stages (cf. Figure 15).



-

The analysis gives the following picture:

• At expansion stage 2 (cf. Figure 15), production costs are invariably above the

marginal costs for all cell generations. With this capacity, an economic production is

not possible.

• At expansion stage 3, production costs for generation 3a traction battery cells can be

kept at an economically viable level – which is not possible for generations 2a and 2b.

• Expansion stages 4 and 5 allow for the production of generation 3a traction battery

cells at significantly below the marginal costs. Under the assumed utilisation and

price scenarios, an economic production at approximately Korean cost levels seems

possible (cf. Figure 16).

With generation 3a

and an expansion

stage yielding about

13 Gwh, an economic

cally viable production

is possible



For a more detailed consideration of the economic viability of a cell production in

Germany, we will therefore assume the production of generation 3a (and subsequent)

traction battery cells only. To simplify matters – consistent with the foregoing – consid

erations will be limited to the production of BEV cells (amount of cells required

according to the needs assessment).

-

Depending on the cell formats/types used, PHEV cells would require higher investments

and a modified investment structure (number and type of the individual production

modules), owing to their different composition (e. g. in terms of coating thickness of

the anode/cathode). Also, other price structures must be expected. However, since the

fundamental statements regarding profitability and the roadmap for cell production are

the same in these scenarios, a separate analysis can be omitted.

Material costs make up

about 60–75 % of the

production costs of a

battery cell.

A profitable production of generation 3a cells and subsequent cell generations is

possible with a factory performance of 13 Gwh/a or more. The economic viability of a

cell production partly depends on location-specific factors (energy, labour, logistics);

more importantly, however, it is contingent on the extent of scaling achievable in the

production, which is crucial to avoid disadvantages in terms of material costs.


Examplary business planning and realisation strategy

7


7Examplary business planning and realisation strategy



7.1 Business planning and description of possible scenariosIn order to trace the development of profitability in the long term, the business plan

assumes that the cell factory is expanded in five expansion stages until 2025, followed

by a further production phase until 2030.

The projection was not extended beyond 2030: Not only is it impossible to assess a

period more than 15 years hence, but a potential investor will expect obvious and

verifiable profitability ten year after SOP at the latest. A first estimate of the expected

profitability in relation to the capacity expansion has already been presented. In the

business planning, this aspect is complemented by the the parameter “general

utilisation”. The analysis is further extended to cover the following issues: Selling,

general and administrative expenses (SG&A), such research and development costs

(R&D) as can not be passed on to the customers, as well as the dynamics of rising cell

quantities (depending on how the production of the according vehicles proceeds).

The following three scenarios form the starting point for the business plan. They differ

in the specific utilisation rate of the production capacities: Scenario – 95 % utilisation,

Scenario – 80 % utilisation and Scenario – 65 % utilisation, assuming utilisation rates of

95 %, 80 % and 65 % respectively of the capacity available3 at expansion stage 5. Thus,

all three scenarios can reach a maximum output of about 90.2 million cells/a as of

2025.

With the scenario-specific utilisation rates, a conservative estimate yields the following

results: In the scenario – 95 % utilisation, a global market share of around 8 % is

obtained. The other two scenarios yield correspondingly smaller global market shares

of 7 % and 5 % respectively (cf. Figure 17).

3 It was assumed that an Operating Equipment Efficiency (OEE) of 83 % was gradually realised, and fully

reached at expansion stage 5.



The capacity available according to the scenarios was sold in the business plan and was

used to determine the scenario-based turnover of current vehicles, including ramp-up

and phase-out curves. To this end it was assumed that the business planning provides for

the production of traction battery cells for electric vehicles only4. Since the market

prognosis does not go beyond 2025, possible post-2025 vehicles are modeled as

successors of the pre-2025 vehicles. This means that when a vehicle is phased out, a

successor vehicle is launched with a price per kWh of 5 % below the previous model’s. This

roughly reflects the life cycle price degression usual in the automotive supply industry.

Under these assumptions, a turnover of EUR 1.350 million is reached in 2025 in the

Scenario – 80 % utilisation. After deduction of the corresponding cost of sales, this

results in an EBIT of EUR 200 million in 2025 or EUR 110 million in 2030. For the

Scenarios – 95 % utilisation and 65 % utilisation the figures are accordingly adapted (cf.

Figure 18).

Following the business plan, an EBIT margin of 15 % is achieved in 2025 in the Scenario

– 80 % utilisation.5 In contrast, the 2025 EBIT margin is only 11 % in the Scenario – 65 %

utilisation, whereas the Scenario – 95 % utilisation reaches an EBIT margin of 19 % in

2025.

4 Cells for PHEV batteries usually have a lower energy density compared to cells for BEV batteries. This is due to the thinner coating of the cathodes and anodes. It would consequently seem possible to increase the coating speed since less material is applied in the coating process and the drying time is shorter. However, the maximum speed is limited by the maximum tensile strength of the AL or Cu foils. This leaves only a minimal scope for an increase in coating speed compared to BEV cells. Since this increase is, in turn, offset by the smaller surface capacity of the cathode or anode, the effects cancel each other out, leaving no difference to a BEV cell.

5 Note: Financial indicators for 2030 are not considered since in reality, further investments in new cell and production technologies would be undertaken in order to keep the EBIT margin at more or less the same level.



The 65 % utilisation scenario does not represent a sustainable business plan and will

therefore not figure in the further considerations. The discussions in NPE SWG 2.2 have

shown the 80 % utilisation scenario to be the reference case, while the 95 % utilisation

scenario represents a best case.

In addition to the annual tranches of the operating cash flow, a potential investor will

particularly set store by the cumulative cash flow calculation.

Particularly the construction of the cell factory and the development of corresponding

B-/C-/D- sample cells has resulted in a high negative operating cash flow. This sums up

to around 610 million EUR in all three scenarios.

A utilisation rate of at

least 80 % is a prerequi

site for lasting

profitability

-

Figure 20 shows the cumulative cash flow curves for the different scenarios along the

time axis, with important milestones marked on the time line. It reveals that once

expansion stage 4 is reached, the annual operating cash flow becomes positive in all

three scenarios, rising still further with the start of expansion stage 5. This is partly due

to the reduction in the assumed material cost disadvantages (cf. chapter 7.2) and

partly to the ocurrence of scale effects, particularly in the area of SG & A costs. As of

2027, the positive values of the operating cash flows will drop again, due to the fact

that many successor vehicles will have their SOP which will result in reductions on the

revenue side.

In the 95 % and 80 % utilisation scenarios, a clearly positive operating cash flow is

reached in 2026 and 2027 respectively. Figure 19 shows the accumulated cash flow

curves for the two scenarios. With the launch of expansion stage 4 (corresponding to

an output of approximately 62 million cells/a), cell production becomes operationally

profitable. The sensitivities regarding the material cost disadvantages are likewise

marked. Even slight changes of +/− 2 % visibly affect profitability.

High negative

operating cash flow

expected in the first

8–10 years



-

In order to assess how long it will take to recover the investments, the cumulative

profits and losses are presented in figure 21. In the 80 % utilisation scenario, amortisa

tion will not be reached during the period considered. While the trend does indicate

eventual amortisation, it is not to be expexted until a good twelve years after the start

of the activities. It must further be considered that the scenario does not account for

any investments into capacity expansion beyond 2025. Against this background,

amortisation cannot be expected until much later.

Amortisation expected

after significantly more

than 10 years

All in all, three key messages emerge:

• In addition to the expansion stage achieved and the battery technology used (cf. Chapter

7), the utilisation rate at the respective expansion stage has a significant influence both

on the profitability of cell production and on the operating cash flow. With view to the

initial investments, a utilisation rate of 65 % as assumed in the respective utilisation

scenario, is hence no longer profitable.



• Moreover, the cumulative operating and positive cash flows are not free to be used for

payments to investors. Rather, they are intended for further developments, expansions

and investments. This is particularly important since such a manufacturer will still have a

comparatively small global market share. In addition, the production must be scaled up

further in order to maintain competitiveness and further reduce cost disadvantages.

• In the 80 % utilisation scenario, cell production is operationally profitable. It must also be

taken into account that since these are investments into a rapidly growing market, very

long amortisation periods are not unusual.

-

A cell production of about 13 Gwh/a requires an investment of about EUR 1.3 billion.

According to an initial estimate, a break-even (EBIT) will be achieved in 2025 and

amortisation as of 2030. Under the assumptions of the business plan, a cell production

requires a minimum utilisation rate of 80 % to achieve long-term profitability. Also, the

positive operating cash flow must be reinvested into new production- and battery cell

technologies.

7.2 Scaling of production capacitiesA further scaling of the production is imperative if the global market share is to be

increased. This, in turn, is necessary to improve the manufacturer’s position in negotia

tions with suppliers and to reduce cost disadvantages vis-à-vis competitors. The

objective must be a sustainable market share of well over 10 %.

Further expansions will always be carried out according to the same principle, i.e. that

production follows demand and/or is established at a location with the best cost

structures. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that further locations can be

limited to production only, because the cell development is carried out at the “parent

location”.

Scaling the production will presumably involve the following steps:

Further factory rollout

possible depending on

the demand

1. Construction and scaling of the “parent plant” according to the described expansion

stages up to a capacity of about 90.2 million cells/a

2. Construction and demand-driven scaling of a plant in a European “Best Cost

Country” based on expansion stages 3–5

3. Construction and demand-driven scaling of a plant in an international “Best Cost

Country” based on expansion stages 3–5



In order to keep cell production competitive, a further (international) expansion of

battery production is required. A battery cell manufacture is scalable within the

determined expansion stages.

7.3 Possible market risks and market potentialsAs the profitability of a cell production depends in particular on the achieved utilisation

rate, a battery cell manufacturer must accordingly seek to optimise this rate. He must

consequenly be aware both of potential risks that might reduce the utilisation rate and

of possible potentials.

External market risks include intensified expansion efforts of competitors, further

enhancing the global cell capacities. Another possibility is an attack scenario: In this

case, the risk is that competitors resort to price reductions to drive a new competitor

straight out of the market again. Furthermore, existing competitors or highly innovative

startups can render a cell technology obsolete by completing evolutionary or disruptive

cell developments. Hence, a battery cell manufacturer must constantly monitor market

developments and, if necessary, readjust his own technology and/or production

processes early on.

Market entry:

Significant risks

versus potentials.



On the other hand, however, there are internal potentials that can increase the

utilisation rate. One possibility could be to optimise the production processes so as

enhance quality, reduce reject rates or increase production speeds. In addition, a

battery cell manufacturer needs to consider expanding his business model to identify

and address new sales areas.


Employment effects

8

Employment effects8Employment effects


Employment effects

Assuming a cell production of approximately 13 GWh/a, an employment effect of

around 1,050–1,300 employees can be expected in the factory (production, R&D,

sales, etc.). In addition, up to 3,100 jobs could be generated in the vicinity. This,

however, largely dependends on the structural strength of the location.

Additional jobs can be created in the supplier industry and in production-related service

and development areas. For structurally weak regions, this harbours a potential of

between 2,100 and 3,100 additional jobs. In structurally strong regions, the potential

may turn out to be significantly lower with 1,400 to 1,800 additional employees

(cf. Figure 23).

Direct employment in

the battery cell factory

creates up to 1,300

jobs

If the distribution of added value in the scope we are considering corresponds to the

average in the German automotive industry, we can assume a multiplying effect on

employment of 2.3 to 2.4. If downstream value creation processes, such as module and

system assembly, are taken into account, the baseline for multiplication increases

significantly. In the area of cell manufacturing, it is assumed that advances (material,

equipment, components, etc.) reach a similar level to that of the automotive industry in

general (i.e. about 70 %).

Another important basis is the share of imported advances. For cell production, an

import share of about 40 % is assumed. The precondition is that the production facilities

and components (cell casings, connectors, etc.) are mainly produced in Germany. This

rate would, indeed, roughly correspond to the German average.

Assuming a cell production of approximately 13 GWh/a, an employment effect of about

1,050–1,300 employees can be expected in the factory (production, R&D, sales, etc.).

In addition, 1.400 to 3,100 jobs could be generated in the vicinity.


Organisation of the WG 2 and SWG 2.2

9


9Organisation of the WG 2 and SWG 2.2



The NPE SWG 2.2 Cell and Battery Production, convened to address the project,

elaborated the present roadmap in cooperation with partners from academia, the

industry, the ministries (Advisory Board) and the consulting firm Roland Berger. The SWG

2.2 includes representatives of the automotive and supplier industries, the mechanical

engineering sector, the chemical industry, scientific institutes, competence centres,

research facilities, consulting companies and the Advisory Board. This specific composi

tion of the SWG is suited to deal with the very complex issues the NPE is addressing. The

SWG 2.2 basically assembles the same companies as the NPE WG 2, supplemented,

however, by additional guests as well as the Advisory Board. A Scientific Committee was

convened as a further institution.

-

The results are reported to the NPE WG 2 – Battery Technology and the NPE Steering

Committee.

-

SWG 2.2 will give support and advice in the recommended process steps. The overall

organisation of the NPE SWG 2.2, which includes academia, industry, politics, consult

ants and the Advisory Board has proved a success and will be continued by the NPE. The

core topics will be cell and battery production, customer requirements and the key

performance of traction battery cells and battery packs.


Closing Remarks

10Closing Remarks 10Closing Remarks


Closing Remarks

With a view to the continuously increasing exhaust gas and emission regulations, the

introduction of alternative drive systems and future mobility options has, for some

years, been globally gaining momentum. In this discussion, one of the central topics is

electric mobility. While opening up new potentials and opportunities along the value

chain, it is also fraught with risks and highly unpredictable. This ambivalence becomes

apparent both in everyday public discussions and in the many intensive debates

between the members of WG 2 and SWG 2.2. We wish to pay tribute to all those

involved for their commitment and the excellent and focussed cooperation.

The Roadmap contains more general results of studies and analyses that require further

specification by interested companies. The existing potential must not, however, blind

us the risks. The recommendations for action described in this report are therefore to

be consistently followed up.


Glossary

11Glossary11Glossary


Glossary

BCC

Best Cost Countries – term designating

countries that offer the most favourable

location for the manufacture of a product

in terms of overall costs

BEV

Battery Electric Vehicle

Blend

Combination of different cathode

materials to meet customer-specific

property profiles

BMBF

Federal Ministry of Education and

Research

BMWi

Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and

Energy

CPM

Cells per minute – measuring unit for the

output of a battery cell production

DoE

United States Department of Energy

GGEMO

The (German) Federal Government’s Joint

Office for Electric Mobility

Gigafactory

Term designating a factory for traction

battery cells and battery packs with a

capacity of 35 GWh/a

HEV

Hybrid Electric Vehicle

IAA

International Motor Show

LCE

Lithium carbonate equivalent

LFP

Lithium iron phosphate

Li-ion Technology

Lithium-ion technology, also lithium-ion

accumulator in the lithium-ion secondary

battery

LMO

Lithium manganese oxide

local content

Term designating the local share of total

value added produced at a given national

location

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

NCA

Lithium-nickel-cobalt-alumina

NCM (z.T. auch als NMC bezeichnet)

Lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide

NPE

German National Platform for Electric

Mobility

OEE

Overall Equipment Effectiveness consist

ing of availability factor, performance

factor and quality factor

-

OEM

Original Equipment Manufacturer (brand

producer, here: automotive manufacturer)

PHEV

Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle

R&D

Research and Development

SG&A

Selling, General and Administrative

Expenses


Glossary

SGB

Spherical graphite battery-grade – spheri

cal graphite in a suitable quality for direct

use in the production of electrodes for

battery cells

-

SOP

Start of Production (i.e. serial production)

SUV

Sport Utility Vehicle

SWG

Sub-Working Group of the NPE

TCO

Total Cost of Ownership (Calculation

model including all costs for capital

goods, e. g. operation or maintenance

costs)

VDA

German vehicle manufacturers’

association

WG

Working Group of the NPE


Bibliography

12Bibliography 12Bibliography

NPE WG 2 – Battery Technology, NPE SWG 2.2 – Roadmap Cell and Battery Production


Bibliography

Anderman. (2013). AABC – Advanced Automotive Battery Conference. Pasadena.

Baehr Verpackung. (2015). Produkte. Accessed: September 9, 2015 at

www.baehr-verpackung.de/inka-paletten/inkapaletten/

BASF (Fischer Andreas), (2015). Metals Cost Contribution in NCM Comparison

2001–2014. WING-Konferenz (S.1). Dresden

Bloomberg. (2015). Bloomberg Composite. Accessed: July 8, 2015

Busan Agency Co. Ltd. (2015). Portcharges. Accessed: August 3, 2015 at

www.busanagency.kr/html/portcharge.html

Californian Air Resources Board. (2014). ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE STANDARDS FOR 2018

AND SUBSEQUENT MODEL YEAR PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS, AND MEDI-

UM-DUTY VEHICLES. Accessed: December 1, 2015 at

www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevregs/1962.2_Clean.pdf

CEIC. (2015). China Economic & Industry Data Database. Accessed: July 8, 2015 at

www.ceicdata.com/en/countries/china

City of Yokohama. (2015). Business Environment of Yokohama. Accessed:

July 7, 2015 at www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/keizai/yuchi/sinsyutu-c/pamphulet-en.pdf

Countryeconomy.com. (2015). Countries data: Demographic and economy. Accessed:

July 7, 2015 at countryeconomy.com/countries

Department of Energy & Climate Change. (2015). International industrial energy prices.

Accessed: July 9, 2015 at

www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/international-industrial-energy-prices

acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften (2015). Zellproduktion in

Deutschland - Eine Betrachtung aus Sicht der Wissenschaft (Arbeitspapier).

Elkind, P. (2014). Inside Elon Musk’s $1.4 billion score. Accessed: September 25, 2015

at fortune.com: fortune.com/inside-elon-musks-billion-dollar-gigafactory/

EUI. (2015). Labour costs. Accessed: 8. Juli 2015 at Economist Intelligence Unit:

www.eiu.com

European Commission. (2014). Regional aid. Accessed: July 7, 2015 at

ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/regional_aid/regional_aid.html

Eurostat. (2015). Energy statistics. Accessed: July 9, 2015 at Eurostat:

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/database

http://www.baehr-verpackung.de/inka-paletten/inkapaletten/

http://www.busanagency.kr/html/portcharge.html

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevregs/1962.2_Clean.pdf

http://www.ceicdata.com/en/countries/china

http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/keizai/yuchi/sinsyutu-c/pamphulet-en.pdf

http://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/international-industrial-energy-prices

http://www.eiu.com

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/database

ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/regional_aid/regional_aid.html

fortune.com/inside-elon-musks-billion-dollar-gigafactory/

countryeconomy.com/countries


Bibliography

Fraunhofer IAO (Andrej Cacilo, Florian Herrmann). (2015). Beschäftigungseffekt in der

Batteriezellfertigung. Stuttgart.

German Industry & Commerce Greater China | Beijing. (2015). Elektromobilität in

China. Accessed: November 18, 2015 at china.ahk.de/de/flexible-newsletter/flexi-

ble-newsletters-ahk-china/emochina-newsletter-ausgabe-072015/

GTAI. (2014). Nationale Investitionsförderung - Korea (Rep.) 2014. Accessed:

July 9, 2015 at www.gtai.de/GTAI/Navigation/DE/Trade/Maerkte/Geschaeftspraxis/

nat-investitionsfoerderung,t=nationale-investitionsfoerderung--ko-

rea-rep-2014,did=1055352.html

IHS. (2015). 2015-01 Light Vehicles Production Forecast (IHS). Englewood, USA: IHS.

IHS. (2015). 2015-01 Light Vehicles Sales Forecast (IHS). Englewood, USA: IHS.

IMD. (2015). IMD WORLD COMPETITIVENESS YEARBOOK 2015. Lausanne: IMD World

Competitiveness Center.

Ishiguro, Y. (2014). Latest developments of all Solid State batteries for sustainable

mobility. Batteries 2014. Nizza, France.

KEPCO. (2015). Industrial Tariff. Accessed: July 9, 2015 at

dgfez.go.kr/eng/page.php?mnu_uid=917

KFW. (2015). Inlandsförderung für Unternehmen. Accessed: 3. Juli 2015 at

www.kfw.de

KOGAS. (2015). Energy price. Accessed: July 9, 2015 at

www.kogas.or.kr/ENG/main.jsp

MOL. (2014). Landside Tariff Surcharge. Accessed: 3. August 2015 at

http://cms.molpower.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HpyK5rJMPbM%3D&portalid=0

MOL. (2015). Landside Tariff Surcharges. Accessed: 3. August 2015 at

http://cms.molpower.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6J0aPE2c9gg%3D&portalid=0

Nationale Plattform Elektromobilität (NPE). (2014).

Progress Report 2014 – Review of Pre-Market Phase, Berlin: The Federal Government’s

Joint Office for Electric Mobility (GGEMO)

NPE UAG 2.2 Mitglieder, M. Weiss. (2015). Gesamtuntersuchung zur Zell- und Batterie-

produktion, Investitionsvolumen und Businesscase für eine Batteriezellfertigung.

Durchgeführt von April–November 2015 (W. Bernhart, G. Pieper, T. Schlick, Interviewer)

www.gtai.de/GTAI/Navigation/DE/Trade/Maerkte/Geschaeftspraxis/nat-investitionsfoerderung,t=nationale-investitionsfoerderung--ko-rea-rep-2014,did=1055352.html

http://www.kfw.de

http://www.kogas.or.kr/ENG/main.jsp

http://cms.molpower.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HpyK5rJMPbM%3D&portalid=0

http://cms.molpower.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6J0aPE2c9gg%3D&portalid=0

dgfez.go.kr/eng/page.php?mnu_uid=917

china.ahk.de/de/flexible-newsleter/flex-ble-newsletters-ahk-china/emochina-newsletter-ausgabe-072015/


Bibliography

NPE UAG 2.2 M. Weiss, Mitglieder (2015). Investitionsvolumen für eine Batteriezellferti-

gung. Durchgeführt von Mai–August 2015 (W. Bernhart, G. Pieper, T. Schlick, Inter-

viewer)

NPE UAG 2.2 M. Weiss, A. Lamm, P. Lamp (2015). Key-Performance Parameter für BEV

(W. Bernhart, G. Pieper, T. Schlick, Interviewer)

NPE UAG 2.2 M. Weiss. (2015). Analysen und Ergebnisse zur Gesamtorganisation NPE

AG2 und UAG 2.2.

OECD.stat. (2015). Corporate income tax rate. Accessed: July 7, 2015 at

stats.oecd.org//Index.aspx?QueryId=58204

Oxford Economics. (2015). Key macroecomonic data and exchange rates. Oxford:

Oxford Economics.

paper.people.com.cn. (2013). OECD - Energy price report. Accessed: September 23,

2015 at paper.people.com.cn/zgnyb/html/2013-05/20/content_1242991.htm

Paskert, D., Loois, E., Beyer, R., Weimer, L. & Specht, W. (2015). Bericht zu NPE UAG 2.2,

Darstellung der Hauptrisiken in den rohstoffbezogenen Wertschöpfungsketten von

Zell-Komponenten für Li-Ionen-Batterien. Rohstoffallianz GmbH. Presentation of the

main risks in the value chains of raw materials required for cell components of Li-ion

batteries. Rohstoffallianz GmbH.

Pillot, C. (2015). The Rechargeable Battery Market and Main Trends 2014–2025. Paris:

Avicenne Energy.

pk Elektronik. (2015). Produkte. Accessed: September 9, 2015 at

www.pkelektronik.com/egb-esd-reinraum/esd-verpackung-versand/

ableitfaehige-folien.html

State Administration of Taxation. (2013). Tax rate description. Accessed:

September 22, 2015 at http://www.chinatax.gov.cn/2013/n2925/n2959/c307248/

content.html

Takeshita. (2012). B3-Report. Tokyo: B3 Corporation.

Transparency International Deutschland e.V. (2014). Corruption Perceptions Index

2014. Accessed: July 7, 2015 at https://www.transparency.de/Tabellarisches-Rank-

ing.2574.0.html

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2015). Electricity and Gas. Accessed:

September 24, 2015 at www.eia.gov

http://www.pkelektronik.com/egb-esd-reinraum/esd-verpackung-versand/ableitfaehige-folien.html

http://www.chinatax.gov.cn/2013/n2925/n2959/c307248/content.html

https://www.transparency.de/Tabellarisches-Rank-ing.2574.0.html

http://www.eia.gov

paper.people.com.cn/zgnyb/html/2013-05/20/content_1242991.htm

stats.oecd.org//Index.aspx?QueryId=58204


Bibliography

wbk - Institut für Produktionstechnik. (2015). Pilot process modules are developed at

different research institutes and sent to a research production facility.

Wesoff, E. (2015). Boston-Power Aims to Rival Tesla With Gigawatt Battery Factories.

Accessed: September 23, 2015 at http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/

Boston-Power-Aims-to-Rival-Tesla-With-Gigawatt-Battery-Factories

Worldbank. (2014). Logistics Performance Index. Accessed: July 9, 2015 at

lpi.worldbank.org/

Worldbank. (2015). World Bank Commodities Price Forecast. Accessed: July 9, 2015

at www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEP2015a/Price_Forecast.pdf

Worldfreightrates.com. (2015). Freight Calculator. Accessed: August 3, 2015 at

worldfreightrates.com/en/freight

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Boston-Power-Aims-to-Rival-Tesla-With-Gigawatt-Battery-Factories

http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/GEP/GEP2015a/Price_Forecast.pdf

lpi.worldbank.org/

http://worldfreightrates.com/en/freight


Bibliography

Membership structure SWG 2.2 Cell and Battery Production

Name Representative for Function

Weiss, Michael Daimler chair/board NPE SWG 2.2

Dr. Martin-Hübner, Nathalie Bosch member SWG 2.2

Dr. Müller-Neumann, Markus BASF member SWG 2.2

Dr. Leitner, Klaus BASF member SWG 2.2

Dr. Ochs, Torsten Bosch member SWG 2.2

Pethe, Axel Bosch member SWG 2.2

Dr. Lamp, Peter BMW member SWG 2.2

Dr. Schweizer-Berberich, Markus Continental member SWG 2.2

Dr. Lamm, Arnold Daimler member SWG 2.2

Blome, Frank Deutsche Accumotive member SWG 2.2

Welling, Andreas Deutsche Accumotive member SWG 2.2

Dr. Möller, Kai-Christian Fraunhofer ICT member SWG 2.2

Prof. Dr. Tübke, Jens Fraunhofer ICT member SWG 2.2

Dr. Thielmann, Axel Fraunhofer ISI member SWG 2.2

Werner, Albrecht Manz member SWG 2.2

Dr. Hörpel, Gerhard Universität Münster, Meet member SWG 2.2

Stutz, Reiko Varta member SWG 2.2

Prof. Dr. Schreiber, Werner Volkswagen member SWG 2.2

Dr. Krausa, Michael KLiB guest member SWG 2.2

Dr. Paskert, Dirk Rohstoffallianz guest member SWG 2.2

Loois, Elbert Rohstoffallianz guest member SWG 2.2

Prof. Dr. Tillmetz, Werner ZSW guest member SWG 2.2

Hofmann, Birgit BMWi Advisory Board

Dr. Wirth, Hans-Christoph BMWi Advisory Board

Dr. Kloock, Joachim BMBF Advisory Board

Dr. Zeisel, Herbert BMBF Advisory Board

Dr. Schroth, Peter BMBF Advisory Board

Dr. Bernhart, Wolfgang Roland Berger consultancy

Pieper, Gero Roland Berger consultancy

Dr. Schlick, Thomas Roland Berger consultancy


Notes

Name Representative for Function

Weiss, Michael Daimler chair/board NPE SWG 2.2

Dr. Martin-Hübner, Nathalie Bosch member SWG 2.2

Dr. Müller-Neumann, Markus BASF member SWG 2.2

Dr. Leitner, Klaus BASF member SWG 2.2

Dr. Ochs, Torsten Bosch member SWG 2.2

Pethe, Axel Bosch member SWG 2.2

Dr. Lamp, Peter BMW member SWG 2.2

Dr. Schweizer-Berberich, Markus Continental member SWG 2.2

Dr. Lamm, Arnold Daimler member SWG 2.2

Blome, Frank Deutsche Accumotive member SWG 2.2

Welling, Andreas Deutsche Accumotive member SWG 2.2

Dr. Möller, Kai-Christian Fraunhofer ICT member SWG 2.2

Prof. Dr. Tübke, Jens Fraunhofer ICT member SWG 2.2

Dr. Thielmann, Axel Fraunhofer ISI member SWG 2.2

Werner, Albrecht Manz member SWG 2.2

Dr. Hörpel, Gerhard Universität Münster, Meet member SWG 2.2

Stutz, Reiko Varta member SWG 2.2

Prof. Dr. Schreiber, Werner Volkswagen member SWG 2.2

Dr. Krausa, Michael KLiB guest member SWG 2.2

Dr. Paskert, Dirk Rohstoffallianz guest member SWG 2.2

Loois, Elbert Rohstoffallianz guest member SWG 2.2

Prof. Dr. Tillmetz, Werner ZSW guest member SWG 2.2

Hofmann, Birgit BMWi Advisory Board

Dr. Wirth, Hans-Christoph BMWi Advisory Board

Dr. Kloock, Joachim BMBF Advisory Board

Dr. Zeisel, Herbert BMBF Advisory Board

Dr. Schroth, Peter BMBF Advisory Board

Dr. Bernhart, Wolfgang Roland Berger consultancy

Pieper, Gero Roland Berger consultancy

Dr. Schlick, Thomas Roland Berger consultancy

Notes


Notes


Imprint

AuthorNational Platform for Electric Mobility (NPE) Berlin, January 2016

PublisherThe Federal Government’s Joint Office for Electric Mobility (GGEMO)Scharnhorststraße 34–3710115 Berlin

Typesetting and designHEILMEYERUNDSERNAUGESTALTUNGwww.heilmeyerundsernau.com

Editorial staffWG 2 – Battery Technology: Prof. Dr. Thomas Weber (chair) Dr. Martin Brudermüller (co-chair ) Dr. Rolf Bulander (deputy chair)

SWG 2.2 – Cell and Battery Production: Michael Weiss (chair/board)Dr. Nathalie Martin-Hübner Dr. Markus Müller-Neumann Dr. Wolfgang Bernhart Dr. Thomas Schlick Gero Pieper

http://www.heilmeyerundsernau.com

Documents

Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germanynationale-plattform-elektromobilitaet.de/fileadmin/user... · 2018. 4. 18. · 6 Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and