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
3Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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
4Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Executive SummaryExecutive Summary
5Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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.
6Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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.
7Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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).
8Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Market and competition
1Market and competition
1
Market and competition
9Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Market and competition
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
10Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Market and competition
-
-
-
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”).
11Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Market and competition
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
12Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Market and competition
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.
13Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Market and competition
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.
14Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Market and competition
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).
15Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Market and competition
2Cell performance and suppliers
2
Cell performance and suppliers
16Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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).
17Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Cell performance and suppliers
• 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.
18Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Development of cell and production technology
3
Development of cell and production technology
3Development of cell and production technology
19Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Development 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.
20Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Development of cell and production technology
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.
21Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Development of cell and production technology
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.
22Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Development of cell and production technology
• 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.
23Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Development of cell and production technology
-
-
-
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).
24Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Development of cell and production technology
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.
-
25Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Germany as a production location – a cross-country comparison
4
Germany as a production location – a cross-country comparison
4Germany as a production location – a cross-country comparison
26Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Germany 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.
27Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Germany as a production location – a cross-country comparison
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.
28Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Germany as a production location – a cross-country comparison
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.
-
29Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Risks in the value chain of raw materials required for lithium-ion battery cells
5
Risks in the value chain of raw materials required for lithium-ion battery cells
5Risks in the value chain of raw materials required for lithium-ion battery cells
30Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Risks 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.
31Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Risks in the value chain of raw materials required for lithium-ion battery cells
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
32Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Risks in the value chain of raw materials required for lithium-ion battery cells
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.
33Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary establishment of a cell production
6
Examplary establishment of a cell production
6Examplary establishment of a cell production
34Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary 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.
-
35Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary establishment of a cell production
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
-
36Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary establishment of a cell production
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)
37Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary establishment of a cell production
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).
38Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary establishment of a cell production
-
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
39Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary establishment of a cell production
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.
40Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary business planning and realisation strategy
7
Examplary business planning and realisation strategy
7Examplary business planning and realisation strategy
41Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary 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.
42Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary business planning and realisation strategy
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.
43Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary business planning and realisation strategy
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
44Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary business planning and realisation strategy
-
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.
45Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary business planning and realisation strategy
• 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
46Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary business planning and realisation strategy
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.
47Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Examplary business planning and realisation strategy
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.
48Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Employment effects
8
Employment effects8Employment effects
49Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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.
50Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Organisation of the WG 2 and SWG 2.2
9
Organisation of the WG 2 and SWG 2.2
9Organisation of the WG 2 and SWG 2.2
51Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Organisation 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.
52Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Closing Remarks
10Closing Remarks 10Closing Remarks
53Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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.
54Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Glossary
11Glossary11Glossary
55Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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
56Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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
57Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Bibliography
12Bibliography 12Bibliography
NPE WG 2 – Battery Technology, NPE SWG 2.2 – Roadmap Cell and Battery Production
58Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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
59Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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)
60Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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
61Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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
62Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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
63Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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
64Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
Notes
3Roadmap for an Integrated Cell and Battery Production in Germany
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