Industry giants including SAIC Motor, CATL, Sinopec, and CNPC recently founded a joint company Q Electricity (捷能智電), a new energy firm aiming to lead all SAIC self-owned brands to join the battery-swapping business race; which is another Chinese auto giant’s decision to follow NIO’s “car and battery separation” operation model after GAC Group and Geely Auto for their self-owned brands within a year. There are currently over 1,500 battery-swapping stations in the Chinese market, and the number will rise rapidly. Moreover, CATL also launched EVOGO, a battery-swap brand; boasting its innovative Choco-swapping electric block design with wireless BMS, the battery pack consists of three battery blocks that can each be replaced individually (taking only one minute each) and has a range of up to 200km for each block. Surpassing last-gen battery-swapping station technologies, CATL has once again revolutionized the swapping process by splitting the car battery into three parts to make the station’s operation flexible and smooth. Different from other automakers’ independent battery-swapping networks, CATL, the largest power battery manufacturer in the world, grants the company an advantage and will attract many technological or capital-inferior carmakers to join CATL’s more standardized battery-swapping station technology, even outpacing those leading automakers’ EV development.
Setting aside if global automakers recognize Chinese automakers’ battery-swapping concept… why does the non-mainstream technology start to surge five years after the EV mega trend uprising?
- Fast-charging technologies would still struggle to match ICE cars’ refueling time ( an ordinary ICE car would only need three minutes to fill up gas tank ranging 600km ).
- The “car and battery separation” business model can reduce car prices and consumers’ purchasing threshold. Although the cost of monthly subscription for batteries would not be cheap, those batteries could sustain the performance at optimal status, while owners are free from regular maintenance and workshops need less investment in repair equipment.
- The spec variation among battery cells will be gradually getting less, even being standardized at last. With professional battery companies maintaining swapping stations (NIO has its own independent battery service company as well), automakers could invest their R&D resources in other areas.
- Battery-swapping stations are complimentary with fast and slow charging services, eliminating mileage anxiety for EV drivers and granting the same convenience as ICE cars.
- Drivers can always experience the latest battery technology with the same vehicle. Future cars are just like mobile platforms, and owners are able to acquire carmakers’ newly-developed functions via OTA downloading. After the introduction of battery-swapping station, EVs’ largest key component, batteries, could be renewed whenever needed.
- Swapping stations will also be energy reserves. They could effectively lower the power grid loading during peak hours and recharge power back to the grid whenever needed for emergency use.
Even with all the advantages of battery-swapping stations, how would leading auto groups view this contrarian approach? Below are some of my assumptions of their possible views:
- Even if next-gen EVs’ skateboard design boosts the feasibility of cross-brand battery swapping, traditional auto giants will defend their heavily-invested battery techs and manufacturing equipment, preferring their products’ originality over shared swapping stations with other companies. One of the more crucial aspects lies in their egos: how could well-established, reputable automakers allow batteries from other brands on their car models (AND with frequent swaps)?
- To self-operate swapping stations like SAIC Motor, the carmaker’s EV sales must be sizable enough to be profitable. Even though acquiring large economic scales and battery-swapping technologies are far from demanding for international auto groups, the Chinese carmakers’ courage and attitude to challenge the status quo are far from the corporate culture of German, Japanese, and US traditional automakers. To establish a duo system (charging plus swapping), every automaker will face the possible decision of ditching one of the systems in the future, which does not mean well for the company’s financial operations. If governments don’t support carmakers financially, it will spell repercussions for these adventurous trials, even for Chinese auto giants.
In conclusion, the obstacle for battery-swapping stations to become mainstream lies not in technology but concerns over reduced product differentiation and financial risks due to the transition of charging/swapping networks. As for driver/passenger conveniences, the aspect is probably not on large automakers’ list of priorities.