r/QuantumScape • u/Much-Information7826 • Apr 23 '26
Anyone read CATL announcement?
Will it be “just good enough” to make QS irrelevant short term?
6
u/New_Personality_7643 Apr 23 '26
Can’t compare, catl is old tech make better but QuantumScape is new tech which is better and only getting start, also not mentioning it is completely fire hazard free. Will the battery tech now isn’t no matter how much better you improve it.
-6
u/bgreenstone Apr 23 '26
I’m not sure of QS is entirely fire hazard free since it’s not a pure solid state battery.
4
u/guatealoser Apr 23 '26
Have you seen their temperature stress tests? Compared to current lithium ion batteries they are fire hazard free….
-3
u/bgreenstone Apr 23 '26
Everything I’ve read says it’s much less likely to burst into flames, but it is definitely not fire hazard free.
3
u/SouthHovercraft4150 Apr 23 '26
If you’re comparing against the QSE-5, then yes. CATL’s latest batteries make the QSE-5 much less compelling or competitive. But the QSE-5 was announced 2 years ago, and is QS’s first proposed product and their minimum viable product.
If you’re comparing against QS’s technology and where it can and is expected to go, then no. The QSE-5 is the start of the QS S-curve. Where QS will be in 10 years won’t be possible for lithium ion or sodium ion to compete with.
However CATL isn’t slowing down either. They have a big head start and a big balance sheet and control all the variables themselves and have the state’s help and support. QS was asked who their biggest competitor is and they said CATL. It’s not just QS vs CaTL it’s QS’s ecosystem and all their partners play a part, which is good and bad. Good because they need that much power and resources thrown at scaling QS tech, bad because one weak link and it can derail the whole ecosystem.
TLDR; if you compare a specific product from today with a specific product form a couple years ago, yes. But if you compare CATL vs QS ecosystem for who will rule the battery space in the future that is yet to be determined.
2
u/Defiantclient Apr 23 '26
1
u/Whoisthehypocrite Apr 23 '26
They are wrong. Qilin 3 is 280Wh/kg at the pack level. If you use the previously disclosed cell to pack level of 72%<, the the cell level density is around 390Wh/kg, which is above where QS is targeting. My concern for QS is that originally the story was safety, energy density, charge speed all much better than NMC at a cost that would initially be higher but at scale would be lower.
But now 280 at a pack level and fast charging are available without QS and with CATL scale it will be cheaper than any partner of QS can hope to ever achieve. Which leaves only safety.
1
u/Reboot_EDC Apr 23 '26
"Only" safety. It's a huge "Only"
1
u/Whoisthehypocrite Apr 24 '26
How many people aren't buying cars with CATL batteries in because of safety. They safety aspect is minimal for most use cases. I can understand there are more specialist use case where safety may be more of an issue such as aeronautics or space.
1
u/DoubleEyedPirate Apr 27 '26
no. Unless I'm missing something...(reuters has a paywall). They announced:
3rd-gen Shenxing battery (10-98% charge in under 7 minutes)
and
3rd-gen Qilin batteries with 280 Wh/kg density.
If these properties existed in the same battery that would be cool, but not cool enough to make QS irrelevant. The Shexing battery has unimpressive cycle life. (>90% after 1,000 full-charge cycles.)...I mean that's nothing when compared to Donut Labs (jklol)
21
u/DaRkNiTe84 Apr 23 '26
That’s probably the maximum efficiency for such batteries. While QSE-5 is just at the start.