BYD, founded in 1995 as a Chinese battery company, has achieved some significant engineering advantages over Tesla according to a new scientific study. While Tesla has promoted its battery innovations extensively, this research reveals that BYD’s Blade cell outperforms Tesla’s 4680 cell in several important areas, particularly thermal efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Comparing this specific heating per volume, the Tesla 4680 cell creates around 2× of the heat to be dissipated at a 1 C load (Figure 8). Thus, when designing a system with the same power requirements, the cooling needed for the Tesla 4680 cells must dissipate approximately 2× more heat per volume than that needed for the BYD cell at the same load.
The study clearly demonstrates BYD’s engineering prowess in developing more thermally efficient batteries. Tesla’s 4680 cell generates twice the heat per volume compared to BYD’s Blade cell at the same charging rate, requiring significantly more cooling to maintain safe operation. For consumers, this translates to important advantages in fast charging capability and longevity of BYD vehicles.
Beyond thermal performance, BYD’s cells are also more cost-effective, with the research showing approximately €10/kWh lower material costs than Tesla’s cells. This efficiency in both thermal management and cost reflects BYD’s practical engineering approach versus Tesla’s focus on energy density.
BYD’s technology demonstrates that engineering addressing real-world concerns like heat management, cost, and safety ultimately provides better and more sustainable value to consumers than maximizing a single metric.
Findings on Tesla batteries generating twice the heat of BYD’s also points the discerning technology professional towards critical safety questions. The connection between higher heat generation and observed fire risks demands urgent independent investigation. Further research should determine if such measured differences help explain the real-world safety outcomes. This scientific study provides clear technical evidence why thermal management in EV batteries requires closer scrutiny for consumer safety.
Higher energy density of Tesla (more energy pushed into smaller volume) can create greater risks for thermal danger. Batteries that force more energy into a smaller space, makes heat more challenging to engineer back down from, because it can lead to a chain reaction:
- Higher heat in confined space accelerates chemical reactions
- Chemical reactions then generate even more heat
- Lack of adequate cooling allows even even more heat
- Thermal runaway means the process becomes self-sustaining
- Tesla’s density thus is suspected in causing fires and explosion
For the vast majority of consumers, safety isn’t a preference but an expectation rooted in engineering ethics (cars as trusted systems). Professional engineering codes explicitly require prioritizing public safety above all other considerations. Random performance metrics are irrelevant when they ignore basic safety principles, like the absurdity of a South African man claiming in 2016 he will be launching rockets to colonize Mars within five years despite no real plans for survival.
BYD’s engineering approach demonstrates adherence to established principles in the engineering code of ethics, where safety and reliability take precedence. A focus on thermal efficiency and cooling systems reflects an ethical obligation to design systems that minimize foreseeable risks. This isn’t simply a market strategy but fulfillment of the foundational ethical requirement that engineers hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Consumers rightfully must demand that vehicles are safe regardless of any marketing claims in a design change.
Tesla’s singular pursuit of energy density without adequate thermal management directly challenges engineering ethical standards. No engineering innovation can be considered successful if it creates undue risk to users. Just as an engineer cannot justify a structurally unsound bridge that falls down by highlighting they developed more density in its cables, battery systems that generate excessive heat cannot be defended solely on more density. Obligation to prioritize public safety is not optional or secondary to performance metrics, it is the fundamental ethical requirement upon which all legitimate engineering is built.
I just read the study. The title of this article is wrong. The BYD cell has nearly 10x the volume of the Tesla cell, yet stores less than 5x the Watt hours of power. Meaning the Tesla stores more than 2x the Watt hours per volume. This article shows a graph of not heat, but heat per volume. To match the Tesla power output the BYD needs more than 2x the volume. That means the BYD puts out MORE heat than a Tesla battery with the same total Watt hours of power capacity. The Tesla has dramatically higher power density -something users care about. To match Tesla energy storage the BYD battery has to be twice the volume! That’s a variable that makes a difference. Thanks for providing the link to the “scientific study”.
@Ray
The title refers to the most critical factor in thermal management and safety. It’s crucial to emphasize heat concentration (heat per volume) because that’s what prevents thermal runaway and fires. The title thus correctly highlights Tesla’s design choice as a failure in EV safety: maximize energy density into twice the heat concentration, for an increased fire risk in a car already known to have unusual fire risks.
A Ford Pinto analogy is quite apt here.
The infamous decision to prioritize certain design elements over safety led to preventable deaths. The outrage forced re-calibration of the entire car industry until Tesla came along and decided to repeat Pinto-era mistakes. A mindless pursuit of maximum energy density despite thermal management challenges should be seen as prioritizing a dubious metric over safety considerations. Should Ford have been pushing engineers to produce an even more explosive gas tank after recording 25 deaths from an explosive gas tank?
Your comment about total energy density thus sadly misses the most crucial point. Engineering requires, by definition, prioritizing safety above other considerations. It’s required to be an engineer. Not an option, not an additional skill, it is literally the skill necessary to become an engineer.
When Tesla has already been experiencing fatal thermal runaway problems, choosing designs that further concentrate heat poses foreseeable risks that engineering should address first and foremost. If they don’t, they aren’t engineering, they’re just making mistakes and trying to avoid accountability that real engineers understand as fundamental to their output. The Cybertruck, as just the most obvious example, already has a death rate 17X the Ford Pinto yet a battery range that’s just half of a comparable Ford EV. Tesla isn’t engineering, it’s fraud.
The title, in other words, correctly identifies a central safety issue of heat concentration in Tesla engineering, which is precisely what matters most for preventing the explosion of Pinto-like fires widely documented.