Here Is The Nissan LEAF e+ 62 kWh Battery: Video

JAN 9 2019 BY MARK KANE 80

It could be the best Nissan battery pack ever

The new Nissan LEAF e+ brings significant improvement in battery capacity (62 kWh) and range (up to 364 km / 226 miles EPA).

According to what we know so far, Nissan uses lithium-ion cells from AESC, which are already used to produce modules and packs at the Tennessee manufacturing plant (see video below).

***UPDATE: Nissan has commented on the cell maker, stating:

“LG does not supply any cells for our batteries, both in the US and globally, for either the 40 or 62 kWh battery.”

“LG is not a supplier for Nissan LEAF batteries or cells. Nissan manufacturers the batteries for the [US] Nissan LEAF at our battery plant in Smyrna, Tennessee.”

The cells seem to be a laminated type and there are 288 of them (compared to 192 in 40 kWh packs), but as you can see, the overall design of the pack is similar. The pack is only slightly bigger and we believe probably slightly heavier (no data here).

Quoting Nissan:

“Even with a 25 percent increase in energy density and the increase in energy storage capacity, the LEAF e+ battery pack is almost the same size and configuration as the pack in the Nissan LEAF. Other than a 5-millimeter increase in overall height (16-inch wheels), the car’s exterior and interior dimensions are unchanged.”

The pack doesn’t have liquid cooling system, which of course opens the question of why again how it will handle higher temperatures? Maybe there will be less of a problem as the charging power improved from less than 50 kW to 70 kW (100 kW peak).

Nissan LEAF e+ battery production in Tennessee:

Nissan LEAF e+ specs (vs. LEAF 40 kWh)

  • 62 kWh battery (+55% capacity over 40 kWh, 25% more energy dense lithium-ion cells, similar size)
  • 288 lithium-ion cells from AESC (compared to 192 cells from AESC – former Nissan/NEC JV, which was sold to Envision Group, Nissan holds 25%)
  • battery limited warranty of 8 years/160,000 km (whichever occurs first) is standard
  • 364 km (226 miles) of expected EPA range (up 50% from 243 km/151 miles)
  • 385 km (239 miles) of WLTP range in Europe (vs. 285 km/177 miles)
  • 458 km (285 miles) of WLTC Japan range in Japan (vs. 322 km/200 miles)
  • 570 km (354 miles) of JC08 range in Japan (vs. 400 km/249 miles)
  • 160 kW electric motor (up from 110 kW) and 250 lb-ft (340 Nm) (vs. 320 Nm in 40 kWh version)
  • 70 kW (100 kW peak) fast charging using CHAdeMO (vs. less than 50 kW)
2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries
15 photos
2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries 2019 Nissan LEAF e+ batteries

Comparison of LEAF batteries

Nissan LEAF (40 kWh) battery pack for comparison:

2018 Nissan LEAF 40 kWh battery: pack (Source: AESC)

2018 Nissan LEAF 40 kWh battery: module (Source: AESC)

2018 Nissan LEAF 40 kWh battery: cell (Source: AESC)

Categories: Nissan

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

80 Comments on "Here Is The Nissan LEAF e+ 62 kWh Battery: Video"

newest oldest most voted

The photos show AESC battery pouches.

There are both photos of old pack and new pack it appears (those photos say Leaf 40 kWh batter on them).

The old cells were prismatic, not pouch.
Prismatic cells heat in the core, deteriorating the electrolyte.

The LEAF *always* used pouch cells. This wasn’t immediately obvious in the 24 kWh battery, since the cells were packed in fairly tight module enclosures, looking kinda like large cell cans — but these each contained four ordinary pouch cells inside. (The larger eight-cell modules in the 30 kWh and 40 kWh batteries were a bit less enclosed; and the new, even larger modules in the 62 kWh one are still less so.) Note that pouch cells are actually prismatic too — the housing is just different than in prismatic can cells. Another difference is that pouch cells *typically* have stacked electrodes, while prismatic can cells *typically* have flat-wound electrodes — though neither is a strict requirement of the respective housing type… Perhaps that’s what your comment is referring to? Though it still doesn’t make sense I’m afraid. The downsides of flat-wound electrodes are uneven mechanical pressure, and more wasted space. In terms of thermal performance, it doesn’t make a difference. Prismatic can cells are also typically thicker than pouch cells — but since can cells are cooled with a bottom plate at the end of the electrode roll/stack, the thickness of the roll/stack doesn’t affect cooling performance at all.… Read more »

“AESC cells for EV applications are formed by stacking cathodes, anodes and separators and then packing them in a laminate package”…
This still causes heating in the cells inside the stack.

When you stack cells in a laminate the inside cells heat up. The electrical insulator between anode and the adjacent cathode is also a thermal insulator. This causes the cells inside the laminate stack to get much hotter than the cells on the outside. Just as bad as prismatic if not worse.

The new story says Nissan denies any deal with LG, so these 62 kWh cells are still likely AESC

Not “likely” they ARE.

I’m sort of surprised how slow the battery pack assembly is. I wonder how many they can make per day. If demand for this car were to skyrocket, could they even build enough? Also, if they do use these same cells in other Nissan cars eventually, the same issue will apply.

Sometimes they’ll run the robots at partial speed for troubleshooting. Maybe they turned the speed down for filming? Weird not to show off the speed if they have it, though.

Aren’t each Nissan/AEC battery plant in Tenesesse, UK and Japan not capacitated to supply 150,000 vehickes per year?

Seriously disappointing. Given that 40 kWh Leaf driven in -7C gets almost 50C degrees during DCFC, no doubt this will also be crappy in charging. It ain’t just about hot areas in summer when even -7C is pushing the limit.

I didn’t watch the full Bjorn video, was he driving at and over 120km/h between stops?

That still seems to be the only rememdy for rapidgate though, pretend you’re driving in Japan (as thecar was intended) and don’t go over 110kmh..

90km/h (about 56 MPH) and in -7C. Speed is like much of CA 55 MPH, but you can’t drive in Norwegian winter all the time.

https://youtu.be/J92fS73qw8c?t=883

FUD again. Watch the latest video where the new BMS software is tested and the charging stays full speed even after 3 fast charges.
Maybe you should talk about your slow charging speed on cold days #coldgate on your Bolt.

Real FUD is you saying charging affected in the cold is Bolt problem. Leaf without TMS will do even worse.

As for fast charging, this video shows several charge sessions. Average charging to 70% is only about 30kW in “rapid gate fixed”. Especially pay attention to 21 kW charging from 25% to 70% in 18C ambient, typical winter / spring / fall in SoCal.

If you’re in the cold, look at 19 kW from 45% to 60% at -4C ambient. Leaf does real well in the cold, LOL.

https://youtu.be/T00TveCh-_w?t=574

This is not clear at all. The cells might have lower internal resistance, i.e. generate less heat in the same situation.

I read that old 24 kWh Leaf was not affected as badly by rapidgate as 40 kWh version. I don’t have thermal data on 24 kWh Leaf, but based on Leaf history, 62 kWh would also suffer problems, maybe even worse than 40 kWh. Independent testing will tell, but without TMS, I have my doubts.

Wasn’t it previously reported this would have LGchem cells?

Yes. I saw that reported repeatedly. What’s going on…?

It was never ever ‘reported’ unless you count one internet blog citing another internet blog which sited a third internet blog that was pulling that straight out of their arse. Said so then, will say it again. Not evidence ever was presented to try to verify this rumor. You may ask if that’s the case….they never intended to switch….why would they sell the battery unit to the Chinese (or at least attempt to). Simple. China is a massive market which nobody can make any penetration worth mentioning unless they have a Chinese company on board that stands to gain. Battery packs are manufactured at all 3 Leaf plants. Everyone in the same forums that said Nissan was going to ‘sell sell sell’ were also putting forth that a key advantage Tesla has is having the battery supply controlled and co-located with Tesla. Since that’s the case, then wouldn’t that phenomenon be also true for Nissan? Closely related of course was ‘definitely liquid cooled’….because why? Because the internet commenters think so? Perhaps Nissan instead worked out the math and did a calculation that goes something like: ‘well we’re a global company and most of those countries are not in high heat… Read more »

I thought the power point slide for the leaf+ had LG on it.

Yes. Instead Nissan puts out a battery with no thermal management and crappy AESC cells.

The full story: A slide was leaked indicating a 60kWh LEAF was in the works. There was also a leaked photo of a pre-production LEAF with a 60kWh battery DC fast charging at a very fast rate, suggesting liquid cooling and/or at least a new battery chemistry. Then a “senior Nissan representative” (whatever that means) alleged stated that the Nissan / AESC exclusive supplier contract runs until “early 2019”, so Q1 production with AESC was known. I think people heard the official announcement about the e-Plus and just assumed they were switching suppliers. But it was already known at least 7 months ago that we wouldn’t see another supplier until the 2020 model year due to that contract. Then Gnosn announced indicated that the partnership with NEC was going away, since it locked Nissan into one vendor and didn’t give them the flexibility they needed. When the GSR Capital deal fell through, they announced they were keeping 25% of their battery business unit and selling the rest to Envision. This implied the 40kWh pack (that 25% figure) would be Envision supplied and the 60kWh would be another supplier. Since Renault already signed a deal with LG Chem back in 2014,… Read more »

So long distance/highway capable EV without the tech to protect the battery from highway charging?….

If I had to hazard a guess, I’d think that they started with the existing battery pack shape/size, then shoehorned what they could into it. Existing pack doesn’t have liquid cooling connections to the rest of the car, so that would mean one of the following options:
– Add the entire cooling system into the pack (including the radiator). This likely takes up a large amount of space, and would limit how many cells they could fit in, limiting range.
– Go with the same sized pack, but do air cooling. Allows for a more energy dense pack, but limits cooling.
– Redesign the car and cooling system. Takes more time, and is much more expensive.

It’ll be interesting to see if they do have the chemistry worked out for any sort of longevity. I’m doubtful, but I’d love to be wrong.

If they heat sink the pack to the car chassis, they can reduce maximum temperature.

Using a larger external heat sink doesn’t do a fracking thing to help how rapidly waste heat builds up in the core of the modules when doing DC fast charging. Nor does it help a darn bit when the outside temp is near 100°F or hotter.

Supposedly this 62 kWh battery pack has forced-air cooling. That is certainly an improvement, but is still inadequate.

As if you’ve ever built anything with a heat sink. If they use a churner fan, it will ‘do a fracking thing’.

A fan implies some sort of active mechanism. I don’t see any such thing.

I’m not privy to that information and I would doubt you are either. Prop fans are pretty inexpensive these days.

You brought up the fan which you can’t see.

Fan with improper air flow is next to worthless, and looking at the pack, there doesn’t seem to be much in air circulation channels. There’s also very little surface contact to module body for most cells. Fan, even if there is one, will be practically worthless.

You are talking through your hat. If you historically had compelling, knowledgeable comments then I would give what you say more weight.

But, I would imagine Nissan has a bit more engineering expertise than you do – no offense – and would be working to easily improve the longevity of their historically mediocre batteries.

I don’t know exactly what they have or have not done, and neither do you – as the ‘overview video’ did not reveal any really glaring mistakes.

If they were such great engineers, how did they design something as lame as the 24/30 kWh packs?

Oh c’mon – I just said that if they are making a 62 kwh pack its unfair to assume they haven’t thought about it just a little bit.

The typical commentary here surely isn’t going to help. Most only think they know what they are talking about.

They haven’t thought about it for almost 9 freaking years and you think they magically made provisions when stuffing 62 kWh in similar space as 40 kWh? You are such a wonderful engineer just like them Nissan engineers.

I’m talking about what hasn’t been through numerous updates over past decade. But you are talking about your hallucination of what’s not there. Consider this: this pack is similar sized, but 50% larger capacity. How well do you think they’ll put TMS into that?

You are just rude and insulting – I’m not ‘hallucinating’ – rather like when other BIG EXPERTS like Tony Williams tell me to ‘take all my meds’, of which I’m probably one of the very few people here who TAKE ZERO medications – save for an aspirin if I get a flu. But then he comes up with nonsense like “THE ONLY WAY TO CHARGE A BATTERY IS TO PLUG IT IN”, which anyone who has ever owned an electric car is that you can go down a hill which will accomplish the same thing. I didn’t say I knew what NISSAN did here – YOU are the one who is claiming to be “ALL KNOWING”. All I said is that it is very common to put a churner fan in things… My laptops all have had them and so did my Tesla PEM. If the unit is totally passive, perhaps they are getting sufficient conductance from the metal panels to the base plate. I have no data as to the longevity of this unit, and will await more informed commentary perhaps from KELLY of Weber, U. But your silly insults and ‘all knowing’ attitude is why many hate being… Read more »

Increasing the surface area helps, your ranting does not.

Like radiator fins under the belly?

More surface area contact between cells and battery case is probably more helpful. From the photos, you can see that there’s only one contact on bottom. From packing point of view, that’s probably the best they can do without increasing the pack size enormously (like all cells in straight line for left, right, top, bottom surface contacts).

In the 24 kWh packs the top modules under the front seats got the most heat.
If that stack was heat sinked to the case and the case to the chassis they might have done better.

Photo of new pack doesn’t seem much better.

The cells are not in a single nor double wide module where heat builds up.

With such demands on packaging, it seems fair to pinpoint this at Nissan’s decision to still use an ICE-souced (Pulsar, Tiida) chassis, and not a fully fresh skate design. Or.. y’know, one of its relentless CUV chassises.

Ah well… at least the 62kWh env-200 will be cool

The Leaf does not and never has used the same chassis / platform as the Pulsar and Tiida etc.

Nissan should make amends to the 380,000 customers who trusted them and bought their car, by offering an upgraded longer range battery at a fair price…the 2018 chemistry would be fine.

“The cells seem to be a laminated type and there are 288 of them (compared to 192 in 40 kWh packs), but as you can see, the overall design of the pack is similar. The pack is only slightly bigger and we believe probably slightly heavier (no data here).”

“62 kWh battery (+55% capacity over 40 kWh, 25% more energy dense lithium-ion cells, similar size)”

“288 lithium-ion cells from AESC (compared to 192 cells from AESC – former Nissan/NEC JV, which was sold to Envision Group, Nissan holds 25%)”

40 kWh battery pack has 192 cells (that’s exactly 2 x 96).
62 kWh battery pack has 288 cells (that’s exactly 3 x 96).

“The pack is only slightly bigger”
“Lithium-Ion cells are similar size”

Question nr. 1:
How can the battery pack be only slightly bigger?
They have put in 96 more cells (similar size), that’s an increase of 50% more cells!!!

Question nr. 2:
By putting in 50% more cells, the capacity should already increase by 50%.
If the new cells are 25% more energy dense, shouldn’t the capacity of the pack be 75 kWh?

Thinner cells. More energy dense but less total energy per cell

If they are thinner, then they are NOT of the similar size.

So, that means that the text of this article should be amended. Right?

Go find out, let us know.

It is explained in the infographic. The new cells have different size and shape than the previous ones; the modules are now more compact and they come in 3 sizes. This reduces the space wasted inside the pack There is now less metal and less air gaps in the pack.
You can see the air gaps and the cables running through them in the picture of the 40kWh pack

The infographic only shows the shape of the modules, not of the individual cells… While they are likely smaller, that’s only a guess, not something that really follows from the graphic.

1. The new cells are thinner than the old cells as shown by the old stack of 8 being only slightly shorter than the new stack of 12.
2. The new thinner cells are 25% more dense but could be about 20% smaller, so no conflict here.

Answer nr. 1:
The grey cell blocks are drawn to scale. The new 12 cell block is actually smaller than the old 8 cell block.
If you stack 3 of the old 8 cell blocks to make (8×3 = 24 cell), they will take up more volume than the new 27 cell block.
Therefore, the number of cell has increased by 50% but the volume has increased by 20%.

Answer nr. 2:
The new cells are 25% more energy dense so they take up less volume.
You cannot double dip that 25% more density in kwh and volume.
You do it only once.
If the old and new had the same energy density, 288 cells would take up 50% more volume than 192 cells.
However, because the new cells are 25% more energy dense, they take up only 20% more volume while the energy increase is 55%.

Well this is unexpected. I thought that there would be some information on a better active cooling system with something like the AC system being used to draw cooled air through the pack. Also the AESC modules? I though LG was going to be producing the cells.

Weird and not confidence inspiring. No idea how they think this thing will sell against the base Model 3, which might arrive at essentially the same time, unless they are going to discount the wee out of them.

Air cooling with proper heat sinking can work.
Whether they finally did the proper design is the question.

If those pictures are accurate, it looks to be passively cooled again. No forced air cooling, and with stacked configuration, no increase in surface area either with heat sinking.

Sounds like a compromise for mild temperature again.

But if we look at European market and Japanese market, most of them aren’t too hot. Half of the US isn’t too hot either.

So, maybe Nissan is making a calculated risk to let the battery degrade faster. With a larger pack, it may potentially still have enough capacity at the time warrant expires.

On the other hand, it also has SW that would limit power output and charging speed if the battery gets hot. So, when people buy the car, they won’t experience those limitation until they do a lot of hwy driving with consecutive DCFC.

So, they are happy to be just a commuter car that are cheap and affordable. But that “bad” reputation will probably stick with Nissan for a long time.

I don’t think you can call it passive cooling or cooling of any kind. Passive cooling implies some thought and structures are designed in place (ie, fins to increase surface area). This looks like bunch of cells in sealed box like you’d do with remote controlled cars.

I wish my 24kWh Leaf could be upgraded to 60kWh. Seeing the battery pack is the same size just taunts me. It’s been over seven years, I’m surprised nobody has worked out a way to upgrade the packs without resorting to adding additional batteries in the boot.

they are doing it on purpose because 100% of the population know that the car will outlive the battery.
They want you to buy a new car when the battery performance goes below your patience level.

That’s not true. People on the Leaf forums are saying they are putting 30 kWh packs in Leafs built with 24 kWh packs. But it looks like you have to pull the packs apart and swap out the BCM.

In 2014 Nissan went from a 5 year warranty on the Leaf battery pack to an 8 year warranty. So, even though the battery packs of the 2013 Leafs went out of warranty last-year, the 2014 packs won’t start going out of warranty until 2022. Until more packs start going out of warranty there won’t be much demand for battery upgrades and it’s going to be a at least three more years until more packs go out of warranty.

Nissan is sticking with the inferior AESC cells — even after selling off the AESC division — while only doing a slight upgrade to battery cooling: forced-air cooling instead of none at all?

WTF are you doing, Nissan? Are you actively trying to kill off demand for the Leaf?!?!

What a shame. 🙁

Where do you see forced air cooling? With current Leaf, there doesn’t seem to be air flow of any kind through the battery.

Is that a good thing or bad thing?
At least with the 1st gen people could leave the front grille open to let air in to cool it or block it with foam tubing to keep it warmer.

It’s a bad thing. Bolt and SparkEV (and probably others) have motorized shutters on front to control air flow in addition to active liquid cooling. If you have to manually use foam to block with Leaf, that means Nissan gave zero thought into thermal management.

When even a youtuber can find that heat is a serious problem even in -7C, not even automatic grille shows complete lack of regard for customer.

Ugh. So disappointing. So long of a wait and so underwhelming. Nissan, surely you can do better.

It is funny…people kept saying that the other companies would catch up with Tesla. Well in the last few years, it seems they’ve only fallen further behind.

What the heck? I personally spoke with a business development manager for EVs at Nissan last year and she told me ‘offically unofficial’ information that the new pack would be liquid cooled. What happened?

After 9 months of discussion in 2 dozen meetings, they could not come up with ways to do it and still make enough profit.

Bean counters happened.

They couldn’t source LG cells for at an attractive price?

{Conspiracy Theory} This is why Ghosn is being pushed out {/Conspiracy} (-:

No active cooling system will lead to poor sales. The EV buying public is on to them….

I don’t care who makes these cells. Do we have any information on the chemistry? Are they NMC? As someone who uses, and is only interested in salvaged Leaf cells for my own selfish uses, I am very interested that they got rid of the sardine cans. Should make for greater flexibility in re-purposing.

While there is no official information to the best of my knowledge, I’m pretty sure these can’t be anything else than NMC.

The larger modules however will make it *harder* to repurpose the cells. (And no, you still can’t take the modules apart easily. If anything, it’s likely even harder now, with the more compact design / new welding technique…)

You forgot to mention the most important change. The new battery is a 3 cells parallel layout, which will reduce the current through each cell by 1/3.

There are still 96 “cells” in this pack, just like their previous packs, and most other packs, including Tesla’s.

The number of discrete cells used to make a battery “cell” affects bus bar design, packaging, cooling area, etc.

How many cells are paralleled to make a “cell” has no effect on total “cell” capacity, or C rate. Total capacity it just that of all the paralleled cells combined, and C rate depends on cell chemistry, and foil/coating thickness, electrolyte, etc.

It sounds like there are 288 cells in this pack. 96×3. One cell is one cell. Multiple cells welded together in parallel is a “cell group”.

Cells in parallel impacts total amps; so it does impact capacity. Cells in series impact volts. C is rate of discharge. If there are more cells in a pack, then to obtain the same current, each cell can get by with a lower C (discharge rate).

Smaller battery packs don’t have the luxury of having so many cells, so they need battery cell chemistries with higher discharge rates per cell to power the motor, giving off lots of heat in the process.

I am a little bit sceptic about a increase of 25% on energy density on the cell.
Indeed the current cell has a energy density at 224Wh/kg, 25% of increase mean 280Wh/kg.
This value seems very high for a NMC pouch, even if AESC use NMC811 technology.
My assumption is that the cell has a energy density around 260Wh/kg.

I updated the data for the Nissan Leaf e+ on this thread :
https://www.speakev.com/threads/comparative-ev-and-battery-pack-specs.109449/