Chemistry & Cell Components

Chemistry & Cell Components

LMFP | Technology

LMFP | Technology

Pros and Cons of Lithium Manganese Iron Phosphate (LMFP) vs. Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP)

LMFP Strength

LMFP Weakness

LMFP Opportunity

LMFP Threat

Energy density

Cost per kWh

Abundance and low cost of Mn

Less raw materials used per kWh

Easier SoC estimation

Cycle life (depending on Fe:Mn ratio)

Immaturity of supply chain for LMFP CAM and new manganese chemicals

- Mid-to-Long range EVs - Trucks and busses

- High-nickel NMC in long-range applications - High-voltage LNMO - LMR - Slower build-out of LMFP CAM - Mn chemical production

LFP Strength

LFP Weakness

Better cycle life

Existing supply chain in China

No Mn needed

Energy density

Low temperature performance

Absence of supply chain outside China

Difficult to read state of charge

Source: CRU Group, takomabattery,

LFP Opportunity

Low/mid-range/entrylevel EVs

e-Bus, e-Bicycle

Stationary storage

Cost sensitive applications

LFP Threat

NMC

High-voltage LNMO

Na-ion battery

Lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) offers improved energy density compared to LFP while maintaining a low cost structure. It is being pioneered primarily by Chinese manufacturers as an evolution of LFP. Initial variants are not pure LMFP but compounding with NMC. Initial optimisation decisions being made involve the manganese:iron ratio, production route (solid vs. liquid phase), and manganese chemical feedstock.

Extracted from the PDF; charts and images may read imperfectly.