Think about battery swapping

The core argument is: using the network scale of gas stations as an analogy for battery swap stations, and proving that the battery swap model is comprehensively superior to the charging model in terms of total power, land cost, and user experience; this argument is very strong, but there are also some key assumptions that need to be clarified.

Key data and comparisons:

1. Scale analogy: 120,000 gas stations serve 400 million fuel vehicles without anxiety → 120,000 battery swap stations can similarly serve 400 million electric vehicles.
2. Power allocation: Assuming a national total power of 300 million kW (30 GW) is evenly distributed to 120,000 battery swap stations, each station can receive 2.5 MW (2500 kW).
3. Efficiency comparison: Using 600 kW of that power to charge batteries can ensure that the battery warehouse always has fully charged batteries, achieving "battery swapping as fast as or faster than refueling."
4. Cost comparison:

• Scenario: 28 million charging piles vs. 120,000 battery swap stations.
  Calculation: 28 million / 120,000 ≈ 233. That is, the cost of one battery swap station must offset 233 charging piles to break even.
• Core argument: The cost of charging piles includes not only the piles themselves but also the rental fees for parking spaces, especially in expensive downtown areas. Considering that 233 piles require 233 parking spaces, their total rental cost will be much higher than that of one battery swap station, which only requires the land cost of 4-6 parking spaces.

Advantages and rationality of the argument:

1. It captures the key issue of land cost. In infrastructure debates, many people only calculate the hardware costs of equipment. But in first- and second-tier cities, space and land/parking spaces are scarcer and more expensive resources than equipment. A battery swap station occupying a few dozen square meters can serve hundreds of vehicles; to achieve similar convenience with hundreds of charging piles, hundreds of parking spaces would need to be occupied, which is almost impossible in downtown areas.
2. Using the existing, mature gas station network as a reference is very intuitive. If battery swap stations can be as dense as gas stations, the range anxiety of electric vehicles will be greatly reduced, which aligns with the real needs of users.
3. Grid interaction advantage. Battery swap stations can act as energy storage units, charging during off-peak grid hours and discharging or swapping during peak hours, playing a role in peak shaving and valley filling. This is a huge advantage that charging piles, especially decentralized ones, cannot achieve systematically.

But there are also aspects that need to be considered and supplemented. The model is based on some idealized assumptions and will face challenges in actual promotion.

1. Battery standardization is the biggest prerequisite:
   The entire argument is built on the basis of 400 million battery-swappable vehicles. This means that all automakers—Tesla, BYD, Volkswagen, Toyota, etc.—must unify the size, specifications, interfaces, and communication protocols of batteries. In the current highly competitive market, this is extremely difficult, almost utopian. The unification of charging interfaces has already taken a long time, and the unification of more complex battery packs is exponentially more difficult; without standardization, NIO's battery swap stations can only serve NIO, BYD's can only serve BYD, and then 120,000 stations would require multiple overlapping networks, causing total costs to rise sharply.
2. Initial investment and operating costs:
   The construction cost of a single battery swap station, including land, infrastructure, robotic arms, and dozens of spare batteries, is extremely high, possibly at the level of tens of millions of yuan. The total investment for 120,000 stations is an astronomical figure.
   Fast charging piles above 120 kW are also expensive, but slow charging piles at 7 kW/11 kW are low-cost and can be attached to existing parking lots (with low incremental costs). Comparing the cost of 11 kW slow charging piles to the efficiency of battery swap stations is actually not equivalent. What should be compared is the fast-charging network under the same level of convenience; battery swap stations need to store a large number of batteries, which are dormant assets, occupy huge capital, and face the risk of technological obsolescence and depreciation.
3. Feasibility of power allocation:
   Distributing 30 GW of total power evenly to 120,000 stations means that the State Grid needs to provide 2.5 MW of capacity for each station. This is a huge challenge in the existing urban power distribution network. The total capacity of many old urban neighborhoods may be less than 1 MW. The cost and time required to upgrade the grid are not accounted for.
4. The other side of user experience:
   Battery swapping offers a unified and fast experience. But issues like inconsistent battery conditions, queuing, and battery turnover problems during peak holiday periods may arise; ultra-fast charging at 350 kW+ can also replenish hundreds of kilometers of range in about 15 minutes, and the technology is advancing rapidly. For home charging users, the convenience of plugging in at home is unmatched by any public charging method.

If I were the government, how would I choose?

Centralized, standardized energy replenishment networks have efficiency advantages. From the perspective of top-level design, breaking down barriers, and pursuing the lowest total social cost and optimal grid operation, the government is likely to support and promote the battery swap model, at least as one of the mainstream solutions alongside ultra-fast charging:

1. Land intensification: In cities with tight land resources, battery swap stations are a more economical choice.
2. Grid-friendly: Battery swap stations are natural, controllable distributed energy storage units that can better integrate with renewable energy.
3. Eliminating anxiety: A dense network of battery swap stations can most quickly replicate the fuel vehicle experience and accelerate the adoption of electrification.
4. Battery management: Facilitates centralized maintenance, testing, and cascading use of batteries, extending their lifespan and improving safety.

However, the government's choice will not be an either-or but rather a dual-track strategy.

• Encourage battery swapping: Promote it vigorously in operational vehicles like taxis and ride-hailing services, as well as in brands that support standardization like NIO, to create a demonstration effect.
• Develop ultra-fast charging: Build high-power ultra-fast charging networks in highway service areas and urban core areas as a supplementary technical route to meet the needs of different brand owners.
• Popularize slow charging: Through policies and regulations, mandate that new residential and office buildings be equipped with charging piles to address the most basic and convenient home charging needs.

Summary:

Under the idealized standardization model, the battery swap model has overwhelming advantages in total system efficiency, land resources, and grid coordination. It paints a very promising future scenario. But the biggest obstacle in reality lies in the standardization challenges caused by commercial interest conflicts. Because this competition is not just about technical routes but also about commercial ecosystems and the right to set industry standards.

$NIO(NIO.US)