Date: 2026-03-12 hits: 115
Since the beginning of the year, humanoid robots have been rapidly entering battery factories. BMW is using them on high-voltage battery assembly lines, CATL is transforming its battery production lines, and EVE Energy is using large-scale models to uniformly schedule their movement between workstations.
Meanwhile, battery companies are seeing robots as their next most important customer. LGEnergy Solution has launched a cylindrical battery cell product line specifically designed for humanoid robots, and XPeng has made all-solid-state batteries a core selling point for its humanoid robots.
These are not two coincidental parallel news stories. Robots need better batteries to operate continuously in factories, and battery factories need more flexible robots to keep up with the pace of product iteration.
These two demands began to converge at a visible pace in early 2026.
In late February 2026, BMW announced the deployment of the humanoid robot AEON at its Rippyzig plant in Germany. The application scenario was not welding or stamping, but high-voltage battery assembly and energy module manufacturing. Additional testing was conducted in April, with a pilot phase scheduled for the summer – a very solid timeline.
BMW's choice of this process has its engineering logic: battery assembly demands extremely high operational consistency and involves repetitive, cumbersome, and delicate operations under high pressure—a combination of processes with the heaviest ergonomic burden and the highest risk of error.
Meanwhile, Mercedes-Benz took a different path. On February 11, Apptronik completed a $520 million funding round, with Mercedes-Benz and Google among the participants. The funds will be used to expand the production capacity and commercial deployment of Apollo humanoid robots.
Mercedes-Benz had previously tested Apollo at its Berlin digital factory and its Keczemét plant in Hungary, performing handling and quality inspection tasks.
The two major European automakers, within the same timeframe, bet on the same direction in different ways—linking humanoid robots with battery production processes.
BMW chose direct import, while Mercedes-Benz opted for capital investment, but both focused on battery production lines. This is not a coincidence, but rather a similar judgment formed by the manufacturing industry under the pressure of electrification transformation.
Battery companies are simultaneously deploying resources on both ends.
If BMW and Mercedes-Benz are seen as "introducers," CATL's logic is more proactive and aggressive—it's simultaneously investing in both factories and capital, attempting to integrate the humanoid robot ecosystem into its supply chain.
On the factory side, CATL has deployed humanoid robots on its battery PACK production lines. According to the company, this is the "world's first new energy battery production line to achieve large-scale deployment of humanoid intelligent robots," and it has provided data on improvements in efficiency and defect rates.
On the capital side, CATL's strategy is more systematic.
Its subsidiary, Morningway Capital, led a nearly 1 billion yuan Series B financing round for Songyan Power; CATL was the lead investor in Galaxy General's previous financing round; its subsidiary, Puquan Capital, followed suit with Zhongqing Robotics; and in Qianxun Intelligent's nearly 2 billion yuan financing round, CATL appeared alongside industry players such as JD.com, Huawei, and Xiaomi.
Furthermore, CATL has partnered with Zhiyuan Robotics on a factory application project.
CATL's approach goes beyond the scope of "strategic investment." It's using capital to absorb robotics companies into its ecosystem, while simultaneously accumulating data through actual deployment in factories.
Today, robots are "labor" on its production lines; tomorrow, they might be "workers" driven by CATL batteries, producing batteries for CATL in return. The completeness of this closed loop will be key to judging the value of this strategy.
Compared to CATL's capital-driven approach, EVE Energy is taking a different path: first selling batteries to robots, then using robots to transform its own factories.
On the product side, EVE Energy has already connected with leading humanoid robot and robot dog customers, and has partially completed sample delivery and assembly.
Its product matrix is designed for three operating conditions: For extended range scenarios, it uses 21700-58E and 26105-G26E batteries, achieving an energy density exceeding 300Wh/kg and a 35% increase in range; for high-load heat dissipation, it uses the all-tab high-power 21700-50PL battery, simultaneously reducing internal resistance and heat generation by 74% and doubling power; for extreme safety scenarios, it uses the 46137 LMX series cylindrical batteries, which have passed the needle penetration non-flammation test. This product matrix isn't just a trade show presentation; it's an engineering breakdown tailored to three specific working conditions.
At the factory level, EVE Energy proposes a three-layer architecture: "AI digital employees + physical robot employees + Co-TEE scheduling model."
Digital employees replace planning and decision-making processes that previously relied on human experience; physical robots cover handling, loading, inspection, and visual quality control workstations; a self-developed Co-TEE large-scale model handles scheduling optimization for multiple robots, workstations, and tasks operating concurrently: solving the problems of "who to assign, when, at which workstation, and how to complete what task." On-line testing is planned to begin this March.
This architecture addresses the core contradiction in battery manufacturing: while main processes like coating, rolling, formation, and sorting are relatively fixed, daily parameters, including specifications, customer demands, cycle time fluctuations, and equipment status, are constantly changing. This gap provides space for AI and robots to intervene.
EVE Energy's approach resembles a "two-sided experiment": simultaneously expanding its robot customer base with battery products and validating its factory's flexible manufacturing capabilities with robots.
This complements CATL's "capital + factory" strategy, together outlining two offensive postures among domestic battery companies in this sector.
Furthermore, on March 2nd, LGES announced that it will officially launch its next-generation battery product line for robots and drones at InterBattery 2026.
The 2170 cylindrical cell product matrix has clearly defined performance levels for humanoid robot scenarios: H51 focuses on a balance of energy density, power, and weight; H52A supports up to 8C ultra-high power output, completing fast charging in approximately 15 minutes; M58 emphasizes high energy density, addressing long-duration battery life requirements.
The reasons for choosing cylindrical batteries are stated in the product description: the rigid casing provides higher safety redundancy, standardized dimensions support supply chain stability, and high energy and power density are achieved within a limited space.
In addition, according to South Korean media citing industry sources, LGES is the battery supplier for Boston Dynamics' Atlas robot. If true, this would be the most direct evidence that "robot batteries" have moved from a concept at an exhibition into the actual supply chain of a leading customer.
Meanwhile, XPeng's approach offers another perspective.
In November 2025, XPeng released its humanoid robot IRON, highlighting its all-solid-state battery as a key selling point: a 30% reduction in weight and a 30% increase in battery capacity, with mass production expected by the end of 2026.
LG is pursuing a mature, mass-produced cylindrical battery approach, using standardization to ensure stable supply; XPeng is betting on the performance premium of solid-state batteries, using lightweight design and high density to differentiate itself.
These two paths are not mutually exclusive, but their respective timelines and cost curves will be revealed in the next two to three years.
The emergence of 1GES and XPeng signifies that "robot batteries" have moved from concept to real product competition. Whoever first develops and stably supplies high-rate, long-range, fast-charging battery cells will control the lifeline of this new hardware category.
A Two-Way Race Towards the Same Goal
Piecing these four stages together, the logical structure of this "two-way race" is quite clear.
Robots entering battery factories solve the flexibility problem on the manufacturing side. Battery product iteration is accelerating, but line replacement costs are extremely high. Replacing fixed production lines with reprogrammable robots essentially trades capital expenditure for operational flexibility.
BMW choosing battery assembly as the first large-scale process for robots, and EVE using a large model to coordinate its robot fleet, are all implementations of the same logic in different scenarios.
Batteries entering the robot itself solve the robot's usability problem. Currently, the battery life of most mainstream humanoid robots is within a few hours, and there is a significant gap between the actual needs of continuous factory shifts and the current energy density of batteries.
This gap is the reason for LG's H52A and XPeng's gamble on solid-state batteries. The two curves began to accelerate significantly in early 2026—not because of a sudden breakthrough invention, but because demand on both sides simultaneously reached a critical point: the reliability of the robot itself had just crossed the threshold for factory trials, and battery companies' product iteration speed was just beginning to catch up with the power and energy density requirements of the robots.
The truly interesting aspect of this two-way race is not who reaches the finish line first, but that when the robots that manufacture batteries and the people who manufacture batteries for robots finally merge into one entity, the cost structure and competitive barriers of the entire manufacturing industry will have to be rearranged.
CATL was the first to see this, hence its simultaneous bets on both ends. Whether other players see this, and whether they can enter the game in time, will be the most noteworthy industry question to track over the next two to three years.
