Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Panasonic to begin mass producing new 4680 Tesla battery by March 2024

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 172 posts

Re: Panasonic to begin mass producing new 4680 Tesla battery by March 2024

#121

Post by xeromal »

dylan604 wrote: post #105
rootusrootus wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you switch, it's hard to imagine ever going back. No more gas stations, dramatic drop in fuel cost, always ready to go fully charged each morning. I'm addicted.

Do you live in a house with your own dedicated charger? How does this apply to someone living in an apartment or other similar situation to not having dedicated chargers?

I live in an apartment in SoCal and have an EV. I just charge on the weekend and haven't had much issues, but yeah, it can be an inconvenience. My "full tank" is only 7$ though so I can't complain. lol

Re: Panasonic to begin mass producing new 4680 Tesla battery by March 2024

#122

Post by xeromal »

rebelde wrote: post #86

Does anybody know why the range of a Tesla, such as the Model 3, is not increasing every year? I would expect more advances in battery capacity.

It does increase slightly. There have been a handful of OTA updates that eek out 10-15 more miles of range, but those improve software efficiencies or better temperature management.

Re: Panasonic to begin mass producing new 4680 Tesla battery by March 2024

#123

Post by jeffbee »

WithinReason wrote: post #115
oblio wrote: post #69

Somewhat off-topic, but maybe someone knows. There's one thing that worries me about EVs: local pollution. So, ICE cars release CO2 + they release local pollutants (NO, CO, etc), particulate matter, that kind of thing. EVs obviously don't directly release CO2 nor do they release those local pollutants. However, EVs are on average much heavier (probably 200-400kgs heavier), which means that they probably need bigger t…

The question is reasonable and I'm not sure why it was heavily downvoted, tire wear and road wear depends polynomially on the vehicle weight (I remembered it's the cube, I tried Googling but Google has turned completely fucking useless for anything serious) edit: it's the 4th power for road damage (!): https://www.denenapoints.com/relationship-vehicle-weight-roa...

Tire wear you can just directly calculate from the useful lives of tires on a given car. Search around on Tesla owners' forums to see at what mileage people are replacing their tires. Then you just back it out from diameter x width x tread depth. Teslas come out poorly on this because they are a performance-focussed car with large, soft tires. Some other electrics like the BMW i3 have tiny rock-hard tires that practically never wear out.

Re: Panasonic to begin mass producing new 4680 Tesla battery by March 2024

#124

Post by jeffbee »

darknavi wrote: post #109
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a specific study but regenerative breaking as used in commercial EVs would mean less particulate from breakpads etc. not more.

MUCH less. Like one or two sets of break pads on a car for its lifetime.

I'd be surprised if it was even 1. There was no measurable wear on the brake pads over the lease of my Nissan Leaf. It didn't even engage the hydraulic brakes often enough to knock the rust off the discs.

Re: Panasonic to begin mass producing new 4680 Tesla battery by March 2024

#125

Post by jakswa »

exhilaration wrote: post #79
jakswa wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Union of Concerned Scientists still did the most in-depth analysis I've seen, and they agree with the ~6mo-18mo time period to offset the more-intensive manufacturing. And it's so old now that I think you can assume the transition to cleaner grids has progressed further in some cases. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave

Thank you for that link. They've summarized their analysis into a YouTube video as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9m9WDxmSN8

No problem! I keep it in mind because I keep hoping I see an updated report some day that goes that in-depth. Or possibly a report that refutes/contradicts what I've read. They dug into the USA regional energy mixes in the report I linked! And they claimed to include transmission + charging efficiency losses. I was surprised at how comprehensive it seemed.

edit: this report https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cl...

Re: Panasonic to begin mass producing new 4680 Tesla battery by March 2024

#127

Post by DoingIsLearning »

TedShiller wrote: post #126

Lithium mining destroys the environment. Sure, oil does too. But so does lithium.

Lithium mining destroys local environments just like most mining activities.

Oil creates a global antropomorphic environmental cataclysm.

The two are not the same and this is weak whataboutism.

Re: Panasonic to begin mass producing new 4680 Tesla battery by March 2024

#129

Post by jeffbee »

TedShiller wrote: post #126

Lithium mining destroys the environment. Sure, oil does too. But so does lithium.

You could lose the entire world's lithium mines in the corner of one of hundreds of large-scale iron ore mines. Lithium ponds are also currently about 500 times smaller than the world's table salt ponds. Really, it's incredibly small and eliminates the demand for much more destructive oil and gas exploration.

Re: Panasonic to begin mass producing new 4680 Tesla battery by March 2024

#130

Post by cptskippy »

nightski wrote: post #62
megaman821 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess the more you extend the comparison the worse it gets for combustion cars. Most people get their electricity from natural gas plants delivered through a pipeline, and there is a future prospect to shift this to more renewables. Oil is pumped and delivered to a refinery, then the gas is put on a truck, and delivered to a gas station. All these things require either electricity or gas to run.

I wasn't suggesting to extend the comparison. I was saying that for the comparison done they were ignoring the environmental impact of driving the EV. Obviously EV comes out on top over a very long period of time. I'm just suggesting that period of time is longer than suggested by the parent. Personally I'd love to buy an EV but in our climate battery life is reduced by 30%, renewables are a low portion of our electr…

> I'm just suggesting that period of time is longer than suggested by the parent.

The parent's estimates track with adjustments made to the "Polestar 2’s LCA (Life Cycle Assessment)". The assessment originally stated the break even point was somewhere around 50,000 miles but it was quickly pointed out that the paper was neglecting to take into account the carbon impact of ICE vehicles and fuels at several stages. As well as identifying discrepancies due to geographic production and completely unsubstantiated irregularities.

After taking those things into account the break even point was estimated to be 16,000 mi.

https://insideevs.com/news/458458/legacy-automakers-backed-s...

Why the disparity? Just look at who published the assessment and where their interests lie.

Post reply on HN