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

The Lithium Mine Buildup Is Outpacing the Electric-Car Boom

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–238 of 238 posts

Re: The Lithium Mine Buildup Is Outpacing the Electric-Car Boom

#231

Post by michaelt »

clouddrover wrote: post #208
michaelt wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 3.8 mile range figure is from the Experimental Toyota Prius article you linked. I’ve also used my home rooftop solar PV to charge a Hyundai Kona. Unless this “lightyear one” has solar panels the size of six parking spaces, I suspect the reason they claim so much more than Toyota is because it’s BS.

> The 3.8 mile range figure is from the Experimental Toyota Prius article you linked. Read the article again. You're confusing the small solar panel Toyota has as a current production option with the new experimental solar Prius which has much larger panels. > I suspect the reason they claim so much more than Toyota is because it’s BS. Based on what? The fact that the Lightyear One is being developed by members of So…

  Based on what?
When I visit https://lightyear.one/ the default location for the range estimate is "Rotterdam, Netherlands" and the default display is "year max" which is "5311 Wh, 59 km per day"

Firstly, the moment you select "Summer" that drops to "2731 Wh, 30 km per day" so the headline figure of 59km is already exceeding even their claimed summer range by almost 100%. So they're fudging figures right from the front page.

Secondly, that's 6.9 miles per kWh, whereas the Tesla Model 3 gets 4.1 EPA-rated miles per kWh [1]. So they're going to be 69% more efficient than Tesla?

A 69% increase in efficiency is a 40% drop in battery cost for the same range. To me it seems unlikely that Tesla, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi would have all left a cost saving that big on the table, if it was easy to achieve.

Thirdly, [2] says the Lightyear One has "five square meters of integrated solar cells", and that "The 12 km/h added by the solar roof and hood during daylight exposure extends the range as you drive", i.e. 7.4 miles/hour of solar charging. Even assuming they're 69% more efficient than Tesla, that means they're getting 1.08kW out of 5m² of solar panels.

For comparison, if you look at a random rooftop solar installation in California [3] with 40m² of panels, from 9am-5pm the mean output was 4.5kW - so with 5m² of panels, the output would only average 0.55kW. So the Lightyear One claims 96% more output - even making the very generous assumptions that "during daylight" is only the peak 8 hours a day, that the shade and angle of the car panels are as good as a residential rooftop solar installation, and ignoring winter and places less sunny than California. Unless they're using solar panels made of Unobtainium, used in price-no-object applications like satellites, this seems unlikely to me.

Seems to me there are two possibilities here:

1. They've developed an EV 69% more efficient than a Tesla, AND solar panels 96% more efficient than rooftop solar, AND rather than selling either of those technologies to the existing car or solar companies that would very much like them, they've decided to start their own car company.

2. They're quoting efficiency figures for driving at golf cart speeds, or solar figures for noon in the Sahara desert, or daily range figures assuming you'll visit a plug-in charger every so often.

I know which I think is more likely - and my €149,000 will be staying firmly in my pocket.

[1] https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1119556_tesla-model-3-r... [2] https://lightyear.one/lightyear-one/ [3] https://pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=21356&sid=19238&dt=2019...

Re: The Lithium Mine Buildup Is Outpacing the Electric-Car Boom

#232

Post by clouddrover »

michaelt wrote: post #231
clouddrover wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 3.8 mile range figure is from the Experimental Toyota Prius article you linked. Read the article again. You're confusing the small solar panel Toyota has as a current production option with the new experimental solar Prius which has much larger panels. > I suspect the reason they claim so much more than Toyota is because it’s BS. Based on what? The fact that the Lightyear One is being developed by members of So…

Based on what? When I visit https://lightyear.one/ the default location for the range estimate is "Rotterdam, Netherlands" and the default display is "year max" which is "5311 Wh, 59 km per day" Firstly, the moment you select "Summer" that drops to "2731 Wh, 30 km per day" so the headline figure of 59km is already exceeding even their claimed summer range by almost 100%. So they're fudging figures right from the fron…

> default location for the range estimate is "Rotterdam, Netherlands"

Try Madrid. Or Athens. Or Cairo. Or Sydney. Or Los Angeles. Or San Francisco.

> So they're going to be 69% more efficient than Tesla?

Yes. They're using in-wheel motors, they have better aero (shape, wheel covers, wing cameras), and they've focused on reducing weight.

Maybe read about the Lightyear One first before going off on a tangent.

Re: The Lithium Mine Buildup Is Outpacing the Electric-Car Boom

#233

Post by londons_explore »

sjwright wrote: post #216
foxylad wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree with maintenance: electric motors are enormously simpler than ICE, and really well understood. Removing high temperatures, fuel, lubrication and exhaust from the system is a huge advantage. Agree on digital scrapheap, although this applies to a lesser extent to ICE vehicle too. We should be demanding open sourcing of car code after warranty expires.

The electric drivetrain is simpler, but electric cars tend to require more parts in order to replace the heat and rotational power you get "for free" with a combustion engine. Electric cars need to have separate motors to drive the AC compressor instead of a simple belt. Electric cars need resistive and/or reverse cycle heating instead of using engine heat. Electric cars (if they care about battery longevity) need el…

> elaborate heating/cooling systems

Nearly every car over 10 years old has failed AC. In most EV cars, the AC is critical to maintaining battery health. I could imagine a failed AC unit causing the battery to over/under heat, and the resulting damage causing the entire car be scrapped.

Re: The Lithium Mine Buildup Is Outpacing the Electric-Car Boom

#234

Post by michaelt »

clouddrover wrote: post #232
michaelt wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what? When I visit https://lightyear.one/ the default location for the range estimate is "Rotterdam, Netherlands" and the default display is "year max" which is "5311 Wh, 59 km per day" Firstly, the moment you select "Summer" that drops to "2731 Wh, 30 km per day" so the headline figure of 59km is already exceeding even their claimed summer range by almost 100%. So they're fudging figures right from the fron…

> default location for the range estimate is "Rotterdam, Netherlands" Try Madrid. Or Athens. Or Cairo. Or Sydney. Or Los Angeles. Or San Francisco. > So they're going to be 69% more efficient than Tesla? Yes. They're using in-wheel motors, they have better aero (shape, wheel covers, wing cameras), and they've focused on reducing weight. Maybe read about the Lightyear One first before going off on a tangent.

Personally I think it's unlikely that Tesla, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi were all so blinkered in their thinking that they forgot about better aero and reducing weight when doing so could save 40% of the cost of the most expensive part of the car.

If you think that's likely - and it would be great news for EVs and the environment if it was the case - I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about the credibility of Lightyear's claims.

Re: The Lithium Mine Buildup Is Outpacing the Electric-Car Boom

#235

Post by clouddrover »

michaelt wrote: post #234
clouddrover wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> default location for the range estimate is "Rotterdam, Netherlands" Try Madrid. Or Athens. Or Cairo. Or Sydney. Or Los Angeles. Or San Francisco. > So they're going to be 69% more efficient than Tesla? Yes. They're using in-wheel motors, they have better aero (shape, wheel covers, wing cameras), and they've focused on reducing weight. Maybe read about the Lightyear One first before going off on a tangent.

Personally I think it's unlikely that Tesla, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi were all so blinkered in their thinking that they forgot about better aero and reducing weight when doing so could save 40% of the cost of the most expensive part of the car . If you think that's likely - and it would be great news for EVs and the environment if it was the case - I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree abou…

They're not blinkered. Audi and Honda are using wing cameras for improved aero, but they're not willing to commit to the Lightyear One's shape or to use in-wheel motors. A car like the Porsche Taycan has all wheel steering so it's not going to use wheel covers.

It's like you're not even reading what's in front of you. Compare and contrast the following cars:

- Lightyear One

- Tesla Model 3

- Mercedes EQC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JTew1D5Tk8

- Honda e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEKq8jmckz0

- Porsche Taycan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohHEdaRhF1k

- VW ID.3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8cHHNPRg-c

Have a look at them all. Think about their shapes. Think about their weight. Think about the engineering and design trade offs that are being made. Think about materials and manufacturing costs. Think about the market segment they're targeting. None of this is amazing or mysterious.

Re: The Lithium Mine Buildup Is Outpacing the Electric-Car Boom

#236

Post by 693471 »

sjwright wrote: post #219
audunw wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Model 3 one? Doubt that they're significantly more expensive. They have some problem with frozen door handles which they should probably get some fix for, like putting in a heating element. That would add cost, but also not much.

It's not so much about cost but rather simplicity of manufacturing, ease of use, robustness, and not signalling that they want to be clever for the sake of it. The door handles are a symptom of the design ego of Tesla. It's the same thing with the elimination of nearly all physical buttons. It's the right instinct but they've taken it too far.

Are you a Tesla owner or a troll? Because I'm an owner and can tell you this is an exaggeration.

And the S and X door handles can be repaired for much less than people are buying the replacements. The rebuild kit uses stainless parts instead of cast.

https://evtuning.com/products/model-s-door-handle-rebuild-ki...

I think you've forgotten of the days when you could literally snap door handles off of Audis by pulling too hard.

Re: The Lithium Mine Buildup Is Outpacing the Electric-Car Boom

#237

Post by michaelt »

clouddrover wrote: post #235
michaelt wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I think it's unlikely that Tesla, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi were all so blinkered in their thinking that they forgot about better aero and reducing weight when doing so could save 40% of the cost of the most expensive part of the car . If you think that's likely - and it would be great news for EVs and the environment if it was the case - I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree abou…

They're not blinkered. Audi and Honda are using wing cameras for improved aero, but they're not willing to commit to the Lightyear One's shape or to use in-wheel motors. A car like the Porsche Taycan has all wheel steering so it's not going to use wheel covers. It's like you're not even reading what's in front of you. Compare and contrast the following cars: - Lightyear One - Tesla Model 3 - Mercedes EQC: https://www…

The Tesla Model S has a Coefficient of drag * area (or CdA) [1] of 0.562 m² so to have 40% less drag, the Lightyear One will need a CdA of 0.337 m² or better. (Choosing the Model S as I can't find CdA figures for the Model 3)

The GM EV1 only seats 2 passengers, it's 1.77 m wide and 1.28m high, it even has fender skirts [2]. Its CdA of 0.367m² is still only 35% below the Tesla.

The Lightyear One seats "5 adult passengers", and it's 1.90m wide and 1.43m high.

So the Lightyear One is wider, higher, and has 3 more passengers than the EV1 - but it's going to have less drag?

One of us might not be reading what's in front of us, but I don't think it's me :-p

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Dr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

Re: The Lithium Mine Buildup Is Outpacing the Electric-Car Boom

#238

Post by clouddrover »

michaelt wrote: post #237
clouddrover wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not blinkered. Audi and Honda are using wing cameras for improved aero, but they're not willing to commit to the Lightyear One's shape or to use in-wheel motors. A car like the Porsche Taycan has all wheel steering so it's not going to use wheel covers. It's like you're not even reading what's in front of you. Compare and contrast the following cars: - Lightyear One - Tesla Model 3 - Mercedes EQC: https://www…

The Tesla Model S has a Coefficient of drag * area (or CdA) [1] of 0.562 m² so to have 40% less drag, the Lightyear One will need a CdA of 0.337 m² or better. (Choosing the Model S as I can't find CdA figures for the Model 3) The GM EV1 only seats 2 passengers, it's 1.77 m wide and 1.28m high, it even has fender skirts [2]. Its CdA of 0.367m² is still only 35% below the Tesla. The Lightyear One seats "5 adult passeng…

I don't understand why you're going to so much effort to be wrong. The Lightyear One's drag coefficient is under 0.2, the Model S has a drag coefficient of 0.24. The Lightyear One is lower and narrower than the Model S. The Lightyear One is lighter than the Model S. The Lighyear One has in-wheel motors for greater efficiency, the Model S doesn't and neither did the EV1.

Again, reading.

Post reply on HN