this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
163 points (78.4% liked)

Technology

59390 readers
3724 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 152 points 6 months ago (22 children)

This horseshit again? Physical product available for independent analysis, or it didn't happen.

It's not like the Chinese are famous for lying about the specs on things they manufacture or anything. Every week we hear about some Chinese company poised to "revolutionize" the EV with pie-in-the-sky range figures and yet the market continues to remain resolutely un-revolutionized.

And as usual, this article harps on "range" as if that's not an easily fudged figure. The real numbers we need to see are watts per volume, or watts per mass. And number of charge cycles tolerated, and how many before it loses what percentage of capacity. Any idiot can claim to make a 1,300 mile, 2,000 mile, 5,000 mile, 1,000,000 mile battery pack -- just make the pack bigger, or the vehicle lighter, or both. That tells us nothing meaningful whatsoever about the battery chemistry itself. Advertising us what hypothetical ranges someone thinks a pack made of these "could" build is meaningless. We could build a 1300 mile battery pack right now with LiFePo cells if we wanted to, via the simple expedient of filling a dump truck with the things.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (10 children)

The real numbers we need to see are watts per volume, or watts per mass

You have to chase it down, following the link to electrek.co, but then it says: "the prototype cells house an energy density of 720 Wh/kg"

(of course, I'm just stating what is claimed, no idea how true)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Chase it down? It says 720 Wh/kg in the thumbnail image.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're right, I didn't see it! I just saw a bunch of chinese writings, which I cannot read, so didn't bother trying to read even the only thing I could 😅

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah, I'm really sick of the hype train, so that was the only info I looked for. Honestly, I was a little surprised it was that easy to find, and that is still no guarantee it's accurate.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)