• DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    That’s…Not really that impressive. I use 145Wh/km during the summer (scandinavia) with mixed highway and main road driving, if I had a 150Kwh I could get that range easily. Long range with a humongous battery is pretty expected.

    • nomecks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Not really the point of the article. The point is that they’ve built a 150Kw pack that will fit into a sedan.

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Or that they can replicate amazing results under test conditions rather than real world… you know, coming out of China which I don’t trust anyway.

          • Wilzax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            No, but making a battery at a mass that allows for that kind of efficiency has to come with asterisks.

            But I would assume that of any country’s findings that result in a headline like this.

    • Sonori@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean it’s 4.1 kwh/mi, which is very good on a battery that heavy. It’s not massive leap, but that gives me hope that real world mass production.

      • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        The battery/car weight has way less impact on range than you’d think when just cruising on highway/main road where you have minimal/no accelerations from stopped. I barely see a difference in range between my car with just me in it and fully loaded with 4 people and luggage for 3 weeks of camping.

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Net loss of energy and regenerative breaking easier and more efficient to implement.

      This is going to sound offensive, but this is why basic physics knowledge is important. Or you’re a troll and the downvotes are deserved, but let’s go uneducated first.

      • 😈MedicPig🐷BabySaver😈@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        How about, Fuck off jackass…

        Explain, step by step,… How captured incoming wind force can’t spin some type of turbine blade enough to give a little boost to battery capacity?

        Or, are you saying engineering is too stupid to figure out a positive effect system on EVs?

        • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ok, so uneducated, angry and easily offended. Happy to explain step by step but you need to check your attitude.

          First of all, wind turbines are about 20-40% efficiency at turning wind energy into electric energy. So using an engine to create wind that then spins a turbine will only give you about 30% back - the rest is lost to drag, friction between gears an moving parts. Effectively, put a fan infront of a wind turbine and you lose three times the energy you get back. Put this in a car, the drag the turbine will produce spinning will use up 3 times the energy to keep the car moving compared to what you get. This drag from a spinning turbine is soo much that propeller planes have automatic systems in place that an engine failure won’t make a plane uncontrollable by stopping the prop windmilling as much as possible. This doesn’t matter for wind turbines as they 1, don’t have to make themselves move, and 2, don’t have to carry their own weight around.

          In short, what you will get from doing this is drain the battery 3 times faster than you top it up. I.e pointless.

          To answer your last point - yes, unlike you every engineer, scientist and designer in existence is too stupid to do this, patent their discovery and make billions in extending the range of EVs. That is the logical conclusion to take.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Could we not beat up OP for asking an honest question? I get it, you get it, OP does not.

      Only been here a few months, but it’s becoming reddit 2.0 in a hurry.

      Downvoting is for trolls and other dishonest posts. Want to make this a popularity contest? Is that what we’re doing here?

      • 😈MedicPig🐷BabySaver😈@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        So, you make me sound retarded.

        Are you saying it’s impossible to engineer vehicles to capture wind power into a turbine to increase battery power?

        Sorry, but, you’ll need to explain step by step… Why vehicles can’t be equipped with air capture devices that funnel wind power into a turbine that feeds that battery.

        Earth has many “wind farms”.

        Why can’t that concept be scaled down to get wind power from a vehicle?

        BTW, ELI5… because, obviously I’m too stupid to understand the details.

        • cozycosmic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          11 months ago

          You can, but the energy gained from the turbine will be less than the extra energy it takes to drive the vehicle now that there is a wind turbine attached.

          You proposed it in the grill, but for simplicity let’s put a wind turbine on the roof. To turn the blades, the wind needs to exert a force on them, and for the blades to not fly off the back of the vehicle, the vehicle needs to match that force. So now the vehicle is working harder to move forward.

          It may be easier to visualize if you think of the turbine like a parachute. Once the car is up to speed, you release the turbine out of the back attached by a string. It will spin in the wind, and twist the string, but the car will slow down.

          You could put this into the grill, or some part of the vehicle and fool yourself that it’s not added force, but cars are designed for wind to go around them, not for wind to push on them. So no matter how you add a turbine, it’s added wind resistance.

    • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      The same reason they don’t drag an extra wheel behind them with a generator. The extra drag from whatever you use to charge the battery will use more energy than the generator can put back into the battery. It’s a net loss.

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, why not just crank up the Regen breaking to 100% so the battery is always full? Then you’d never have to charge it. Checkmate

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because no process is 100% efficient in the real world. You would lose more energy due to friction than you would gain. This would negatively affect you driving range.

      Also I don’t know why everyone is so upset. I had to put some thought into this one and I have a few engineering and physics classes under my belt.