4 ms·

While I do believe there is an advancement here, I tend to take the source with a pinch of salt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrek https://en.wikipedia.org

by hliyan 3y ago

While I do believe there is an advancement here, I tend to take the source with a pinch of salt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrek > Their positive coverage of Tesla has been criticized by some automotive journalists.[3][4][5] Its main authors have disclosed ownership of Tesla stock, substantial profit from referrals to Tesla, and ownership of Tesla cars.[6][2] The owner, Seth Weintraub, also disclosed near total divestment from Tesla stock on January 14, 2020. Worth seeing whether their new investment is in CATL https://www.google.com/finance/quote/300750:SHE?window=5Y https://www.google.com/finance/quote/300750:SHE?window=5Y

tooltalk 3y ago
Yeah, they have been pumping out quite a few pointless headliners recently. My favorite is: Volvo’s heavy-duty electric truck runs 12 hours a day with one charge break, can haul 74 tons -- Jun 29 2023 I also see there is a bit too much hype around LFP's by Tesla's fanbois who seems to believe that LFP must be the holy grail in the battery world b/c Tesla uses them.
- Kirby64 3y ago
  LFP has a lot of hype for good reasons: * Charge cycles before degradation are much better (typically 1000-3000 cycles, depending on how you cycle it) * Can be charged to 100% without causing stress on the battery * Extremely safe; you basically can't catch it on fire... unlike NMC batteries The main downside is that you aren't supposed to charge it when the battery is below freezing, so this new tech that allows -10C charging would be a big improvement. It also has lower energy density vs. NMC batteries. The rest of the claims have pretty much been done before, honestly.
  - tooltalk 3y ago
    >> LFP has a lot of hype for good reasons: * Charge cycles before degradation are much better (typically 1000-3000 cycles, depending on how you cycle it) << Sure, but that's in ESS setting. We don't know anything about LFP's lifecyle in EV profile with higher c-rates. >> * Can be charged to 100% without causing stress on the battery << All lithium batteries, including LFPs, degrade faster under high SOC in both ESS and EV settings. Tesla recommends charging to 100% full periodically because BMS needs to be recalibrated frequently to estimate accurate SOC, so to avoid potential safety and cell imbalance issues. According to Cleanwatt, citing Tessie's tracking data, Tesla's LFP EV's lose first 10% of range/battery capacity twice as fast as non-LFP batteries -- ie to 90% SOH. Recurent's study on Tesla's battery range degradation seems to corraborate this finding. >> * Extremely safe; you basically can't catch it on fire... unlike NMC batteries << LFP has lower energy density and is heavier -- likewise LFP is mostly limited to entry-level, low-range EVs with lower c-rates or stationary energey storage system (ESS). It helps reduce thermal runaway in LFP, but they catch fire no problem. In 2022, two firemen died putting out LFP ESS fire at a shopping mall in Beijing, China. BYD also has PHEV fire problem with their blade LFPs operating at 3-5 c-rates. LFP's key benefit at this point is their cost -- LFP has been fully commodified and mass-produced at scale under China's state industrial policy, but that's with a caveat, LFP's price competitiveness goes away when the prices of lithium/cobalt are lower than that of lithium, which has been kept artifically high by China (by shutting down lithium refineries) after its price collapse earlier this year. POST: another caveat, LFP recyclying is also uneconomical, as there is no valuable, useful metal to recover in spent cathodes. The cost of recycling LFP would have to be subsidized by either gov't or EV OEMs.
    - tooltalk 3y ago
      correction: LFP's price competitiveness goes away when the prices of nickel/cobalt are lower than that of lithium...
bertil 3y ago
I would be less worried about their interest through stock ownership than how much this article and others like it reads like a passable re-wording of the press release. I own stock in Tesla and other renewable technology companies (production, transport). I’d be shocked if anyone didn’t: either those industries win, or most places between the tropics are not compatible for human life, we have to deal with billions of deaths and billions of refugees (the IPCC report is ambivalent on other points, but this one is presented as highly likely). Electrek isn’t hiding which side of that bet they are taking. If there were many electric transport companies, owning stock in one over the others would be a source of bias, but there isn’t any meaningful competition yet. If they wrote critically about battery swapping, I’d be concerned if they had stock on Tesla but not BYD. This is not that. In this case, CATL has proven anything but willing to sell to willing buyers: everyone can rejoice the offer is expanding; it might not fit everyone’s needs. I’m worried that they show (in that article in particular and many others, but not always) a willingness to copy the contents of the CATL press release with little added value. They could highlight that CATL has not mentioned pricing, capacity, form factor, etc. Early technology tends to come with little production capacity, and suppliers tend to favor historical partners: they might not sell to anyone but Tesla and BYD for months. That restricted release and others like this one could unbalance the market in favor of more prominent players for a while. Whether you are a cheerleader or a adversary, that lack of systematic grid to read a press release shows that Electrek lacks critical reading structure. That’s a concern.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

by hliyan 3y ago

tooltalk 3y ago

Yeah, they have been pumping out quite a few pointless headliners recently. My favorite is: Volvo’s heavy-duty electric truck runs 12 hours a day with one charge break, can haul 74 tons -- Jun 29 2023 I also see there is a bit too much hype around LFP's by Tesla's fanbois who seems to believe that LFP must be the holy grail in the battery world b/c Tesla uses them.

Kirby64 3y ago
LFP has a lot of hype for good reasons: * Charge cycles before degradation are much better (typically 1000-3000 cycles, depending on how you cycle it) * Can be charged to 100% without causing stress on the battery * Extremely safe; you basically can't catch it on fire... unlike NMC batteries The main downside is that you aren't supposed to charge it when the battery is below freezing, so this new tech that allows -10C charging would be a big improvement. It also has lower energy density vs. NMC batteries. The rest of the claims have pretty much been done before, honestly.
- tooltalk 3y ago
  >> LFP has a lot of hype for good reasons: * Charge cycles before degradation are much better (typically 1000-3000 cycles, depending on how you cycle it) << Sure, but that's in ESS setting. We don't know anything about LFP's lifecyle in EV profile with higher c-rates. >> * Can be charged to 100% without causing stress on the battery << All lithium batteries, including LFPs, degrade faster under high SOC in both ESS and EV settings. Tesla recommends charging to 100% full periodically because BMS needs to be recalibrated frequently to estimate accurate SOC, so to avoid potential safety and cell imbalance issues. According to Cleanwatt, citing Tessie's tracking data, Tesla's LFP EV's lose first 10% of range/battery capacity twice as fast as non-LFP batteries -- ie to 90% SOH. Recurent's study on Tesla's battery range degradation seems to corraborate this finding. >> * Extremely safe; you basically can't catch it on fire... unlike NMC batteries << LFP has lower energy density and is heavier -- likewise LFP is mostly limited to entry-level, low-range EVs with lower c-rates or stationary energey storage system (ESS). It helps reduce thermal runaway in LFP, but they catch fire no problem. In 2022, two firemen died putting out LFP ESS fire at a shopping mall in Beijing, China. BYD also has PHEV fire problem with their blade LFPs operating at 3-5 c-rates. LFP's key benefit at this point is their cost -- LFP has been fully commodified and mass-produced at scale under China's state industrial policy, but that's with a caveat, LFP's price competitiveness goes away when the prices of lithium/cobalt are lower than that of lithium, which has been kept artifically high by China (by shutting down lithium refineries) after its price collapse earlier this year. POST: another caveat, LFP recyclying is also uneconomical, as there is no valuable, useful metal to recover in spent cathodes. The cost of recycling LFP would have to be subsidized by either gov't or EV OEMs.
  - tooltalk 3y ago
    correction: LFP's price competitiveness goes away when the prices of nickel/cobalt are lower than that of lithium...

bertil 3y ago

I would be less worried about their interest through stock ownership than how much this article and others like it reads like a passable re-wording of the press release. I own stock in Tesla and other renewable technology companies (production, transport). I’d be shocked if anyone didn’t: either those industries win, or most places between the tropics are not compatible for human life, we have to deal with billions of deaths and billions of refugees (the IPCC report is ambivalent on other points, but this one is presented as highly likely). Electrek isn’t hiding which side of that bet they are taking. If there were many electric transport companies, owning stock in one over the others would be a source of bias, but there isn’t any meaningful competition yet. If they wrote critically about battery swapping, I’d be concerned if they had stock on Tesla but not BYD. This is not that. In this case, CATL has proven anything but willing to sell to willing buyers: everyone can rejoice the offer is expanding; it might not fit everyone’s needs. I’m worried that they show (in that article in particular and many others, but not always) a willingness to copy the contents of the CATL press release with little added value. They could highlight that CATL has not mentioned pricing, capacity, form factor, etc. Early technology tends to come with little production capacity, and suppliers tend to favor historical partners: they might not sell to anyone but Tesla and BYD for months. That restricted release and others like this one could unbalance the market in favor of more prominent players for a while. Whether you are a cheerleader or a adversary, that lack of systematic grid to read a press release shows that Electrek lacks critical reading structure. That’s a concern.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]