EEVblog 1480 - Lightyear Zero Solar Powered Electric Car

[EEVblog]

Are solar powered electric cars viable? Let's look at the Lightyear Zero solar powered electric car and examine the claims. Can you get a useless extended range by adding solar panels to an electric car?
Dave just so happens to drive a solar powered electric car, so let's find out!

[ataradov]

Imagine maintenance cost on this. All the exposed surfaces on the car are made out of glass.

Also, no rear view mirrors, so I assume they are relying on displays. This not not even legal in most places.

[Bud]

Might work somewhere in Saudi Arabia ...
And what is the deal with the "vegan interior" 

[innis226]

How do these guys get funding? Don't Venture Capatalists have technical people of their own telling them this is just wankery?

[jonovid]

to be viable IMO
any solar powered electric Car needs to be like 1900 classic antique car design with a big 1kw flattop solar roof over an open-air cab with motorbike spoked type wheels.
with a top speed of only 80kmh.  a metropolitan shopping car/ cart , you park outdoors as it has its own carport for a roof.   also the solar roof can be a type of roll cage
and windscreen support with a gap at the top for better aerodynamics.    higher performance then any golf cart.   ABS disc brakes ,  anti-roll bars.  low center of gravity floor.

[thm_w]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/lightyear-one-solar-car/

Imagine maintenance cost on this. All the exposed surfaces on the car are made out of glass.

Also, no rear view mirrors, so I assume they are relying on displays. This not not even legal in most places.

The sides are not glass right? I don't see how maintenance is worse unless you smash the glass.
Expensive cars are expensive to repair already, don't think the owner of a 250k car cares much.

[Marco]

Wind shields are supplied by a competitive industry.

I've changed my mind, I don't think the solar roof is a bad idea in and of itself. If you like the aesthetics. Getting one without a long running contract guaranteeing low cost availability of replacement roof glass is a bad idea though.

[bdunham7]

How do these guys get funding? Don't Venture Capatalists have technical people of their own telling them this is just wankery?

You think VCs don't intentionally fund wankery? 

[Marco]

And what is the deal with the "vegan interior"

They don't want to say imitation leather.

[McBryce]

Are solar powered electric cars viable? Let's look at the Lightyear Zero solar powered electric car and examine the claims. Can you get a useless extended range by adding solar panels to an electric car?
Dave just so happens to drive a solar powered electric car, so let's find out!

Hi Dave,
take a look at Sono Motors https://sonomotors.com/ too when you get a chance. Their claims and figures are equally questionable and to top it all they have solar panels on the sides too!

McBryce.

[wraper]

And what is the deal with the "vegan interior" 

Virtue signaling for those "concerned" about cattle being butchered. And who do not bother to figure out that no cattle are butchered for leather, as it's just a mostly unwanted byproduct of meat processing. More of which goes to waste as cheaper "Vegan leather" becomes more prevalent.

[Marco]

The leather still sells, just for cheaper. Reducing the profits of animal agriculture byproducts increases the price of beef, decreases consumption. Perfectly internally consistent with vegan aims.

[wraper]

The leather still sells, just for cheaper. Reducing the profits of animal agriculture byproducts increases the price of beef, decreases consumption. Perfectly internally consistent with vegan aims.

These days butchers usually give it away for almost free or completely free because otherwise they need to pay for disposal. Almost all of the cost comes from processing, not cowhide itself. All of this vegan garbage results in discarding perfectly good natural material which is biodegradable and instead selling oil derived garbage which usually is way less lasting and at the same time not biodegradable. The result is filling landfills with a lot of garbage which will not decompose for many centuries. Go green, yay!

[Marco]

butchers

What old timey butchers do is neither here nor there. The meat and potato are the meat processing plants, dealing with butchers is just too much work for mass production of anything. Whether it be the cream of the crop for leather, or the rest for gelatin. Which the vegans also don't eat, ever so slightly running down the price and ever so slightly the ROI of rearing cattle. Then there's rendering, biogas fermentation, composting. It doesn't go to waste, it just goes to minimal profit.

Regardless, vegans aren't the cause there's too much cowhide to make into leather ... the cause is that we eat so much beef.

[thm_w]

That and vegan leather does not need to be made from oil, it can be made from a number of sources. Hell they even state "Vegan interior with naturally sourced materials".
Of course, doesn't mean its any good as a material.

https://www.greenmatters.com/p/vegan-leather-made-from-plants

[Bud]

I wonder how many cows would need to be sucrificed to make interior of this car, were it non-vegan. Perhaps not many.

[coppice]

Might work somewhere in Saudi Arabia ...
And what is the deal with the "vegan interior" 

Most of the stuff called vegan leather seems to be the kinds of low end plastic materials we've been finding passing for leather in furniture for years, that starts to flake and crumble quite quickly. There's quite a lot of real leather furniture where only the main face of a seat is real leather, and they use some garbage for the side pieces, that flakes after 5 years. Watch out for Ikea office chairs.

[JPortici]

Imagine maintenance cost on this. All the exposed surfaces on the car are made out of glass.

Also, no rear view mirrors, so I assume they are relying on displays. This not not even legal in most places.

Had to work on a maserati MC20. Rear camera and high resolution display shaped as the rear view mirror. I could litterally not tell until i turned to look and saw that the rear window was all cluttered by the engine. probably charging 5k for that system alone, but it was seamless. probably better quality than any screen i saw in my life and nothing, i repeat NOTHING like any screen you have ever seen in a car

[ataradov]

Had to work on a maserati MC20. Rear camera and high resolution display shaped as the rear view mirror. I could litterally not tell until i turned to look and saw that the rear window was all cluttered by the engine. probably charging 5k for that system alone, but it was seamless. probably better quality than any screen i saw in my life and nothing, i repeat NOTHING like any screen you have ever seen in a car

Sure, but the laws are not created for $5k systems, they are created for typical junk you will see on the roads. And that's why it is illegal in many places. It looks like it is legal in Europe, which is nice I guess.

But a very common concern that I've seen with cameras and displays that you don't see in static tests is the amount of time it takes to refocus your eyes. With a real mirror this process is instantaneous, but with the camera and display you are not looking though the optics and your eyes need to refocus on the display and then back on the road. This causes fatigue. I have not tried, so I can't tell how real this issue is.

And it is just more unnecessary shit that can break, of course.

And small aperture of the camera can get dirty much easier. If you drive in a place where there is snow and dirt, you are screwed. But in that case you are screwed with a solar car anyway.

[wraper]

butchers

What old timey butchers do is neither here nor there. The meat and potato are the meat processing plants, dealing with butchers is just too much work for mass production of anything.

I didn't mean butcher as individual. Call it a slaughterhouse, whatever. English is not my native language.

Regardless, vegans aren't the cause there's too much cowhide to make into leather ... the cause is that we eat so much beef.

It's people who want to be "responsible", or want to be on the right side of public opinion, therefore buy synthetic junk. It does not stop them eating meat though.

[golden_labels]

Do you need to visit a car wash before each travel, so the cells’ output was not limited by dust?

To people concerned about rear mirrors: a lot of cars do not have those, because there is a solid wall behind the seats or are packed with cargo in normal use. I do not know about legal status of that all around the world, but this is common enough to be somehow addressed in the regulations. Relying on a display is not an issue for a car where literally everything relies on electronics. A display can also deliver much better experience. I’m using a panoramic rear mirror myself and all I can tell about the standard rear mirrors mounted in cars is: from that perspective they seem like useless gimmick.

[tszaboo]

Might work somewhere in Saudi Arabia ...
And what is the deal with the "vegan interior" 

Most of the stuff called vegan leather seems to be the kinds of low end plastic materials we've been finding passing for leather in furniture for years, that starts to flake and crumble quite quickly. There's quite a lot of real leather furniture where only the main face of a seat is real leather, and they use some garbage for the side pieces, that flakes after 5 years. Watch out for Ikea office chairs.

I'm like 90% sure there is a combined industry push to produce interiors to cars that basically decompose after 5 years of usage. Look at all the black piano shiny plastics that gets scratched up at daily usage, and collects dust. They are using intentionally obsolete tech in the dashboard, which already looks outdated now, imagine it in 5-10 years. The low quality imitation leather fits into this perfectly.
Nobody would want to buy a 5 YO used car after it looks like a chewed up dog toy on the inside.
And this is still better than the turbochargers that blows up at 5 year 1 day, like clockwork.

[cortex_m0]

The solar car is actually more viable than I would have guessed.

The $26,000 starting price for the Aptera would make it the cheapest EV on the market in the USA, and even the upgrade from the base 250 mi battery to the 600 mi battery would still keep it in the top 5 cheapest category.

Perhaps the market niche it fills best is the person who lives in an apartment and has no means of plugging in a BEV at their apartment complex. Public chargers are pricey (relative to at-home charging). A car that could generate 20 to 40 miles of range per day would extend the interval between public charger sessions, potentially significantly.

[SiliconWizard]

Imagine maintenance cost on this. All the exposed surfaces on the car are made out of glass.

Yep. A ridiculous amount of extra energy, huge maintenance (not even talking about repair!) costs, and the average price of a Lamborghini. What's not to like?

[nctnico]

Imagine maintenance cost on this. All the exposed surfaces on the car are made out of glass.

What maintenance costs? The windows on my cars typically last the lifetime of a car unless somebody breaks one. Also many modern cars have large glass areas (like the roof and rear hood) because glass is relatively cheap while offering a lot of structural integrity (on most modern cars the windshield is giving the car a lot of structural integrity).

IMHO whether putting solar panels on a car is a good idea depends on the ROI. If the solar panel pays for itself in saved electricity / fuel costs (hybrid) then I'd say go for it.

[Bud]

I'd be more concerned about crash safety. Zillion of glass pieces coming at you , thank you very much....

[golden_labels]

I'd be more concerned about crash safety. Zillion of glass pieces coming at you , thank you very much....

There is a thing called laminated glass. Used in cars for quite some time.

[Bud]

Is it used in solar panels though?

[ataradov]

Given that they are form fitted, I assume you could order them in whatever configuration you want.

My concern was not so much with constant damage, but more with one off events when you get hit by a rock from the ahead or something like this. Even with plain glass it is annoying. But I guess if you have money for $250K car, you are not worried about such things.

[McBryce]

If you removed all the additional weight that the panels / DC/DC Converter and extra cabling create you would probably increase the range by the same amount that the panels claim to give you.

McBryce.

[coppice]

I'd be more concerned about crash safety. Zillion of glass pieces coming at you , thank you very much....

There is a thing called laminated glass. Used in cars for quite some time.

While laminated glass exists, works really well, and is pretty stable over a long lifetime, it is rarely used for anything but windscreens in cars, because of cost. Only a very few makers use laminated glass for their panoramic roof panels, for example - basically only the ones with a long term image for safety, like Volvo. On the other hand, most of the glass panels in cars are not as dangerous as a typical window breaking, as they are made from tempered glass - nasty, but not usually lethal.

[SiliconWizard]

Given that they are form fitted, I assume you could order them in whatever configuration you want.

My concern was not so much with constant damage, but more with one off events when you get hit by a rock from the ahead or something like this. Even with plain glass it is annoying. But I guess if you have money for $250K car, you are not worried about such things.

This is a ridiculous amount of money for such a car.
$250k cars are usually the luxury/sports car that have and keep a very high value for decades. They are not just cars, but a safe investment. This? Who really thinks it will even sell at 1/4 of its price 5 years later? That is, if the company still even exists?

[nctnico]

Given that they are form fitted, I assume you could order them in whatever configuration you want.

My concern was not so much with constant damage, but more with one off events when you get hit by a rock from the ahead or something like this. Even with plain glass it is annoying. But I guess if you have money for $250K car, you are not worried about such things.

This is a ridiculous amount of money for such a car.
$250k cars are usually the luxury/sports car that have and keep a very high value for decades. They are not just cars, but a safe investment. This? Who really thinks it will even sell at 1/4 of its price 5 years later? That is, if the company still even exists?

People also buy $250k hand bags so...

[cortex_m0]

One of the automotive YouTube channels got a brief test drive of a Lightyear Zero prototype in Spain. It seems like the solar does generate meaningful power, and it continues to generate while in motion. On a perfect sunny day the solar wouldn't do much to extend a road trip, but even so the Lightyear Zero, per their specification, claims to be roughly 90% more efficient than a Nissan Leaf at 70 mph (110 kph). 6.5 miles (10.5km) per kWh for the Lightyear vs. 3.4 miles (5.4km) per kwh for the 2020 Nissan Leaf Plus, with a similar capacity battery.

Video posted earlier this week by Out of Spec Reviews:

[coppice]

One of the automotive YouTube channels got a brief test drive of a Lightyear Zero prototype in Spain. It seems like the solar does generate meaningful power, and it continues to generate while in motion. On a perfect sunny day the solar wouldn't do much to extend a road trip, but even so the Lightyear Zero, per their specification, claims to be roughly 90% more efficient than a Nissan Leaf at 70 mph (110 kph). 6.5 miles (10.5km) per kWh for the Lightyear vs. 3.4 miles (5.4km) per kwh for the 2020 Nissan Leaf Plus, with a similar capacity battery.

Video posted earlier this week by Out of Spec Reviews:

He thinks its refreshing that this company wants to talk about highway speeds, but of course they do. That plays to the strengths of their design. What happens when he tries twisty roads, and other complexity, where the handling is paramount? Various people have tried motors in each wheel, and are defeated by the awful handling with a large unsprung mass. When he talks about the light wheels and special tyres compensating somewhat for the weight of the motors, that's just another way of saying the put less rubber on the road to compensate for inherent poor handling.

It looks like there are some interesting things in the design, especially its drag coefficient. Perhaps leaving out the gimmicky solar panels might have made people focus more on those.

[Marco]

How well versed were those people in creating correction algorithms for the power steering?

[thm_w]

Wheel motors have the best low speed performance at least, and should be able to accelerate faster from a stop

[cortex_m0]

He thinks its refreshing that this company wants to talk about highway speeds, but of course they do. That plays to the strengths of their design. What happens when he tries twisty roads, and other complexity, where the handling is paramount? Various people have tried motors in each wheel, and are defeated by the awful handling with a large unsprung mass.

Certainly possible. I have zero expertise in why automobiles handle the way they do.  I assume the Lightyear isn't trying to compete with a Land Rover, so maybe they think their customer won't care if this handles slightly worse than a Volkswagen Jetta.

It looks like there are some interesting things in the design, especially its drag coefficient. Perhaps leaving out the gimmicky solar panels might have made people focus more on those.

Tend to doubt it. It's much harder to market efficiency, compared to "First Street-Legal Solar Automobile!"

[nctnico]

It looks like there are some interesting things in the design, especially its drag coefficient. Perhaps leaving out the gimmicky solar panels might have made people focus more on those.

There is nothing new about making a car with a low drag coefficient. Google 'hyper miling' and you'll see people have modified regular cars to a similar shape which improves the efficiency dramatically for many years. It is not a new design; just a matter of getting to public to accept a car which has such a long, odd shaped tail. The newest BEV from Mercedes uses a similar shape as well and they are not the only ones.

[EEVblog]

It looks like there are some interesting things in the design, especially its drag coefficient. Perhaps leaving out the gimmicky solar panels might have made people focus more on those.

The solar panels are literally the only novel marketing point for a $250,000 EV
So it might be slightly better drag coefficient than other EV's, but that's kinda, meh.
If it got say twice the efficiency of other EV's on the maket then you might have something worth bragging about, but it's WLTP figure is only slightly better than my 2020 IONIQ.

[EEVblog]

One of the automotive YouTube channels got a brief test drive of a Lightyear Zero prototype in Spain. It seems like the solar does generate meaningful power, and it continues to generate while in motion. On a perfect sunny day the solar wouldn't do much to extend a road trip, but even so the Lightyear Zero, per their specification, claims to be roughly 90% more efficient than a Nissan Leaf at 70 mph (110 kph). 6.5 miles (10.5km) per kWh for the Lightyear vs. 3.4 miles (5.4km) per kwh for the 2020 Nissan Leaf Plus, with a similar capacity battery.

Yet it's own marketing is aimed around less than 50km/day usage. So you won't be hitting highway speeds on big road trips.
If this thing only cost a bit more than other EV's then they'd have something, but at $250k they have a gimmick that cashed up buyers can brag to their friends that they drive a solar powered EV.

[EEVblog]

Aptera on the 2nd channel for those that didn't see it:

[iMo]

EU agrees to end sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035..

[nctnico]

EU agrees to end sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035..

No, the EU plans to end sales of ICE cars by 2035. Nothing is cast is stone. There are several points in time where the plan is re-evaluated.

[coppice]

So it might be slightly better drag coefficient than other EV's, but that's kinda, meh.
If it got say twice the efficiency of other EV's on the maket then you might have something worth bragging about, but it's WLTP figure is only slightly better than my 2020 IONIQ.

Clearly this car is stupid as a product, simply due to the price, however....

The low drag coefficient is the key thing this car brings. Sure, you can find lots of demos of achieving a super low drag coefficient in a similarly shaped one person vehicle, but they've made a comfortable family car which achieves similar results. The WLTP figures are notoriously unrealistic. The range of most EVs goes down badly at high speed, mostly due to drag. If their claims are genuine, this car achieves a much more consistent range as the speed varies. People don't want cars they either drive at full motorway speed and spend lots of time at chargers, or spend less time at chargers but drive quite slowly.

[Marco]

WLTP is fine, with true independent testing (when a car manufacturer decides which lab to do business with, it's not independent). If you want to recalculate EPA for different speed conditions, you can. The results are public and EPA does confirmative testing.

With WLTP half the data is private. EPA catches scammer where other countries do not.

[golden_labels]

EU agrees to end sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035..

No, the EU plans to end sales of ICE cars by 2035. Nothing is cast is stone. There are several points in time where the plan is re-evaluated.

While normally I would frantically wave hands seeing “EU does foo”, in this case imo seems to be right. This week member states came to an agreement, which makes that statement correct.⁽¹⁾ The details are basically set and it would be a rare occurance for EUParl to reject those amendments. The fact, that those are corrections to a pre-existing regulation⁽²⁾, is important to see why it’s likely to see no further objections. Normally some factions would probably make an ineffective protest as a show for their electorate, but in this case a part of the framing is the situation with RF — so I suspect they may avoid even that kind of actions during the actual voting.

It is also worth noting, that this does not eliminate internal combustion engines. Regulation’s scope is limited to passanger cars and LCVs. Any other vehicle group is still covered by the existing limits. And while currently no viable option exists, fuels offsetting CO₂ emissions are not explicitly excluded either.

⁽¹⁾ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/fight-over-funding-threatens-eu-deal-new-climate-laws-2022-06-28/
⁽²⁾ 2019/631

[iMo]

Imagine the EU highways in, say, year 2125 - speedy and beautifully smelling ICE vintage classic cars everywhere 

[nctnico]

WLTP is fine, with true independent testing (when a car manufacturer decides which lab to do business with, it's not independent). If you want to recalculate EPA for different speed conditions, you can. The results are public and EPA does confirmative testing.

I doubt that. The EPA fuel consumption numbers are typically on par with fuel consumption data collected by websites that track actual fuel consumption (collected from people that drive the cars around). WLTP data on the other hand is just nonsense.

[Marco]

The WLTP drag coefficient numbers are not confirmation tested, it's just some bullshit from either the manufacturers or at best third party labs entirely dependent on their continued contracts.

The problem is regulatory capture making the implementation of WLTP testing inherently corrupt. The test if honestly implemented is fine.

[EEVblog]

So it might be slightly better drag coefficient than other EV's, but that's kinda, meh.
If it got say twice the efficiency of other EV's on the maket then you might have something worth bragging about, but it's WLTP figure is only slightly better than my 2020 IONIQ.

Clearly this car is stupid as a product, simply due to the price, however....

The low drag coefficient is the key thing this car brings. Sure, you can find lots of demos of achieving a super low drag coefficient in a similarly shaped one person vehicle, but they've made a comfortable family car which achieves similar results. The WLTP figures are notoriously unrealistic. The range of most EVs goes down badly at high speed, mostly due to drag. If their claims are genuine, this car achieves a much more consistent range as the speed varies. People don't want cars they either drive at full motorway speed and spend lots of time at chargers, or spend less time at chargers but drive quite slowly.

I'm betting the "Highway range" includes the small boost from the absolute best the solar panels can produce. It claims 10.7kWh/100km at 110kh/h.
That's great, but not hugely or game changingly great, especially for the price. I'd have to double check my IONIQ, but IIRC it's in the order of 13-14kW/100km on the highway.

[McBryce]

EU agrees to end sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035..

No, the EU plans to end sales of ICE cars by 2035. Nothing is cast is stone. There are several points in time where the plan is re-evaluated.

While normally I would frantically wave hands seeing “EU does foo”, in this case imo seems to be right. This week member states came to an agreement, which makes that statement correct.⁽¹⁾ The details are basically set and it would be a rare occurance for EUParl to reject those amendments. The fact, that those are corrections to a pre-existing regulation⁽²⁾, is important to see why it’s likely to see no further objections. Normally some factions would probably make an ineffective protest as a show for their electorate, but in this case a part of the framing is the situation with RF — so I suspect they may avoid even that kind of actions during the actual voting.

It is also worth noting, that this does not eliminate internal combustion engines. Regulation’s scope is limited to passanger cars and LCVs. Any other vehicle group is still covered by the existing limits. And while currently no viable option exists, fuels offsetting CO₂ emissions are not explicitly excluded either.

⁽¹⁾ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/fight-over-funding-threatens-eu-deal-new-climate-laws-2022-06-28/
⁽²⁾ 2019/631

It will get interesting when they actually go to the bother of calculating how much electricity would actually be required to replace all ICE vehicles with EV. For a really rough estimate you can just check out the total energy delivered by petrol / Diesel imports to any country. Convert those billions of litres of fuel to watts and they will soon discover that we really need to start building a LOT of power stations / generators of some sort.

McBryce.   

[golden_labels]

It will get interesting when they actually go to the bother of calculating how much electricity would actually be required to replace all ICE vehicles with EV.

Dunno who are “they”. But avoiding financial losses is part of the reason EC has issued the proposal. So that future tense regarding doing calculations is a bit weird. In particular since the summary of the calculations is in the document you are commenting on. Another part of the motivation is decreasing investment risk for what you considered the cost in your calculations, so the amendment is literally answering your concerns.

For a really rough estimate you can just check out the total energy delivered by petrol / Diesel imports to any country. Convert those billions of litres of fuel to watts and they will soon discover that we really need to start building a LOT of power stations / generators of some sort.

As clearly indicated in the amended regulation, in the discussed amendment, in associated media reports and in the post to which you reply: the 0g/km limit affects particular types of cars, and only new cars. Emission limits for pretty much entire industrial use of fossil fuels in vehicles are not zeroed. So the basic assumptions for the above estimation are already wrong. If they were not, you are still completely ignoring everything other than arbitrarily chosen costs and then compare that to… right, what exactly are you comparing it to?

[McBryce]

With "They" I meant the politicians making these decisions. I am aware that my calculation is extremely rough and ignores lots of things, but it still doesn't change the fact that we will not have even close to enough electricity generation capacity for all of the EV on the road by 2035.
I am also aware of the details (new cars only etc), but even in this case many countries will be forced to build many new power stations to cope with even this and many countries haven't even started to increase generation at the rate we would need to charge the EV's.

So yes, sloppy maths, but it doesn't change the result: Not enough electricity generation or plans for new generators to cover the situation in 2035.

McBryce.

[nctnico]

With "They" I meant the politicians making these decisions. I am aware that my calculation is extremely rough and ignores lots of things, but it still doesn't change the fact that we will not have even close to enough electricity generation capacity for all of the EV on the road by 2035.

'Hydrogen' is the word you are looking for. The EU doesn't plan for all cars have to be BEVs; just that all new cars have no CO2 emissions.

[Marco]

Talking about hydrogen, I notice that farther in the past with just as much knowledge of the technical hurdles as now, and with actual running prototypes, liquid hydrogen was seen as a perfectly realistic solution even for passenger cars. Then somewhere along the way it got shoved to the side for the totally unworkable compressed hydrogen ... and I can't really understand why. Liquid hydrogen has downsides, but nowhere near as many as compressed.

The hydrogen evaporates eventually ... but ehh, so what? If it's connected to your inverter the evaporated hydrogen can be converted to electricity, so it doesn't entirely go to waste. To handle it running dry, have a limp to the pump battery pack in there too (good for heating up the fuel cell too when needed). Need to figure out some way for roadside assistance to attach a range extender so toeing the entire car doesn't need to become the go to for running out of hydrogen and power, a small hitch specifically designed for a toed battery pack perhaps?

Ignoring whether hydrogen is practical at all for a moment, I think liquid makes the most sense even for passenger cars.

[McBryce]

Talking about hydrogen, I notice that farther in the past with just as much knowledge of the technical hurdles as now, and with actual running prototypes, liquid hydrogen was seen as a perfectly realistic solution even for passenger cars. Then somewhere along the way it got shoved to the side for the totally unworkable compressed hydrogen ... and I can't really understand why. Liquid hydrogen has downsides, but nowhere near as many as compressed.

The hydrogen evaporates eventually ... but ehh, so what? If it's connected to your inverter the evaporated hydrogen can be converted to electricity, so it doesn't entirely go to waste. To handle it running dry, have a limp to the pump battery pack in there too (good for heating up the fuel cell too when needed). Need to figure out some way for roadside assistance to attach a range extender so toeing the entire car doesn't need to become the go to for running out of hydrogen and power, a small hitch specifically designed for a toed battery pack perhaps?

Ignoring whether hydrogen is practical at all for a moment, I think liquid makes the most sense even for passenger cars.

Because a tank of liquid hydrogen wouldn't get you very far. Liquid Hydrogen has an energy density of 2.8kW/h per litre, Compressed Hydrogen is 33.6kWh/kg. You'd need a massive tank of liquid hydrogen to get a decent range.

The other question is, where is all this hydrogen going to come from? There's no sources of natural hydrogen on this planet. There are a few other processes that produce it as a by-product, but not in the quantities required and other methods of producing it require massive amounts of energy and have high losses.

A third, rarely mentioned issue, is that most hydrogen is not 100% pure. It has impurities that gunk up the fuel cell pretty quickly. Most vehicle fuel cells only last a short time before they start failing.

McBryce.   

[iMo]

I talked recently to a guy working in a company messing with car chargers. Asked him the question on where all the energy comes from. He told me the energy, e.g. from nuke power plants, is here 24x7 in a constant amount, but most electricity is burned by the users in 2 peaks during the day and by industry 1/3 of the day. By creating a constant load during the day and night you may use it for charging all the cars (he told me "happily"). I am still pretty skeptical on it, though.
PS: Also with the news on the EU plan with ICE I registered an info (I do not have the source handy) "they" consider to double the EU nuke power station electricity production by 2050..

[McBryce]

Well I just did a closer calculation using real numbers, and using Germany as an example:

Germany produced 579 Billion kWh in 2021. In 2021 it sold 20.5 Million tons of petrol at the pumps (just petrol, diesel not included). A litre of petrol has 12.2kWh/kg. So the petrol sold was equivalent to approx 250 Billion kWh of electricity, meaning that Germany would need almost 50% more generation just to cover the petrol cars.
Not forgetting, 2021 was Covid shutdown, more electricity being used in home office and less petrol needed to drive to work.

The currently planned new power stations in Germany don't even cover the capacity that nuclear and coal fired generation supplied and which are now being shut down. So Germany is definitely not in a position to support this and I would guess that many other (non-nuclear) EU countries are in a very similar situation.

McBryce.

*All figures taken from Germany government sites.

[iMo]

Yep, EU has to reconsider the feasible energy sources.. EU and especially Germany had nice green project plans, but they did not evaluate all potential risks in their planning, like ie. the war in Europe. So they have to change their plans, it seems. In project management it is called a "change management process" which may result in more required resources, efforts, time (and $$)..

[Marco]

Because a tank of liquid hydrogen wouldn't get you very far. Liquid Hydrogen has an energy density of 2.8kW/h per litre, Compressed Hydrogen is 33.6kWh/kg. You'd need a massive tank of liquid hydrogen to get a decent range.

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

To address your tangent though, fuel cells are more efficient than ICE's and increasing a fuel tank by 50% in each dimension won't make it suddenly impossible to build a passenger car around it. Just like hydrogen aeroplane designs, the car designs can adapt.

A third, rarely mentioned issue, is that most hydrogen is not 100% pure.

Electrolysis of RO water has a lot less possible sources of contamination than from natural gas processing.

PS. I think material for PV can be massively reduced by moving to flexible solar mounted on plastic cushions inflated with expanding foam. Hail resistance can be handled like this. Etc. There's orders of magnitude of room to improve gigascale PV. That's where hydrogen will come from, if civilization persists.

[McBryce]

Because a tank of liquid hydrogen wouldn't get you very far. Liquid Hydrogen has an energy density of 2.8kW/h per litre, Compressed Hydrogen is 33.6kWh/kg. You'd need a massive tank of liquid hydrogen to get a decent range.

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

To address your tangent though, fuel cells are more efficient than ICE's and increasing a fuel tank by 50% in each dimension won't make it suddenly impossible to build a passenger car around it. Just like hydrogen aeroplane designs, the car designs can adapt.

A third, rarely mentioned issue, is that most hydrogen is not 100% pure.

Electrolysis of RO water has a lot less possible sources of contamination than from natural gas processing.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The tanks weight isn't really a factor here. Liquid hydrogen only has 2.8kWh/l. Petrol is 9.7kWh/l. So I would need a tank of about 3x the size of a current petrol tank to get the same range. I also need to drag this weight around with me. With compressed hydrogen I have 3x the density of petrol, so for the same range, the tank only needs to hold a third of the volume.

As for impurities. I've worked on two commercial Fuel cell vehicle projects. The fuel in both cases was produced using electrolysis and the fuel cells only had a meaningful life of just over 3 years before they were too gunked up to work efficiently. Additionally, producing hydrogen using electrolysis is incredibly inefficient (as low as 70%), so why not just use the electricity in a BEV instead of wasting 30% of the energy converting it to hydrogen?

McBryce. 

[Marco]

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

[McBryce]

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Both far inferior to what? I can't answer this any simpler: To go the same distance, one needs a big heavy tank full of heavy fuel, the other needs a much smaller tank of equally heavy fuel. The weight of the tanks aren't much different per volume.

McBryce.

[Marco]

You can't answer it period, because you aren't reading the question.

Why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars.

[wraper]

Because a tank of liquid hydrogen wouldn't get you very far. Liquid Hydrogen has an energy density of 2.8kW/h per litre, Compressed Hydrogen is 33.6kWh/kg. You'd need a massive tank of liquid hydrogen to get a decent range.

And way more massive tank of compressed hydrogen. You compare apples with oranges. Liters with kilograms. For water the same number means equal amount but not for hydrogen.
Do you not see a problem in storing liquid hydrogen? Unless you keep it colder than -253^oC it will turn into gaseous form, so you need very good thermal insulation and to either let excess gaseous hydrogen into atmosphere to prevent the tank from rupturing or cool it by some means.

[wraper]

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Both far inferior to what? I can't answer this any simpler: To go the same distance, one needs a big heavy tank full of heavy fuel, the other needs a much smaller tank of equally heavy fuel. The weight of the tanks aren't much different per volume.

McBryce.

The same amount of hydrogen in liquid and compressed form weights the same, but compressed hydrogen takes much larger volume thus needs much larger tank which also must be able to survive extremely high pressure .

[Marco]

Do you not see a problem in storing liquid hydrogen?

I was the one promoting liquid hydrogen, he was answering questions which weren't being asked.

I see the challenges of liquid hydrogen, but I don't judge them qualitatively different than liquid natural gas. A cryogenic fuel being commercially used in trucking today.

There's problems and risks, there are solutions and mitigations. The lack of energy density and charge-speed/grid-load of batteries is also a problem, the far far worse round trip efficiency of synthetic fuels made from green hydrogen is also a problem. The arable land and water use of biofuels is also a problem.

Which are the bigger problems?

[wraper]

There is a big difference between storing at -253^oC and -162^oC for LNG, even latter makes it very niche and troublesome. Not to say LNG has almost an order of magnitude higher density which require way smaller tank to be kept cool. Neither is a good option for any use that will be significantly intermittent. Basically fill and spend as fast as you can is the only viable option solution when using these.

[Marco]

BMW 750hl supposedly had about 1.2W heat ingress, that's about the latent heat of 2 mg of hydrogen per second. Lets say 5 kg of hydrogen tank, so that has a life of roughly a month. Lets say you include a small lithium ion battery and have the car run that down first. When you park the car, the evaporated hydrogen would first go to charging the battery.

It would require a different mindset from a fossil fuel car or EV, but I wouldn't say it's completely unusable simply because of evaporation.

[McBryce]

You can't answer it period, because you aren't reading the question.

Why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars.

It seems I really don't understand the question. All I can say is that I've seen the solutions for both systems in real hardware and the compressed gas solution was viable to put in a car for the ranges required with enough room for all the other things a customer would expect in a vehicle and the liquid version was not. Either way, neither are a viable solution as long as we don't have an efficient method of producing vast quantities of Hydrogen, which we still don't.

Maybe I need to ask the question: Ignoring the energy density aspect. We know the difficulties of keeping Hydrogen in a liquid form, very low temperature which requires both insulation and an energy source. To keep gas at pressure we just need a robust container. So tell me, what advantages do you see that liquid Hydrogen has over compressed gas?

McBryce.

[Marco]

Liquid hydrogen only has 2.8kWh/l. Petrol is 9.7kWh/l. So I would need a tank of about 3x the size of a current petrol tank to get the same range. I also need to drag this weight around with me. With compressed hydrogen I have 3x the density of petrol

I'm sorry I missed this ... in my defence, it's a really bizarre thing to say. Hydrogen can actually be liquid at room temperature, but it takes a hell of a lot more than 700 bar. Outside of extreme corner cases which are not relevant here, a gas of a molecule isn't going to be more dense than a liquid regardless of temperature and pressure.

The density of hydrogen at 700 bar at room temperature is 42 kg/m3, the density of liquid hydrogen at -252.87°C is 71 kg/m3. Compressed hydrogen has even worse energy density than liquid hydrogen, as common sense dictates. That said, I had never really looked at the Mirai tanks and it is kind of impressive how thin and light they were able to make a 700 bar tank. Eyeballing it the 750hl managed to pack it's 8kg of hydrogen in far less space including the necessary equipment than Mirai's 5 kg.

[tszaboo]

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.

There is a big difference between storing at -253^oC and -162^oC for LNG, even latter makes it very niche and troublesome. Not to say LNG has almost an order of magnitude higher density which require way smaller tank to be kept cool. Neither is a good option for any use that will be significantly intermittent. Basically fill and spend as fast as you can is the only viable option solution when using these.

LNG is nice if you have a large tank that is maintained constantly. The issues start coming when that tank is actually used. So they never empty out LNG tanks to 0%. And when they are almost empty, the heat capacity decreases dramatically, while the heat gain of the tank is the same. So pressure builds up in them as the remaining LNG evaporates. And you can blow up an almost empty tank in a few days.
CNG is much safer for cars, because the tank is actually designed to handle the high pressure.

But I'm a fan of CNG. As I recall 60-80% of the car fleet could be converted to Petrol/CNG hybrids, significantly reducing the need for petrol. And we can create CNG from CO2 and water and solar or wind power. It's not perfect, but it would be a significant reduction of fossil fuel usage, even without the massive environmental need to make BEVs for everyone.

[nctnico]

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.

This is FUD. In the end the same is true for fuel vapour. Why do you think fuel systems in cars are hermetically sealed? Research has shown that hydrogen has no higher risk of fires or explosions compared to other fuels used in cars.

[McBryce]

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.

This is FUD. In the end the same is true for fuel vapour. Why do you think fuel systems in cars are hermetically sealed? Research has shown that hydrogen has no higher risk of fires or explosions compared to other fuels used in cars.

?? Show me the research that says that.

McBryce.

[Marco]

Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.

Detonation actually requires a higher percentage than gasoline vapour, I don't see it happening in my garage. It's highly flammable.

[wraper]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The tanks weight isn't really a factor here. Liquid hydrogen only has 2.8kWh/l. Petrol is 9.7kWh/l. So I would need a tank of about 3x the size of a current petrol tank to get the same range. I also need to drag this weight around with me. With compressed hydrogen I have 3x the density of petrol, so for the same range, the tank only needs to hold a third of the volume.

As for impurities. I've worked on two commercial Fuel cell vehicle projects. The fuel in both cases was produced using electrolysis and the fuel cells only had a meaningful life of just over 3 years before they were too gunked up to work efficiently. Additionally, producing hydrogen using electrolysis is incredibly inefficient (as low as 70%), so why not just use the electricity in a BEV instead of wasting 30% of the energy converting it to hydrogen?

McBryce.

With compressed hydrogen you have 2 times worse density that liquid hydrogen, thus 6 times worse than gasoline. Dunno from where you got an idea it should be somehow better.

[tszaboo]

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.

This is FUD. In the end the same is true for fuel vapour. Why do you think fuel systems in cars are hermetically sealed? Research has shown that hydrogen has no higher risk of fires or explosions compared to other fuels used in cars.

I actually know what I'm talking about, having several devices certified for such an environment.
And read this: https://marketresearchtelecast.com/hydrogen-bus-catches-fire-in-the-netherlands/190175/
Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.

[Marco]

Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.

Spill gasoline in a closed garage and it can explode too (actual detonation).

[nctnico]

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.

This is FUD. In the end the same is true for fuel vapour. Why do you think fuel systems in cars are hermetically sealed? Research has shown that hydrogen has no higher risk of fires or explosions compared to other fuels used in cars.

I actually know what I'm talking about, having several devices certified for such an environment.
And read this: https://marketresearchtelecast.com/hydrogen-bus-catches-fire-in-the-netherlands/190175/
Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.

Then I suggest you to get a job at the car manufacturers and warn them. The reality is that the SAE, regulatory bodies and car manufacturers have designed and certified the hydrogen storage and fueling systems for vehicles to be safe. These people aren't stupid! You might think you know what you are talking about but you are missing the point that the hydrogen systems have been designed to be safe to use.

Linking to articles that don't actually support your claim doesn't really help. It only shows the attempt to spread more FUD. I tried to dig a bit deeper but there is no mention of hydrogen being the cause of the fire affecting the hydrogen busses or that the tanks with hydrogen exploded.

[tszaboo]

To reiterate the question, why was liquid hydrogen abandoned in favour of compressed hydrogen for passenger cars. Your supposed answer (you said "because") was energy density. Obviously the energy density and energy per weight including tank for compressed hydrogen are both far inferior, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Because hydrogen is explosive. You can blow up it in the air, by shorting out something like a 10uf capacitor, that is charged up to 10v. That tiny spark has enough energy to blow up the car in your garage.

This is FUD. In the end the same is true for fuel vapour. Why do you think fuel systems in cars are hermetically sealed? Research has shown that hydrogen has no higher risk of fires or explosions compared to other fuels used in cars.

I actually know what I'm talking about, having several devices certified for such an environment.
And read this: https://marketresearchtelecast.com/hydrogen-bus-catches-fire-in-the-netherlands/190175/
Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.

Then I suggest you to get a job at the car manufacturers and warn them. The reality is that the SAE, regulatory bodies and car manufacturers have designed and certified the hydrogen storage and fueling systems for vehicles to be safe. These people aren't stupid! You might think you know what you are talking about but you are missing the point that the hydrogen systems have been designed to be safe to use.

Linking to articles that don't actually support your claim doesn't really help. It only shows the attempt to spread more FUD. I tried to dig a bit deeper but there is no mention of hydrogen being the cause of the fire affecting the hydrogen busses or that the tanks with hydrogen exploded.

Car makers put lead into gasoline, cheated with diesel NOx emissions and spent decades only putting seatbelt on the front, or released pre-alpha versions of the self driving software that drove cars into brick walls and trucks.
I trust politicians better than carmakers, while both usually are spineless weasels who do anything for money.

Hydrogen is no joke, you put that in an enclosed environment, and it creates some ventilation for itself by launching the roof to next town.

Spill gasoline in a closed garage and it can explode too (actual detonation).

Yes. It needs to evaporate first. And you need something like three to six magnitude less energy to ignite hydrogen than petrol.

[quarros]

Dave. One thing in both the original and extended video stood out for me, regarding the Aptera.

I completely agree that with any normal EV the achievable range is greatly reduced by the speed increase. But with the drag coefficient of 0.13 (If their presented numbers are to believed), isn't this effect largely reduced? My memory about fluid dynamics are quite foggy but I faintly remember that the Drag Force / Velocity curve changes by the value of the drag coefficient, and this change is not linearly but exponentially proportional to the change of the coefficient. So this funky little car is more than likely be able to drive at highway speeds without significant loss of range.
Any automotive or aerospace engineer Please Correct me if what I say is nonsense.

Edit: After looking it up, it seems I remembered wrongly. Drag force is calculated by  F_d = c_d*0.5*p*v²*A  formula. So the value changes in c_d are not exponentially changing the drag force. I think the reason why I remembered wrong was the A value. Which is the "characteristic frontal area of the body" in square meters, and that is always in some relation to the shape of the design. In conclusion my original guess is still likely right because the area of the frontal body on an Aptera is also smaller than most cars.

[thm_w]

Well I just did a closer calculation using real numbers, and using Germany as an example:

Germany produced 579 Billion kWh in 2021. In 2021 it sold 20.5 Million tons of petrol at the pumps (just petrol, diesel not included). A litre of petrol has 12.2kWh/kg. So the petrol sold was equivalent to approx 250 Billion kWh of electricity, meaning that Germany would need almost 50% more generation just to cover the petrol cars.
Not forgetting, 2021 was Covid shutdown, more electricity being used in home office and less petrol needed to drive to work.

You are assuming gas cars are 100% efficient with that calculation, which they are not, an EV is something like 75%.

Dave. One thing in both the original and extended video stood out for me, regarding the Aptera.

I completely agree that with any normal EV the achievable range is greatly reduced by the speed increase. But with the drag coefficient of 0.13 (If their presented numbers are to believed), isn't this effect largely reduced? My memory about fluid dynamics are quite foggy but I faintly remember that the Drag Force / Velocity curve changes by the value of the drag coefficient, and this change is not linearly but exponentially proportional to the change of the coefficient. So this funky little car is more than likely be able to drive at highway speeds without significant loss of range.
Any automotive or aerospace engineer Please Correct me if what I say is nonsense.

Edit: After looking it up, it seems I remembered wrongly. Drag force is calculated by  F_d = c_d*0.5*p*v²*A  formula. So the value changes in c_d are not exponentially changing the drag force. I think the reason why I remembered wrong was the A value. Which is the "characteristic frontal area of the body" in square meters, and that is always in some relation to the shape of the design. In conclusion my original guess is still likely right because the area of the frontal body on an Aptera is also smaller than most cars.

Yeah I'm sure you can find an online calculator to plug in and compare, but, you'll have to find frontal area, which no one seems to publish.
Big boxy front cars are currently in style and have horrible efficiency.

I'm betting the "Highway range" includes the small boost from the absolute best the solar panels can produce. It claims 10.7kWh/100km at 110kh/h.
That's great, but not hugely or game changingly great, especially for the price. I'd have to double check my IONIQ, but IIRC it's in the order of 13-14kW/100km on the highway.

13.8 kWh according to these guys at 110km/h, which was the best result: https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/
Tesla Model 3 a close 2nd.
Cant believe how much worse the 2022 model is, 20kWh/100km, marketing must have taken over.

[cortex_m0]

13.8 kWh according to these guys at 110km/h, which was the best result: https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/
Tesla Model 3 a close 2nd.
Cant believe how much worse the 2022 model is, 20kWh/100km, marketing must have taken over.

The Ioniq and Ioniq5 are not related vehicles. The Ioniq5 is bigger and heavier: 30cm more wheelbase, 7cm wider, 15cm taller, and most importantly at least 350kg heavier (more with the bigger battery packs and AWD)

Notably the AWD car that InsideEVs tested has a manufacturer rated range of 76km less than the RWD version, owing to the heavier weight and higher friction.

The most efficient version of the Ioniq5 is (US EPA estimated) at 16.4 kWh/100km.

[McBryce]

Well I just did a closer calculation using real numbers, and using Germany as an example:

Germany produced 579 Billion kWh in 2021. In 2021 it sold 20.5 Million tons of petrol at the pumps (just petrol, diesel not included). A litre of petrol has 12.2kWh/kg. So the petrol sold was equivalent to approx 250 Billion kWh of electricity, meaning that Germany would need almost 50% more generation just to cover the petrol cars.
Not forgetting, 2021 was Covid shutdown, more electricity being used in home office and less petrol needed to drive to work.

You are assuming gas cars are 100% efficient with that calculation, which they are not, an EV is something like 75%.

I deliberately left all efficiencies out of the equation because otherwise we would have to compare all efficiencies such as how efficient the refrigerator for liquid hydrogen, the compressor for compressed hydrogen, the charging circuitry etc.

There are some really good "Well to wheel" comparisons available that do this, even comparing the different methods of producing Hydrogen. They show very clearly why a battery EV is the most efficient alternative to fossil fuels. Here's a simpler BEV/Hydrogen one from VW: https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html#

McBryce.

[Marco]

Talking about the cost of electricity without mentioning time is bullshit. Assuming Nuclear is not an option, then 2050 we will need massively overprovisioned renewables. Assuming the capital costs of electrolyzers and cryopumps is relatively small, efficiency won't matter. A huge hydrogen economy will be able to get surplus electricity for almost nothing.

[cortex_m0]

Lightyear announced this week they will not produce the Zero.

https://electrek.co/2023/01/23/lightyear-0-production-affordable-lightyear-2-solar-ev-wait-list-registrations/

[spostma]

Lightyear is largely bankrupt (their production daughter company Atlas Technologies), over 600 people lost their jobs,
just 30 people remain in mother company that owns the intellectual property and patents as far as I understand.

170 Million Euros investment money down the drain,
and people that did an advance payment for the Lightyear 0 lose their money, sadly.

Dutch articles with more info (use Google Translate):
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/economie/bedrijven/artikel/5361810/faillissement-zonneauto-lightyear-600-werknemers
https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/lightyear-deels-failliet-5099617/

[coppice]

and people that did an advance payment for the Lightyear 0 lose their money, sadly.

Who puts down more than a small deposit for something like this from a company with no track record, that could just as easily be a scam as a genuine effort to build a new business?

[Marco]

Bankruptcy is a good way to lower NRE and capital costs. That factory is there now, might as well build cars with it.

I wouldn't be surprised that in the limit case you could halve the cost of the car, it's not like another car manufacturer at the moment is going to pay top dollar for that factory at the moment ... so investors would be competing against scrap prices, there's some opportunity here for it to rise from the ashes.

[ataradov]

Who puts down more than a small deposit for something like this from a company with no track record, that could just as easily be a scam as a genuine effort to build a new business?

Same people that buy JPEGs of monkeys. I suspect a lot of their troubles also relate to cryptobros no longer being able to afford lambos and this stupidity.

[tszaboo]

Lightyear is largely bankrupt (their production daughter company Atlas Technologies), over 600 people lost their jobs,
just 30 people remain in mother company that owns the intellectual property and patents as far as I understand.

Oh, wow, I had a job interview there last November. I cancelled the followup. I guess I dodged a bullet here.

[EEVblog]

Yep, bankrupt.
https://innovationorigins.com/en/selected/car-builder-solar-car-lightyear-0-bankrupt/

I called it a few days before it happened, LOL
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1617815544148955137

[ataradov]

I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.

Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.

[coppice]

I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.

Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.

A startup has zero chance of survival if it can't offer something new and different. A number of people now make a $40k EV. Unless the value proposition of a startup's cars, cheap or expensive, is profoundly different from anything available from an established brand, with their established support network and reasonable chance of parts availability, a startup can't compete.

[nctnico]

Bankruptcy is a good way to lower NRE and capital costs. That factory is there now, might as well build cars with it.

I wouldn't be surprised that in the limit case you could halve the cost of the car, it's not like another car manufacturer at the moment is going to pay top dollar for that factory at the moment ... so investors would be competing against scrap prices, there's some opportunity here for it to rise from the ashes.

Agreed. Only the manufacturing part of the company behind the Lightyear cars is affected. The IP and solar panel production is not included in the bankrupty. Interestingly the new Toyota Prius has the option to have a solar panel in its roof so I guess the idea of having solar panels on a car did got traction.

[EEVblog]

Interestingly the new Toyota Prius has the option to have a solar panel in its roof so I guess the idea of having solar panels on a car did got traction.

Seems like an obvious marketing opportunity.
It's a balance of integrated manufacturing cost though.

[EEVblog]

I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.

Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.

A startup has zero chance of survival if it can't offer something new and different. A number of people now make a $40k EV. Unless the value proposition of a startup's cars, cheap or expensive, is profoundly different from anything available from an established brand, with their established support network and reasonable chance of parts availability, a startup can't compete.

Yep. At least the Apera looks fantastically futuristic, will sell well on that alone. Heck if they were available in Australia then I might buy one.

EDIT, just saw this: https://thedriven.io/2023/01/25/aptera-to-launch-solar-powered-ev-in-2023-but-australia-will-have-to-wait/

[tszaboo]

Bankruptcy is a good way to lower NRE and capital costs. That factory is there now, might as well build cars with it.

I wouldn't be surprised that in the limit case you could halve the cost of the car, it's not like another car manufacturer at the moment is going to pay top dollar for that factory at the moment ... so investors would be competing against scrap prices, there's some opportunity here for it to rise from the ashes.

Agreed. Only the manufacturing part of the company behind the Lightyear cars is affected. The IP and solar panel production is not included in the bankrupty. Interestingly the new Toyota Prius has the option to have a solar panel in its roof so I guess the idea of having solar panels on a car did got traction.

My 12 year old prius 3 has a solar panel on it. They never sold this variant here in the NL.
For the ugly duckling it is, it looks a bit better with the solar panel.

[McBryce]

I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.

Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.

A startup has zero chance of survival if it can't offer something new and different. A number of people now make a $40k EV. Unless the value proposition of a startup's cars, cheap or expensive, is profoundly different from anything available from an established brand, with their established support network and reasonable chance of parts availability, a startup can't compete.

Yep. At least the Apera looks fantastically futuristic, will sell well on that alone. Heck if they were available in Australia then I might buy one.

EDIT, just saw this: https://thedriven.io/2023/01/25/aptera-to-launch-solar-powered-ev-in-2023-but-australia-will-have-to-wait/

What sort black magic trickery are they doing to get that through homologation??!!! That's every safety engineers nightmare.

McBryce.

[thm_w]

Who puts down more than a small deposit for something like this from a company with no track record, that could just as easily be a scam as a genuine effort to build a new business?

Same people that buy JPEGs of monkeys. I suspect a lot of their troubles also relate to cryptobros no longer being able to afford lambos and this stupidity.

I'm not a fan of crypto, but this has nothing to do with that.
If you want to draw parallels, we have kickstarter, indiegogo, and others where people throw money at unviable projects.

The car cost ~$160k, a deposit of $4k to someone who can afford 160k is not very much (2.5% of the total price).
https://web.archive.org/web/20220210171049/https://lightyear.one/reserve

[nctnico]

I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.

Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.

A startup has zero chance of survival if it can't offer something new and different. A number of people now make a $40k EV. Unless the value proposition of a startup's cars, cheap or expensive, is profoundly different from anything available from an established brand, with their established support network and reasonable chance of parts availability, a startup can't compete.

Yep. At least the Apera looks fantastically futuristic, will sell well on that alone. Heck if they were available in Australia then I might buy one.

EDIT, just saw this: https://thedriven.io/2023/01/25/aptera-to-launch-solar-powered-ev-in-2023-but-australia-will-have-to-wait/

What sort black magic trickery are they doing to get that through homologation??!!! That's every safety engineers nightmare.

Likely it is classified as a trike / motorcycle.

[coppice]

I guess it is fine if you are playing with other people's money, but really, it should have been obvious that stating with $40K model gives you a way better chance or survival.

Just making a plain $40k EV is already a decent achievement. You can sell this alone. Any other gimmicks on top of that is just a plus.

A startup has zero chance of survival if it can't offer something new and different. A number of people now make a $40k EV. Unless the value proposition of a startup's cars, cheap or expensive, is profoundly different from anything available from an established brand, with their established support network and reasonable chance of parts availability, a startup can't compete.

Yep. At least the Apera looks fantastically futuristic, will sell well on that alone. Heck if they were available in Australia then I might buy one.

EDIT, just saw this: https://thedriven.io/2023/01/25/aptera-to-launch-solar-powered-ev-in-2023-but-australia-will-have-to-wait/

What sort black magic trickery are they doing to get that through homologation??!!! That's every safety engineers nightmare.

Likely it is classified as a trike / motorcycle.

The rules for bikes, trikes and quadricycles seem based on the idea that if you make the machine unsafe enough its OK for all the safety rules to go away.

[tszaboo]

The rules for bikes, trikes and quadricycles seem based on the idea that if you make the machine unsafe enough its OK for all the safety rules to go away.

Yeah, but you get a steady stream of otherwise healthy organ donors.

[ataradov]

The car cost ~$160k, a deposit of $4k to someone who can afford 160k is not very much (2.5% of the total price).

Yeah, but why? What is the logic behind doing that? $4k from a customer is not enough to fund development of a $160k car, even if you have a lot of people willing to pay.  I guess if you really want to be the first one to have it, but this in itself is a bad idea.

It is like pre-ordering digital games and then being disappointed when the game is crap.

[thm_w]

The car cost ~$160k, a deposit of $4k to someone who can afford 160k is not very much (2.5% of the total price).

Yeah, but why? What is the logic behind doing that? $4k from a customer is not enough to fund development of a $160k car, even if you have a lot of people willing to pay.  I guess if you really want to be the first one to have it, but this in itself is a bad idea.

It gets you emotionally invested in the product, while gauging serious interest. Maybe you put 4k in, so you are less likely to buy another car that comes up for sale, as you've already "decided", no idea.

The initial Tesla pre-orders were $5k? But they've done $100, $250, $500, and $1k, for deposits as well. So maybe lower deposits work better to get more people interested, even if half bail, you've made money on interest and generated hype.

It is like pre-ordering digital games and then being disappointed when the game is crap.

Yes exactly. I'm sure there are some studies but I can't find anything good https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698913001148

[EEVblog]

My 12 year old prius 3 has a solar panel on it. They never sold this variant here in the NL.
For the ugly duckling it is, it looks a bit better with the solar panel.

Isn't the Prius panel just for trickle charging the 12V auxillary battery?

[thm_w]

My 12 year old prius 3 has a solar panel on it. They never sold this variant here in the NL.
For the ugly duckling it is, it looks a bit better with the solar panel.

Isn't the Prius panel just for trickle charging the 12V auxillary battery?

It just runs a fan on the older models apparently: https://www.boronextrication.com/2011/08/13/prius-solar-panel-roof-option/
On the Nissan Leaf it charges the aux 12V battery.

Kinda useful if you rarely drive the car, but only because of the use of a separate 12V battery in the first place, which is a design compromise.

[EEVblog]

Kinda useful if you rarely drive the car, but only because of the use of a separate 12V battery in the first place, which is a design compromise.

AFAIK all EV's have an auxillary 12V battery for system separation reasons.

[McBryce]

Kinda useful if you rarely drive the car, but only because of the use of a separate 12V battery in the first place, which is a design compromise.

AFAIK all EV's have an auxillary 12V battery for system separation reasons.

Yeah they all do, but not just for seperation. Many systems (Central locking, alarms etc) need to be running even when the HV battery and DC/DC are powered down. The HV system only gets activated when the user actually wants to move the vehicle and during charging.

McBryce.

[coppice]

Kinda useful if you rarely drive the car, but only because of the use of a separate 12V battery in the first place, which is a design compromise.

AFAIK all EV's have an auxillary 12V battery for system separation reasons.

If for no other reason, they need a low voltage battery to pull in the breaker for the high voltage battery. Without that its hard to make the car both safe and convenient.

[coppice]

Kinda useful if you rarely drive the car, but only because of the use of a separate 12V battery in the first place, which is a design compromise.

AFAIK all EV's have an auxillary 12V battery for system separation reasons.

Yeah they all do, but not just for seperation. Many systems (Central locking, alarms etc) need to be running even when the HV battery and DC/DC are powered down. The HV system only gets activated when the user actually wants to move the vehicle and during charging.

McBryce.

Most current EVs will pull in the high voltage breaker from time to time, as the 12V battery runs down, to recharge it. This is so a pretty small 12V battery can be used. This behaviour can be disable, so the high voltage battery won''t kick in during maintenance work. Charging of the 12V battery is largely decoupled from charging of the car.

[McBryce]

Kinda useful if you rarely drive the car, but only because of the use of a separate 12V battery in the first place, which is a design compromise.

AFAIK all EV's have an auxillary 12V battery for system separation reasons.

Yeah they all do, but not just for seperation. Many systems (Central locking, alarms etc) need to be running even when the HV battery and DC/DC are powered down. The HV system only gets activated when the user actually wants to move the vehicle and during charging.

McBryce.

Most current EVs will pull in the high voltage breaker from time to time, as the 12V battery runs down, to recharge it. This is so a pretty small 12V battery can be used. This behaviour can be disable, so the high voltage battery won''t kick in during maintenance work. Charging of the 12V battery is largely decoupled from charging of the car.

True, forgot that situation.

McBryce.

[EEVblog]

Kinda useful if you rarely drive the car, but only because of the use of a separate 12V battery in the first place, which is a design compromise.

AFAIK all EV's have an auxillary 12V battery for system separation reasons.

Yeah they all do, but not just for seperation. Many systems (Central locking, alarms etc) need to be running even when the HV battery and DC/DC are powered down. The HV system only gets activated when the user actually wants to move the vehicle and during charging.

McBryce.

Most current EVs will pull in the high voltage breaker from time to time, as the 12V battery runs down, to recharge it. This is so a pretty small 12V battery can be used. This behaviour can be disable, so the high voltage battery won''t kick in during maintenance work. Charging of the 12V battery is largely decoupled from charging of the car.

True, forgot that situation.

My IONIQ flashes it's big blue LED occasionally at night indicating that the 12V battery is being charged from the main pack.

[nctnico]

Either way the solar panel would help save some energy. I'd still be interested in whether solar panels on cars can also charge the main battery. But it is also possible that the electronics that need to be on draw more power compared to the energy coming in. Recently I read an article (IIRC originating from the German automobile owners club ADAC) that some BEVs lose up to 30% while / when charged from a regular 16A / 230V outlet due to all the systems that need to be on during charging the main battery.

[thm_w]

Either way the solar panel would help save some energy. I'd still be interested in whether solar panels on cars can also charge the main battery. But it is also possible that the electronics that need to be on draw more power compared to the energy coming in. Recently I read an article (IIRC originating from the German automobile owners club ADAC) that some BEVs lose up to 30% while / when charged from a regular 16A / 230V outlet due to all the systems that need to be on during charging the main battery.

If its having to warm or cool the battery pack that would be a large part. I assumed it was mostly AC/DC conversion losses, I2R loss, etc. as charging at 120V/L1 is less efficient than 240V/L2 (~85% vs 90%).
But good point about systems that would come on. Probably makes no sense to charge the main battery unless you are getting >100W of solar power coming in say.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7046253

[tszaboo]

My 12 year old prius 3 has a solar panel on it. They never sold this variant here in the NL.
For the ugly duckling it is, it looks a bit better with the solar panel.

Isn't the Prius panel just for trickle charging the 12V auxillary battery?

It just runs a fan on the older models apparently: https://www.boronextrication.com/2011/08/13/prius-solar-panel-roof-option/
On the Nissan Leaf it charges the aux 12V battery.

Kinda useful if you rarely drive the car, but only because of the use of a separate 12V battery in the first place, which is a design compromise.

Hey, you are not supposed to know that 
Yes, it cools down the car during the summer. I would argue that bottom line, it still saves on the AC therefore fuel.
Plus, you know it's still a solar panel on a hybrid.

[EEVblog]

Plus, you know it's still a solar panel on a hybrid.

The marketing strategy is simple, put a solar panel on the EV and let Joe Average consumer think it's for the main battery because they don't know any different, even if you tell them in the fine print

[nctnico]

According to a quick Google, the 2022 model Prius that is about to hit the market does charge it's main batteries (the ones used to power the electric motor) from the optional solar panel.

[PA0PBZ]

Anyone wants to buy one? https://www.troostwijkauctions.com/uk/auction/01-46135/

[EEVblog]

Anyone wants to buy one? https://www.troostwijkauctions.com/uk/auction/01-46135/

If it was here I'd buy one kicks.

[nctnico]

How much would it cost to transport?

[PA0PBZ]

How much would it cost to transport?

USD 1500-2000

[McBryce]

Transporting an EV battery that isn't installed in a vehicle can be quite a complicated matter in Europe (and probably other places too). If it's a new (and certified) battery you have to at least be ADR2021 compliant, ensuring that the transport vehicle and packaging is sufficient and (I think) even the driver needs to have certain training. If the battery is a prototype with no type approval or crash test documentation, things get extremely complicated, especially if you need to cross a border with it. It's not a matter of throwing it on the back of the truck and off we go.
I assume that these credentials would need to be confirmed before they let anything go out the gate.

McBryce.

[SiliconWizard]

Plus, you know it's still a solar panel on a hybrid.

The marketing strategy is simple, put a solar panel on the EV and let Joe Average consumer think it's for the main battery because they don't know any different, even if you tell them in the fine print

Yes, though I think we could extend your statement a little bit.

The marketing strategy is simple, put a solar panel on anything and let Joe Average consumer think it will save the planet. Charge a high premium for that, and get good subsidies to top it off.