Examining Dubious Tech Claims
Readers are of two minds when it comes to my frequent rants against the barrage of techno-fraud and misleading claims we see on social media. Some are bored, but most like the challenge of applying math and the laws of basic physics to real-world situations. (The former group should skip this one.)
Let’s take this press release on a new EV, the Lightyear One, a new solar-powered electric car. Here are their claims and my comments in italics:
“The startup claims an unbelievable range of 450 miles (725 km) on a single charge.” That’s not unbelievable. If you have a lightweight car with a huge battery pack, anyone can do this.
“To achieve positive energy output, the car is extremely aerodynamic and uses lightweight materials such as carbon fiber and aluminum.” This is what every automaker on the planet is doing.
“The startup first caught our attention because they are energy positive solar cars – meaning that they can produce more energy than they consume.” This is hogcrap; the 16 square feet of PV on this car will produce about 300 Watts on a sunny day. That’s less than 1/2 horsepower, and about 1/400th of the (borderline underpowered) Nissan Leaf.
Craig,
You have a habit of crying fraud without any research or endorsing very dubious products if you feel they are politically correct. Your research seems to consist of a few obscure websites and Facebook.
Now I too doubt the veracity and authenticity of the claims made by Lightyear’s CEO Lex Hoefsloot, but unlike yourself I also bother to do a little more in-depth research before rushing to judgement.
You claim “the 16 square feet of PV on this car”
Lightyear claims 5 square metres , or nearly 54 square feet of solar panels!( Nearly quadruple your assertion!) Lightyear’s claim of 54 square feet of solar panels when exposed to bright sunshine, could produce enough energy to power the vehicle on a 30 mile journey, is quite feasible. (especially if the claims are based on the WLTP test cycle.
So where do you get your information ?
Lightyear is not being misleading when it claims a 450 mile range is “unbelievable”, iT is “unbelievable”! That is, it’s “unbelievable” for any EV sedan capable of seating four to five adults with sufficient safety requirements, amenities and driven in normal road conditions.
Aerodynamics and lightweight materials will help a little to augment the range of an EV, but the main problem is battery and cargo weight. (That can’t be altered, Lightyear’s credibility is not assisted by being very coy about the battery pack and BMS technology).
EV’s suffer range problems largely due to the variances in speed, load and gradients.
The vehicle is also ludicrously devoid of safety features. It does include provision for two(unspecified) airbags, but which do not appear as part of the vehicles total weight calculation.
Lightyear refers to the electric motors as being “in wheel”. (Presumably a translation error as the Dutch/ German translations refer to “in hub” technology.
In-hub technology for large high-speed vehicles has yet to prove either effective, or safe. The stresses and dynamics of in hub technology, especially with steering, are very difficult and although the technology may look fine in theory, (and weight saving) but in practice it’s impractical, economically ruinous and dangerous.
(The illustration provided on the website and published in Electrek, is marked as only for ‘indicative’illustration purposes and not the actual technology used in the final product).
You really don’t read carefully do you before you launch into disparaging and erroneous claims?
” energy positive solar cars,…produce more energy than they consume.” This is not referring to the Lightyear One model, as the full paragraph makes clear ;
“Lightyear was founded by a group of former University of Eindhoven students who won the World Solar Challenge race with their “Stella” solar cars. These vehicles were actually able to generate more power from their solar panels than they consumed on average, meaning you could end a journey with more charge than when you started”.
(that should be a lesson in the value of not quoting out of context)
My problems with the Lightyear project is not based on any accusation of deliberate fraud or deception, but economic and technical reality.
I can attest from personal experience, Lex Hoefsloot and the folk at Solar Team Eindhoven are bright, idealistic, sincere, passionate people, with the best of motivations and honest intention.
However, they are no more capable of understanding the logistics and problems involved in producing an automobile for sale to the public, than my horse!
On my last visit to the picturesque city of Helmond in the Southern Netherlands, I had the privilege of visiting their ‘production’ facilities. (When visiting Helmond, I recommend spending a day wandering around the Castle).
These “facilities” consist of little more than a “Uni” type workshop/laboratory. The team lack the experience, capacity or personal to produce street legal vehicles, let alone mass manufacture automobiles.
Still, I admire their enthusiasm !
Your skepticism is not misplaced here Craig… your instincts were valid, you just didn’t review the information enough to see where the problem was… you guessed and guessed wrong.
🙂
They are indeed covering the roof, the hood, and the trunk, all with solar panels. They claim 5 m2. For now, we might as well take them at their word, it’s plausible, and there’s no reason that they would lie about it (though they likely rounded up).
If we assume they used 20% efficiency cells, that means their total solar capacity is ~1 kW. If we assume a climate like Columbia, SC, and assume that the driver is meticulous to park in unshaded parking spaces, that leaves you with ~4.5 kWh/day.
A Tesla model S is quoted at getting a range of ~100 miles/26 kWh, or ~3.8 miles/kWh. That is not actually true (it’s less efficient than that), but it’s probably comparable to the metric that Lightyear One uses.
So if Lightyear One had a similar effectiveness to a Tesla Model 3, then it would be “energy positive” assuming that a driver in SC averaged fewer than 17 miles/day.. (not actually true, but still…)
But of course they are claiming far higher efficiency than that, by using a lighter-weight car, lighter-weight moters, smaller battery, etc…
So what they don’t quote is the power of the vehicle. I’m assuming that it goes from 0 to 60 in 15-20 seconds (not joking).
It’s likely to be a very low-powered vehicle with a low top speed. Or at the very least it has to be driven as such, in order to fit these metrics.
What do you have to pay in order to get such a car? $150,000 euros.
THAT is the problem with the car… it’s just too much to pay in order to get too little performance boost.
The carbon footprint for a Hyundai Ioniq – all-in, assuming 10 years ownership and 15,000 miles/year driven – is ~46 tons. You could buy legitimate carbon offsets for that by paying ~$900. A Hyundai Ioniq costs ~$22,000, and likely has better performance.
They said 16 ft^2 somewhere, but 5 m^2 sounds more like it, given that the PV covers the entire up-facing surface of the car.
Craig,
Hate to seem overly critical, but here’s the thing, don’t you feel you owe these people who have worked very hard creating these vehicles, a little more research than just “guessing’ and a vague recollection of “seeing something somewhere” ?
I believe it’s an absolute duty when calling B.S, on a project or claim, to ensure you fully understand the technology and all the circumstances of a proposition before passing judgement.
Lightyear’s CEO Lex Hoefsloot and Solar Team Eindhoven have spent years of unpaid volunteer work and sacrifice advancing the cause of solar automotive technology, don’t you think they deserve at least a fair hearing before being dismissed inaccurately, as “hogcrap” ?
The 16 ft^2 figure came from this article in Techcrunch: https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/25/lightyear-one-debuts-as-the-first-long-range-solar-powered-electric-car/.
The best thing that could possibly be said about these claims is that they’re misleading.
Craig,
That’s it ? That’s the sole basis of your research for your disparagement of the project ? One article written by someone else about the project?
You didn’t bother to even look up the details on the companies website ? Check other sources? Do a little Googling of your own ?
Even now your comment “The best thing that could possibly be said about these claims is that they’re misleading” is ambiguous!
Do you mean TechCrunch is misleading, or are you still sneering at Lightyear’s CEO Lex Hoefsloot and Solar Team Eindhoven, based on nothing more than a desire for an obviously inaccurate report to be somehow proven right, simply because you don’t wish to be proven wrong?
For the price of this car, you could buy pretty much any Tesla model, and install 10 to 15 kW of solar panels on a roof or car port, and install a couple of Tesla Power walls to run your home AND car on net zero mains electricity.
My concern is that, when it’s powered by its PV, it cannot driven safely on a freeway, and it will require a tow truck to get up hills. This is the basis on which these claims are, at best, misleading.