Slashdot Mirror
Two US Hyperloop Startups Line Up Financing From China (bloomberg.com)
Los Angeles startups Arrivo and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies have reportedly secured financing from Chinese state-backed companies. "Lining up potential funding helps solve one of the biggest obstacles for hyperloop systems: They will be extremely expensive to build," reports Bloomberg. From the report: Arrivo, founded by a former senior engineer at Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp., said it secured a $1 billion credit line with Genertec America Inc., a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned entity based in Beijing that has helped finance and build high-speed rail and other infrastructure projects in Iran, Turkey and elsewhere. The credit line will go to backers of a future project using Arrivo technology, not to the startup itself. [The Genertec debt could be used to construct a project using the company's technology anywhere in the world, not necessarily in China.] Separately, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies said it plans to work on a 10-kilometer test track in Tongren, part of China's Guizhou province, at an initial cost of about $300 million. State entity Tongren Transportation & Tourism Investment Group will provide half the funds and seek private investors for the other half, HyperloopTT said. The precise route is yet to be determined.
Not sure that there's much tech to steal. Both of these companies - unlike the original Hyperloop Alpha design from SpaceX, which was an air-bearing train in low-pressure air - are pursuing vactrains (maglev, hard vacuum). China already has plenty of experience with maglev.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
Does anyone remember the "elevated bus" project, which was supposed to drive on existing roads "over" existing traffic? That turned out to be an investment scam ( https://www.wired.co.uk/articl... ). The key element is something "futuristic/high technology" that (and this is the main element here) involves raising a lot of money. Once that is done it's already a success, they don't actually have to do more than make some kind of show of building something.
I don't think hyper loops are real-world feasible. Even if the technology works, any aggrieved destructive fool - and these exist everywhere in the world, China included - can put the entire system at risk in a way that aircraft are not threatened by. It's easier to guard an airport in such a way that man-portable missiles are out of range of aircraft taking off/landing, than it is to guard the entire length of some long-distance piped network that basically needs to maintain vacuum sealing in its entirety. "Normal" high speed rail is going to be less dangerous/easier to guard than hyper loops, unless they are going to bury the entire thing underground, which will drive costs up, which makes aircraft more competitive.
One thing about design that gets overlooked is, you don't just look at "is it good if it works?", you also need to look at "what happens when something goes wrong?". There are more failure modes for hyper loops where "everybody dies" than there are for aircraft and trains. Even if it exists, you're going to be taking a much greater risk getting in one than alternative transportation methods.
That's the main reason that Hyperloop Alpha avoided maglev - traditional maglev is crazy expensive. InducTrac is cheaper, but still pricey.
Hard vacuums also require really expensive pumping hardware and a lot of power to achieve and maintain, so it's no surprise that they wanted to avoid those too.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
"Hard vacuum and soft vacuum are terms that are defined with a dividing line defined differently by different sources, such as 1 Torr,[42][43] or 0.1 Torr,[44] the common denominator being that a hard vacuum is a higher vacuum than a soft one."
Re, Germany: Or, we can actually describe the real situation: Germany tried to help its local brands vs. Tesla by setting a limit on their EV subsidy at just below the price of a Model X. Tesla modified the Model X pricing structure in Germany so that a number of standard features (which most everyone would want) became optional, lowering the base price, but could be added back on via an option. Germany, responding to claims that the company wasn't actually selling the base version, dropped Tesla from their list of approved vehicles. Tesla counterclaimed that they do in fact sell the base version, and have more to the point delivered some; that it's just not very popular. Germany booted Tesla nonetheless. Tesla is paying for the subsidies for buyers that are being denied them, while it files an appeal with German regulators.
Re, cobalt: First, Tesla uses far less cobalt per kWh than its competitors. Its cathodes in its current 2170 cells (Model 3, powerpacks, etc) are less than 3% cobalt, while most manufacturers are struggling to achieve 10% in their next gen cells. Beyond that, though, this is an issue that was entirely initiated by Panasonic (a supplier of 18650 cells to Tesla, the type used in the Model S and Model X). Panasonic, discovering that the supplies of Sherrit International (a Canadian company) contained some intermingled Cuban cobalt, contacted the US Treasury Department for advice. Based on the feedback they received, they dropped Sherritt as a supplier.
Amazing the things you make a "scandal" out of. The latter one in particular: it's ridiculous that a Japanese company, making cells in Japan, because one minor component it uses is purchased from a Canadian company, and some small fraction of their cobalt comes from Cuba, from mines not associated with human rights problems, they have to stop all purchases of cobalt from said Canadian company, because the US has a half-century-old spat with Cuba.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
First of all, this is credit, not investment. It's a different game, because if things go belly up as creditor you're at the head of the line to be repaid; as an owner you're at the tail. I've seen deals where creditors moved in, took over IP and other assets put up as collateral, and started up successful companies without the debt burden the technology's creators were operating under. Unless the other investors or owners can come up with a huge bag of cash immediately, they end up with nothing.
If you've got deep enough pockets, being the largest creditor could be a better way to obtain the fruits of a startup's labor than buying an ownership position.
Also, even if this were taking an ownership stake in the company, China as a nation with 1/5 of a world's population is in a different position than an individual investor, who should be focused on future profits. China is playing a minimax strategy where the payoff is national power, not money. An individual who invests out of fears of "missing out" is being irrational; a nation may be choosing to hedge its bets in a very different game. And as a sovereign state China can simply do things that would be illegal for an individual, so the rules of the game it's playing look very different.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You apparently don't realize that the Kona comes in two versions: a 39,4 kWh base version and a 64 kWh upgraded version. It's important for you to know this for when you parse news about the Kona. The base version, beyond being underequipped, is also woefully underpowered - we're talking 1980s-1990s level acceleration.
But higher drag, since it's built on a not-nearly-as-streamlined ICE platform. Higher drag = longer charge times from a given power charging source (and it can't charge at as high powers to begin with, and most of its available chargers are low power) and shorter range. This can be seen in its WLTP range of 292 miles. WLTP range figures are about 15% more optimistic than EPA range figures (see the Leaf for an example), which corresponds to an EPA range of around 249 miles. And indeed, Hyundai is now saying that they expect it to be rated at around 250 miles.
Remember that we're talking about the large-pack upgraded Kona here, not the base Kona.
I really hate to disappoint you, but be disappointed. You want more "real-world range" than even WLTP, which is more optimistic than EPA, which is in turn more optimistic than the real world.
Because it's a small, quite streamlined sedan. It has nothing to do with any sort of internal magic tricks. The Ioniq Hybrid - aka, gasoline powered - gets 58mpg. In Europe it's rated at 4,1L/100km, vastly superior to the Kona. Now, it's a hybrid, but nonetheless, it's a very efficient car by virtue of its size and shape. Not its drivetrain. There simply is not much room for differentiation on DC motor/li-ion drivetrains by efficiency, because they're already so efficient.
In no place where Supercharging exists (aka west of a line from Warsaw to Sarajevo) is it "better than the Tesla one". It's a mishmash of networks (some of which require membership), mostly 50kW/~43kW in practice (vs. 120kW/117kW in practice), often poorly maintained (yes, I watch people complain about dead CCS/CHAdeMO chargers frequently on our local FB EV group, and you can go through randomly selected CCS chargers around the world on Plugshare and for about 1 in 10 the last report shows it as being down), poorly spaced (high concentrations in some areas, low in others), often only one or two at a site (arrive and it's taken or blocked? Good luck!), etc, etc, etc. You seriously can't be saying with a straight face that it's comparable.
Where are you getting this stuff? Hyundai literally gives a charge rate on 100kW: 54 minutes to 80%. That's 220 mph. Less than half what Model 3s are getting today. But Model 3 charge rates are currently limited by the charger for the first half of the charge, not the battery pack (which is why V3 comes out later this year). Yes, the battery pack in the SR is 2/3rds that of the LR. But since the LR doesn't saturate at 120kW until 50% SoC (curve suggests a charger-unlimited max around 200kW), t
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
FTFA :
They will be extremely expensive to build," reports Bloomberg
So we have it admitted at last. Previously it has always been claimed that they only cost pocket money.