this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
22 points (95.8% liked)

[Dormant] Electric Vehicles

3206 readers
1 users here now

We have moved to:

!electricvehicles@slrpnk.net

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion.
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling.
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sunshine@lemmy.ca
Ceres@lemmy.world
22
Winners and losers from GM’s rollback of its EV plans (chargedevs.com)
submitted 1 year ago by whoopThereItIs@lemmy.world to c/evs@lemmy.world
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

one of their downsides is their lower energy density. You can't get those 400 mile range cars out of them as they'd take up too much space.

Unlike other chemistries LFP batteries can be charged to 100% with minimal impact on degradation. So you can get more out of the battery instead of the 20-80% range being the optimal way to keep its best performance.

This seems like a reasonable trade-off to make, no?

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh it's absolutely worth it if you don't want the 300+mile cars or trucks.

And with enough time as the chemistry improves as they all do, they'll slowly creep up making them an even better choice.

I'm happy to see others adopting the tech.