Two US Hyperloop Startups Line Up Financing From China (bloomberg.com) 117
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.
What a risk. (Score:1)
Why on earth would the intelligent Chinese risk such an investment in that shithole? Guess they must have hedged it with the Saudi Arabians and consider Trump's treason with Russia a positive sign. Not all deals are good deals trumptard.
Re:What a risk. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate raiders do not raid startups. They raid established firms with assets that can offset debts.
Startups are a totally different case. First of all, they are more likely to fail than to succeed, and the reason they fail is they run out of cash to pay current obligations. Now when that starts to happen, and they can't raise more cash, so they go to the creditor for more favorable terms, and that's one place where a creditor can deal himself in in various ways because he's got you by the short hairs.
Re:It's a trick. Get an axe. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What you want is Loop, not Hyperloop. Loop is PRT... think "underground SkyTran", with both people and vehicle capsules. Hyperloop only makes sense for between cities with a significant spacing between them.
Boring Company is pursuing both, but Loop is first on their schedule.
Unfortunately, not in San Jose ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: It's a trick. Get an axe. (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger issue for Tesla now is that the base Model 3 at $35k actually looks kinda bad value now. Hyundai are already getting the Kona into customer's hands, with a similar or better spec and 25% bigger battery for less money.
They were always going to meet other manufacturers in the middle, but now a few have beaten them to the first long range affordable EVs. Kia and Nissan will both have cars in that spec/price bracket this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, unicorns are real. I mean, while we're discussing fictions.
I'm not sure whether it's hilarious or sad that despite the $35k Model 3 (SR, non-PUP) being all over Tesla's website, Tesla repeatedly stating that no plans with it have changed, and that it remains on schedule for around the end of this year... the fact that the page for confirming orders doesn't mention it means that they're lying and the SR battery is secretly cancelled! You know what you also can't order there? Non-PUP, air suspension,
Re: (Score:1)
The cancelation is well documented [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, Tesla canceled the live bees option? That damn Musk never keeps a promise!
Re: (Score:2)
From literally the headline of the article you linked: "Tesla drops $35,000 price from Model 3 page—insists plans haven’t changed. Tesla spokesperson says the company still plans to introduce a $35,000 model."
They removed it from the configuration page, because it's a configuration you can't get right now. Also not on the config page is non-PUP, air suspension, trailer hitch, cream interior for non-performance, and a trunk full of live bees.
Re: (Score:2)
No change since the last investor call.
Re: (Score:2)
Read my above posts. The response to your statement is staring you in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? The whole internet was buzzing about the option. It was the bees knees.
Re: (Score:2)
They changed the config page because they completely redesigned the config process. They didn't just go in and take out references to the SR. The whole thing is new. The new version only includes options that can be purchased right now.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Kona is a good value? It's the same size as a Leaf or a Bolt, only a marginally larger battery (and no better streamlining) than the Bolt or Leaf (aka, no Supercharging), no access to any better charging network than the Bolt, and is built around an ICE econobox that has a MSRP of $19500 - but for the electric version they want you to pay £24995 for one that has a battery only marginally larger than a Leaf's and does 0-100 kph in 9,7 seconds (not a typo), or £33995 if you want th
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Kona is a good value? It's the same size as a Leaf or a Bolt, only a marginally larger battery (and no better streamlining) than the Bolt or Leaf (aka, no Supercharging), no access to any better charging network than the Bolt, and is built around an ICE econobox that has a MSRP of $19500 - but for the electric version they want you to pay £24995 for one that has a battery only marginally larger than a Leaf's and does 0-100 kph in 9,7 seconds (not a typo), or £33995 if you want the slightly-larger-than-Bolt-sized battery and a 7,6 second 0-100. And even things like nav are an added option on the base version.
Maybe you are confusing it with something else...
The Kona is smaller than the Leaf and Niro. The battery is much larger than the current model Leaf (40kWh, around 37kWh usable) and the M3 SR (50kWh, around 47kWh usable). It's 68kWh, with 64kWh usable. So 25% larger than the M3 SR, about 45% larger than the Leaf.
Realistic range is just shy of 300 miles. Hyundai EVs seem to be very efficient - the Ioniq certainly is. I'd expect 250 at motorway speeds easily. Pack comes with a 200kkm/8yr warranty (except the U
Re: (Score:3)
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 ac
Re: (Score:2)
Ed:
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I was comparing with the 64 because it is closest to the M3 SR in terms of price, performance and spec.
Having said that, the 40 has a 100kW motor which is hardly "1980s" level acceleration, especially with a EV torque.
which corresponds to an EPA range of around 249 miles
So still better than the M3 SR, which Tesla stated has an EPA range of 220 miles. And don't forget it's cheaper.
In no place where Supercharging exists (aka west of a line from Warsaw to Sarajevo) is it "better than the Tesla one".
There are two superchargers in the whole of Ireland. There are about 50 CCS sites. The rest of the UK is similar. Two Tesla chargers in the whole of Wales, and sparse everywhere else
Re: (Score:2)
A 9,7 second 0-100 for a car in that price range is very much "80s-90s level acceleration" It's embarrassing. A base Honda Accord does it in 7,5 seconds.
And takes far longer to charge, from an inferior network, so what's the point 250 vs. 220 miles range? Price difference is minima
Re: (Score:2)
A 9,7 second 0-100 for a car in that price range is very much "80s-90s level acceleration" It's embarrassing. A base Honda Accord does it in 7,5 seconds.
Good thing the Leaf 40 does it in 7.4 seconds then, as independently verified by reviewers.
And takes far longer to charge, from an inferior network. Price difference is minimal. Standard features far less.
But we have already established that it doesn't. Look Rei, I enjoy our little chats, but if you are going to just ignore when I'm pointing this stuff out (like the 0-100 time too) it's going to get annoying really fast. The charge time is more than adequate and hardly slow, and the network in some countries is better and in some countries worse but also adequate in most places. Standard features are irrelevant, you mu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't get an electric Kona in the US now for $35K. Or for any price. Go on, try.
And neither a Bolt, Leaf, nor Kona are in any way equivalent to a Model 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Model 3 hits nearly 500mph at low SoCs
Sometimes you do get a little but hyperbolic in your Tesla defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, we're talking about charge rates, not road speeds. :) Miles range added per hour spent charging. Commonly expressed when discussing with a US audience in MPH. Charge rates in the 480s when charging at low SoCs are common. Of course it drops once you start hitting taper.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hard vacuum" and "soft vacuum" are relative terms to each other - hard vacuum meaning "lower pressure than a soft vacuum", without any universally agreed-on dividing line. Versions of evacuated-tube transport that lack compressors need to operate at much lower pressures than versions that have compressors; likewise, systems relying on air bearings must operate at much higher pressures than those without them. The former is about one thousandth of an atmo
Re: (Score:2)
I literally quoted from Wikipedia concerning the distinction. Sorry if you want to make up your own term.
That doesn't make the terms "hard vacuum" and "soft vacuum" disappear from the lexicon. It just makes them comparative rather than proscriptive.
Re: (Score:2)
Retards at NASA too, I guess. [google.is]
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, you realize that my link gets 11 times as many hits, don't you? ;)
Not that it even matters. Even if it only got *one* that would still mean that it's a term that's in use.
Re: (Score:1)
But now the American people have said very loudly that we want to revert to the Christian values that this nation was founded on.
Too bad the Founders were deists, not Christians. Core tenets of deism include "rejection of religions that are based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God", "rejection of religious dogma and demagogy", and "skepticism of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious mysteries". The founders wanted a nation built on reason and scientific thought. If anything we are currently trending to pre-Protestant Reformation era thought. People aren't even basing their thought on what a book (the
Re: (Score:2)
The Shanghai maglev was built by Germany. Anything reduced to the basics can be made to sound simple (i.e. a rocket is just a directed flame/combustion) but to develop the completed design, optimized for cost safety etc with a full set of engineering drawings, control circuits, etc. is very valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the concept is not maglev. It's the vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, I have no doubt that both of these companies are required to use Chinese manufacturers. IOW, yeah, it is 100% about stealing the tech similar to what China did to the foolish Germans who took transrapid there. Those folks had g
Re: (Score:3)
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.
I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam (Score:3, Interesting)
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... [wired.co.uk] ). 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.
Re: (Score:2)
A high speed train can plausibly carry 800-1000 people and leave every 3 minutes. A hyperloop pod - they're planning one every 30 seconds (so 6 times the rate) but that seems optimistic, and the capacity is still nowhere near as high.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about "out of the tubes" or "out of the airlocks that capsules enter through"? If the former: absolutely, though irrelevant, since it's just a startup task. If the latter: A) not true (you can just have multiple tanks much larger than the air lock, each kept at a successively lower pressure, and then successively connect them to the airlock - effectively emptying it almost instantly. B) Irrelevant (you can have as many airlocks as you want, and thus take as long as you want to empty them)
Re: (Score:2)
I literally just explained why that's A) not true, and B) would be irrelevant even if it were true, since you can have as many airlocks as you want in parallel.
Obviously. But only to a relative pressure level. For example, if you had 1m of free space around the capsule, and y
Re: (Score:1)
You come across as not really knowing what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:1)
I know you are, but what am I? This seems to be the level of discourse you're at.
The "End door airlock system" requires no pumping.
Re: (Score:2)
A high speed train can not leave every 3 minutes.
No railway station has enough rails for that.
And the distance between two trains on the same track is minimum 30 minutes.
Re: (Score:1)
I have no idea why you'd need 30 minute spacing. Which railways lines have that requirement? That would only be needed if the stopping distance was 100-200km.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe TGVs as well as the German ICEs try to have the trains in 30 minutes gaps. The point is potential delays in communications. E.g. if a train has to stop, and it takes more than 10 minutes to inform the next train or signaling centers, there might be trouble.
The rails are actually split into sections, that don't allow a second train into the section as long as the previous one is still inside. But nevertheless there is a time gap. I googled a bit but don't find a reliable info.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Did you just disprove the existence of oil pipelines?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil pipelines have to bear far greater masses, with far greater pumping loads, with much more complicated thermal regulation. A leak isn't a "minor environmental issue", it can get you hit with millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and cleanup costs, depending on the severity. And a bullet-sized hole in a Hyperloop tube (by the way, good luck shoot
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Oil pipelines do not have to maintain a vacuum internally. Maintaining a vacuum is non-trivial (for example, see large hadron collider).
(2) Oil pipelines are much smaller than what a hyper loop will need to be, unless part of the plan involves figuring out how to liquefy the passengers and then reassemble them later. The Alaska pipeline diameter is IIRC about 4 feet in diameter. Engineering-wise, would scaling up involve only linear increases in stresses and requirements?
(3) When an oil pipeline is b
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what's 10 orders of magnitude difference in the degree of vacuum? ;)
The pumps used to move oil are a lot larger and higher power than the pumps you'd need to maintain 0,001 ATM, I guarantee you.
On average, yes. But their net weights with the oil are much greater.
3) Your premise is false (see #4)
4) Your premise is false (a "puncture" does not destroy a vacuu
Re: (Score:2)
Natural gas pipelines are under pressure. About 200 atmospheres. .... one atmosphere.
A hyperloop is under negative pressure of
A no brainer .... so: vacuum is completely irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, because when I want engineering analysis, I always turn to a biochemist.
Economics are always question number one (Score:2)
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.
You could say the same thing about trains but your point is a fair one. That's probably not the major obstacle in my opinion. The major obstacle is probably just economics. It's a technically complicated (thus expensive) system and it's not at all clear that it can be made and operated for a cost competitive with alternative means of transportation. I think it's an interesting idea but I just have a hard time imagining it being an economically practical one even if the technology is feasible.
Interesting
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly hyperloop might make a lot more sense on Mars which is where Elon's ambitions lie anyway. Not much atmosphere to get in the way so the pumping costs are lower plus you would actually want protection from dust and other features. Flying isn't really an option and traditional trains probably would be problematic. So while it might not make sense here on Earth in the face of economically proven competitors, it might actually make sense elsewhere in the solar system if/when we ever get there.
And the problem is how could we transfer or find materials to build one in Mars, let alone find a practical way to build a colony there? I guess in theory, it makes sense. In practice, there are many other issues involved (aside the technology) that would make things impossible...
Theoretical colonization (Score:2)
And the problem is how could we transfer or find materials to build one in Mars, let alone find a practical way to build a colony there?
Quite right but that's a separate issue for the distant future. We would have to have considerable infrastructure on Mars to make building a hyperloop system worth worrying about. If we are that built up then chances are we are doing manufacturing on Mars and tapping into the raw materials available on the planet. We're certainly not going to transport the materials from Earth for something like that.
I guess in theory, it makes sense. In practice, there are many other issues involved (aside the technology) that would make things impossible...
Of course. I'm talking very broad brush theoretical stuff here. The problem is that on Earth it's a lot
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to guard an airport in such a way that man-portable missiles are out of range of aircraft taking off/landing,
Such missiles have a range of about 25km and more.
So: no, it is not possible to guard an airport against them.
Happy cash burning! (Score:1)
This nonsense is neither feasible nor safe. It's amazing how often some people ignore basic physics.
Re: (Score:2)
But these things are possible...
Commuter rail is all but dead. (Score:1)
Americans are WAY too attached to their cars.
So why are people dumping money down this bottomless pit?
Oh yeah. Shiny new snake oil!
what fools these are (Score:2)
Hopefully, the boring company will not be so stupid.
The other ones that are foolish are the airplane companies that are NOT getting into this. Boeing and Airbus should be all over this. But any builder of pressurized aircraft should be working with Musk