backtop


Print 91 comment(s) - last by ddh.. on Jul 19 at 3:56 PM

Researchers show off EV charging through the tires

Several notable issues are preventing electric vehicles from entering the mainstream consumer market today. Perhaps the biggest issue that is keeping the average consumer from buying an electric vehicle is range anxiety. Another major issue for many car shoppers that might otherwise consider an EV is a much higher cost of entry compared to a traditional automobile.

Another more pressing concern is one of recharging an EV and finding a power receptacle when away from home. A team of researchers from the Toyohashi University of Technology has unveiled a very novel and much more interesting way to recharge an electric vehicle wirelessly. The team from the University is led by Takashi Ohira and has recently been showing off a wireless electric field coupling system that can charge an EVs batteries through the tires. The big benefits of this system are four points of charging, rather than one point that we typically see in other wireless charging systems. That opens the door to the possibility of transferring more power to the vehicle at one time resulting in faster recharging.

The researchers have been showing a demo where a metal charge plate is placed under a four-inch layer of concrete to represent road surface. The team was able to transmit between 50 and 60 W of power through actual automobile tires and make a light bulb attached between the two tires turn on. The University researchers call the project EVER (Electric Vehicle on Electrified Roadway).

Another interesting possibility with wireless charging through the tires is that the team has been able to demonstrate the ability to transmit that power through a concrete block and into the tires of the vehicle to charge the batteries. That means with the right infrastructure an electric vehicle could be charged as it drives down the road.

There is no indication of when or if this project might be commercialized.

The U.S. Energy Department recognizes that charging is a challenge facing EVs and in April of 2012 offered up to $4 million to companies willing to develop wireless chargers for EVs. So far, most of the wireless chargers we've seen consist of some sort of charger on the surface of the driveway or road and a receiver mounted to the underside of the vehicle.

Source: Phys.org



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't really get it.
By quiksilvr on 7/11/2012 10:44:22 AM , Rating: 3
Even if this is wireless this is still a station or parking spot or whatever that you need to find, so this defeats the purpose in my opinion.

By this logic, you can just have four, 240V plugs and plug it into the car where each plug charges 1/4 of the battery packs, which would decrease recharge time and would probably be more efficient and cheaper than this method.

Even wireless stations need a wired connection to the power grid, so why even have the less efficient, more expensive, wireless middle man?




RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 11:14:54 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Even wireless stations need a wired connection to the power grid, so why even have the less efficient, more expensive, wireless middle man?


Because people are both stupid and lazy. Any and all "solutions" that involve contactless field induction are horrible - even seemingly small percentages of loss at the point of wireless charging become massive wastes when looked at from a social aggregate standpoint.

If anyone had any brains in their heads, contactless charging would be taken completely off the table. We do *not* need to be throwing power away at the point of consumption after having generated and transported it just because people are too f%cking lazy to plug their car in.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Mint on 7/11/2012 11:28:02 AM , Rating: 2
Contactless charging should be taken completely off the table? Great idea, genius. Why not get rid of all energy wasting luxuries and conveniences? Let's mandate everyone to have no >1.0L engines, no clothes dryer, no TV over 50 watts, no residence over 1000 sq ft...

Small percentage losses are a small price to pay for wider adoption of a technology that shifts us away from foreign produced, polluting, inefficient gasoline.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 11:48:44 AM , Rating: 4
No they're not. They're a massive price to pay, especially on an electric infrastructure that is teetering on the edge of failure on a daily basis in a lot of places. Your comparisons are invalid, are are meant only to sensationalize your uninformed position.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Etsp on 7/11/2012 12:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
A small percentage loss is not a "massive price to pay".

We have an electric infrastructure on the brink of collapse in many places, so this means wireless and inductive charging is bad? Because of a small percentage of loss?

I admit, the examples they used were somewhat extreme, but that didn't make them completely invalid.

A more reasonable example would be swimming pools and sprinklers being used in places during a drought, and those same swimming pools and sprinklers being used in an area with more than enough rainfall. Though that example is extreme going the other direction.

It's good for some places, bad for others. The places that have an adequate electric infrastructure can utilize this technology, while the places that do not should invest in their infrastructure first.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 12:28:40 PM , Rating: 3
A small percentage loss most certainly is a "massive price to pay" when looked at from the standpoint of some measure of a population.

Quick math lesson: let's say there's 10 million people in NYC. Let's say that half of them own cars...5 million. Let's say that 1 in five of them would own an EV - one million. One million EVs in NYC alone.

Let's say that it takes $50 a month to charge your EV every night. Let's presume that 5% of that is wasted because of field induction. That's only $2.50 per month - big deal, right? Who cares about an individual person losing $2.50 a month because they're too lazy to plug their car in? Small price to pay, right?

WRONG.

Remember, there's a million of them in NYC alone. So, that $2.50 per month suddenly becomes $2.5 MILLION. Per month. $30 million per year. Just in NYC.

"Small price to pay?" Only if you're a total f%cking retard.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 12:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
And they are probably spending $20 a month on other useless stuff.

Worrying about $2.50 a month is a problem only if you're a total f%cking retard.

Or let's do some more quick math. Those million people are probably driving their cars ~12000 miles per year, or ~1000 miles per month. On average, you can expect about 17 MPG from cars in the city, so they burning 59 gallons of gas per month. At $8/gallon (the true cost of gas after factoring in the government subsidies), that's $472 in gas per person per month that we're handing over to the middle east, so they can afford to train terrorist to fly planes into our buildings.

Crying about wasting $2.50 over sending $472 to the middle east is f%cking retarded.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 12:39:49 PM , Rating: 1
You've just proven your own stupidity beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Point out that we're wasteful elsewhere already is NOT a justification to create new waste.

Period. You actually have no argument at all.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, try to insult my intelligence. Please continue. I'm going to go and cry myself to sleep tonight because some internet noob sitting in his mothers basement thinks I'm stupid, contrary to all other tests, signs, and awards I've received.

The points, since you are too dense to be able to infer them yourself are that this technology is well within the tolerance that the general public is willing to accept AND adopting it will generate a net positive effect for the US despite the minor waste.

Your argument is that it's not a utopian answer to the worlds problems and therefore stupid and not worth pursuing.

Now, which of us is making a silly argument?

Following your logic, most of the worlds major inventions were stupid and not worth pursuing. Radio, TV, cellphones -- use way too much energy to be worthwhile compared to their wired counterparts. Cars waste fossil fuels compared to good old horse and buggies -- who needs to go over 20 MPH anyhow? The electric light bulb requires huge amounts of infrastructure to be built that wastes nearly 80% of it's output in transmission -- let's wait for something that's 100% effective. Semiconductors waste tons of electricity by generating unused heat -- let's wait for something that is 100% efficient. And on and on. Please do society a favor and stop trying to hold back progress in your attempt to get to utopia. You can't get there from here without crossing any bridges.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 1:31:58 PM , Rating: 3
You're projecting your own stupidity upon others...and it's not working.

The problem is that you *can* recharge your car in a 100% efficient manner (at the point of consumption). Plug it in.

You can't do radio that way...or TV, etc. Your comparisons are ignorant.

Light bulbs are as efficient as we can make them. So on and so forth.

Any losses such things have are unavoidable - which isn't to say we shouldn't keep working on making them more efficient, and of course we are.

But there's a guaranteed way to stop the needless waste of energy at the point of consumption when charging your car. It's here today, and doesn't need any further R&D.

It's called "plug in your f%cking car." There. Fixed. Best it can be.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:46:10 PM , Rating: 1
Really? You can't do radio with a wire? You don't think hardline phones are more efficient than say a cell phone?

You are deluded, and you need a history lesson on electric power transmission.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 2:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
You can't walk around with a phone unless it's wireless. You want to ban cell phones because they're inefficient? Knock yourself out - there's no alternative.

The radio in your car has to be wireless, or else you couldn't drive your car anywhere.

You can, however, plug your car in when you get home from work and get the same thing done as wireless induction. Without the loss.

Your comparisons continue to be invalid - just as you yourself are.


RE: Don't really get it.
By EnzoFX on 7/11/2012 2:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
Is it not comparable to the money wasted on gas? The gas engine too is horribly inefficient. So as long as it turns out to be less than that, hell even if it was the same, it'd be worth it just to get off the foreign stuff.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 4:00:38 PM , Rating: 3
The ICE engine is as efficient as we can make it.

Using field induction to charge your EV is unnecessarily wasteful.

A proper comparison would be filling the tank of your ICE car and then proceeding to spill 5% more fuel on the ground when your tank's full.

And then declaring "hey, I can afford to pay for this gas that I just wasted, so what the f%ck do you care?"

...what I care about is not senselessly wasting energy, just because you can.

For the same reason that it would be stupid to waste 5% of our gas by pouring it out onto the ground when fueling, it's equally stupid to waste 5% of our electricity by using field induction.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motamid on 7/11/2012 9:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think what they were implying in the article and one of the main reasons this wireless charging is desirable, is that by placing them under the road they can recharge your car as you drive. Of course building such an infrastructure is a huge effort, but this could reduce the size of the battery necessary for EV's as they rarely leave the charging station. This could potentially increase the efficiency of the system overall as the car will be lighter and more efficient itself.

I think that in this case cell phones are a good analogy. When the technology was emerging, cell phones required a huge infrastructure investment and were less power efficient than the land lines that already existed. However, they have the benefit of improved mobility.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Paj on 7/12/2012 9:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...what I care about is not senselessly wasting energy, just because you can.


Most power generation methods are extraordinarily wasteful due to heat loss, not to mention IC engines. all have this problem. Then you have transmission losses to contend with too.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/12/2012 10:32:27 AM , Rating: 2
Which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The efficiency of the power generation has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

We're talking about purposefully throwing away a certain % of the power you've already generated because you're a lazy moron.

The correct analogy from an ICE standpoint would be filling your gas tank at the gas station (say you have a 20 gallon tank) and then just pumping another gallon onto the ground to waste it. You're just throwing it away, for no reason at all, other than apparently you really want to be wasteful.

Same thing as using field induction to charge your car because you're too lazy to plug it in. You're throwing away electricity for no reason at all.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Mint on 7/12/2012 1:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
The analogies aren't irrelevant at all.

You can wash dishes by hand (without filling the sink with water). You can hang clothes on a line instead of using the dryer. You can use the AC in your house less, or live in a smaller one to reduce energy demands. We can do a million things to save energy but we don't because they're inconvenient or compromise luxury, often only in a minor way.

Plugging in a car is similarly inconvenient, especially when you simply forget, at best forcing you to use fossil fuels in a PHEV the next day and at worst forcing you to call a cab because your pure EV can't be used until it's recharged.

It's a free world. If people want to pay for wasted electricity, let them. Electric cars will mostly be charged at night when electricity demands are low anyway.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/12/2012 4:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
They are irrelevant, but I can make them relevant by tweaking all of them thusly:

You can wash dishes by hand...and spill 5% more water than needed and 5% more soap than needed onto the floor, just because you can afford to waste it.

You can hang clothes on a line...if you just throw 5% of them on the ground, such that the effort/resources you spent washing them is wasted, and they need to be washed again.

...the point isn't that one thing is necessarily more or less "efficient" than another. It's PURPOSEFULLY being wasteful when a no-waste option is easily at hand (for the same process...not saying don't use a dishwasher because hand washing is cheaper...I'm saying don't run the dishwasher one more time when it's empty just because you can afford the soap, water, and electricity to do so).

We simply don't need to introduce new ways to waste energy.

Especially electricity, and especially when we can't generate enough to meet demand in many places already, and especially when the grid as a whole is ready to teeter over in many places already.


RE: Don't really get it.
By NellyFromMA on 7/11/2012 1:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
NO ONE other than maybe grandma drives only 12k miles a year. not anywhere near close to true estimates.

also, what's the problem with people thinking for themselves? The point is if an EV is meant to make us more efficient in terms of voerall energy use, WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY must we dig out trenches in so hard over the LEAST EFFICIENT means of transferring the energy to the vehicle in the first place.

It just seems 100% COUNTER to the entire arguement for EVs in the first place...


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:11:55 PM , Rating: 1
Actually grandma drives under 8k per year, and the actual average is 13,476.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm


RE: Don't really get it.
By JediJeb on 7/11/2012 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And they are probably spending $20 a month on other useless stuff.


But if you shift that 20$ per month on other "usless stuff" into paying for wasted energy, then you shift that money from other segments of the economy into the energy portion of the economy, which may or may not return it to the rest of the economy. Why should we have different portions of the economy take a hit just to shift it to the energy portion?

I am not against novel ideas like this, but we must make then as efficient as possible and take all the possible waste into account before jumping on board. The other question to ask is what do the EM fields from this do to everything else?


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 2:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The other question to ask is what do the EM fields from this do to everything else?


Nothing. Unless you're wearing a tinfoil hat, in which case the NSA can hear your thoughts.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Mint on 7/12/2012 2:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Better math lesson: a small percentage of one car multiplied by a million cars is still a small percentage of the total.

Let's look at some facts:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/power...

Say we're looking at 4000kWh/yr (~12k electric miles/yr), or 200kWh/yr wasted. Multiply by a million cars (that'll take what, 10 years to achieve?), and you get 200 GWh/yr. NY current electricity consumption is 162,000 GWh/yr, so you're crying over ~0.1%, all of which is paid for by people WHO CHOSE TO PAY MORE FOR THE CONVENIENCE of wireless charging. Your $30M figure only sounds big in isolation, but if you had any sense of scale, you'd realize that it's irrelevant.

If the charging happens in 6 hours of each night, the wastage of 1M wireless chargers will add a load of ~150MW. NY has a generation capacity of 38,622 MW, which is 5000 MW above the summer peak demand, 20,000 MW above the average demand, and even more above the nighttime load. So no, 1M wireless EV chargers isn't going to make any extra strain whatsoever on the NY electricity infrastructure.

If anything, adding nightime load will make average electricity prices go down, because that's the cheapest time to add marginal generation.


RE: Don't really get it.
By bah12 on 7/11/2012 12:41:37 PM , Rating: 3
Economics of Scale my friend. The number of cars on the road is HUGE. If we want to build a EV culture we need to think ahead. Right now it isn't massive, but in the future it would be.

Take this link as an example.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel...

It is about the gas consumption related to day time running lights (DTRL). DTRL put an extremely miniscual strain on your engine via current draw, and therefor a very small impact on fuel consumption. A very small % loss as you say. Problem is if DTRL were standard, using some conservative estimates, the US would use 2 MILLON gallons extra of fuel annually.

The article is a neat read on how scaling small changes up can end up with some pretty big numbers. And we are talking a VERY small 1% loss. Induction charging would be talking double digits losses. So yes the idea absolutely needs to die.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Etsp on 7/11/2012 1:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
If we want to build an EV culture, it also needs to be convenient. If it's difficult, or requires more maintenance, then people won't buy it. Needing to remember to plug it in every day is considered a nuisance.

If they can increase the efficiency of inductive charging to the point that it's < 2% of loss, that is definitely worth the tradeoff if it causes 5% more cars on the road to be EVs, even at scale.

Lets not forget the rising efficiencies of Solar panels and the dropping costs of them. 5-10 years down the road they will definitely be worth the investment for homeowners (unless current energy prices drop), offsetting that issue.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 1:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
How, exactly, is spending 10 seconds plugging your car in when you get home from work less convenient than spending 10 minutes filling your tank at a gas station?

You have no argument.

You're also pretending that there's no possible way that an automatic direct connection could be made to recharge the vehicle without field induction. Contact plate on the floor with an RFID chip that communicates to the car to tell the driver when to stop when you pull into your garage. Then a plate automatically lowers from the car to mate up to the one on the floor and *presto* - physical connection with no (or close to no) loss. And I just invented that in the 10 seconds it took me to write this.

Which, incidentally, is probably about the same amount of time it'd take you to plug the car in anyway.


RE: Don't really get it.
By bah12 on 7/11/2012 1:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
Man you and I are totally in sync today :)


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 2:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
lol - I'm 6 minutes into ur futur...stealin ur ideaz.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Etsp on 7/11/2012 2:34:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How, exactly, is spending 10 seconds plugging your car in when you get home from work less convenient than spending 10 minutes filling your tank at a gas station?
It's something you need to do EVERY TIME you go home, instead of once a week for one. Another, if you do forget to do it, and your daily commute is more than 50% of the EV's charge, you're screwed for however long it will take to charge when you find out the next morning.

It's not like gas where if you forget to get it on the way home, you can just stop on the way to work to get some.

All I'm saying is that a small percentage loss in efficiency does not automatically disqualify a technology. Current inductive technology is not a small percentage loss at this point, but that can change in the future.

Yes, they can make charging solutions that automatically connect to the car, and that would be a more efficient. It would also be more expensive to make, less reliable, and potentially less safe.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 2:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All I'm saying is that a small percentage loss in efficiency does not automatically disqualify a technology.


In this case, it does. Or would, if we weren't all so stupid and lazy.

quote:
Current inductive technology is not a small percentage loss at this point, but that can change in the future.


Max Faraday would disagree with you. They might gain tiny bits here and there, but it will never be as efficient as a physical connection, which is essentially lossless. Physics dictates that field induction will always have losses. And even if it's cut to 1%, my argument still stands.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Mint on 7/12/2012 2:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad you're so incompetent at math.

It only takes one forgetful evening after 250+ hard days of work per year (i.e. a 0.4% error rate) to give you a headache the next morning when you have to deal with an uncharged car which, assuming we get major battery advances, takes half an hour to sufficiently recharge after you realize it went empty.

If you can't afford being half an hour late for work, then you have to pay $50-100 for a cab to work and back, while also messing up any other plans you may have had. That pays for multiple years of wireless "wastage".

Of course, you ignored this part of his post because you have no response.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/12/2012 4:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't respond to that post because it's so moronic in the first place...because the same exact corollary obviously exists with ICE cars.

...which is to say, you absent-mindedly drive home from work one day without noticing that you needed to get gas, and then the next morning you run out of gas before getting either to a gas station, or to work.

Either way a forgetful moron can hose himself trying to get to work.

As always, you've made no point at all. You should have stopped a long time ago...better to remain quiet and cause people to wonder whether or not you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You're a catastrophic fool.


RE: Don't really get it.
By bah12 on 7/11/2012 1:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
How about a contact plate under the car that triangulates an RFID tag and pops up to charge via contact. Point is an automated process can still use a contact design. Induction just doesn't.

According to wiki, the best example they could give was 86%, that is an order of magnitude away from your 2% proposal. Contactless, just doesn't make any sense when you can still get an automated charge if a standard was developed.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Mint on 7/12/2012 1:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wiki is not cognizant of the depths of every technology out there. I've researched and built wireless charging systems (for biological implants) and there's no fundamental limit at 86%, especially with the ample room for this application (my work is stuck with inefficient coils and much larger distance-to-radius ratios).

Automated plugin is fine, but it has to be able to withstand being driven over by accident, and engaging/disengaging thousands of times before failure. If such a system costs more than the energy waste through a wireless solution, then it's inferior. Until then, there's no need to rule out wireless charging.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 12:29:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
electric infrastructure that is teetering on the edge of failure on a daily basis in a lot of places.

You mean near you.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 12:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
No...actually nowhere near me. But I'm not self-centered enough to not worry about the situation that other people find themselves in. Because, unlike other people (apparently you), I care.


RE: Don't really get it.
By polishvendetta on 7/11/2012 12:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
So basicly what you're saying is "I'm sorry, due to our current system progress cant be made"

Thats a wonderful attitude. Talk about lazy.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 12:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. I'm saying let's not invent new ways to be wasteful. Try creating progress without additional losses.

You want to just invent new things without any regard to whether or not it creates new waste at the same time? That's a wonderful additude. Talk about lazy.


RE: Don't really get it.
By geekman1024 on 7/11/2012 10:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
You are suggesting that we should skip steam engine and go straight to electric cars right from the beginning, in, like, year 1800?

Evolution is a process, dude.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/12/2012 10:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
I said nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is don't to anything unnecessarily stupid. Like throwing away 5% of the electricity you generate because you're too lazy to plug your car in.

Not rocket science. Just don't be a retard. That's all I'm asking.


RE: Don't really get it.
By NellyFromMA on 7/11/2012 1:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't that exactly what's happening... We are being mandated not to use high wattage bulbs, auto companies are being forced into unrealistic (in terms of ever being affordable) MPG ratings effectively removing large engines from the table, NY is seeking to find places for 'micro apartments' which are not much bigger than a glorified walk-in closet.....

So, we're well on our way to all of that in a sense..


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 12:27:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Because people are both stupid and lazy.

Well you've proven half of that. Good job. Wireless charging is an excellent idea, and one that would definitely help to propel EVs into the general population. Charging stations would become vandal proof (or at least more vandal proof). I currently fill my tank about once every two weeks, and having to remember to drag a cord to fill my car up every night doesn't sound like a good selling point to me. Laying down 4 mats in my garage and never having to fill my tank up with gas in the middle of winter on the other hand, does.

And small percentages of loss even at the social aggregate standpoint is small. It's small in respect to total aggregate wasted electicity, adn it is small in respect of the potential gains to society if it brings about change from using gas to EVs in the general populace. If your electric system is near the breaking point now, perhaps that needs be fixed, but complaining minor waste isn't the solution.

You want to fix waste, make sure you unplug all your electronics when you aren't using them. Like your TV that saps electricity when "off" so you can turn it on with the remote. Your coffee pot. Your microwave that probably still has the time set to 12:00. Stereos, electric razors, your DVR when it isn't recording or playing, your game consoles, etc I bet all of these waste more power than think.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 12:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong in every way. See post I just made showing what the actual cost is. Only stupid, lazy people are proponents of field induction charging.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 1
You're wrong in every way. See post I just made showing what the actual cost is. Only stupid, lazy people are proponents of sending all our money to the middle east.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 12:52:22 PM , Rating: 3
Your failure is complete.

As I've pointed out, saying that "we already waste $X so we may as well waste an additiona $Y" is a statement that only an abject moron would make. So, if NYC residents are already wasting $100 million a year, may as well waste another $30 million a year too? One can only hope that's the stupidest thing you've ever said - but I fear it probably isn't.

Also, since oil is a fungible commodity, we're not "sending all our money to the middle east." Just to point that out too.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your failure is only bound by your own inability to think in bigger terms.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 1:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Of the two of us, it's eminently clear that I'm the only one who is seeing the whole picture.

You are wrong, I have demonstrated that you're wrong, and you need to admit that you're wrong.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Schrag4 on 7/11/2012 1:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're wrong in every way. See post I just made showing what the actual cost is. Only stupid, lazy people are proponents of sending all our money to the middle east.


Not to take sides, but if you want people to listen to you, you should be intellectually honest and not imply that "sending all our money to the middle east" is the only alternative to wireless recharging. Plugging your car in, while a bit of a hassle (not that bad, come on) is practically lossless from a transfer perspective. Not only that, but "sending all our money to the middle east?" You're kidding, right? Do you really not have any clue where we get our oil from? I'll grant you that a minority of it comes from the middle east, but definitly not "all of our money" is spent on fuel to begin with. Terms like "all/always" and "never" are often wrong - definitely wrong in this case.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I have a pretty good handle on where our oil actually comes from. 42% is produced domestically, with 58% coming from international trades, of which the majority comes from Canada, Mexico, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria.

Alas, the exact numbers weren't really the point. Drilling down into specifics really does not help clarify the issue. So let's just leave it at the majority of the money spent (58%, not including expenses like international diplomacy, wars, etc -- just straight up per barrel cost on the market) is sent outside of the US.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Schrag4 on 7/11/2012 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Right, right, I wasn't saying you didn't understand. I'm just saying you might want to be honest. Implying we have 2 options (1. Adopt wireless EV charging tech or 2. Give all of our money to the middle east) isn't honest.

At this point I'm willing to accept that you were just a little excited when you made that suggestion earlier.


RE: Don't really get it.
By othercents on 7/11/2012 12:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We do *not* need to be throwing power away at the point of consumption after having generated and transported it just because people are too f%cking lazy to plug their car in.


I'm sorry, I don't think you understand the point of contactless charging. One of the reasons why plug-in hybrids are more popular than EVs is because if you want to drive more than 100 miles in a day you can while still getting the benefits of an EV which is not using any gas during your daily commute. EVs are limited unless there is a way to charge the EV for longer distances. This either means faster charge times, longer run times, or a way to generate enough power while driving.

Contactless charging will allow people to charge their vehicle while they are driving down the road instead of having to stop every 100 miles and plug in for 4-8 hours. Now the problem is creating a system that will charge fast enough and finding ways for people to pay for the power they consume. Once you have a way for them to pay for the power there won't be any "massive waste" to manage since it will be built into the cost of the power.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 12:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
Jesus you people are stupid. What do you think the cost is going to be to build those field induction things into our country's highways? What do you think the cost is going to be to renovate our grid to support the vast increase in the amount of electricity that has to be distributed? Let alone generated? Let alone a % of which is just thrown away at the point of consumption?

And to address all of the idiotic statements about "well you're already being wasteful with <this>" - that is true. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking to not be as wasteful with things we're doing now (we should). It also doesn't mean that we should add even more waste to what we're doing already.

...that's kind of like a doctor looking at a patient saying "well, he's already had one arm cut off...may as well cut off a foot too."


RE: Don't really get it.
By othercents on 7/11/2012 12:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
Nice business sense you have of weighing cost vs profit and looking at long term investments. IF EV is the car technology of the future then we will have to have a way to run longer distances than 100 miles. *PERIOD*

Now, you look at the other technologies available and you will see that electric options (hybrid or electric only) are much more accepted than the other options and they provide better MPG than any of the other options. Any option will require us to upgrade infrastructure which is added costs.

Which cost would you rather have? Bullet train between San Fransisco and LA, or inductive charging built into the roads between San Fransisco and LA? Which will cost less? Which will people use more?

I understand there are going to be dead spots and it will take more than my lifetime to create, but doesn't mean that should stop us from moving in that direction, unless you have a Mr Fusion device for us?


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 12:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, we do need to come up with ways to increase the range of EVs. And we're going to have to invest a trillion dollars to upgrade the grid at some point anyway.

However...let's not be so lazy as to just inject new losses into the system at the same time. Create contact-charging systems for the home that are automatic, if people well and truly are too stupid and lazy to spend 10 seconds plugging their car in when they get home from work.

...and I'd hazard to guess that putting field induction things into CA's highways would be much more expensive than your train. Especially when you consider the multiple lanes involved and the disruption of traffic (and therefore business) while you're doing that.

Better solution would be to natively increase the range of EVs to the point where we don't have to worry about charging as you drive. If you could get 200 or 300 miles on a charge, and then just plug your car in when you get to your destination, probably no point in charge-as-you drive anyway.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
You know this technology isn't limited to just under the road. You can also use it for under the garage. Or under a parking lot.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 1:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes...and it's just as wasteful there too. Throw away millions of dollars per year because you're too stupid and lazy to spend 10 seconds plugging your car in...or just spend 10 seconds plugging your car in. Hmmm...which is better?


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Which is better? Spending $2.50/mo so I don't have to bother, is better in my opinion. Feel free to have your own.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 1:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are entitled to your opinion. However...your opinion is wrong.


RE: Don't really get it.
By othercents on 7/11/2012 1:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However...let's not be so lazy as to just inject new losses into the system at the same time. Create contact-charging systems for the home that are automatic, if people well and truly are too stupid and lazy to spend 10 seconds plugging their car in when they get home from work.


I never said that we should charge wirelessly from home. My only point was that the contactless system is to charge over the road. They eluded to the infrastructure required in the original post.

quote:
...and I'd hazard to guess that putting field induction things into CA's highways would be much more expensive than your train. Especially when you consider the multiple lanes involved and the disruption of traffic (and therefore business) while you're doing that.


There is always disruption of traffic for highway projects and it is possible that this could be added to any project at a minimal cost except for infrastructure upgrades like power-plants which could be added later. I bet even the train project will require them to move the roads. There might even be a system in place to enable and disable the charging surfaces as an EV approaches that road surface.

quote:
Better solution would be to natively increase the range of EVs to the point where we don't have to worry about charging as you drive. If you could get 200 or 300 miles on a charge, and then just plug your car in when you get to your destination, probably no point in charge-as-you drive anyway.


My trip to my parents house with my 2 kids and my brothers trip to his in-laws house with 4 kids are in the 1,000s of miles. Too expensive to fly with that many kids and I wouldn't want to recharge 4 times to get to a destination. Today I just jump into my SUV and make the trip, but in the future it might just be electric only.

My vote is for the Mr. Fusion.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 1:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
The future might include standardized battery packs that can easily be swapped out at "gas" stations. Or you might be driving an ICE car or hybrid that uses biofuels. Or...whatever.

EVs will be here in the future. But there's no reason to think we won't improve upon their long-distance utility (in non-wasteful ways), or that only EVs will be around.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
And you think any of those things will be 100% efficient in their use of energy? How naive.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 1:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. But, I know that they won't artificially be introducing new amounts of waste that we don't have today simply to accommodate the stupidity and laziness of morons like you.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
You call it waste, but I call it convenience. If I happen to forget to plug the car in (which I am likely to do) and it causes me to be late to work even 30 minutes every 54 months(that is once in 4.5 years), I've lost more income than the "waste", and I've burned up some good will at the office.

Still an unbelievable good trade for me AND I don't have to waste to 10 seconds every day AND I have one less thing to think/worry about every day AND I don't have to worry about tripping over the damn cord AND I don't have to worry about me (or my wife) forgetting to unplug and ripping the cord/socket and damaging the car/garage and costing me a lot more than $2.50/mo.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 1:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
AND you don't care about the additional burden to society that you and all your friends are by moronically wasting millions upon millions of dollars's worth of the most important energy source our society has.

Holy f%ck you're a self-centered a$$hole.


RE: Don't really get it.
By kingmotley on 7/11/2012 1:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. The solar panel on the roof of my garage is powered by the Sun. And I'll attach a wireless charger for my car to it. Unless you are trying to ration the sun.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Florinator on 7/11/2012 2:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Unless the sun shines at night where you live or you work night shifts and are at home during the day, I don't see how this will work...


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 2:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
So that's going to help you charge your car at night...how?

And granted that the solar panel on your roof only generates a very limited amount of power in a day, wouldn't it be intelligent of you to not waste any of it?

Sorry - you continue to lose.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/11/2012 2:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
AND you're the poster child of the self-centered, overly-entitled jacka$$ that epitomizes everything that's wrong with modern society.

Thanks for proving before the whole world what a worthless POS you are.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Florinator on 7/11/2012 2:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
There, I fixed it for you.

quote:
AND you're the poster child of the self-centered, overly-entitled jacka$$ that epitomizes everything that's wrong with America today.


I also happen to think it's wrong to accept waste for convenience, but then again, I'm the type of guy who washes his plastic fork and knife (that I get for free in the office kitchen), so I can reuse them the next day...


RE: Don't really get it.
By othercents on 7/11/2012 2:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The future might include standardized battery packs that can easily be swapped out at "gas" stations. Or you might be driving an ICE car or hybrid that uses biofuels. Or...whatever.


Perhaps, but I would hate to swap my brand new car's batteries for another older set at a "gas" station, or pay for all these extra batteries to be kept charged. And think of all the gas stations that would have to be retrofit or built to accommodate the batteries along with security. I think this might have been why they are not researching this area as much as remote charge.

We have plug-in hybrids now and maybe we don't ever become fully free from oil (at least not in my life time). However I bio-fuels are another issue since there are many environmentalists are upset about using food for cars. Then you have the economists upset about all the government funding required to make bio-fuels profitable.

quote:
EVs will be here in the future. But there's no reason to think we won't improve upon their long-distance utility (in non-wasteful ways), or that only EVs will be around.


I think if history is of any indication of the future then we will continue to do just as many wasteful things in the future as in the past. Overtime those wasteful things will be upgrade to be less wasteful and re-engineered to be better then they are now, but we have to start somewhere.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Paj on 7/12/2012 9:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because people are both stupid and lazy. Any and all "solutions" that involve contactless field induction are horrible


Your first point contradicts the second. Something that charges a car automatically, without the user having to remember, is preferable to the alternative. In a lot of cases, the increased convenience of this system would likely increase adoption rates.

The other issue this solution fixes is that many people dont actually have garages - they park on the street. Running a cable out from their front room window to charge their car at night isnt viable for obvious reasons. Using an inductive charging station on the street means that someone arriving home can simply park on top of it, then leave it charging overnight. A far more elegant solution.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/12/2012 4:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. It's not preferable to the alternative, for all the reasons I've pointed out above.

And it's infinitely cheaper, and better in all ways, to just put an outlet by the street to plug your car in, rather than install induction plates in the road surface.

Better...in...every...way. Except catering to lazy retards...which is not a virtuous pursuit in the first place.


RE: Don't really get it.
By vignyan on 7/11/2012 5:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
The suggested use is to build roads on top of a electrified plate. That way, you dont really have to stop anywhere.. It would be like those busses/trains/trams that you see running by connecting to the power lines above them.


RE: Don't really get it.
By Motoman on 7/12/2012 4:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
No, it would be a lot worse than that...those buses/trains aren't using field induction - they're using direct contact systems, as wonky as they appear, similar to old-school bumper cars or slot cars.

Because it's a direct physical connection, their loss rate is exceedingly low, perhaps effectively zero. Which is enormously better than what can *ever* be achieved via field induction, as dictated by immutable laws of physics.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki