backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by Go_Plugless.. on Jun 26 at 9:42 PM

It's only for the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf

Bosch is giving electric vehicle (EV) drivers a wireless charging option, and even new financing plans to help them afford it. 

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions teamed up with Evatran Group Inc. to offer a Level 2 240-volt wireless charging unit. It's only compatible with the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf for now, but will open up to other models later. 

Bosch recently announced its wired charging system, Power Max home charging. It only costs $449 while the new wireless system costs a whopping $3,000 -- but Bosch believes that convenience will be key to sales of the expensive wireless option.


“The main reason is convenience,” Kevin Mull, vice president of business development at Bosch Automotive Service Solutions told PluginCars. “We think this is a very viable future technology and over time, with advancements in technology, the price will start to come down.”

To help EV drivers who want the wired or wireless system, but can't afford it, Bosch is offering financing options. Option #1 includes $0 down with no monthly payments for 12 months if repaid in full in a year for charging stations that cost $1,000 or more. Option #2 offers $0 down and a five-year 2.99 percent loan on charging stations of $3,500 or more (including installation).

Source: Plugin Cars



Comments     Threshold


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

Efficiency
By bobcpg on 6/14/2013 3:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
What about the conversion rate efficiency. That’s got to cost something because we know it’s not going to be 100% efficient.




RE: Efficiency
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/14/2013 4:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
I believe they have it down to about 2% less efficient than wired.


RE: Efficiency
By Motoman on 6/14/2013 5:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
You have any proof of that? Because I highly doubt it's anywhere near that close.

Math posted on previous DT articles about field-induction chargers has shown that even in single city, millions of dollars a year would be wasted for electricity that was generated, transported, and then wasted by EV field-induction chargers.

Plug your GD car in.


RE: Efficiency
By cyberguyz on 6/16/2013 2:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why not be the energy efficiency god and walk?


RE: Efficiency
By BRB29 on 6/17/2013 8:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
Because food and water cost more than electricity.

Because being late to work cost more than electricity.

Because there's not enough time in a day to walk everywhere.

Because you cannot carry everything you need in a day(at least not me)

Because you have to deal with the weather.


RE: Efficiency
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2013 11:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
2%? That's not even possible lol.


RE: Efficiency
By Shig on 6/16/2013 1:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/technology/...

That is the 2% he is talking about, but that's for phones. I'm not sure how different it is for higher power. I can't think it's THAT different, I'd assume more losses at higher power levels, but not insane amounts.


RE: Efficiency
By Shig on 6/16/2013 1:58:32 PM , Rating: 1
After reading a little bit more it seems like it's more a question of how quality are the components rather than physics.

Some wireless chargers will be good and some will be shit, there's not enough data to really compare yet.


RE: Efficiency
By xelc on 6/17/2013 8:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
I read the page and the wireless power link's transfer efficiency if 70% of copper wire. The 2% percent you think is the difference probably came from subtracting this 70% from efficiency of power adapter which is 72% and is same for wired and wireless charger.


RE: Efficiency
By karimtemple on 6/17/2013 9:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you're reading that page correctly:
quote:
The transfer efficiency of the wireless power link is typically 70%.
It uses the 70% figure more than once, it one case using the phrase "up to," implying that this is a high-quality target that is often missed due to cost-cutting. Other sources I Googled up use "60% - 70%" as well.

Interestingly, one source I found claimed that resonance charging (induction charging's sister) is getting "80% - 90%" in the lab.


RE: Efficiency
By BRB29 on 6/17/2013 9:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
HOW DOES THAT COMPARE WITH THE WIRED CHARGERS?

Total power consumption of two wired chargers: 2 * ( 2.8 + 2.8 ) = 11.2 Wh
Total power consumption of one wireless charger with two receivers: 7.9 + 2.8 = 10.7 Wh

You see that the total energy consumption is comparable. Although wireless transfer is obviously not as efficient as transport over a copper wire, wireless power transmitters saves standby power energy when the wireless transmitter replaces multiple external power adapters.


RE: Efficiency
By karimtemple on 6/17/2013 10:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Total power consumption of two wired chargers: 2 * ( 2.8 + 2.8 ) = 11.2 Wh
Total power consumption of one wireless charger with two receivers: 7.9 + 2.8 = 10.7 Wh
This comparison is for two mobile devices charging simultaneously on one wireless charger vs. two wired charging adapters. I don't find this comparison to be invalid, except that this use case is improbable, probably impossible, for the Bosch device in question. One for one, the wireless charger in this example is actually drawing twice the power.


RE: Efficiency
By fanscale on 6/17/2013 9:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry there were individuals here complaining about power efficiency, when they don't actually know what they are saying.
Nearly everything you have does not have 100% or even 99% efficiency. A bridge rectifier, the old way of turning AC into DC outputs at 80%.
Unless you change everything to superconductors there is going to be power lost everywhere.
I don't know much about internal combustion engines but I would imagine a lot of the power is lost.

Get a 101% efficiency and you have invented something that never needs to be refueled. !!


RE: Efficiency
By karimtemple on 6/17/2013 9:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
A moot point when you're talking about choice. A charger loses power. Your only choice otherwise is to not use a rechargeable battery. But once you do get a rechargeable battery, you have the choice to lose 20% of the power or 44% (70% of 80%) of the power.

I won't argue that the choice is bad or not, or that convenience is or isn't better than resource conservation. But I will say that your argument -- that losing 44% of the power doesn't matter because we were losing 20% anyway -- is not a valid argument.


RE: Efficiency
By BRB29 on 6/17/2013 9:55:10 AM , Rating: 2
If wireless charging takes 10-20% hit in efficiency but greatly spread the use of EV then I would not hesitate to use it. Comparing that to how inefficient an ICE engine is along with its environmental concerns, it's not a hard choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency


RE: Efficiency
By karimtemple on 6/17/2013 10:24:03 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, the main reason I'll be getting an EV (the ~2015 "~$30k" Tesla, probably) is to save money on fueling. Tossing around 30% of the savings seems silly. I'll be plugging mine in. Let me know when the "90%" resonance charging gets out of the lab.


RE: Efficiency
By mike8675309 on 6/17/2013 10:29:46 AM , Rating: 2
Various sources list the efficiency of the the power transfer to be a minimum of 90%. That is really good for an inductive interface across a minimum 6" gap.

So they basically lose about 10% efficiency compared to a direct plug in. Just being able to cut down on the wear of the plug in socket has to be worth some part of that 10%.

As far as overall efficiency of charging that depends on the voltages involved and the overall design of the charging system as well as the battery pack.


RE: Efficiency
By karimtemple on 6/17/2013 10:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
Oh wow, you're right. The manufacturer is claiming 90%.

http://www.pluglesspower.com/images/Plugin_2011_br...

I'm cool with 90%, but that still leaves the $3k hurdle.


RE: Efficiency
By BRB29 on 6/17/2013 11:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
There's huge potential in this technology. Not just your garage but in parking spots. If this is adopted throughout the entire nation, you'll never have to worry about charge/refuel ever.


RE: Efficiency
By karimtemple on 6/19/2013 8:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
The most likely scenario I can think of is a business building a new parking lot, or sectioning off its existing one, and doing charging spaces as paid parking. Expensive, too! $10 probably, or more. Cheaper than filling up a gas tank though.


RE: Efficiency
By BRB29 on 6/19/2013 8:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
The mall would have a new stream of revenue


RE: Efficiency
By cyberguyz on 6/20/2013 5:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
Or a highway with electric cars only lanes with embedded chargers.


RE: Efficiency
By BRB29 on 6/17/2013 11:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm cool with 90%, but that still leaves the $3k hurdle.

It's $3k now because of the development costs that has to be distributed between a small volume of units. I don't see why it can't be under $500 in the future and even more efficient.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"?
Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"? 





0 Comments












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