EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Kjelt on May 31, 2018, 12:58:28 pm
-
https://hypebeast.com/2018/5/bmw-wireless-charging-station
3.2kW ok
wireless uhhhhhhhhh
I was really wondering , does anyone have a decent guestimate about the efficiency of such a wireless charger?
Dangers ? Cats that crawl between the charger and the car ? ;)
You're thoughts? Mine are, is it so much hassle to plug in a cord in a socket to gain 10% efficiency ?
-
Google says: "an efficiency rate of around 85%". (3.2kW * 0.15 = 480W losses)
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/ (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/)
85% sounds very optimistic though, that is probably under ideal conditions; if you are pressing the plate against the receiver in juuust the right spot... realistically, the car is never going to be aligned optimally. Seems incredibly wasteful.
Connecting a cable is easier and more flexible and almost 100% efficient. I don't understand why people want wireless charging plates for phones either. Is it so hard to plug in the cable? And we are moving/exercising too little, any tech that makes us lazier is going to be detrimental (yes Segway, I'm thinking of you).
The cat is probably going to love sleeping on that warm and cozy plate though. :scared:
-
yeah... surely that's going to have foreign object detection as part of the design.
even Qi has that (well, for metal, at least)
-
I wonder if it's just a rebrand of Qualcomm Halo. One of the prototype cars is even a BMW.
https://www.qualcomm.com/products/halo (https://www.qualcomm.com/products/halo)
-
Inductive charging can be done at > 90 % efficiency with realistic geometries for EV charging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6953459/ . Foreign object detection is one of the main challenges in this field, the actual power conversion is a solved problem.
-
If i owned an electric car, i would never accept losses that high especially if it only needs connecting a cable (doing sports is never bad, remember?).
And if it's not self aligning, it's simply crap.
Anyway... we all know it's not about another stupid contactless charger - it's about having seen the companies name again. :=\
-
Google says: "an efficiency rate of around 85%". (3.2kW * 0.15 = 480W losses)
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/ (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/)
Like a connected charger doesn't have losses :palm:
-
Inductive charging can be done at > 90 % efficiency with realistic geometries for EV charging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6953459/ . Foreign object detection is one of the main challenges in this field, the actual power conversion is a solved problem.
That seems like something that can be done by detecting an unexpected change in Q or resonant frequency, with thermal detection as a backup to sense an unexpected amount of heat being generated.
-
The wireless charger has those same losses, plus the losses of the wireless coupling. Any way you look at it, a wire is going to be more efficient and it's hard to justify wireless. I mean it's just so easy to plug in the cable and bypass the complex, expensive and lossy wireless coupling. I plug in my mobile phone every night when I go to bed, I wouldn't bother with a wireless charging pad for that either, I'm not that lazy.
-
I like it, I think its safer then having to plug in some crazy high current high voltage shit every time. And cleaner. And your garage will look nicer. And there is no high voltage shit to trip over or cut accidentally.
What I don't like is all the emissions.
I would like it so you can park the car right under it.
Those plugs will probobly EMP like a mother fucker if you unplug them while charging some how. It could be dangerous.
None of these are safe:
Charging time for 100 km of BEV range Power supply Power Voltage Max. current
6–8 hours Single phase 3.3 kW 230 V AC 16 A
3–4 hours Single phase 7.4 kW 230 V AC 32 A
2–3 hours Three phase 11 kW 400 V AC 16 A
1–2 hours Three phase 22 kW 400 V AC 32 A
20–30 minutes Three phase 43 kW 400 V AC 63 A
20–30 minutes Direct current 50 kW 400–500 V DC 100–125 A
10 minutes Direct current 120 kW 300–500 V DC 300–350 A
The 10 minute one is just bananas. That can vaporize you.
And honestly, just fucking work out with weights. I don't count like, plugging something in, to be exercise. Its just a pain in the ass.
-
I like it, I think its safer then having to plug in some crazy high current high voltage shit every time. And cleaner. And your garage will look nicer. And there is no high voltage shit to trip over or cut accidentally.
I would like it so you can park the car right under it.
:palm:
-
I like it, I think its safer then having to plug in some crazy high current high voltage shit every time. And cleaner. And your garage will look nicer. And there is no high voltage shit to trip over or cut accidentally.
I would like it so you can park the car right under it.
:palm:
:palm: idiot
-
The charger cords don't carry HV until they communicate with the car and determine that a connection has been made and what charging current the car can accept, only then is the high voltage switched on. If you unplug it during the cycle the power is cut off before you can get the plug all the way out. It's actually quite safe and works well, at this point I know numerous EV owners and being able to simply plug in when they get home at night rather than having to go to a gas station is something every one of them is always raving about.
It's not like plugging in a cord is exercise, it's just something so ridiculously easy that it's funny to hear people moan about it as if it's some big chore. It's like putting pants on in the morning or tying your shoes, do you need an expensive machine to do that for you?
-
Its quite safe if it works. The problem is still that you need to handle a high voltage conductor that can malfunction and it can be cut, insulation can go bad, control systems malfunction, etc.
If it was in a industrial setting they would probably check it with a fucking megger periodically. To do it right you probobly need to disable it with contactors (rather then relying on a software safety to depower a H-bridge or something). This means electromechanical parts, which means ware and tear, inspection requirements, etc.
I'd rather get a little bit of warmth from a 480 watt leakage
Pumping gasoline is not that great either.
I have yet to see a problem from my great electric toothbrush.
Personally if I controlled it I would make it so the car battery is removed and put into a hardened flameproof bunker. Preferably by a robot.
I charge my power tools inside of a metal toolbox for this reason, and keep the batteries separated when not in use in different compartments.
A lighting bolt or bad transient can come up on the line and possibly damage the battery and cause a fire or explosion. Particularly as things get old, manufacturers cut corners, etc.
An RF bridge is going to have a intrinsically high isolation against bad transients, and since reactors are probably used, they provide current limiting (unlike a thick ass cable).
-
and seriously wtf is this all this laziness talk?? I lift heavy and walk. Why is some health conscious ompa loompas telling me I need even more exercise plugging in fucking cables??????????????????????? What is that like 0.05 calories burned and minor hand eye coordination (maybe it prevents wasted people from sending shitty texts idk???)
If you are serious about your health you probably periodically go outside and go for walks, lift weights, run.. .wtf is plugging in a cable gonna do? Exercise is like, sweat coming off of you, sore muscles... if anything having to remember to plug in a cable is bad for you, you gotta occupy your mind with remembering to plug in a cable?? Why the unnecessary stress?
why you gonna try to make me touch something connected to mains? i don't go around trying to encourage people to beat alligators with broomsticks. wtf
-
It is not for EVs, but for PHEVs. I guess it makes sense. Hans Jürgen would be really lazy to plug in his 5 Series BMW twice a day to get 20km range, which is worth about a liter of benzin. I mean Hans is working in corporate middle management, has frameless glasses, wears light blue shirt for every day, and his time is very valuable.
-
and seriously wtf is this all this laziness talk?? I lift heavy and walk.
Yeah, I used to run 10-12 mile assault course races (see the profile pic) like Tough Mudder, Total Warrior etc and trained five days a week (broken rib, two broken toes and a lasting set of bad knees and Achilles tendon problems put paid to all that fun)
I'd still rather plug in a cable, thanks.
-
Google says: "an efficiency rate of around 85%". (3.2kW * 0.15 = 480W losses)
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/ (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/)
Like a connected charger doesn't have losses :palm:
It won't surprise me if the 85% figure so -15% is only the additional efficiency losses for the wireless part. Have to see about that, otherwise it would not differ that much from the 90% traditional converters would bring.
-
I have read that wireless charging of EV's is a standard thing. For example with electric buses in cities. When the bus parks at the stand it gets charged from a pad under the road. Therefore the bus can drive around all day and never needs to be plugged in. It's only a small stretch to install this in your home garage instead of the bus garage.
-
Yes but do the math, a real EV would have a 50-70kWh batterypack to allow a 300km radius.
With 3.2kW and 85% eff. It will take an entire day to charge from empty to full capacity.
The wired home chargers are at least 10kW upto 25kW making the wireless charger look like a gadget.
-
Right, but people rarely need a full charge every day. I have friends with EVs and they typically drive 10-20 km to work in the morning and 10-20 km home at night. So they only need a small top up charge each night, nowhere close to a full battery charge.
-
Also a standard home charger here in the USA might plug into an existing 240 V, 30 A residential circuit that many people already have in their garage, so it might be about 6 kW. It will only be more than that if people go to the trouble of having a special new circuit installed from their breaker panel, which is an unnecessary expense for most people.
-
Its quite safe if it works. The problem is still that you need to handle a high voltage conductor that can malfunction and it can be cut, insulation can go bad, control systems malfunction, etc.
If it was in a industrial setting they would probably check it with a fucking megger periodically. To do it right you probobly need to disable it with contactors (rather then relying on a software safety to depower a H-bridge or something). This means electromechanical parts, which means ware and tear, inspection requirements, etc.
They do use contactors inside a level 2 charger.
The voltage is 120 or 240V, which you already have present in much weaker cabling all over your house.
-
I have read that wireless charging of EV's is a standard thing. For example with electric buses in cities. When the bus parks at the stand it gets charged from a pad under the road. Therefore the bus can drive around all day and never needs to be plugged in. It's only a small stretch to install this in your home garage instead of the bus garage.
It's not much harder to have the driver plug the vehicle in, or use something like a rail or automated arm. Across the fleet you're throwing away frightening amounts of energy when you go wireless.
Sure, wired chargers have losses too, but wireless has the same conversion losses plus the transmission losses. When you use a came those are almost negligible by comparison.
-
Its quite safe if it works. The problem is still that you need to handle a high voltage conductor that can malfunction and it can be cut, insulation can go bad, control systems malfunction, etc.
If it was in a industrial setting they would probably check it with a fucking megger periodically. To do it right you probobly need to disable it with contactors (rather then relying on a software safety to depower a H-bridge or something). This means electromechanical parts, which means ware and tear, inspection requirements, etc.
A bit hyperbolic don't you think? There are tens of thousands of EVs in the field, can you find me even one case of someone being electrocuted by the charging cord? I've never heard of it happening. People are occasionally killed by 120V straight out of an ordinary wall socket, rare but it happens and there are very few protective measures to protect it.
How many people have been injured by fires started while refueling conventional cars? I've seen videos of several of them and I'm sure there must be many more. I've personally witnessed 3 or 4 cars and on one occasion a big RV on the side of the road fully engulfed in fire as the owner stood helplessly nearby waiting for the fire department to arrive. Houses burn down on a regular basis due to careless storage of fuel, mostly gas cans used for lawn equipment and such. What is to prevent the fancy inductive charger from catching fire or developing an insulation fault that electrocutes someone? What if the battery pack bursts into flame as LiPo batteries occasionally do? That would concern me more than some hypothetical injury from the cord, although so far these are proving to be adequately safe.
-
Uh just because pumping explosive ass gasoline into a car is unsafe, does not mean that focusing design on direct conduction of electricity into cars is a good idea.. when there is an alternative technology that can be developed.
that's a fallacy. You have a bias for efficiency/cost. The performance of a previous unrelated technology should not be considered in making a decision, it is not rational to do so. It is human life at stake.
Your argument is that it might have a better track record then gasoline (at least in filling, not sure how it is with road way accidents).
And you need to consider what happens when things get super common and you have budget brands, overseas brands, etc. Not just high end teslas.
Enforcing a particular direction might mean shady manufacturers have less effect on safety later. The standard will be intrinsically tighter.
Personally I don't even like interacting with power cords. I prefer to install more outlets so things stay connected. And I modify stuff to have IEC sockets as they are safer. It's just better not to flex conductors and insulators. Cords are like a super weak point in equipment.
Usually you have a heavy metal or plastic body, well insulated or grounded. Then you have a wimpy flexible thing that can put out 4000A peak connected to it. Its just basic to see it as dangerous.
And I prefer a big metal thing I am going inside of is floating rather then ground reference especially if its in a damp garage, incase you forget to unplug it.
-
Are we really arguing whether cables can be safe? Literally billions of people use electric cables with deathly voltages every day without even thinking about it and with very few incidents. The potential problems that do exist are engineering problems.
Besides, wireless power isn't magically safe. It has its own complications and safety issues.
-
And you get to live out your shuttle bay fantasies (sorry if it's large - it needs to be):
(https://c.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bmw-wireless-charging-1-1280x633.jpg)
-
And you get to live out your shuttle bay fantasies (sorry if it's large - it needs to be):
(https://c.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bmw-wireless-charging-1-1280x633.jpg)
I want a robot arm attaching an umbilical as if it's a rocket ship, damn it!
-
85% efficiency... so 15% of 3.2kW which is 480W gets wasted as... heat? :o
-
Google says: "an efficiency rate of around 85%". (3.2kW * 0.15 = 480W losses)
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/ (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/)
Like a connected charger doesn't have losses :palm:
I assume 85% refers only to the efficiency of the wireless transfer (under ideal circumstance)? :/
-
The wireless charger has a substantial benefit with self-driving cars, and that's probably at least 30% of the reason it's being seriously developed. The car can simply drive itself into a parking space and start charging.
Of course there's another way to solve that. . .
And you get to live out your shuttle bay fantasies (sorry if it's large - it needs to be):
I want a robot arm attaching an umbilical as if it's a rocket ship, damn it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMM0lRfX6YI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMM0lRfX6YI)
. . .which is cool, but still a far less elegant solution than the wireless charging pad. It requires a whole mechanical arrangement, a whole vision system for alignment, it's bulky and prone to getting driven into, etc. Whereas the wireless pad needs no moving parts and at most relies on the sensor suite that's already built into the car anyway.
-
if you're going to have a physical connection capability anyway, then the wireless transfer option seems like a bit of a waste of energy, and money.
surely putting the cable and direct charger electronics you would have anyway onto a guided arm isn't going to cost that much? simple visual feature detection and navigation seems like something even an advanced maker could arrange themselves with a raspberry Pi, openCV, and some off the shelf stepper motor gear or a robot arm kit.
yeah it's neat to charge wirelessly, but you will need a 3500kW receiver coil and electronics in the car, 3500kW charger coil and electronics in the charger, both of which will cost a fair bit, and after all that it's an extra 0.85 multiplier on your vehicle's entire efficiency.
-
why not use a docking station with physical contacts, like a roomba? maybe put that arm thing inside the wireless charging station.
https://youtu.be/byQ0CBgjE-0?t=6s
-
and seriously wtf is this all this laziness talk?? I lift heavy and walk. Why is some health conscious ompa loompas telling me I need even more exercise plugging in fucking cables??????????????????????? What is that like 0.05 calories burned and minor hand eye coordination (maybe it prevents wasted people from sending shitty texts idk???)
If you are serious about your health you probably periodically go outside and go for walks, lift weights, run.. .wtf is plugging in a cable gonna do? Exercise is like, sweat coming off of you, sore muscles... if anything having to remember to plug in a cable is bad for you, you gotta occupy your mind with remembering to plug in a cable?? Why the unnecessary stress?
why you gonna try to make me touch something connected to mains?
Did you make yourself a cup of coffee the morning?
Toast?
i don't go around trying to encourage people to beat alligators with broomsticks. wtf
-
Personally I don't even like interacting with power cords. I prefer to install more outlets so things stay connected. And I modify stuff to have IEC sockets as they are safer. It's just better not to flex conductors and insulators. Cords are like a super weak point in equipment.
You have a very strange hangup concerning electricity, borderline paranoia, especially strange to see on an engineering forum. Most people interact with electrical cords on a daily basis, even completely non-technical people like my mother have managed to do this their entire lives without injury. Electrocution involving properly designed and installed equipment that has not been tampered with is exceedingly rare. When was the last time you actually had one of these "super weak" power cords fail? The only one I can think of that I've encountered was on a 70 year old radio, the conductors were fine but the rubber insulation crumbled.
You are free to go to heroic measures in order to avoid interacting with power cords. Meanwhile the rest of us will keep using them uneventfully.
-
You will no doubt enjoy the induced RF " bites" you will get from metal objects in your garage.
OK, it's only 3.2kW, but in such close proximity, you will almost certainly get them.
Ohh, & you will love it when the weird neighbour next door who thinks his house wiring & your mobile phone
are giving him cancer hears about it.
He will probably drag in a few of his mates & they will picket your house. ;D
-
Of course there's another way to solve that. . .
. . .which is cool, but still a far less elegant solution than the wireless charging pad. It requires a whole mechanical arrangement, a whole vision system for alignment, it's bulky and prone to getting driven into, etc. Whereas the wireless pad needs no moving parts and at most relies on the sensor suite that's already built into the car anyway.
That is supercool but way overengineered IMO.
Ok so lets say we keep the car and charger homing beacon alignment,
The wireless way needs 8cm max space, is it so difficult to raise a connector with autoalignment properties for 8 cm? That is all that is needed another 8cm good electrical connection that could not be so hard.
-
Google says: "an efficiency rate of around 85%". (3.2kW * 0.15 = 480W losses)
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/ (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/)
Like a connected charger doesn't have losses :palm:
I assume 85% refers only to the efficiency of the wireless transfer (under ideal circumstance)? :/
No. Why would it?
Besides that people should think about transferring 200kW or even more. With those power levels using cables become less easier to handle by people. If you have a way to get rid of a cable + plug it would make charging safer (partly because there is no wear on plugs and cables).
-
Google says: "an efficiency rate of around 85%". (3.2kW * 0.15 = 480W losses)
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/ (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/)
Like a connected charger doesn't have losses :palm:
I assume 85% refers only to the efficiency of the wireless transfer (under ideal circumstance)? :/
No. Why would it?
Besides that people should think about transferring 200kW or even more. With those power levels using cables become less easier to handle by people. If you have a way to get rid of a cable + plug it would make charging safer (partly because there is no wear on plugs and cables).
Because wireless power transfer is usually very inefficient (losses in the coils, the switching, radiative losses, etc), and it's marketing fluff so it's going to be exaggerated. On top of that to reach full efficiency you need to have the coils very close and aligned properly.
It's nice in theory (drove Tesla mad) but in the end, even when you have receiver and transmitter touching each other (and what is the point with wireless then?) it's not very efficient.
Those new gimmicky Qi phone chargers are officially* 70-80% efficient and then you have a gap of a few mm. (Don't get why people want them anyway, you can't use the phone while it's charging that way, it's pretty restrictive for being "wireless").
* they don't really give an official figure because "it varies". In reality it is much less:
https://youtu.be/ExU32UyGX6w?t=5m24s (https://youtu.be/ExU32UyGX6w?t=5m24s)
(Spoiler: 40% extra loss compared to a normal usb cable.)
In a future when most vehicles are electric, if they become even 5% less efficient that will have a huge impact on global energy consumption.
-
Its quite safe if it works. The problem is still that you need to handle a high voltage conductor that can malfunction and it can be cut, insulation can go bad, control systems malfunction, etc.
If it was in a industrial setting they would probably check it with a fucking megger periodically. To do it right you probobly need to disable it with contactors (rather then relying on a software safety to depower a H-bridge or something). This means electromechanical parts, which means ware and tear, inspection requirements, etc.
I have never handled ev-charing cables, but they look like they are reinforced PUR cables. PUR cables are almost indestructible, but expensive. The next best thing is rubber cable, this is also very solid cable, but eventually will get cuts and damages. Rubber cables are used in industrial setting when the cables are temporary. Rubber cables are indeed regularly tested to spec. The insulation is rarely at fault, is it would you could see it with visual inspection, mostly the contact resistance on the plugs fails spec.
PVC cables are toys compared to rubber or PUR.
You don't need a physical disconnect, there are online insulation monitors.
-
Google says: "an efficiency rate of around 85%". (3.2kW * 0.15 = 480W losses)
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/ (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/bmw-launches-worlds-first-wireless-charging-for-electric-cars-groundpad-530e-iperformance/)
Like a connected charger doesn't have losses :palm:
I assume 85% refers only to the efficiency of the wireless transfer (under ideal circumstance)? :/
No. Why would it?
Besides that people should think about transferring 200kW or even more. With those power levels using cables become less easier to handle by people. If you have a way to get rid of a cable + plug it would make charging safer (partly because there is no wear on plugs and cables).
Because wireless power transfer is usually very inefficient (losses in the coils, the switching, radiative losses, etc), and it's marketing fluff so it's going to be exaggerated. On top of that to reach full efficiency you need to have the coils very close and aligned properly.
It's nice in theory (drove Tesla mad) but in the end, even when you have receiver and transmitter touching each other (and what is the point with wireless then?) it's not very efficient.
Those new gimmicky Qi phone chargers are officially* 70-80% efficient and then you have a gap of a few mm. (Don't get why people want them anyway, you can't use the phone while it's charging that way, it's pretty restrictive for being "wireless").
Qi is not relevant in this discussion because it uses magnetic coupling which is very inefficient. You can get better efficiencies in real world applications over longer distances by using resonant coupling. Qi is optimised for low power low cost solutions and efficiency doesn't matter. This does not mean wireless power transfer using inductors is inherently inefficient.
-
Qi is not relevant in this discussion because it uses magnetic coupling which is very inefficient. You can get better efficiencies in real world applications over longer distances by using resonant coupling. Qi is optimised for low power low cost solutions and efficiency doesn't matter. This does not mean wireless power transfer using inductors is inherently inefficient.
Do you know of any other real world wireless resonant system in use that someone have tested and published the efficiency of? I believe it when I see it.
But either way, it is always going to be less efficient than copper wire. In a future where everyone drives an electric vehicle, if you make the fuel even 5% less efficient it will have a huge impact on global energy use. And for what? So people doesn't have to spend a few seconds plugging in a cable? :/
-
Qi is not relevant in this discussion because it uses magnetic coupling which is very inefficient. You can get better efficiencies in real world applications over longer distances by using resonant coupling. Qi is optimised for low power low cost solutions and efficiency doesn't matter. This does not mean wireless power transfer using inductors is inherently inefficient.
Do you know of any other real world wireless resonant system in use that someone have tested and published the efficiency of? I believe it when I see it.
But either way, it is always going to be less efficient than copper wire. In a future where everyone drives an electric vehicle, if you make the fuel even 5% less efficient it will have a huge impact on global energy use. And for what? So people doesn't have to spend a few seconds plugging in a cable? :/
Inductive charging can be done at > 90 % efficiency with realistic geometries for EV charging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6953459/ . Foreign object detection is one of the main challenges in this field, the actual power conversion is a solved problem.
For those without IEEE access, the abstract answers the question pretty nicely:
In this paper, the design and hardware realization of a 3.5kW inductive power transfer system to charge electric vehicles is presented. The commercial success of such a wireless charger is highly dependent on the energy conversion efficiency. The presented design consists of a circular receiver coil mounted on a car and a larger circular transmitter coil fixed to the ground. It achieves an efficiency as high as 96.5% from 400 VDC to 400 VDC. This figure includes the necessary power electronics circuits on the transmitter and receiver side and is achieved over an air gap of 110mm between those coils. Even with a lateral misalignment of 100mm between transmitter and receiver and an increased air gap of 160mm the efficiency was determined to be 94.3%. Due to the limited space available on the vehicle the dimensions of the receiver coil are a mere 240×240 mm, which results in a coupling coefficient of less than 10 %. With these results the efficiency is no longer inferior to a wire connected charging system. Instrumental to achieve this performance is a careful optimization of the transmitter and receiver geometry and the proper tuning of the electric part of the circuit. Both aspects are discussed in detail in this paper.
Note that this includes the power conversion electronics. The best conductive (wired) charger DC/DC converters are presently around 97 % efficient, so the difference is small, especially considering that most chargers are between 92 and 94 % efficient, including typical 3.6 kW onboard chargers.
-
Inductive charging can be done at > 90 % efficiency with realistic geometries for EV charging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6953459/ . Foreign object detection is one of the main challenges in this field, the actual power conversion is a solved problem.
For those without IEEE access, they get a measured efficiency of 96.5 % with a coil spacing of 110 mm. The receiver coil is 240 x 240 mm in size.
Impressive if they can take that from the lab to a commercial system that operates at similar efficiency. It's not a verified real world working system though, just because you can get that efficiency in a lab doesn't mean you can mass produce it that efficient economically. Would be interesting to see independent test of that bmw-charger for example.
Even if they succeed with that, it's still 5% losses, compare that to a connector. Would you want to make your car 5% less fuel efficient just so you didn't have to plug in the cord? Unless they manage to get the losses negligible this isn't a good idea imho.
It's a classic example of an over engineered solution to a non existent problem that in reality just makes things worse.
Note that this includes the power conversion electronics. The best conductive (wired) charger DC/DC converters are presently around 97 % efficient, so the difference is small, especially considering that most chargers are between 92 and 94 % efficient, including typical 3.6 kW onboard chargers.
They only mean the electronics involved in the wireless transfer, so compared to a normal connector you have to add the 5% losses from their laboratory prototype to the other charging component losses.
Once you have the power in the car, it's the same whether it was transferred wireless or not. After that you will need the same type of DC/DC converter to charge the batteries.
Ideally you should compare it with a system where you replace the wireless transfer module with a normal connector. It's the extra losses in the wireless transfer compared to a connector that is the problem here.
That there exist crappy chargers just shows that if these wireless chargers become common, in practice they will perform way worse than that.
-
Qi is not relevant in this discussion because it uses magnetic coupling which is very inefficient. You can get better efficiencies in real world applications over longer distances by using resonant coupling. Qi is optimised for low power low cost solutions and efficiency doesn't matter. This does not mean wireless power transfer using inductors is inherently inefficient.
Do you know of any other real world wireless resonant system in use that someone have tested and published the efficiency of? I believe it when I see it.
The one I designed and which is being produced & used does 80% end-to-end using off-the-shelf components. However this system has some inefficiencies due to design constraints. The 85% claim of the system which this topic is about isn't far fetched at all and I think it is possible to get better efficiencies. Surprisingly there is very little good and useful information on wireless energy transfer using inductors available. When a customer approached me to design a system which could deal with a 20mm gap I basically had to invent everything by myself.
But either way, it is always going to be less efficient than copper wire. In a future where everyone drives an electric vehicle, if you make the fuel even 5% less efficient it will have a huge impact on global energy use. And for what? So people doesn't have to spend a few seconds plugging in a cable? :/
How about plugging a cable in which is as thick as your arm and requires several tens of Nm of force to fixate the plug? Old and disabled people -for starters- aren't go to be able to do that. If you want to do really high power fast charging using a cable is going to be a big problem.
-
I would rather get an rf bite then touch 400vdc. Rf will just burn you while dc will remove a limb.
Think that its great.
Embedding some kind of badass rf transmitter in the garage floor would be epic. 95% efficency is great.
-
The one I designed and which is being produced & used does 80% end-to-end using off-the-shelf components. However this system has some inefficiencies due to design constraints.
That is very impressive. There will always be design constraints so that sounds realistic. Still this means 10-15% less compared to using a connector (which would typically be ~95% efficient according to Wolfram's post).
So your car will use 10-15% more fuel if you use this.
How about plugging a cable in which is as thick as your arm and requires several tens of Nm of force to fixate the plug? Old and disabled people -for starters- aren't go to be able to do that. If you want to do really high power fast charging using a cable is going to be a big problem.
Yeah, there will always be a compromise between efficiency and comfort but here we are talking 10% less efficient compared to using the normal cables used today.
-
Where did you get that from wolframs post? I think you need to reread it
-
Inductive charging can be done at > 90 % efficiency with realistic geometries for EV charging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6953459/ . Foreign object detection is one of the main challenges in this field, the actual power conversion is a solved problem.
For those without IEEE access, they get a measured efficiency of 96.5 % with a coil spacing of 110 mm. The receiver coil is 240 x 240 mm in size.
Impressive if they can take that from the lab to a commercial system that operates at similar efficiency. It's not a verified real world working system though, just because you can get that efficiency in a lab doesn't mean you can mass produce it that efficient economically. Would be interesting to see independent test of that bmw-charger for example.
There is no exotic technology used in that paper, the components are similar to those that you would find in a typical off-the-shelf high power battery charger.
They only mean the electronics involved in the wireless transfer, so compared to a normal connector you have to add the 5% losses from their laboratory prototype to the other charging component losses.
Once you have the power in the car, it's the same whether it was transferred wireless or not. After that you will need the same type of DC/DC converter to charge the batteries.
Ideally you should compare it with a system where you replace the wireless transfer module with a normal connector. It's the extra losses in the wireless transfer compared to a connector that is the problem here.
That there exist crappy chargers just shows that if these wireless chargers become common, in practice they will perform way worse than that.
The presented system is an actual charger, not just a power transfer system. It hooks up to the battery directly, and CV/CC charging control is performed on the transmitter side.
A wired DC charger would typically consist of an AC-DC converter (active PFC) with an efficiency of 96 - 98 %, and an isolated DC/DC converter, typically with an efficiency of 94 - 98 %. This system replaces the second stage, with a similar efficiency.
-
There is no exotic technology used in that paper, the components are similar to those that you would find in a typical off-the-shelf high power battery charger.
Sounds interesting, too bad it's behind a paywall.
A wired DC charger would typically ...
Still think it's meaningless to compare a state of the art, lab prototype, wireless charger with a typical wired charger.
You should compare that to the efficiency of a state of the art, lab prototype, wired charger...
-
I want to embed it in the floor. No more gas station. I hate gas stations so nuch i thought to get a burried petrol tank. They are a pain in the ass.
-
Still think it's meaningless to compare a state of the art, lab prototype, wireless charger with a typical wired charger.
You should compare that to the efficiency of a state of the art, lab prototype, wired charger...
That's a fair point, though I think "meaningless" is a strong word here. The comparison can still be meaningful as this demonstration is based on the same generation of power components as typical wired chargers. Charger topologies have advanced to a point where the performance is limited by the available components and not by the technology. Any advance that will benefit wired chargers, such as wide band-gap semiconductors, will also benefit wireless ones similarly.
To do a comparison with a state-of-the-art lab prototype wired charger is easy, as I have one running here, built around wide band-gap semiconductors (SiC MOSFETs). We get an efficiency of around 98.6 % on the AC-DC conversion (400 V three-phase to 750 V DC) and an efficiency of just over 98 % on the isolated DC/DC converter. The wireless technology would in other words incur additional losses of around two percent of the processed power. In many cases, the increased convenience of wireless charging can justify these additional losses. Also consider the fact that these additional losses could be reduced using the wide band-gap semiconductor technology that is used in our prototype charger.
-
. . .which is cool, but still a far less elegant solution than the wireless charging pad. It requires a whole mechanical arrangement, a whole vision system for alignment, it's bulky and prone to getting driven into, etc. Whereas the wireless pad needs no moving parts and at most relies on the sensor suite that's already built into the car anyway.
No moving parts and physics that outright prohibit any reasonable efficiency. That's not elegant by a long shot.
-
I would rather get an rf bite then touch 400vdc. Rf will just burn you while dc will remove a limb.
Think that its great.
Embedding some kind of badass rf transmitter in the garage floor would be epic. 95% efficency is great.
I don't know whether you habitually electrocuted yourself as a child or something, but you're overestimating the likelihood of "getting zapped" by a properly designed cabled charging system to a degree that it sounds like a phobia. It has nothing to do with real world problems and the associated engineering challenges.
Cables are safe. Untrained and idiotic people use cheap and substandard cables on a massive scale on a daily basis without it being eventful. We're not even talking about how we have more than a century of experience with cables in home settings, while we basically have none when it comes to large scale wireless chargers in a home setting.
-
I'm starting to think he has some kind of financial interest in the wireless charging solution, or is just trolling. I mean seriously, doesn't like to handle power cords? Has considered getting a buried petrol tank at home to avoid going to gas stations? What nonsense.
-
I want to embed it in the floor. No more gas station. I hate gas stations so nuch i thought to get a burried petrol tank. They are a pain in the ass.
Hold on. You consider cables to be death traps but are prepared to live on top of a tank of petrol?
-
nah I would put it out back a hundred feet away from where I 'live' to make a private gas station :-+
If it was nonsense then it would not be being developed and wireless phone chargers would not be common place. You are just a dinosaur.
-
85% efficiency... so 15% of 3.2kW which is 480W gets wasted as... heat? :o
Hans also has a solar panel on the top of his house. 480W gets wasted. energy in that is about the same energy that the device would receive in direct sunlight.
I dont know why people get upset by the efficiency, while most people are driving a "19 century tractor" with 25-is% efficiency, and they dont even have regen breaking.
-
Bonus is if you have any metal plates in your body you can walk on the inductive pad and they will warm you up fast from the induction!
-
Nonsense products are developed all the time, probably 10:1 vs stuff that actually works well and makes sense. Need I mention the infamous Batteriser thread? There are numerous other examples on the forum. Me I'm interested in maximizing energy efficiency. If that favored wireless transfer I'd be all for it but an old fashioned cord has a significant advantage there and very few valid disadvantages. Lower cost to purchase, lower cost of operation, less to go wrong, less EMI, if that's not important to you then go ahead and install a wireless gadget, the rest of us will stick to wires because they make more sense to a rational person.
-
nah I would put it out back a hundred feet away from where I 'live' to make a private gas station :-+
If it was nonsense then it would not be being developed and wireless phone chargers would not be common place. You are just a dinosaur.
Lazy trolls are the worst. Ones that can muster some clever responses are much more amusing.
-
is something above plugging it into the wall too complicated for you??
-
is something above plugging it into the wall too complicated for you??
At least I can manage plugging something in. ;D
-
Actually I just had an idea, EV cars should have a standard plug type that you can drive into, maybe near the wheel, so there would be a small ramp (like car washes) to guide the car into the plug. Of course it would need various bumpers and guides to protect itself from bad drivers. I'm thinking the actual plug/probes would only extend once it's in the proper position. Make this a standard and it could be installed in driveways, parking lots, etc. I'm thinking the plug would come from the ground and connect upwards into the car, as it would make it so you can drive over it completely no problem, ex: in a driveway you would maybe install two back to back so first car drives over the first one and other car drives behind. This would not replace a cord as not every place would have this, but the idea is it would make for a quick and easy way to get a charge without physically plugging anything. Big power cords can be cumbersome especially in -40's as even regular 14/2 extension can get quite stiff for plugging in the block heater.
The power cord plug should be standardized too though, I foresee an issue with electric cars where everyone wants to patent everything and there will never be a standard charging station/plug type. It should be like gas pumps, where you can go to any charge station and charge.
-
Its quite safe if it works. The problem is still that you need to handle a high voltage conductor that can malfunction and it can be cut, insulation can go bad, control systems malfunction, etc.
If it was in a industrial setting they would probably check it with a fucking megger periodically. To do it right you probobly need to disable it with contactors (rather then relying on a software safety to depower a H-bridge or something). This means electromechanical parts, which means ware and tear, inspection requirements, etc.
I have never handled ev-charing cables, but they look like they are reinforced PUR cables. PUR cables are almost indestructible, but expensive. The next best thing is rubber cable, this is also very solid cable, but eventually will get cuts and damages. Rubber cables are used in industrial setting when the cables are temporary. Rubber cables are indeed regularly tested to spec. The insulation is rarely at fault, is it would you could see it with visual inspection, mostly the contact resistance on the plugs fails spec.
PVC cables are toys compared to rubber or PUR.
You don't need a physical disconnect, there are online insulation monitors.
Funny that, the three phase cables used to connect transportable diesel driven alternators ( commonly used in TV OBs) to their load use reinforced PVC.
Those transportable alternators are big units---- we used one to provide standby power to a TV Transmitter site with a 13kW TV transmitter & two 5kW FM transmitters.
They weren't marginal, either, we could run the standby transmitters on test at the same time.
All connected with a "toy" PVC cable!
-
I don't know what the material is but I've handled the charging cords on one of my friends' EV and it's one of those rubbery feeling cables like the power cords on the machine tools in their shop, feels like it's probably 10AWG. It's durable enough to be dragged around on the driveway and has been driven over a few times with no signs of deterioration so far after a couple years. It's heavier and bulkier than the typical outdoor extension cord you'd use to power a string trimmer or power saw but it's lighter and more flexible than a garden hose. The charger is a surprisingly small box inline in the cord which plugs into a 30A 240V socket of the sort used by older clothes dryers. I suspect most of the charging electronics are integrated into the car and the external box is mostly a safety cutout. The connector that plugs into the car is nicely designed and includes a tethered rubber cap that can be put on if you want to leave the cord outside in the driveway.
-
Actually I just had an idea, EV cars should have a standard plug type that you can drive into, maybe near the wheel, so there would be a small ramp (like car washes) to guide the car into the plug. Of course it would need various bumpers and guides to protect itself from bad drivers. I'm thinking the actual plug/probes would only extend once it's in the proper position. Make this a standard and it could be installed in driveways, parking lots, etc. I'm thinking the plug would come from the ground and connect upwards into the car, as it would make it so you can drive over it completely no problem, ex: in a driveway you would maybe install two back to back so first car drives over the first one and other car drives behind. This would not replace a cord as not every place would have this, but the idea is it would make for a quick and easy way to get a charge without physically plugging anything. Big power cords can be cumbersome especially in -40's as even regular 14/2 extension can get quite stiff for plugging in the block heater.
The power cord plug should be standardized too though, I foresee an issue with electric cars where everyone wants to patent everything and there will never be a standard charging station/plug type. It should be like gas pumps, where you can go to any charge station and charge.
Good idea. If the batteries are standardised too and they could be automatically replaced from below the car, you could have gas stations battery stations where you drive onto a ramp and the battery is replaced with a freshly charged one automatically. That way the range problem would more or less disappear, it would be the same as refueling a car with an internal combustion engine.
-
This idea has been thought of, but there are various problems with it.
It has been hashed out already in multiple threads, but the real solution for the range "problem" is to move beyond the filling station mentality and use EVs where they currently make the most sense, as short to medium range commuter cars that you charge either overnight in your driveway or garage, or during the day while parked at work. With this workflow there is no need to try to charge as quickly as you'd fill a tank with liquid fuel, rather than run until empty and then fill up you simply plug in the car like you plug in your mobile phone and it's always ready to go. For people who need to drive longer distances or don't have this as a reasonable option, internal combustion, hybrids and plug-in hybrids may be a better fit. There are many millions of cars out there that are exclusively used for commuting and running errands where long range is not a requirement, and that is the use case that EVs are ideally suited for. ICE is not going away any time soon, we don't need to try to replace it completely.
-
This idea has been thought of, but there are various problems with it.
It has been hashed out already in multiple threads, but the real solution for the range "problem" is to move beyond the filling station mentality and use EVs where they currently make the most sense, as short to medium range commuter cars that you charge either overnight in your driveway or garage, or during the day while parked at work. With this workflow there is no need to try to charge as quickly as you'd fill a tank with liquid fuel, rather than run until empty and then fill up you simply plug in the car like you plug in your mobile phone and it's always ready to go. For people who need to drive longer distances or don't have this as a reasonable option, internal combustion, hybrids and plug-in hybrids may be a better fit. There are many millions of cars out there that are exclusively used for commuting and running errands where long range is not a requirement, and that is the use case that EVs are ideally suited for. ICE is not going away any time soon, we don't need to try to replace it completely.
Without the EV being up to the level of the filling station it's never going to become the dominant technology. There's one thing that technology has to do to make it and that's not being a lot more terrible than whatever it replaces. We can make do for short range commuting, but the issue really needs to be addressed in full.
-
Without the EV being up to the level of the filling station it's never going to become the dominant technology. There's one thing that technology has to do to make it and that's not being a lot more terrible than whatever it replaces. We can make do for short range commuting, but the issue really needs to be addressed in full.
Trying to emulate an existing technology can prevent something from ever advancing. I see EVs every day around here, they're all over the place and more are appearing all the time. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 people I know that have them and the whole never having to go to a gas station to fill up, just plug the thing in every night is the number one feature they all rave about. The car is ready to go every morning, with more than enough range for the trip to work and back and some errands around town, never even a thought about "filling up", it's just always ready. I know people hate change, but this is one of those changes where the only people who complain about it are the people who have never tried it. Some people do regularly need longer range, EVs are not for them, that's why other technologies exist which can fill their needs.
-
This idea has been thought of, but there are various problems with it.
It has been hashed out already in multiple threads, but the real solution for the range "problem" is to move beyond the filling station mentality and use EVs where they currently make the most sense, as short to medium range commuter cars that you charge either overnight in your driveway or garage, or during the day while parked at work.
The latter will be expensive because you'll probably pay extra for the electricity due to the extra charging infrastructure in the parking garage. The first isn't an option for all people because many people don't have drive ways. And even if people have a drive way the residential grid isn't designed for charging loads of EVs so again: you'll pay extra for upgrading the residential grid. Having centralised charging points with very fast chargers will prove to be more economical because there is a more effective sharing of infrastructure. With slow charging you need one or even two chargers for each EV and guess who is going to pay for those. With fast charging you need only one charger for thousands of EVs. So even if the fast charger costs $100k to install the cost per EV owner will be a few tens of dollars.
-
Trying to emulate an existing technology can prevent something from ever advancing. I see EVs every day around here, they're all over the place and more are appearing all the time. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 people I know that have them and the whole never having to go to a gas station to fill up, just plug the thing in every night is the number one feature they all rave about. The car is ready to go every morning, with more than enough range for the trip to work and back and some errands around town, never even a thought about "filling up", it's just always ready. I know people hate change, but this is one of those changes where the only people who complain about it are the people who have never tried it. Some people do regularly need longer range, EVs are not for them, that's why other technologies exist which can fill their needs.
It's not about resisting change, it's about resisting a significant disadvantage in a relevant portion of the use cases.
Though I feel people are also unrealistically optimistic or pessimistic about the gains or losses. Personally I don't feel plugging in a car every night is more convenient than going to a gas station for 5 minutes once a week. It's not a huge hassle to plug a car in either. The financial benefits may be attractive, though I also imagine it having to do with one being explicit bills and the other being absorbed into a much larger bill. Concert venues make use of the same trick when they sell tokens or punch cards to people. The actual cost of what's being spent isn't so obvious, so people more easily spend the money. That's why I'm going to take both raving and ranting people with a grain of salt. The raving folks just spent a huge amount of money on something and are very invested in it being better. Ranting folks regularly just want to shit on things.
Don't get me wrong, I'm anything but anti EV. It's obviously the way forward and viable in a lot of cases already, but to actually take the place of traditional cars some problems still need to get solved. Or they need to artificially disadvantage traditional cars by levying taxes or something of course, but that's not going to fix the limitation.
-
And even if people have a drive way the residential grid isn't designed for charging loads of EVs so again: you'll pay extra for upgrading the residential grid.
Most EV charging is at night, which is off peak. The addition is also gradual, giving a lot of time for adaptation.
-
never even a thought about "filling up", it's just always ready.
And the same people don't give a thought about how the electricity was actually generated to charge their Pious Prius cars. They don't give a thought to the fact that a typical car requires the energy equivalent to 50,000 gallons of gas/petrol to make from the raw materials and so the environmenally friendly (what a bullshit term that is) vehicle they just bought brand new is contributing more to environmental damage than the 10 year old car they sold.
-
The latter will be expensive because you'll probably pay extra for the electricity due to the extra charging infrastructure in the parking garage. The first isn't an option for all people because many people don't have drive ways. And even if people have a drive way the residential grid isn't designed for charging loads of EVs so again: you'll pay extra for upgrading the residential grid. Having centralised charging points with very fast chargers will prove to be more economical because there is a more effective sharing of infrastructure. With slow charging you need one or even two chargers for each EV and guess who is going to pay for those. With fast charging you need only one charger for thousands of EVs. So even if the fast charger costs $100k to install the cost per EV owner will be a few tens of dollars.
Here in California EV charging stations are everywhere. They are in the office parking lot at work. They are in the hotel parking lot where I sometimes stay. They are in the parking lot at a shopping mall I visit. For anyone with a house and garage charging at home is just a simple cable you plug into a wall outlet when you get home in the evening. Even if you charge and home and pay for the electricity it is still much cheaper than gasoline (and that is saying something, since gasoline is cheaper than water here).
I have understood that in London public charging points are scattered all around, and many (all?) of them were free to use, at least to start with. Even if you have to pay, I think it is cheaper than buying petrol (in the UK you have to take out a second mortgage to fill your petrol tank).
-
Here in California EV charging stations are everywhere. They are in the office parking lot at work. They are in the hotel parking lot where I sometimes stay. They are in the parking lot at a shopping mall I visit. For anyone with a house and garage charging at home is just a simple cable you plug into a wall outlet when you get home in the evening. Even if you charge and home and pay for the electricity it is still much cheaper than gasoline (and that is saying something, since gasoline is cheaper than water here).
I have understood that in London public charging points are scattered all around, and many (all?) of them were free to use, at least to start with. Even if you have to pay, I think it is cheaper than buying petrol (in the UK you have to take out a second mortgage to fill your petrol tank).
The issue with comparing price is that petrol is as expensive as it is due to taxing. If you were to pay what it costs to refine and get to your petrol station plus a fair margin of profit, it would cost a fraction of the cost of what it costs now. Governments are unlikely to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so any price benefits are bound to be temporary at best. The biggest issue facing most developed nations and big cities is congestion. Having cheaper personal transportation and an incentive to own more cars and drive around more isn't desirable.
That being said, it is cheaper to fill up your car right now so you can benefit from it while it lasts, providing you never need to make longer trips.
-
This idea has been thought of, but there are various problems with it.
It has been hashed out already in multiple threads, but the real solution for the range "problem" is to move beyond the filling station mentality and use EVs where they currently make the most sense, as short to medium range commuter cars that you charge either overnight in your driveway or garage, or during the day while parked at work. With this workflow there is no need to try to charge as quickly as you'd fill a tank with liquid fuel, rather than run until empty and then fill up you simply plug in the car like you plug in your mobile phone and it's always ready to go. For people who need to drive longer distances or don't have this as a reasonable option, internal combustion, hybrids and plug-in hybrids may be a better fit. There are many millions of cars out there that are exclusively used for commuting and running errands where long range is not a requirement, and that is the use case that EVs are ideally suited for. ICE is not going away any time soon, we don't need to try to replace it completely.
ICEs will be around for a long time, and that is fine, they can run on biodiesel. However, EVs are better in most (all?) regards except the range. If there is a way to improve the range, why not do so? Having battery stations wouldn't exclude the ability to charge using a plug at home or at work.
-
Well it seems the two big EV haters on the group have shown up here, so this thread is going to deteriorate quickly, no sense in me sticking around this one any longer. It's going to do the same as a previous thread which turned into a rapid spray of hypothetical edge cases and mental gymnastics, various "proof" that something doesn't work which is funny when I just rode in an EV today that seemed to work just fine.
Now it wouldn't make sense for me to replace my fully paid for gasoline powered car but it will be 30 years old soon and approaching 300,000 miles so sometime in the next 10 years or so I'm seriously considering retiring it to classic cruiser/camping trip duty and getting an EV to commute in. Between my old wagon and the other half's aging but still dependable Prius the range of an EV is a complete non-issue.
-
Well it seems the two big EV haters on the group have shown up here, so this thread is going to deteriorate quickly, no sense in me sticking around this one any longer. It's going to do the same as a previous thread which turned into a rapid spray of hypothetical edge cases and mental gymnastics, various "proof" that something doesn't work which is funny when I just rode in an EV today that seemed to work just fine.
Now it wouldn't make sense for me to replace my fully paid for gasoline powered car but it will be 30 years old soon and approaching 300,000 miles so sometime in the next 10 years or so I'm seriously considering retiring it to classic cruiser/camping trip duty and getting an EV to commute in. Between my old wagon and the other half's aging but still dependable Prius the range of an EV is a complete non-issue.
Well, you have to admit that having two or three cars isn't really a viable solution for most people or even families.
-
Plug in hybrid is a compromise that works right now.
-
Back ontopic about EV wireless charging,
Here is an article with an issue with normal charging.
In very cold countries under -15C the charging plug has issues.
The question is would wireless charging be ok under those circumstances (light ice buildup on the pads) would it drop the efficiency tremendously, or would it melt the ice and evaporate the water in the process.
https://electrek.co/2018/02/15/hyundai-ioniq-electric-recalls-charger-issue/
-
Wow, Sunday troll about cables? :palm:
Okay, let's just say Wireless charging is not so efficient and will indeed increase global energy waste if every EV uses that.
As seen above, the prototype shows the driver a camera with lines to align her car above the charging station. Once above, it would be *much* efficient for the charging station to raise small arms with the electrical contacts to the car, on a dedicated pad under the car, so the contacts would be made physically and not wirelessely. A bit like trains do it with pantographs
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Pantograaf_lichtrail.jpg/300px-Pantograaf_lichtrail.jpg)
Yes there would be safety concerns about the connection itself, but I'm betting those wise and smart engineers there are able to overcome this.
And this would prevent both wireless losses, massive energy fields radiating everywhere in the neighborhood, and the driver from touching "evil" cables ;D
-
never even a thought about "filling up", it's just always ready.
And the same people don't give a thought about how the electricity was actually generated to charge their Pious Prius cars. They don't give a thought to the fact that a typical car requires the energy equivalent to 50,000 gallons of gas/petrol to make from the raw materials and so the environmenally friendly (what a bullshit term that is) vehicle they just bought brand new is contributing more to environmental damage than the 10 year old car they sold.
Agreed, EV's are the upcoming craze for a number of reasons, mainly marketing eyewash IMHO.
They may save us from air pollution to some extent, they won't save us from laziness and lack of logic.
I'll use an EV the day they make them lightweight, integrate at least a few PV panels and have a human power option (bicycle pedals).
-
Well, you have to admit that having two or three cars isn't really a viable solution for most people or even families.
Similarly, electric trains are not viable, because imagine all the infrastructure it requires to electrify all the railways.
And this idea of building houses for families isn't really viable, because people have to spend years of their income for a house.
A cave is much cheaper. Or the top of a tree. Most primates know this.
-
Similarly, electric trains are not viable, because imagine all the infrastructure it requires to electrify all the railways.
And this idea of building houses for families isn't really viable, because people have to spend years of their income for a house.
A cave is much cheaper. Or the top of a tree. Most primates know this.
What's your point, exactly? People aren't very likely to buy an EV in addition to a vehicle with more range if the latter can do both jobs.
-
Similarly, electric trains are not viable, because imagine all the infrastructure it requires to electrify all the railways.
And this idea of building houses for families isn't really viable, because people have to spend years of their income for a house.
A cave is much cheaper. Or the top of a tree. Most primates know this.
What's your point, exactly? People aren't very likely to buy an EV in addition to a vehicle with more range if the latter can do both jobs.
They have to, because ICE will be banned in many places in about 12 years. Also, most people dont give a damn about the environment, because (let's be clear here) it is not burned into our moral system. Bible said 2000 year ago that "killing is bad, M'okay?". We are only saying since 50 years or so that killing the planet is bad. Most people already enlightened enough, not to kill each other, but it will take several generations to sink in, that polluting is bad. We don't have that time. Whether if they like it or not.
-
They have to, because ICE will be banned in many places in about 12 years. Also, most people dont give a damn about the environment, because (let's be clear here) it is not burned into our moral system. Bible said 2000 year ago that "killing is bad, M'okay?". We are only saying since 50 years or so that killing the planet is bad. Most people already enlightened enough, not to kill each other, but it will take several generations to sink in, that polluting is bad. We don't have that time. Whether if they like it or not.
Except that we all understand that EVs aren't inherently clean and ICEs aren't necessarily polluting. A coal plant powered EV does more harm than a biofuel ICE. Wagging fingers around and ignoring what people want or need is certain to cause huge amounts of resistance. If you help those people that don't care by providing a vehicle that can do roughly the same as they're used to, everyone will be much happier.
-
It's much easier to install your own solar power as opposed to making your own biodiesel at home.
-
Indeed, and if you could easily and automatically replace batteries in the car, then we could charge the ones not in the car when we have excess solar output. Some of the batteries in the battery stations could be used to power the grid during peak loads at night as well, if the controllers are smart enough.
-
Except that we all understand that EVs aren't inherently clean and ICEs aren't necessarily polluting. A coal plant powered EV does more harm than a biofuel ICE. Wagging fingers around and ignoring what people want or need is certain to cause huge amounts of resistance. If you help those people that don't care by providing a vehicle that can do roughly the same as they're used to, everyone will be much happier.
A Tesla that's charged by a diesel generator is less polluting than an efficient diesel car with an internal combustion engine..
https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-ev-charged-with-diesel-generator-still-cleaner-than-conventional-car-61942/
-
Back ontopic about EV wireless charging,
Here is an article with an issue with normal charging.
In very cold countries under -15C the charging plug has issues.
The question is would wireless charging be ok under those circumstances (light ice buildup on the pads) would it drop the efficiency tremendously, or would it melt the ice and evaporate the water in the process.
Unless the ice is highly conductive it won't melt at all. Wireless chargers don't work at microwave oven frequencies. By the way: charging will be less efficient/slower because the batteries will need to be heated first. Li-ion doesn't like to be charged at sub-0 temperatures. Many generic battery packs won't even allow charging in such a condition.
-
A Tesla that's charged by a diesel generator is less polluting than an efficient diesel car with an internal combustion engine..
https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-ev-charged-with-diesel-generator-still-cleaner-than-conventional-car-61942/
That doesn't exactly come across as a neutrally written article or scientific research, which is compounded by it being on a renewables website.
Note I was talking about biofuel in my earlier comment. A lot of the issues we face have to do with taking hydrocarbons from underground and pumping them into to atmosphere. Biofuel is a closed cycle energy source or form of storage and avoids at a fair few of the issues.
-
A Tesla that's charged by a diesel generator is less polluting than an efficient diesel car with an internal combustion engine..
https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-ev-charged-with-diesel-generator-still-cleaner-than-conventional-car-61942/ (https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-ev-charged-with-diesel-generator-still-cleaner-than-conventional-car-61942/)
That doesn't exactly come across as a neutrally written article or scientific research, which is compounded by it being on a renewables website.
I agree. How about the NOx, SOx and HC emissions from that generator? The emission control systems on a modern diesel car make it run a few % less efficient. Also what is the measurement error in that experiment? I read about difficulties getting a good measurement on the fuel level of the car being used. A test over 1000km would be better because the measurement errors will be smaller. The difference between the fuel consumptions is in the ballpark of a few percent anyway so it is not like the stationary generator is doing way better like other people tend to believe.
Note I was talking about biofuel in my earlier comment. A lot of the issues we face have to do with taking hydrocarbons from underground and pumping them into to atmosphere. Biofuel is a closed cycle energy source or form of storage and avoids at a fair few of the issues.
Actually the Dutch statistics department has released an interesting article on that. It turns out the majority of the renewable energy in the NL comes from bio-mass and the increase in renewable energy usage in 2017 is mainly caused by using more bio-fuel for transport.
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/22/share-of-renewable-energy-at-6-6-percent (https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/22/share-of-renewable-energy-at-6-6-percent)
Combined with some other numbers on total energy usage by the entire transport sector it appears bio-fuels take care of about 2.5% of the energy needed for transport in the Netherlands.
-
I agree. How about the NOx, SOx and HC emissions from that generator? The emission control systems on a modern diesel car make it run a few % less efficient. Also what is the measurement error in that experiment? I read about difficulties getting a good measurement on the fuel level of the car being used. A test over 1000km would be better because the measurement errors will be smaller. The difference between the fuel consumptions is in the ballpark of a few percent anyway so it is not like the stationary generator is doing way better like other people tend to believe.
Actually the Dutch statistics department has released an interesting article on that. It turns out the majority of the renewable energy in the NL comes from bio-mass and the increase in renewable energy usage in 2017 is mainly caused by using more bio-fuel for transport.
Combined with some other numbers on total energy usage by the entire transport sector it appears bio-fuels take care of about 2.5% of the energy needed for transport in the Netherlands.
I guess you'd need proper logging on driving statistics too, especially considering an EV can regenerate energy. An ICE might be disadvantaged by a more aggressive driving style, which would actually be an interesting study itself.
-
That doesn't exactly come across as a neutrally written article or scientific research, which is compounded by it being on a renewables website.
Note I was talking about biofuel in my earlier comment. A lot of the issues we face have to do with taking hydrocarbons from underground and pumping them into to atmosphere. Biofuel is a closed cycle energy source or form of storage and avoids at a fair few of the issues.
You don't exactly come across as neutral yourself. :box:
"A coal plant powered EV does more harm than a biofuel ICE. "
This is pretty misleading, because you're comparing fossil fuels on one side with a kind of renewable fuel. And most likely are assuming (more) people (than already do) won't starve to death if we tried to farm enough biofuel to run all cars in the world...
All sorts of ridiculous and irrelevant claims get thrown out as oil company talking points where it comes to electric cars, but as soon as someone does a simple single run and write up of a replicable experiment that doesn't agree with oil company position, all of a sudden they need to have 100% research science quality experimental process and a 25 year study based on the experiment has to be published in Nature or something before it's valid?
The point here is, this simple single experiment is simple enough and uses common enough apparatus that anyone with two basically comparable cars and a diesel generator can try it out and post their own results.. I wish more people would do it and get more results! Unfortunately I have no electric car, so I can't.
The fuel usage should be easy enough to measure accurately - no need for making it a 1000km run (then both vehicles would need a refuel in the middle of it) - you only need to make sure the vehicle and the generator are 100% topped up at the start and the end... maybe a better experiment if they would take a car that was easier to fill or would remove the anti siphon trap? (funnily enough, electric cars just let you know when they are actually 100% full!) And while we are at it, pick two cars that are as close to the same weight as possible.
And if you want to make it about biofuel, well I guess the experiment could use a biofuel powered generator too?
Speaking of biofuel, what current vehicles in mass production are made to work off the production line with biofuels?
Also do you have any data on the amount of farming land that would be required to run all vehicles in the world on farmed fuel rather than fossil fuels?
-
You don't exactly come across as neutral yourself. :box:
"A coal plant powered EV does more harm than a biofuel ICE. "
This is pretty misleading, because you're comparing fossil fuels on one side with a kind of renewable fuel. And most likely are assuming (more) people (than already do) won't starve to death if we tried to farm enough biofuel to run all cars in the world...
All sorts of ridiculous and irrelevant claims get thrown out as oil company talking points where it comes to electric cars, but as soon as someone does a simple single run and write up of a replicable experiment that doesn't agree with oil company position, all of a sudden they need to have 100% research science quality experimental process and a 25 year study based on the experiment has to be published in Nature or something before it's valid?
The point here is, this simple single experiment is simple enough and uses common enough apparatus that anyone with two basically comparable cars and a diesel generator can try it out and post their own results.. I wish more people would do it and get more results! Unfortunately I have no electric car, so I can't.
The fuel usage should be easy enough to measure accurately - no need for making it a 1000km run (then both vehicles would need a refuel in the middle of it) - you only need to make sure the vehicle and the generator are 100% topped up at the start and the end... maybe a better experiment if they would take a car that was easier to fill or would remove the anti siphon trap? (funnily enough, electric cars just let you know when they are actually 100% full!) And while we are at it, pick two cars that are as close to the same weight as possible.
And if you want to make it about biofuel, well I guess the experiment could use a biofuel powered generator too?
Speaking of biofuel, what current vehicles in mass production are made to work off the production line with biofuels?
Also do you have any data on the amount of farming land that would be required to run all vehicles in the world on farmed fuel rather than fossil fuels?
I'm going to nip this one in the butt. I'm not pro EV and I'm not pro ICE. I'm practically inclined in the sense that I understand that we need to change things and we need to change them yesterday. At the same time I realize that forcing people into EVs and renewables in a militant fashion is only going to cause huge amounts of unnecessary friction and make it a longer process, not shorter. We need to make this transition together, and not despite each other. In other words, we need to let go of ideals and politics and simply get this done.
The problem is that people are so absorbed in what they consider right that they become blinded by it. Reason or the middle ground is often lost for the sake of achieving a goal. That's what we see in this discussion too. I noted that what's more polluting isn't as straightforwad as some people make it seem. There are a lot of factors in play and we need to consider these nuances to make the right call. If you plug your EV into the wall in a lot of places in the world, you have a coal powered car. Yet some people see ICEs as the devil, while they can have quite a low environmental impact when they're powered by biofuels. Making it into a black and white "EV good, ICE bad" can therefore lead to making choices that don't improve the situation. That's it. That's all I was saying. I'm just pleading for having a rational and open discussion without two entrenched and polarized sides mocking each other without any mutual understanding. We already have enough of that in the world.
It's in this light that I'm careful not to immediately accept any article, however well intended it is. That goes both ways. I'm very skeptical of claims made by the oil industry, for obvious reasons. Sites like the one the article is on don't exactly aim to do very sound tests. They aim to entertain and probably preach to the choir a bit too. We see the same happening in the news every day. People watch the news channel that shows the world as they like to see it. It's rarely the channel that shows them inconvenient truths. Anyone with a bit of formal scientific training knows how hard it is to set up a proper experiment, even a basic one. Scientists have taken centuries to develop strategies to work around their own human shortcomings and perception. Yet more effort has gone into determining the significance of the numbers you have. That's why the only sensible approach to a loosy goosy single shot experiment like this is to take it with a grain of salt.
-
I'm going to nip this one in the butt.
That might be painful.
-
That might be painful.
For the love of... :palm: I even double checked that one. Not sure if the keyboard decided I was wrong after that.
-
Speaking of biofuel, what current vehicles in mass production are made to work off the production line with biofuels?
I have looked into that a couple of years ago. All cars labelled 'flexifuel' can run on ethanol but this is just software. All modern gas/petrol engines can run on ethanol with different software or an add-on which increases the amount of fuel injected.
Also do you have any data on the amount of farming land that would be required to run all vehicles in the world on farmed fuel rather than fossil fuels?
I ran some numbers on the data provided by Poet-DSM http://poet-dsm.com/ (http://poet-dsm.com/) which makes third generation bio-fuels from agricultural leftovers and it seems that the leftovers from growing food should be enough to run fuel efficient cars. This doesn't take other bio-mass sources like plant trimmings into account. The bottom line is that bio-fuels are viable and doesn't need to take away land for growing food. Actually quite the opposite: the more we use from the plants which are grown the cheaper our food and fuel get. After all from most plants we only eat the seeds and not the plant itself.
BTW in the Netherlands the majority of the renewable energy already comes from bio-mass.
-
I have looked into that a couple of years ago. All cars labelled 'flexifuel' can run on ethanol but this is just software. All modern gas/petrol engines can run on ethanol with different software or an add-on which increases the amount of fuel injected.
I ran some numbers on the data provided by Poet-DSM http://poet-dsm.com/ (http://poet-dsm.com/) which makes third generation bio-fuels from agricultural leftovers and it seems that the leftovers from growing food should be enough to run fuel efficient cars. This doesn't take other bio-mass sources like plant trimmings into account. The bottom line is that bio-fuels are viable and doesn't need to take away land for growing food. Actually quite the opposite: the more we use from the plants which are grown the cheaper our food and fuel get. After all from most plants we only eat the seeds and not the plant itself.
BTW in the Netherlands the majority of the renewable energy already comes from bio-mass.
Just like with full blown EVs, there is still a lot of room for improvement and development. It seems biofuel progress is being made with biofuel being generated through algea. It's not the silver bullet, but it could take the edge off the transition to a fully electric fleet and also prevents your current fleet from being obsolete before it is from a technical point of view. Throwing away perfectly good cars is a terrible idea and there are some industries and applications where going electric isn't quite viable just quite yet. It's perfect for reusing your existing infrastructure while eliminating most of the environmental drawbacks. It might also help getting the slowpokes on board as they won't be eager to replace their gas guzzer, but get to be part of the transition for a minimal cost of entry.
-
That is assuming EVs are the solution which I strongly doubt. Electricity is going to be a scarse commodity in many parts of the world especially when the fossil fuel power plants are shut down. Bio-mass from agriculture will be available since we all need to eat.
But this is getting wildly off-topic.
-
That is assuming EVs are the solution which I strongly doubt. Electricity is going to be a scarse commodity in many parts of the world especially when the fossil fuel power plants are shut down. Bio-mass from agriculture will be available since we all need to eat.
But this is getting wildly off-topic.
Nothing will get shut down for long if it means not having enough power. That's one thing you can be very sure of.
-
That is assuming EVs are the solution which I strongly doubt. Electricity is going to be a scarse commodity in many parts of the world especially when the fossil fuel power plants are shut down. Bio-mass from agriculture will be available since we all need to eat.
But this is getting wildly off-topic.
Nothing will get shut down for long if it means not having enough power. That's one thing you can be very sure of.
Fossil fuels will become more expensive due to increased mining expenses and the amount is finite. The alternative is nuclear but I don't see that picking up any time soon.
-
Fossil fuels will become more expensive due to increased mining expenses and the amount is finite. The alternative is nuclear but I don't see that picking up any time soon.
Sooner or later renewables will become more economic and there will inevitably be one or more countries that pave their entire lands with solar cells, wind mills or whatever is a good idea at that time to make a buck.
-
There are enormous amounts of coal left. It's not going to run out anytime soon. If we are going to stop using it, it needs to be effectively banned (e.g. CO2 tax). Nuclear is great but even if everyone wanted to replace coal with nuclear tomorrow (as they should) it couldn't be done over night. (I've heard someone say you could maybe expand nuclear with 6% in 20 years or so.)
Solar has an incredible potential. 1-3% of Sahara (Australia) covered in solar panels could produce as much energy as the entire world use today.
I love EVs but we are not going to replace ICEs with EVs over night, ICEs will be around for a long time. And while they still are around, bio-fuel is the best option to power them with. With today's battery energy density, electric airplanes are not going to happen, they need biofuels if we are going to keep them flying. etc.
Bio-fuel from oil producing algae is very promising, but it's still in the research stage. Bio-fuel from food waste is good, but can we produce enough that way? Bio-fuel produced from traditional crops like rapeseed, or sugar is pretty bad in every regard but it can be CO2 neutral at least. You can also power coal plants with waste from the wood and farm industry, or with fast growing plants. You stil get all the downsides from using ICEs and coal power plants in terms of pollution (and more), but at least it is CO2 neutral.
The only way to reduce GHG emissions fast enough is to do everything possible to the largest extent possible. I.e. expand nuclear, solar, wind as fast as possible, and at the same time increase energy efficiency as much as possible. Stop wasting energy by using wireless charging gimmicks for example. (See, I'm still on topic! ;))
-
We can already capture 96% of the emitted CO2 at plants, but then?
If we could find a cheap and fast way to transform it back to a solid form like NaCO3 or something like that we also could have a nice alternative.
-
There are existing, working, prototypes of carbon capture and storage plants. They liquefy the CO2 and then pump it down to an empty underground reservoir where pressure is high enough to keep it liquid/solid (e.g. an empty oil reservoir).
But since it's much cheaper to just release it into the atmosphere it's not being implemented.
-
There are existing, working, prototypes of carbon capture and storage plants. They liquefy the CO2 and then pump it down to an empty underground reservoir where pressure is high enough to keep it liquid/solid (e.g. an empty oil reservoir).
Storing CO2 is worse compared to storing nuclear waste. Nuclear waste loses it's radioactivity over time. CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off. Future generations will have to deal with these underground CO2 storages at some point so it is not a good long term solution. You don't want accidents like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster)
Also burrying toxic stuff in the ground is never a good idea. Sooner or later it will act up and bite you in the ass.
-
Storing CO2 is worse compared to storing nuclear waste. Nuclear waste loses it's radioactivity over time. CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off. Future generations will have to deal with these underground CO2 storages at some point so it is not a good long term solution. You don't want accidents like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster)
Oil isn't exactly a benign substance either. Basically the only shot we have is taking enough of it out of the cycle again. Putting it back in the ground makes a lot of sense. What is a sensible way of doing that is up to science and some experimentation.
-
CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.
CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.
-
CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.
CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.
Sorry but you are very mis informed! CO2 is very toxic. You really should read the Wikipedia article I linked to. CO2 concentrations of a few % can be lethal. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is around 0.5%. If you are in an enclosed space you will be killed by your own CO2 before running out of oxygen.
-
I reckon the lithium cell fire risk (not LiPo incidentally, they use 18650's) is the major issue with BEVs. I certainly don't think they should make two-door four-seaters, it needs to be possible to exit quickly and without fumbling around if the battery goes up.
-
CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.
CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.
Sorry but you are very mis informed! CO2 is very toxic. You really should read the Wikipedia article I linked to. CO2 concentrations of a few % can be lethal. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is around 0.5%. If you are in an enclosed space you will be killed by your own CO2 before running out of oxygen.
Correct!, they found out on closed environments like submarines. That is why they use CO2 scrubbers on submarines, oxygen is not a problem the CO2 levels are.
https://www.quora.com/At-what-CO2-percentage-would-our-atmosphere-become-toxic-to-humans (https://www.quora.com/At-what-CO2-percentage-would-our-atmosphere-become-toxic-to-humans)
-
CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.
CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.
Sorry but you are very mis informed! CO2 is very toxic. You really should read the Wikipedia article I linked to. CO2 concentrations of a few % can be lethal. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is around 0.5%. If you are in an enclosed space you will be killed by your own CO2 before running out of oxygen.
CO2 is part of nature, and it is crucial, to have a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The issue is not that we create CO2, and that somehow "poisons" the environment. That is a very misguided view, and I cannot believe I hear this from a technical person. The issue is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so if we increase it in the atmosphere, it increases the temperature of earth. The other problem with CO2 is that burning stuff made from carbon releases other stuff, like dust, NOx, SOx, which are toxic. We shouldn't increase it's concentration.
I reckon the lithium cell fire risk (not LiPo incidentally, they use 18650's) is the major issue with BEVs. I certainly don't think they should make two-door four-seaters, it needs to be possible to exit quickly and without fumbling around if the battery goes up.
I reckon that gasoline is flammable. For sure there have been more Italian cars on fire than electric cars.
-
CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off.
CO is toxic but CO2 is not toxic. Animals, including you, produce it all the time to fed our plants.
No CO2 -> no vegetation -> no oxygen -> no animals, no humans.
Sorry but you are very mis informed! CO2 is very toxic. You really should read the Wikipedia article I linked to. CO2 concentrations of a few % can be lethal. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is around 0.5%. If you are in an enclosed space you will be killed by your own CO2 before running out of oxygen.
CO2 is part of nature, and it is crucial, to have a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The issue is not that we create CO2, and that somehow "poisons" the environment. That is a very misguided view, and I cannot believe I hear this from a technical person. The issue is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so if we increase it in the atmosphere, it increases the temperature of earth. The other problem with CO2 is that burning stuff made from carbon releases other stuff, like dust, NOx, SOx, which are toxic. We shouldn't increase it's concentration.
A 'certain amount' is currently around 500ppm. Unlike I wrote earlier that is 0.05% (not 0.5%). If you would have read the article about the submarine environments you'd know that concentrations of a few % can cause serious problems and death. This means that when an underground CO2 storage starts to leak (or just blow out) you have a massive toxic gas cloud. To make things worse CO2 is heavier than air so it drives away air and sinks to lower areas creating a suffocating blanket. You really shouldn't underestimate how dangerous CO2 is. Many people have received Darwin awards for underestimating CO2 build up.
-
A 'certain amount' is currently around 500ppm. Unlike I wrote earlier that is 0.05% (not 0.5%). If you would have read the article about the submarine environments you'd know that concentrations of a few % can cause serious problems and death. This means that when an underground CO2 storage starts to leak (or just blow out) you have a massive toxic gas cloud. To make things worse CO2 is heavier than air so it drives away air and sinks to lower areas creating a suffocating blanket. You really shouldn't underestimate how dangerous CO2 is. Many people have received Darwin awards for underestimating CO2 build up.
Yes, in a closed environment, it is dangerous. The atmosphere is not a closed environment. It contains 0.04% if we double it, it is still not toxic, but we would have a crisis because of the global warming. We already have a crisis, but nobody wants to admit it.
-
This guy has an amusing take on the wireless charger.
https://youtu.be/lSb5xas_xp0
-
This guy has an amusing take on the wireless charger.
It is a misguided view. I can invalidate his entire 10 minute rambling with just one sentence:
You charge it during the day.
The 5 series BMW is not something that you just buy for yourself anyway, it is something the employer will lease for you, so they just install the doodad in your reserved company parking spot. And they even save money on the fuel costs with that.
-
This guy has an amusing take on the wireless charger.
https://youtu.be/lSb5xas_xp0
The car flavoured rant channel. ;D
-
Not all EV's are going to be BMW and most will get charged over night, and as to whether he is correct or not it is still an amusing take on the subject, his rant is hilarious.
-
There are existing, working, prototypes of carbon capture and storage plants. They liquefy the CO2 and then pump it down to an empty underground reservoir where pressure is high enough to keep it liquid/solid (e.g. an empty oil reservoir).
Storing CO2 is worse compared to storing nuclear waste. Nuclear waste loses it's radioactivity over time. CO2 will stay toxic until the earth gets swallowed by the sun. Don't forget CO2 is a toxic gas (for humans an animals) and an underground storage becomes a time bomb waiting to go off. Future generations will have to deal with these underground CO2 storages at some point so it is not a good long term solution. You don't want accidents like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster)
Also burrying toxic stuff in the ground is never a good idea. Sooner or later it will act up and bite you in the ass.
Sounds a little bit like fossilised coal, oil and natural gas.
I agree, CO2 capture and storage is not a good idea. The sensible thing is to use less energy and more energy efficient devices, and only get our power from nuclear, solar and wind.
But if people insist on continuing to burn fossil fuels, it is better they pump the CO2 down into the earth again than it is to release it into the atmosphere. Of course, that isn't cost efficient so it's not likely to happen anyway.
(Storing nuclear waste is not a problem at all btw, it's just the anti-nuclear people that are obstructing, but that's another subject.)
-
Yes, in a closed environment, it is dangerous. The atmosphere is not a closed environment. It contains 0.04% if we double it, it is still not toxic, but we would have a crisis because of the global warming. We already have a crisis, but nobody wants to admit it.
Actually, most people admit it, the problem is that certain world leaders have their personal fortunes based on coal, oil and natural gas. For example Bush, Putin and King Salman. They don't wan't the world to stop buying fossil fuel.
-
These day making something more "efficient" means putting a whole lot of power hungry management systems on top of what is already there and then selling five times as many as before. Offices were supposed to become paper free and save trees,instead of that all the data is stored in data centres consuming giga watts of power and paper is pumped out in ever increasing reams as well.
-
http://www.volterio.com/ (http://www.volterio.com/)
-
We fill our fuel tanks at a rate of about 40 litres/minute which -by the way and to the dismay of the EVs/Tesla fanboys- is roughly equivalent to a 24 MW electric plug (*).
Aaaand, in doing so we don't throw away 15 litres every 100 because that would be... silly?
(*) 40 [litre] * 35.8 [Mjoules/litre] / 60 [seconds] -> 23.8 MJ/s
-
I like it, I think its safer then having to plug in some crazy high current high voltage shit every time. And cleaner. And your garage will look nicer. And there is no high voltage shit to trip over or cut accidentally.
What I don't like is all the emissions.
I would like it so you can park the car right under it.
Those plugs will probobly EMP like a mother fucker if you unplug them while charging some how. It could be dangerous.
None of these are safe:
Charging time for 100 km of BEV range Power supply Power Voltage Max. current
6–8 hours Single phase 3.3 kW 230 V AC 16 A
3–4 hours Single phase 7.4 kW 230 V AC 32 A
2–3 hours Three phase 11 kW 400 V AC 16 A
1–2 hours Three phase 22 kW 400 V AC 32 A
20–30 minutes Three phase 43 kW 400 V AC 63 A
20–30 minutes Direct current 50 kW 400–500 V DC 100–125 A
10 minutes Direct current 120 kW 300–500 V DC 300–350 A
Big deal, everything from electric toothbrush to hairdryer works with 230VAC in Europe. :-DD
400VAC is not any big news either, normal even in households for everything power hungry in Europe. I have lathe, milling machine, belt grinder and bench drill running on 400VAC in garage, as well as sauna stove and kitchen range/cooktop in the house.
400VAC 32A and 63A is also bog standard on everywhere, extension cables and plugs available at nearest hardware store.
The 120kW DC versions is more exotic and need pretty stout cable.