Author Topic: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh  (Read 8628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9681
  • Country: us
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #75 on: June 03, 2018, 12:53:29 am »
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).
I'm not an EE--what am I doing here?
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9091
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #76 on: June 03, 2018, 01:16:25 am »
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.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #77 on: June 03, 2018, 01:37:20 am »
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.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11680
  • Country: us
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #78 on: June 03, 2018, 03:48:22 am »
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.
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9091
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #79 on: June 03, 2018, 05:09:05 am »
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.
 

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6097
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #80 on: June 03, 2018, 06:10:59 am »
Plug in hybrid is a compromise that works right now.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5792
  • Country: nl
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #81 on: June 03, 2018, 08:03:08 am »
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/
 

Offline kerouanton

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Country: ch
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #82 on: June 03, 2018, 08:28:37 am »
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


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
 
The following users thanked this post: apis

Offline shakalnokturn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 961
  • Country: fr
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #83 on: June 03, 2018, 09:23:32 am »
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).
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4631
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX certified product design
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #84 on: June 03, 2018, 09:32:16 am »
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.
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9091
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #85 on: June 03, 2018, 09:39:45 am »
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.
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4631
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX certified product design
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #86 on: June 03, 2018, 09:53:27 am »
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.
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9091
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #87 on: June 03, 2018, 10:00:56 am »
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.
 

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6097
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #88 on: June 03, 2018, 01:40:10 pm »
It's much easier to install your own solar power as opposed to making your own biodiesel at home.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #89 on: June 03, 2018, 02:12:08 pm »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Mr. Scram

Offline julianhigginson

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 743
  • Country: au
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #90 on: June 03, 2018, 09:31:46 pm »


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/
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19389
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #91 on: June 03, 2018, 09:47:57 pm »
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.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kjelt

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9091
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #92 on: June 03, 2018, 10:11:29 pm »
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.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19389
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #93 on: June 03, 2018, 10:52:08 pm »
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.
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.
Quote
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

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.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9091
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #94 on: June 03, 2018, 11:05:09 pm »
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.
 

Offline julianhigginson

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 743
  • Country: au
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #95 on: June 04, 2018, 06:22:51 am »
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?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 06:25:28 am by julianhigginson »
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9091
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #96 on: June 04, 2018, 08:52:53 am »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: apis

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9936
  • Country: au
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #97 on: June 04, 2018, 09:08:04 am »
I'm going to nip this one in the butt.

That might be painful.
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9091
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #98 on: June 04, 2018, 09:22:42 am »
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.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19389
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: 3.2kW wireless EV charger, uhhhhhhh
« Reply #99 on: June 04, 2018, 10:15:35 am »
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.
Quote
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/ 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.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf