Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Transportation

World's First EV-Charging Highway Trial to Start In Italy (interestingengineering.com) 150

Posted by BeauHD from the first-of-its-kind dept.
Israeli company ElectReon Wireless is building a kilometer-long stretch of electric vehicle-charging highway between Milan and Brescia in Italy. It's the first trial of its kind involving a highway and will help determine if the technology is ready for widespread adoption. Innovation Origins reports: In a nutshell, Electreon is building the infrastructure by installing copper coils under the asphalt. Energy is transferred directly and wirelessly to the vehicle's batteries while driving by means of magnetic induction. The system includes a control unit located on the side of the lane of the electrified road. A receiver is installed in the chassis of each electric vehicle that is participating in the trial.

ElectReon is working with more than ten Italian partners to carry out the test. The most important of these is Brebemi, who operate the toll road. The goal of the pilot is to see how the technology will fare on toll roads. Brebemi is footing the bill for the pilot project while ElectReon will supply the wireless electric road system. "Dynamic Wireless Power Transfer," as the technology is called, will be tested on different types of electric vehicles in both stationary and dynamic environments.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's First EV-Charging Highway Trial to Start In Italy More

World's First EV-Charging Highway Trial to Start In Italy

Comments Filter:

  • I haven't read the freakin' article and I'm not going to either, but won't this require extreme quantities of copper cables? What about losses while charging and in the road itself? This sounds like it's a trying-to-be-practical idea that has dozens of downsides.

    • Depending on utilization, this may very well be a good use of large amounts of copper, if it stops cars from polluting the air. As for losses, we're getting to the point of being able to generate much more electricity that we'll need. And if you consider gasoline prices in Italy, losses are of almost no concern here. So it won't be 85% cheaper than gasoline but only 70% cheaper? Big deal.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)

      by NotTheSame ( 6161704 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:23PM (#61409120)

      If you read further, there's actually going to be a groove in the middle of the road, which is made up of pre-assembled sections that snap together.

      There is no need to use the steering wheel whilst in the groove, but drivers must take care not to corner too quickly, or the car must be manually placed back in the groove.

      • If you read further, there's actually going to be a groove in the middle of the road, which is made up of pre-assembled sections that snap together.

        So... all we need is a row of solar panels on either side of the groove and we have a complete transport solution?

    • I think you nailed it, world's first and world's last likely. Remote power transmission sucks. With a tiny air gap and mimicking transformers you can approach cable efficiency, but with all those mechanisms in a garage why not just have a robotic plug-in like Tesla demoed years ago? Road efficiency will be so poor we would be better off burning fossil fuels.

      • Road efficiency will be so poor we would be better off burning fossil fuels.

        Synthetic fuels are an option. With nuclear fission to provide heat/steam and electricity we can produce synthetic fuels day and night regardless of the weather, do so with very little net CO2 emissions, then dump the fuel into the existing infrastructure we use for petroleum products. This isn't "zero carbon" but then nothing is. It's as close to zero as solar power and BEVs. Can we use nuclear power for charging BEVs? Sure, and I expect we will, just not with copper coils under highways.

        (Yep, I menti

    • Moving away from petrol isn't going to be cheap, but it's the right thing to do, no matter the cost.
      We built our whole infrastructure on petrol, and it wasn't cheap either, so now we will have to spend some money and resources to change it all, the advantages though are huge:
      - no more having to go to gas stations
      - no more having to move large quantities of a dangerous material such as petrol all around the world (with all the risks included)
      - less money for people who hate us and want to see us dead because

      • I tried to post a list like the parent post to argue point by point on the benefits of CNGVs, synthetic fuels generally, and synthetic CNG specifically but something kept triggering the "ASCII lameness filter". Someone needs to fix that. I have no idea how that was triggered.

        Instead I'll give a short and sweet singular point. Moving from petroleum will not be expensive without synthetic hydrocarbons, it will be impossible. Hydrocarbons are not just awesome fuels but make great lubricants and coolants.

        • If you have problems with the lameness filter, then sent a mail to support (including your post). The link is on the bottom of every page.

          "gasoline" driven lawnmowers are in most civilized countries forbidden since decades ...

          but at a much lower cost and disruption of our lives than a switch to BEVs.
          Me switching to a BEV, costs you nothing, and me only a plug ... unless I simply charge over night with a standard 16Amps breaker and 240V, then it costs me _nothing_ as well.

          • I dispute your claim that any nation that bans gasoline mowers are civilized. Civilized nations don't micromanage lives of the people down to the kind of mowers they buy.

            I don't believe anything you post without a source. Which nations ban mowers? If you tell me to "google it" then merely assume I did and found nothing to support your claim. I can't post anything to prove a negative, so this is all on you.

            Also, you are correct that your purchase of a BEV is no cost to me. I don't know why you posted th

            • I don't believe anything you post without a source. Which nations ban mowers?
              No nation banns mowers.
              Nations ban movers that are run with two stroke gasoline engines.
              Since decades.

              I don't believe anything you post without a source.
              That is your problem, not mine.

              Good luck in the internet age :P to stupid to google will soon be a majour handicap in careers.

              Lastly, I do know about the e-mail option as I used it before.
              Shows your computer/internet illiteracy.

              The bottom of the page I post this from has this link:

    • I haven't read the freakin' article ... [snip] ...This sounds like

      How do you know what it sounds like if you chose not to listen?

    • So you can set it up with charging in special lanes that the electric cars would switch into when they needed a charge. There would only be a few short bits of such lanes at intervals.

      In the charging lane it would have really powerful magnetic fields to charge the cars quickly. Sort of like driving into an MRI or the EMP from a nuclear blast. Drivers would have to remember to remove any metallic jewelry. And of course no driver with metallic fillings would be eligible to participate.

      (And I didn't read the s

  • But why? (Score:3)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @09:06PM (#61408990)

    I get that non-Tesla EVs don't currently have a lot of range but batteries are rapidly improving while their prices continue to decrease. Frankly, it seems like the pace is significant enough that by the time they get this highway constructed that will be seen as too little too late. I wouldn't be surprised if this project is aborted before it even starts construction when they finish the calculations for the cost of upkeep.

    • Re: But why? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by d3sm0 ( 7574926 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @09:17PM (#61409024)
      What is your prediction on how much better batteries will get? I hear this narrative that battery technology is getting better and better. But batteries are not semiconductors they dont scale to Moores law. Its about chemistry not lithography. Where are the improvements you talk about going to come from?

      • I hear this narrative that battery technology is getting better and better. But batteries are not semiconductors they dont scale to Moores law. Its about chemistry not lithography. Where are the improvements you talk about going to come from?

        Well you said it yourself, it's chemistry. It's funny you mentioned semiconductor because the way modern batteries are constructed is so precise that it's often compared to semiconductor manufacturing due to it's high cost and high precision. The long and short of it is that we are finding ways to more efficiently use materials to hold a charge because right now we aren't using any of the charge holding elements to their full potential... but we are getting better at it. I'm being vague about how because

      • Re: But why? (Score:5, Informative)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Saturday May 22, 2021 @01:16AM (#61409320) Journal

        This graph gives some idea [arstechnica.net].

      • Not only are we going to run out of ways to improve batteries but we are running into the problem of being able to produce batteries at the rate needed to meet demand.

        Sure, we can build more factories. We can open new mines and refineries. This takes time and unless the industry sees this demand as something that will stick around then they will be reluctant to make the investments needed to meet this demand. If some new battery chemistry comes along to crater demand in lithium, cobalt, or whatever, then

      • Its about chemistry not lithography.

        Chemistry is a theoretical science, lithography is engineering.

        The improvements in batteries are not going to come from chemistry, they have largely come from engineering advancements which have improved our ability to get closer to the theoretical limits that chemistry provides, just like improvements in semiconductor lithography get us closer to the theoretical limits which physics provide.

        In both cases there are the occasional scientific leap, new chemistry providing possibilities to solve some limits, o

    • Probably so you could put cheaper batteries in cars.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Non-Tesla EVs offer more range than a Tesla for less money. For example, Kia and Hyundai have EVs that do 300 miles and cost a fraction of what a 220 mile Model 3 SR+ sells for. Nissan's Leaf also does 250 miles and costs less. The Renault Zoe will also do 250 miles but is cheaper.

      Oh and VW have the ID.3 and ID.4 now, both with 250+ miles range (exact amount depends on the model). The ID.3 in particular is quite affordable.

      Then you have the more expensive ones like the Jaguar iPace (250+ miles), the Audi Tu

  • Instead of trying to charge a battery with wireless power, just redirect directly into the motor while going up hills or before long straight aways..

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      F-Zero here we come!

      • F-Zero here we come!

        There's an idea, instead of trying to charge the car try pushing it along the road. A sufficient push can even charge the car with what is effectively regen braking. A net energy gain to the battery or not there's an increase in range by not using energy form the battery. Put this on inclines so large trucks aren't holding up traffic with a need to slow down out of a lack of power.

        Is if possible to have a means to choose if the "dash plates" push forward or backward? I ask because a large truck might pr

  • Waste (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iamhassi ( 659463 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @09:10PM (#61409006) Journal
    Article answers nothing. My biggest question is how fast is this really charging? If driving on the road for a hour only gives me a extra mile that’s not worth it. If it give me an extra 60 miles, then that might be worth it. But running copper in all these highways seems prohibitively expensive, better batteries, motors and charging technology would be more beneficial.

    • Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:25PM (#61409126)
      If it charges at a rate of 0% per hour for an hour at 60 mph, then it has given you 60 extra miles.

      • If it charges at a rate of 0% per hour for an hour at 60 mph, then it has given you 60 extra miles.

        This makes no sense. This is certainly not "insightful" but maybe it's a joke or you made a typo.

        • What I think he meant to say (and it was really poorly worded) is that if you drive an hour and 60mph and your battery doesn't charge, but also hasn't discharged (ie: it provides just enough power to maintain the current level), then you've gained 60 miles of range.

        • Well, then think a bit while reading.

          Charging a battery that is driving a car with 0% - means the charge stays constant.

          So after driving 60 miles, you have the same charge as before ...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      What really makes it pointless is EU rules for commercial drivers. They are required to take regular breaks for safety reasons, during which they could charge at much higher speeds.

      For this to be worthwhile the charge rate would have to be extremely high, and thus the charger (built into the vehicle) very bulky and heavy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by znrt ( 2424692 )

        What really makes it pointless is EU rules for commercial drivers.

        human drivers will be obsolete soon anyway.

      • Very few commercial drivers are going to drive a BEV because large, long haul, BEVs are not practical. That is unless they can charge while moving.

        Diesel fuel has about 100x the energy density of even the best batteries on the market. Even if we assume an electric vehicle is 10x the efficiency of a diesel vehicle there's a 10x mass penalty for the battery. Assume a long haul truck carries one ton (or tonne) of fuel to get from it's origination point to it's destination point. To get the same distance on

        • What happens if there isn't the necessary charging station when and where the truck needs to stop for the required safety break?
          Then the driver or the logistics manager or both get fired because of incompetence.

          Anyway, tricks will soon change to nat-gas, either with fuel cells or ICEs ... so your ranting is moot.

          • Moot? I just explained why "tricks" will switch to natural gas. Trucks will not be able to run on batteries so trucks will be converted to run on natural gas to lower CO2 and other emissions.

            • so trucks will be converted to run on natural gas to lower CO2 and other emissions.
              That is what I said, you have reading problems?

    • To be honest its backwards. If were electifying roads then in order decrease weight of vehicles and therefore be more energy efficient we should be designing cars that dont need batteries and run off the road only. The logical extension of this is ditch cars for the daily commute and fix public transport. Privileged white males dont like this option.

      • To be honest its backwards. If were electifying roads then in order decrease weight of vehicles and therefore be more energy efficient we should be designing cars that dont need batteries and run off the road only.

        So people can only drive where there are wires in road like some bumper car ride or slot car toy? It seems you fail on recognizing why people buy a car.

        The logical extension of this is ditch cars for the daily commute and fix public transport.

        Right, so we can pack everyone in real tight on their way to work in factories, restaurants, shopping centers, and so on. That way they can not only breathe the funky air from their co-workers they get to breathe the funky air from half the city population. You do know that we just got out of a pandemic, don't you? The interior of their car may have plen

    • Carbon neutral fuels for the vehicles we currently own would be more beneficial. That requires no new roads, no new chargers, no new vehicles, no new power lines, and on and on. Carbon neutral fuels uses the same filling stations and, again, same vehicles.

      To produce these fuels would require more power generating capacity, but then so would EVs that charge up with copper coils under the asphalt. Because of the massive amount of energy this would require we can't rely on dilute and intermittent energy fro

  • Induction charging, again? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @09:13PM (#61409010)
    What is it with everything going toward induction charging? I get the appeal. No wire, travels through the air, yada yada. But it is so inefficient. I am hoping someone is going to come up with a safe, direct-connect charging method for moving vehicles. Maybe even something that couples the vehicle to the ground through a trough with the possibility of the vehicle breaking away in cases of emergency. Of course the charging rates need to improve to the point where you can get a 25% charge in a couple of minutes.
    • Sounds like you are inventing trolley buses.

    • Wasn't a DC coupled charger for moving cars proposed as a part of the plan Elon Musk had for car tunnels?

      I might be confusing the who and what but I remember seeing a plan for a car to drive down a track with something like a "third rail" like that used for electric trains. This appeared require a narrow track with barriers on each side, possibly with some kind of autopilot to avoid collisions with the barriers and other vehicles.

      To get overhead lines and still have people able to drive buses and trucks on

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        I was thinking of something like a trough in the ground with power on the two sides, each with a length of say 6 feet. They wouldn't be powered, unless the vehicle had positioned itself over the trough, negotiated a rate and duration (miles), and then power would only be applied when the vehicle is about to hit the 6-foot stretch. That way you wouldn't have to worry about things getting shorted out. The column that would enter the trough would expand two metal wheels for contact to minimize wear and tear

    • Throw a inductive loop over the fence for free electricity. Throw a smaller inductive loop to power a selective radio or gps jammer. Throw a bag of iron mixed with glue oxide on the road Do nothing, but let the winter salt do its thing, because silver salts are too expensive for pranks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      One advantage of wireless charging is the same as an advantage of using bluetooth instead of USB or wifi instead of ethernet. No wires means no contact which which means that the parts don't get physically worn or require maintenance or replacement due to friction.

    • But it is so inefficient. Actually it is not. A typical /. myth.
      And with more and more renewables coming online, we have more and more excess energy at various times. Using it for stuff like this makes completely sense.

    • Slotted hird rail power for automobiles is an idea that has been around - if not forever - than at least since the evolution of the modern limited access highways of the 50s or 60s. Usually combined with centralized traffic control and mainframe automation. Not self-driving.
  • Hang on people, I'm trying to get a full charge. Be patient. Thank you!

  • That could become an awkward legacy system (Score:3)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @09:24PM (#61409034)

    Tech is moving too fast to buy in heavily on one charging system whose use would profoundly dictate the design of compatible vehicles, and users of other vehicles may object to being taxed for the enormous expense.
    If a taxpayer charges their vehicle at home via cable then that road modification is of little use to them.

  • It's either this or overhead wires... (Score:3)

    by BobC ( 101861 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @09:36PM (#61409056)

    Looking at EV busses and trucks, rolling recharge/boost is important for fleet utilization and efficiency, reducing time off the road hooked to a stationary charger. Even putting rolling recharge/boost only on hills will yield a major benefit.

    For these very large EVs, the alternative is to get power from overhead, like light rail does. I remember well the electric busses Philadelphia used to have when I was a kid in the 1960s. But those wires would be an eyesore, tough to get zoning approval where there's room, and tough period in cities. Also, stringing wires overhead is more expensive than putting systems in or on the ground.

    Nobody wants to put even more batteries in EV busses and trucks, at least not until we get a few more battery technology revolutions. For current tech, the price and performance make the vehicles far less competitive.

    Putting in "just enough" battery to get between rolling recharge lanes may be the best way to go from a whole-system perspective.

    A quick calculation shows that if the vehicle coils are at least 1 meter in diameter, are 20 cm from the road, and the road coils are up to 2 meters in diameter (to allow for lane wandering), the induction efficiency can easily exceed 90%.

    Still, I suspect it will be practical only for truly large EVs. There are multiple reasons rolling recharge for cars would be a tougher problem.

    • Also, stringing wires overhead is more expensive than putting systems in or on the ground.

      That's the other way round. Digging up roads is more expensive than inserting poles.

    • Also, stringing wires overhead is more expensive than putting systems in or on the ground.
      Only if you build a new road.
      On existing roads it is the opposite, for obvious reasons.

  • Interesting test, but I am pessimistic (Score:3)

    by Nkwe ( 604125 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @09:37PM (#61409060)
    I drive an electric car (and a gas one as well - electric meets most of my use cases, but not all). When driving the electric, it consumes a bit over 20kW on level ground to maintain freeway speed. Driving at city speed it of course uses less energy, going uphill more, and going downhill (or slowing down) it harvests energy and charges the battery. Point being that a lot of energy is consumed on average getting from point A to B. I am skeptical that during the time actually spent driving over an inductive charging area, that on average, more power would be delivered than consumed. The given use case is to put charging into toll roads, which are typically driven at freeway speeds (at least here in the US). Can inductive charging really deliver significantly more than 20kW? Because if not, I wouldn't be gaining net charge by driving over such an area.
    • I mean...if this is on your commute to work, and it takes 18kW instead of 20kW and costs you nothing, then you'd prefer that. (It doesn't have to be 0kW vs 20kW to be desirable.)

      • >"I mean...if this is on your commute to work, and it takes 18kW instead of 20kW and costs you nothing, then you'd prefer that"

        Cost him nothing? Not sure what world you are living in. This TRIAL might be "free", but if it is rolled out, it will certainly be nothing of the sort. It is a major infrastructure with lots of power needed. It absolutely won't be free.

        You are right that it might not need to actually "charge" a car to be of benefit. Just maintaining or even just reducing battery usage is sti

      • I mean...if this is on your commute to work, and it takes 18kW instead of 20kW and costs you nothing, then you'd prefer that. (It doesn't have to be 0kW vs 20kW to be desirable.)

        It's not free, in fact, it will probably cost you more (since you're paying for both the charging infrastructure and the extra power since inductive charging is inefficient).

        So the actual question is whether an 11% boost in range (in your example) is worth the extra cost AND the hassle of setting up the app.

        I can certainly see the logic for parking spots, but this seems odd outside of a proof of concept.

        Note, AFAIK everyone here is just making up numbers when it comes to how much charge this system can actu

        • Note, AFAIK everyone here is just making up numbers when it comes to how much charge this system can actually deliver in relation to what you're using. I'm sure that info is available somewhere, but if it was >10%, certainly greater than 30%, I suspect they'd be sharing the info a lot more loudly.
          And why is that an issue for you?
          Oh because you do not know how efficient wireless charging is?

          Then for funk sake google it.

          Why would anyone marketing a wireless charger in a road assume that you are such an idi

    • I drive an electric car (and a gas one as well - electric meets most of my use cases, but not all). When driving the electric, it consumes a bit over 20kW on level ground to maintain freeway speed. Driving at city speed it of course uses less energy, going uphill more, and going downhill (or slowing down) it harvests energy and charges the battery. Point being that a lot of energy is consumed on average getting from point A to B. I am skeptical that during the time actually spent driving over an inductive charging area, that on average, more power would be delivered than consumed. The given use case is to put charging into toll roads, which are typically driven at freeway speeds (at least here in the US). Can inductive charging really deliver significantly more than 20kW? Because if not, I wouldn't be gaining net charge by driving over such an area.

      I severely doubt it. Let's take our typical transformer. We'll assume a 1:1 input to output ratio for simplicity. You'll have a primary winding, and a secondary winding.

      So yeah, this is the same thing, except there is seldom an air gap of maybe 300 mm in a normal transformer. It isn't an efficient way to transfer the power from the primary to the secondary. I have no idea what effects the asphalt covering will have as well - but a BOE is making me think that if you are going to get that 20 KW worth of c

      • The losses are most definitely less than 10%.
        Just like wireless charging in your garage.

        I would at least suggest the most heat resistant asphalt they can get.
        Which part of: it is wireless, did you not grasp?

        • The losses are most definitely less than 10%. Just like wireless charging in your garage.

          I would at least suggest the most heat resistant asphalt they can get. Which part of: it is wireless, did you not grasp?

          One of the first things - let's assume that your wireless road charging system is 90 percent efficient.

          So we have perhaps 500 cars receiving 20 KW from the wireless charging system. That's 2 KW waste per car.

          That's 1000 KW for 500 Cars. A MegaWatt of waste energy.

          A MegaWatt of waste energy - which is disappated as heat - will definitely have a heating effect on the asphalt paving that covers it.

          But that's a WAG anyhow, as asphalt has a dielectric loss. It's dielectric constant is ~2.6, although the

          • A MegaWatt of waste energy - which is disappated as heat - will definitely have a heating effect on the asphalt paving that covers it.
            It is not disappated as heat. It simply is not reaching the receiver. If the cable had a loss, aka would heat up, then that would affect the asphalt.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      But if it could deliver 20KW and was installed on the interstates, your electric vehicle would have essentially unlimited range when traveling. It just happens to be the most common reason why someone would need to own or rent a gasoline powered car.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nkwe ( 604125 )

        But if it could deliver 20KW and was installed on the interstates, your electric vehicle would have essentially unlimited range when traveling. It just happens to be the most common reason why someone would need to own or rent a gasoline powered car.

        True. It would also be a useful solution (extend the range) if you could deliver a significant portion of the average operating need, say 15kW in this example.

        What I am highly skeptical about is that if it could ever be technically or economically feasible to do so.

        20kW is a huge amount of power to deliver inductively and the vehicle is moving rapidly. Think about how wireless cell phone charging works and imagine (or even try) taking your cell phone and swiping it across a wireless cell phone charging pad.

  • Plug in hybrid? (Score:3)

    by joe_frisch ( 1366229 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @09:42PM (#61409068)
    Since the great majority of trips are within battery range of modern cars, why not use plug-in hybrids that can run on gas on the rare occasions were extra range is needed and charging isn't available. Pure electric will still be fine for most people.

    • >"Since the great majority of trips are within battery range of modern cars, why not use plug-in hybrids that can run on gas on the rare occasions were extra range is needed and charging isn't available. Pure electric will still be fine for most people."

      Although I see some of the advantages, such a vehicle is also coupling the expense, complexity, and downsides of TWO energy systems instead of one. I, for one, have absolutely no interest in hybrid technology. When I leave ICE, I want a pure electric ca

    • I see the future being dominated by the PHEV. Compressed natural gas vehicles could also be popular, with or without an electric hybrid drive train. CNG offers lower CO2 emissions (zero if using synthesized fuel), refills at home, quick refills at properly equipped filling stations, long range on a single tank, no loss in performance in cold weather, and uses a fuel that is low cost and abundant.

      There's been a lot of work into synthetic carbon neutral fuels to lower CO2 emissions for aircraft, blue water

  • Dave's pretty tired of pointing out the problems with these types of projects, but I'd love to see him make a vlog post about this.

  • One km of open highway will take about thirty seconds to traverse, so you will be lucky to move your battery fill indicator by one percent. But install this system in the most perpetually clogged kilometer of city street you can find, and although you'll still curse your commute, given the usual number of dead Fiats on it you will at least get a decent recharge without having to plug in at home.

  • How can fixed coils possibly be used to charge a moving car? From the description, it sounds like a backwards linear induction motor. A magnetic field capable of inducing an electric current in a moving vehicle would basically act like a brake.

    Now, you COULD use the field to directly propel the car, just like the WEDway People Mover does at Disney World, but I just don't see how you could use it to induce current in a moving object without inducing resistance in the motion of the object itself.

    Basically, it

  • Ideas like these are all measures to get around the problems of energy density of batteries and the coming problems of mining and manufacturing for batteries. We need a better idea. One that doesn't require ripping up a century of built up infrastructure.

    One part in this will likely be the PHEV. A PHEV can be built with enough battery for the daily commute and still have an ICE for the weekend visit to Grandma's, the summer road trips, winter storms that can lower range and/or leave someone without power

    • PHEV's are less efficient that regular petrol vehicles because they carry the additional weight required to hold batteries and the addition engineering to permit both electric and gas energy sources. When in gas only mode Hybrids have typically more emissions compared to a typical small hatchback gas only vehicle whose engine has been engieered to be efficient and cheap to run. Of all the Climate Band-Aids Hybrid vehicles are one of the worst.

      • Nothing is perfect. It's always a matter of looking for the least bad.

        It appears that you believe that anyone that is driving anything other than a tiny econobox has made a bad choice. That even a Tesla is a bad idea because the large battery that gives 300 mile range and rocket like acceleration is bad for the environment. That Tesla battery is a lot of dead weight too unless the person is driving 250+ miles every day. If they need only 50 miles of range then should be be expected to have a portion of

      • When in gas only mode Hybrids have typically more emissions compared to a typical small hatchback gas only vehicle whose engine has been engieered to be efficient and cheap to run
        Actually: nope.
        Otherwise they would not pass the emission regulations in most countries. They are actually the exact same engines that are used in smaller cars etc.

  • If there is a section that is known to have constant traffic jams especially at rush hour where no one is going anywhere fast, this could give meaningful top ups to the new generation of low density battery cars.
    There are quite a few European models coming out with 120 mile range that are substantially cheaper than the lowest end Tesla or other 250 mile range cars.
    20- 30 minutes of crawling along at 5 mph could add the range for quite a few people.

  • Projects like this need to be strangled to death, the projections of scaling up will never be feasible.

    Anyone going forward with this, even a test, ignores health/safety, economic and efficiency concerns.

    No, it is not a good idea.

    • So people will be swerving into the charging lanes and slow down a bit while doing this?
      In F-ZERO all the other cars do not need the lane too...

    • Sorry, you are simply: an idiot.

      First: that is in a private toll road. Who are you to tell a private company what to do with their money?

      Secondly: this is a proof of concept. If it works good enough, they will electrify the city for the main routes of busses. So a bus going through a suburb in loops to pick up passengers aside from the main route will use battery power there. And when it is back on the main route, it will charge.

      Progress, oh my gosh, why is everyone against mankind making progress. Ah, yes,

  • A massive antenna, radiating MW (Score:3)

    by WierdUncle ( 6807634 ) on Sunday May 23, 2021 @08:13AM (#61412500)

    All radio receivers and sensitive measurements will be wiped out for miles around. Even if a frequency band is chosen that avoids bands for broadcast, emergency services, etc., an antenna intended for another frequency could still pick up enough voltage to block reception of any other signal, and even destroy sensitive receiver devices.

    From my experience of designing wireless charging and near field communications, you need to pump considerable RF current into the driving coil, just to get mW at the receiving end. I had one system running about 15A into a door-sized coil, just to trigger devices a meter or so away. So if you want to deliver kW, not mW, then you will need to pump MW into the driving coils, most of which is lost in the resistance of the driving coil wires. The road would melt.

    Though wireless charging and NFC are intended only to work at close range, they will radiate some power as EM waves, that will go longer distances. Products that use radio frequencies need standards approval to make sure that they do not cause interference to other equipment. This includes my low power wireless charging and NFC kit. I can't see any way wireless charging of kW output ever meeting such standards.

Slashdot Top Deals

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Close