Is the "plug-in" era nearly over?

XeonPony said:

In other words he caught you being hypocritical. What he was saying was on topic by comparing efficiency originally.

Click to expand...

Actually please read my posts before you accuse me of something. I have never continually stated that efficiency is important. I have maintained that I'll trade efficiency for market penetration. So if wireless charging led to more BEV adoption I'm all for it. The hypocrisy is when someone who continually says FCEVs are doomed because they are not efficient suddenly doesn't care about efficiency when it comes to BEV charging.

My point about his post was that he was bringing his continual rant against hydrogen into yet another unrelated thread. My points about wireless charging was that it requires too much money/infrastructure and can be easily replaced by a much larger number of fast DC chargers for the same price, getting better results. And again that I don't see US spending money on needed roads, much less an undertaking of that magnitude.

I love how people are more interested in trying to play gotcha, like we are on a political campaign, than engaging in actual discussion.

No, you are being hypocritical. This approach has higher efficiency than FCVs and there is no indication that it will cost nearly as much as H2 infrastructure will, yet you are down on it and supporting H2.

epirali said:

The hypocrisy is when someone who continually says FCEVs are doomed because they are not efficient suddenly doesn't care about efficiency when it comes to BEV charging.

Click to expand...

That would be hypocritical. Do you know of "someone" who does that?

RegGuheert said:

No, you are being hypocritical. This approach has higher efficiency than FCVs and there is no indication that it will cost nearly as much as H2 infrastructure will, yet you are down on it and supporting H2.

epirali said:

The hypocrisy is when someone who continually says FCEVs are doomed because they are not efficient suddenly doesn't care about efficiency when it comes to BEV charging.

Click to expand...

That would be hypocritical. Do you know of "someone" who does that?

Click to expand...

Just saying something doesn't make it true. You can keep repeating the same wrong thing but my position is fully self consistent.

I think you are having reading comprehension issues. I am NOT against the idea. But it will cost a GREAT DEAL more than hydrogen infrastructure, and even more than a robust DC charging infrastructure. And it will never happen. Who will pay for it? How will the users be charged for charging?

I do wonder sometimes whether the repeated misstatements are honest errors or just purposeful straw an argument making.

epirali said:

But it will cost a GREAT DEAL more than hydrogen infrastructure, ...

Click to expand...

You haven't provided any references to support this statement of faith. If you have data on the cost of this approach please share it here.

epirali said:

And it will never happen. Who will pay for it? How will the users be charged for charging?

Click to expand...

It HAS happened and it is happening again. I'm sure it will find some applications where the low efficiency (about twice that of H2 FCVs, BTW) is justified in that same way that H2 FCVs will likely find some applications that it works best for. Both will find limited application, IMO.

epirali said:

I do wonder sometimes whether the repeated misstatements are honest errors or just purposeful straw an argument making.

Click to expand...

I've quoted your exact words and I made no misstatement. You, OTOH, tried to imply that I am a supporter of this technology. I will call you on that every.single.time.

RegGuheert said:

epirali said:

But it will cost a GREAT DEAL more than hydrogen infrastructure, ...

Click to expand...

You haven't provided any references to support this statement of faith. If you have data on the cost of this approach please share it here.

epirali said:

And it will never happen. Who will pay for it? How will the users be charged for charging?

Click to expand...

It HAS happened and it is happening again. I'm sure it will find some applications where the low efficiency (about twice that of H2 FCVs, BTW) is justified in that same way that H2 FCVs will likely find some applications that it works best for. Both will find limited application, IMO.

epirali said:

I do wonder sometimes whether the repeated misstatements are honest errors or just purposeful straw an argument making.

Click to expand...

I've quoted your exact words and I made no misstatement. You, OTOH, tried to imply that I am a supporter of this technology. I will call you on that every.single.time.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean there at the end. Seriously. And I'll point out again the needless adversarial/sports/game behavior. You aren't "calling me out" on anything here. You do keep making misstatements about what I've said and my position.

I think it's pretty common sense that in order to provide good coverage inductive charging roadways will need to cover many many miles. Unlike charging stations and fueling stations they are not localized, but spread across miles of road. Even roadwork alone would cost vast amounts of money (let's look up highway maintenance requirements and funding). And obviously rolling infrastructure to provide power. If it is charging at select stationary points it may make sense. But would be much less useful.

And can you please replace vague declarations like "it has happened and will happen again" with sentences with noun, subject and related verbs? What has happened? I honestly don't even know what your position is.

I think inductive charging at home, in parking lots would be great. It would make it even more convenient to drive a BEV. As for covering roadways for extended driving? Highly doubtful, even at 100% efficiency.

epirali said:

XeonPony said:

In other words he caught you being hypocritical. What he was saying was on topic by comparing efficiency originally.

Click to expand...

Actually please read my posts before you accuse me of something. I have never continually stated that efficiency is important. I have maintained that I'll trade efficiency for market penetration. So if wireless charging led to more BEV adoption I'm all for it. The hypocrisy is when someone who continually says FCEVs are doomed because they are not efficient suddenly doesn't care about efficiency when it comes to BEV charging.

My point about his post was that he was bringing his continual rant against hydrogen into yet another unrelated thread. My points about wireless charging was that it requires too much money/infrastructure and can be easily replaced by a much larger number of fast DC chargers for the same price, getting better results. And again that I don't see US spending money on needed roads, much less an undertaking of that magnitude.

I love how people are more interested in trying to play gotcha, like we are on a political campaign, than engaging in actual discussion.

Click to expand...

I just was balancing it from an out side point of view.

from the quotes he showed, if he quote minded then shame on him, but I have read your posts and they where not clear.

I Agree with the induction charging is a poor choice on efficiency and such, but I all so agree fuel cells are just not practical or efficient. H2 is not a fuel, it is a battery, and it is an in efficient battery at that..

Current cable system is the best. and going back in efficiency is never worth it, rather tax petrol heavier to discourage its usage and aim for best efficiency.

XeonPony said:

I just was balancing it from an out side point of view.

from the quotes he showed, if he quote minded then shame on him, but I have read your posts and they where not clear.

I Agree with the induction charging is a poor choice on efficiency and such, but I all so agree fuel cells are just not practical or efficient. H2 is not a fuel, it is a battery, and it is an in efficient battery at that..

Current cable system is the best. and going back in efficiency is never worth it, rather tax petrol heavier to discourage its usage and aim for best efficiency.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. I don't want to get into an argument about tactics, but there is definitely very pointed twisting of comments and positions for what I'd call agenda reasons. I understand there are clearly opinion differences, and people have strong feelings. I just don't think that should then extend to a lack of civility, personal attacks, twisting of others positions, or essentially a win/lose or bullying mentality.

Part of the reason that my posts were not clear (and I apologize if its my fault) is that discussions from other threads are dragged into unrelated threads all the time. And I am really trying to not do the same. For example hydrogen discussions do not belong here, this is a pretty interesting thread about batteries and charging.

The one application of inductive charging that is becoming more and more appealing in my mind (and it is really from something I saw in another thread) is for parking spots. It would be pretty good use if public parking spots, specially along roads in dense cities, had inductive charging. Assuming BEVs adopted a standard and implemented it just parking in town could replace infrastructure. I still don't know how you would meter or charge the user, but in cities that may be a pretty good taxpayer dollar investment.

epirali said:

I still don't know how you would meter or charge the user, but in cities that may be a pretty good taxpayer dollar investment.

Click to expand...

You have brought this point up a couple of times. I also don't know how you would meter and charge the user, but I can imagine several possible options.

Obviously there is some wireless communication between the car and the EVSE. One could require an account linked to VIN, for example. Then the car could simply tell the EVSE its VIN for approval. This is similar to how Tesla Superchargers operate, from my understanding.

Another, less appealing, option could be to still install a pedestal at the head of the parking spot, with a credit card reader.

I'm sure more creative people than myself could imagine many more options.

And again, I don't know how they would do it, but that issue is minor in terms of getting wireless chargers installed. The first step is to create a common standard. AFAIK, that has been done. The next step is probably to get more cars on the road which support it. That is starting to happen, as people purchase aftermarket add-ons for home charging. Some OEMs have even hinted at offering wireless charging as a factory option.

GetOffYourGas said:

epirali said:

I still don't know how you would meter or charge the user, but in cities that may be a pretty good taxpayer dollar investment.

Click to expand...

You have brought this point up a couple of times. I also don't know how you would meter and charge the user, but I can imagine several possible options.

Obviously there is some wireless communication between the car and the EVSE. One could require an account linked to VIN, for example. Then the car could simply tell the EVSE its VIN for approval. This is similar to how Tesla Superchargers operate, from my understanding.

Another, less appealing, option could be to still install a pedestal at the head of the parking spot, with a credit card reader.

I'm sure more creative people than myself could imagine many more options.

And again, I don't know how they would do it, but that issue is minor in terms of getting wireless chargers installed. The first step is to create a common standard. AFAIK, that has been done. The next step is probably to get more cars on the road which support it. That is starting to happen, as people purchase aftermarket add-ons for home charging. Some OEMs have even hinted at offering wireless charging as a factory option.

Click to expand...

I wasn't bringing this up as a show stopper, or even a big deal at all. Just the fact that you would need a STANDARD for charging and STANDARD for billing. Right now with public charging you end up carrying multiple cards and/or apps. So it seems minor, but still is a pain.

For DC fast charging right now we have THREE standard, CHADEMO, CCS and Tesla. I have no CCS charging anywhere near me. So if one induction charging standard is not adopted then the idea is less appealing.

The technology is "easy", the business/politics is what kills you.

P.S. Also it seems in cities parking enforcement is the number one priority, so I am assuming cities will want their charging revenues! :mrgreen:

epirali said:

GetOffYourGas said:

epirali said:

I still don't know how you would meter or charge the user, but in cities that may be a pretty good taxpayer dollar investment.

Click to expand...

You have brought this point up a couple of times. I also don't know how you would meter and charge the user, but I can imagine several possible options.

Obviously there is some wireless communication between the car and the EVSE. One could require an account linked to VIN, for example. Then the car could simply tell the EVSE its VIN for approval. This is similar to how Tesla Superchargers operate, from my understanding.

Another, less appealing, option could be to still install a pedestal at the head of the parking spot, with a credit card reader.

I'm sure more creative people than myself could imagine many more options.

And again, I don't know how they would do it, but that issue is minor in terms of getting wireless chargers installed. The first step is to create a common standard. AFAIK, that has been done. The next step is probably to get more cars on the road which support it. That is starting to happen, as people purchase aftermarket add-ons for home charging. Some OEMs have even hinted at offering wireless charging as a factory option.

Click to expand...

I wasn't bringing this up as a show stopper, or even a big deal at all. Just the fact that you would need a STANDARD for charging and STANDARD for billing. Right now with public charging you end up carrying multiple cards and/or apps. So it seems minor, but still is a pain.

For DC fast charging right now we have THREE standard, CHADEMO, CCS and Tesla. I have no CCS charging anywhere near me. So if one induction charging standard is not adopted then the idea is less appealing.

The technology is "easy", the business/politics is what kills you.

P.S. Also it seems in cities parking enforcement is the number one priority, so I am assuming cities will want their charging revenues! :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

There are lots of different ways to do this. You can do billing by smart phone, or you can do billing similar to what cities are doing now that they're removing parking meters and installing just a single ticket dispenser every block or so, but with some sort of selector to choose the individual spot (spot # marked on the sidewalk), transponders (makes it easier for parking enforcement to see if you've paid) or what have you. As you say, this is really minor compared to agreeing on a wireless charging standard.

http://standards.sae.org/wip/j2954/

It's marked WIP (Work In Progess), so it's not finalized yet. But I have no reason to believe that eventually J2954 will not be just as standard/common as J1772.

GetOffYourGas said:

http://standards.sae.org/wip/j2954/

It's marked WIP (Work In Progess), so it's not finalized yet. But I have no reason to believe that eventually J2954 will not be just as standard/common as J1772.

Click to expand...

Publishing a standard is one thing, adoption is another. Again Tesla uses no standard, and we already have two different fast charging connectors. I keep reading BMW and Audi are working on wireless charging, but no indication whether it is the SAE standard. So experience so far should be a good enough reason that it may not be adopted by all.

At least the Hydrogen fueling standard, J2601, appears to have been adopted worldwide, without exception: http://standards.sae.org/j2601_201407/

Although I don't think having multiple standards is a show stopper (cf. CHAdeMO/CCS-1/CCS-2/Tesla /GB-T/J1772/Mennekes' Type 2), it certainly doesn't hurt to have just one, keeping cost down, utility up and eliminating public unfamiliarity once they've used it once or twice. I think wireless will require at least regional standardization (probably by continent), i.e. CCS-1 or CCS-2 .

The only real advantage I see to inroad wireless charging is in trucking. If they can get it to the point where the efficiency of using an inroad system means less lost than loading up the truck with enough batteries to travel at 60mph for 10hrs which includes mountain passes then it would be a serious advantage.

Yes it would be a huge cost, but so would putting mega watts worth of batteries on every single truck in north America. It could also be a way for trucks to go hybrid, not carry any significant amount of batteries on board and when in the wireless zone use electricity and when not use ICE. If it was strategically placed, say on uphill portions only it could also allow the trucks to use a much smaller ICE and it could allow cities with smog problems to reduce the impact from trucks. However I don't see the cooperation of federal and local governments plus private trucking industry coming together to get this into the road fast enough to beat out any other technology that would enable trucks to go zero emissions though. I think lighter faster charging cheaper batteries or hydrogen will become a trucking standard way before we can blanket North America with these roads.

GRA said:

Although I don't think having multiple standards is a show stopper (cf. CHAdeMO/CCS-1/CCS-2/Tesla /GB-T/J1772/Mennekes' Type 2), it certainly doesn't hurt to have just one, keeping cost down, utility up and eliminating public unfamiliarity once they've used it once or twice. I think wireless will require at least regional standardization (probably by continent), i.e. CCS-1 or CCS-2 .

Click to expand...

I believe anything that causes market confusion for customers is a big hit to the adoption of BEVs. Yes technical minded people and early adopters don't mind multiple standard and carrying around multiple RFID cards, and having to see what is available, and does it work, and how do I get it going. But I use the "will my mom" use it test when it comes to serious adoption of technology. Because by that point it is just as easy to deal with the new paradigm as the old one OR there is such a compelling advantage that she just has to use it (think iPhone/iPad).

Its not as trivial as you may think to try to explain the various formats and vendors to people who don't care. They just want to "fill up."

Which kind of why I was saying if there are different inductive standards, or multiple vendors, I can't explain to "mom" why her car didn't charge at this spot, but it did over there.

Can you explain to your mom why she should grab the gasoline pump, and avoid the diesel? If so, I don't see why she couldn't also understand that *this* EVSE will work for her car, but not *that* EVSE? It's a hassle for sure, but assuming different standards are clearly marked, it is hardly past the ability of the average person.

GetOffYourGas said:

Can you explain to your mom why she should grab the gasoline pump, and avoid the diesel? If so, I don't see why she couldn't also understand that *this* EVSE will work for her car, but not *that* EVSE? It's a hassle for sure, but assuming different standards are clearly marked, it is hardly past the ability of the average person.

Click to expand...

Its a good point, but its more akin to explaining why you can get diesel here, but not there, and gas here, but not there. And at this pump you have to use this credit card, but on this one you can only use the other one.

Also we are simply used to the idea, it is very old. As I said for people who are tech savvy or are early adopters these things are trivial. But you can't dismiss the fact that many people stuck to their old flip phones or RIM phones for way longer than they should have.

epirali said:

GetOffYourGas said:

Can you explain to your mom why she should grab the gasoline pump, and avoid the diesel? If so, I don't see why she couldn't also understand that *this* EVSE will work for her car, but not *that* EVSE? It's a hassle for sure, but assuming different standards are clearly marked, it is hardly past the ability of the average person.

Click to expand...

Its a good point, but its more akin to explaining why you can get diesel here, but not there, and gas here, but not there. And at this pump you have to use this credit card, but on this one you can only use the other one.

Also we are simply used to the idea, it is very old. As I said for people who are tech savvy or are early adopters these things are trivial. But you can't dismiss the fact that many people stuck to their old flip phones or RIM phones for way longer than they should have.

Click to expand...

As someone who resolutely refuses to give up his flip phone (my first and only cell, which I only caved in and bought in Dec. 2007, and which doesn't even have a camera; it's a phone, FCS), I resemble that remark, even if I am fairly tech savvy. :lol: But in my youth I spent 9 years living in a home without a phone at all, and 6 or 7 ditto without a (working) car, so my standards of what's essential as opposed to what's nice to have differ from most Americans.

I agree that different standards do make things more difficult, but a lot of the added difficulty can be eliminated through better signage (color coding of the different charging standards, say) plus a little more education during the buying process (admittedly difficult given the low level of knowledge of the typical car salesperson). Different cards will go away eventually, or at least be cross-compatible through joining networks ala' ATMs. So, while I agree that multiple standards do cause some extra difficulty in the early stages, I expect they'll fade away to manageable by the time BEVs cross the chasm. Besides, it gives early adopters another topic to pontificate about!

GRA said:

I agree that different standards do make things more difficult, but a lot of the added difficulty can be eliminated through better signage (color coding of the different charging standards, say) plus a little more education during the buying process (admittedly difficult given the low level of knowledge of the typical car salesperson). Different cards will go away eventually, or at least be cross-compatible through joining networks ala' ATMs. So, while I agree that multiple standards do cause some extra difficulty in the early stages, I expect they'll fade away to manageable by the time BEVs cross the chasm. Besides, it gives early adopters another topic to pontificate about!

Click to expand...

Yes, the same way VHS and beta gained cross compatibility, or same way android and iOS gained cross compatibility, or how we can all use ATMs without paying any fees...I don't see the competing business interests all coming together and singing happy songs just for us. Will every Model 3 owner happily pay $450 for Chademo and another $450 for CCS fast charge adapter? Maybe I'm just bitter because my tesla roadster is not compatible with Teslas own model S charger and trips almost every single L2 charger I plug it into.

I am not as optimistic sorry to say. Each group has interest in isolating users.

epirali said:

GRA said:

I agree that different standards do make things more difficult, but a lot of the added difficulty can be eliminated through better signage (color coding of the different charging standards, say) plus a little more education during the buying process (admittedly difficult given the low level of knowledge of the typical car salesperson). Different cards will go away eventually, or at least be cross-compatible through joining networks ala' ATMs. So, while I agree that multiple standards do cause some extra difficulty in the early stages, I expect they'll fade away to manageable by the time BEVs cross the chasm. Besides, it gives early adopters another topic to pontificate about!

Click to expand...

Yes, the same way VHS and beta gained cross compatibility, or same way android and iOS gained cross compatibility, or how we can all use ATMs without paying any fees...I don't see the competing business interests all coming together and singing happy songs just for us. Will every Model 3 owner happily pay $450 for Chademo and another $450 for CCS fast charge adapter? Maybe I'm just bitter because my tesla roadster is not compatible with Teslas own model S charger and trips almost every single L2 charger I plug it into.

I am not as optimistic sorry to say. Each group has interest in isolating users.

Click to expand...

Of course, the other option, which has been much discussed here, is that one standard will overwhelm the others in a given region, if not worldwide, which is what happened in the case of VHS/Beta. As to paying fees to use ATMs, you're paying for convenience, and if you don't want to pay you can use only your own bank's (what I do other than in emergency, which means I've had to pay an ATM fee about twice in 30+ years). Would I prefer that I could use any bank's ATM without an extra fee? Sure, but not doing so's workable.

OT: I haven't seen any news about the Roadster battery upgrade in a while, and I've always wondered if they were going to offer SC compatibility with that.