Is the "plug-in" era nearly over?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The immense mass/ price of the inductive charging coil wire that a car has to drag around with it to get any meaningful quick charge rate isn't practical. I would sooner envision an autonomous system where the car or mass transit bus would dock over a charge port that would plug itself into the under-belly. Which also eliminates much of the need for flexible cable in the car and charge station for good high current performance.
 
Now imagine having that coil stretched for hundreds of miles in the pavement.
This is how some people really really hope future will turn out :lol: :lol:
Let's make trains also inductive - just to keep it safe for children. Awesome idea.

Snake EVSE will most likely cost less than 1000$ more compared to regular EVSE in within 7-8 years.
 
Via IEVS:
WiTricity Now Testing Wireless Charging With GM, 11 kW Chevy Volt Charging Anyone?
http://insideevs.com/witricity-now-testing-wireless-charging-with-gm-11-kw-chevy-volt-charging-anyone/

. . . Two power levels of the WiTricity’s Drive 11 park and charge system are under investigation – a 7.7 kW unit, and also a 11 kW system (both designed with an intention to comply with future standards proposed by SAE International’s J2954 Committee as we understand them today).

Both power levels could be utilized in plug-in hybrids in the future (like the Chevrolet Volt and Cadillac CT6 plug-in) and all-electric cars (Chevrolet Bolt EV). Given the maximum input charge level for the Chevy Volt is currently 3.6 kW (level 2, no DCFC abilities), the ability to accept either a 7.7 or 11 kW wireless charge would be a huge improvement.

It’s too early to said that GM will use WiTricity wireless charging for sure, but if Chevrolet intends to offer autonomous driving technology, the adoption of wireless charging is a major option, that many consider to be required in the package. . . .
 
It is even more funny to think how much heat there will be. So 2kW of heat :lol:
This technically requires active cooling or it will bake something eventually :)

And even more and more funnier is the fact that "wireless charger" needs to get
like superclose, almost touching. And still have enormous inefficiency.
All you have to have is just touch those two "wireless" parts with two metal prongs
and you go from 70-85% effiency to 99-99,9% efficiency :lol:
Fools.
 
Via GCC:
SAE International taskforce agrees on SAE J2954 Wireless Charging Test Station; major step forward in global standardization for wireless power transfer for EVs
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/01/20170123-j2954.html

. . . The Taskforce members have agreed on specifications for the SAE J2954 Test Stations, which automakers will use as a basis to develop their wireless charging systems, and to verify that they will interoperate with charging systems and vehicles sold by other makers.

The Taskforce agreed that the WPT1 (3.7 kW) circular coil system and the WPT2 (7.7 kW) circular coil system will be in the Test Stations used to test products developed by car makers, Tier 1 suppliers, and charging infrastructure suppliers to confirm SAE J2954 compatibility. These wireless charging systems charge at the same rate that existing Level 1 and Level 2 wired chargers operate. . . .

In 2017, the Taskforce will decide on other aspects of the standard, including standardization for wireless charging systems capable of WPT3 (11 kW) charge rates. The specifications of the SAE Test Station and procedures for validation for both the vehicle and infrastructure chargers will be defined in the SAE J2954 Recommended Practice to be published later this year. The final SAE J2954 Standard is to be published in 2018 based on actual vehicle test data.

On 6 February at the Center for Sustainable Energy in San Diego (the day before the SAE Hybrid Forum), the SAE J2954 Taskforce is having a technology forum to discuss standardization, status and plans for vehicle testing, and implementation of wireless charging systems with CARB, CEC, and the public. (Earlier post.)
 
Via GCC:
Wireless charging J2954 testing to 11 kW in 2017 for LD, HD starting up to 250 kW; autonomous charging and infrastructure proposal for California
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/02/20170213-j2954.html

. . . SAE International is engaged with the Idaho National Lab and US Department of Energy (DOE) in bench-testing of WPT 3 (11 kW) levels in 2017, said Jesse Schneider, chair of the SAE J2954 task force, in his presentation at the SAE 2017 Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Technologies Symposium last week in San Diego. In addition, eight OEMs have light-duty vehicle testing planned to begin in third quarter for WPT 1-3 which is scheduled to be completed in 2018. . . .

Further, SAE International has made a proposal to Electrify America to start a build-out of multiple hundreds of Light Duty Wireless Chargers starting in 2019 in public locations in California and ZEV states in three stages. The first stage, for light duty vehicles, creates an infrastructure based on J2954 (for example in malls, large workplaces, condominium complexes, etc). SAE also proposes 100 Heavy Duty Chargers in 2020 based on SAE J2954/2 (for example public transit agency, truck stops for anti-idling, etc.) in 2021 to create a wireless charging infrastructure with alignment communications for autonomous vehicles (for example, taxi fleets).

This will also help independent organizations or government organizations to quantify how much wireless charging may increase the eVMT (electric Vehicle Miles Traveled) for wireless charging (inductive charging) vs. plug-in (conductive charging) electric vehicles. This could also be quantified in the form of a CO2 reduction potential by implementing wireless charging both in the home and in public locations.

In addition, this could also provide some data to help to understand the potential of wireless charging to reduce the pulse in criteria pollutants emitted with the engine cold start of a range extender engine. (The last, noted Ryan Hart from the California Air Resources Board (ARB) in his talk at the SAE symposium, is not a negligible problem. . . .)
 
Unless all the cars are self driving it would seem less disruptive to share a single cord.
And then there is cost..... I would rather have 10 cords to ??? probably half or less as many wireless.
 
smkettner said:
Unless all the cars are self driving it would seem less disruptive to share a single cord.
And then there is cost..... I would rather have 10 cords to ??? probably half or less as many wireless.
The question is, how likely are the cords to be there, and working? I've seen more than a few vandalized or accidentally damaged EVSEs, and wireless buried in the pavement/curb reduces/eliminates those issues. Once we get autonomous cars that can go find the nearest charging station, it's a no-brainer - every time I see Tesla's robotic charging 'arm' I just think Falcon Wing Doors issues x 10 - 100. As wireless charging and that level of autonomy look likely to appear about the same time, might as well start providing the infrastructure now.
 
Fair enough. My company has about 30 cords at various properties that have been in place five years.
Never vandalism.

As far as working they have been pretty good. Always the controller or a wire issue which applies same to wireless.
For the same money there could be more cords so even if there were issues there should remain more working.
JMHO

I am not against wireless for others. I just see increased vehicle cost, increased EVSE cost, reduced efficiency.
No thanks for the automatic arm. Although that is Tesla's cost so it is up to them and reliability issues that may or may not exist.
 
Via GCC:
Update: SAE J2954 wireless charging validation to 11kW, Recommended Practice to enable autonomous vehicle parking and charging in 2017
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/02/20170216-j2954.html

. . .
  • The upcoming SAE J2954 Recommended Practice will enable a seamless, automated standard methodology to charge for individual vehicles to fleets of autonomous vehicles and their infrastructures. All of this with a specification to charge with high efficiencies over an air gap of 250mm (10 inches).

    —Jesse Schneider, chair of the SAE J2954 task force

For the infrastructure side, a common location for the wireless charging ground assembly—in the parking lot—will be determined in 2017. In the published SAE TIR J2954, alignment is done through magnetic field triangulation using either the existing charging coils or an auxiliary antenna. SAE J2954 is planning to make a decision regarding alignment in 2017 as a basis for all infrastructure ground assemblies.

The SAE Communications Taskforce is assisting the Wireless Charging with an ecosystem for wireless communications, to allow a seamless vehicle to wireless infrastructure and later vehicle to ground assembly. SAE is utilizing IEEE 802.11(n) as a basis for this communications, which is similar to DSRC (or IEEE802.11p). The goal is that the vehicle navigation system can first locate an available wireless charging parking spot, lead you to a wireless charging point and SAE J2954 would help align your car in the parking spot, and finally wirelessly charge. As a concept, payment could be also automated through the same communications hub with no interaction required from the customer except pre-authorizing the payment. . . .
 
Via GCC:
SAE publishes J2954 Recommended Practice (RP) enabling wireless charging to 11 kW
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/11/20171130-j2954.html

SAE International published SAE J2954 Recommended Practice (RP), providing the first worldwide specification for wireless power transfer (WPT) for electric vehicles up to 11 kW power levels (WPT 3). Following the previous Technical Information Report J2954, with power levels up to WPT 2 (7.7 kW), 11 kW wireless charging is a big step towards commercialization for electric vehicles. (Earlier post.) . . .
 
No less than 770W of heat losses? No thank you. Some people charge their vehicle at that rate :lol:
I would rather want something to stick the copper in for me. Something like a snake prototype from Tesla.

Take an electric cookstove, turn the small plate on to half power. Wait 30 seconds. Feel the heat :geek:
 
arnis said:
No less than 770W of heat losses? No thank you. Some people charge their vehicle at that rate :lol:
I would rather want something to stick the copper in for me. Something like a snake prototype from Tesla.

Take an electric cookstove, turn the small plate on to half power. Wait 30 seconds. Feel the heat :geek:
You're an early adopter, and thus not representative of mainstream buyers, who will opt for convenience over efficiency any time the cost is minimal. If that weren't the case there would be no TV/garage door remotes or microwave ovens.
 
GRA said:
You're an early adopter, and thus not representative of mainstream buyers, who will opt for convenience over efficiency any time the cost is minimal. If that weren't the case there would be no TV/garage door remotes or microwave ovens.
TV remotes? Agreed. The other two? You've got it wrong.

Garage door remote control: A gasoline car would use more energy idling while the driver got out to open or close the garage door than the 500W electric motor needs to do the job (and the small draw at all other times does not make up the difference). Even for a Nissan LEAF, the vehicle uses more than 500W just to sit there, so it would use more energy due to the additional time the energy was being used.

Microwave oven: Even though a microwave oven only has a real-world energy efficiency of about 50% (AC electrical power to microwave power) and the heating element of an electric oven or electric cooktop has an energy efficiency of 100% (AC electrical power to heat), the microwave oven is more efficient for nearly every small food-heating task than an electric cooktop or an electric oven or even an electric toaster oven. The reason is that the microwaves in a microwave oven heats the food directly while the electric heating element in an oven or cooktop heats something else which then heats the food. As a result, the microwave oven saves energy two ways: It heats less material and therefore heats for less time. The simple reality is that a microwave oven can tackle some tasks such as baking a single potato with about ONE-FORTH as much energy as a traditional oven.

So, yeah, microwave ovens and garage door openers would exist even if they did not offer any additional convenience.

But electrifying transportation in the US (or the world) will require a massive increase in electricity generation. That additional electricity will not come easily, cheaply, or without significant damage to the environment. As such, lossy solutions will be limited to a small fraction of the overall transportation solution. Because of the challenges we face as we move toward electrification will preclude (prevent) inefficient solutions from achieving significant fractions of the market.

As everyone can clearly see with the hydrogen fiasco, even massive government subsidies do not change this reality.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
You're an early adopter, and thus not representative of mainstream buyers, who will opt for convenience over efficiency any time the cost is minimal. If that weren't the case there would be no TV/garage door remotes or microwave ovens.
TV remotes? Agreed. The other two? You've got it wrong.

Garage door remote control: A gasoline car would use more energy idling while the driver got out to open or close the garage door than the 500W electric motor needs to do the job (and the small draw at all other times does not make up the difference). Even for a Nissan LEAF, the vehicle uses more than 500W just to sit there, so it would use more energy due to the additional time the energy was being used.
Interesting. I wonder how much the life-cycle energy of building and disposing of the motor, gears, rails and controllers would add to that.

RegGuheert said:
Microwave oven: Even though a microwave oven only has a real-world energy efficiency of about 50% (AC electrical power to microwave power) and the heating element of an electric oven or electric cooktop has an energy efficiency of 100% (AC electrical power to heat), the microwave oven is more efficient for nearly every small food-heating task than an electric cooktop or an electric oven or even an electric toaster oven. The reason is that the microwaves in a microwave oven heats the food directly while the electric heating element in an oven or cooktop heats something else which then heats the food. As a result, the microwave oven saves energy two ways: It heats less material and therefore heats for less time. The simple reality is that a microwave oven can tackle some tasks such as baking a single potato with about ONE-FORTH as much energy as a traditional oven. <snip>
Oh, I agree that an electric heating element is very wasteful. However, here in the Bay Area most houses and apartments, including every one I've ever lived in (something approaching 20, last time I thought about counting them) use gas for heating and cooking, so my comments were colored by that experience. After all, the local utility is Pacific Gas and Electric. Maybe it's just that I tend to live in older housing stock, and there are certainly newer developments that advertise AEK, but space heating and cooking with electricity are a poor choice, especially when that electricity is being generated by gas. In my case, if I've just got to (re)heat something for a few minutes, like soup or pasta, I use the microwave even though I have a gas range, for exactly the reason I said; it's more convenient (faster).
 
Gas cooking is even less efficient than electric resistance cooking. Do you always prefer fossil fuels over electricity? (Car, range, oven, water heater...)
 
RegGuheert said:
Gas cooking is even less efficient than electric resistance cooking. Do you always prefer fossil fuels over electricity? (Car, range, oven, water heater...)

I cook with gas mainly in winter, the flame is 85-95% efficient

Thus the heat that doesn’t cook the food goes to heat and humidify my apartment.

Same goes with my water heater, most of the “lost” heat is dumped into the living space
 
Back
Top