Soon you'll be able to charge your electric BMW wirelessly

[bcredeur97]

On 6/8/2018 at 4:51 PM, Jtalk4456 said:

my first thought is wireless charging creates more heat and takes more power, and I can already see the wealth of lawsuits about batteries going bad faster due to wireless charging, or heaven forbid car batteries catching on fire

Iirc the heat created is actually conducted at the point the charge is being received (say a qi coil thingy) and not at the battery itself.

 

its just a problem on phones because these components are right next to each other. So it heats the batter up. On BMW’s design they aren’t. (The receiver is at the front of the car, the battery around where the rear passengers are)

 

BUT the point about it them being only 60-70% efficient at best still remains. Is it worth wasting power for convience? 

 

I can see these being used in parking lots though. “Charge your car while your inside our facility for a small fee” kinda thing. 

 

On a a larger scale you could implement wireless charging on highways to either completely make them infinite range or at the very least increase range of vehicles traveling along it.. 

[Commodus]

On 6/9/2018 at 6:12 AM, AskTJ said:

Or you can get a car that runs on diesel for around 50 times cheaper and call it a day.

Pulling figures out of thin air, I see.

 

The car can be cheaper (though not 50 times cheaper), but the running costs?  They're cheaper on the EV side.

 

And besides, diesel is both dying and must die as quickly as possible.  We're not going back, so why champion diesel as if EVs are just a fad, instead of the inevitable future they really are?

[Jtalk4456]

On 6/9/2018 at 6:12 AM, AskTJ said:

Or you can get a car that runs on diesel for around 50 times cheaper and call it a day.

https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-true-cost-of-powering-an-electric-car.html

Another way to calculate cost is to use the number of kilowatt-hours it takes to recharge the EV's battery. If an EV requires 20 kWh to fully recharge and the rate is 12 cents per kWh, that's $2.40 to fill up the car. 

Can you fill a diesel for $2.40? and not a motorcycle or scooter

[Jtalk4456]

On 6/9/2018 at 9:32 PM, mr moose said:

20th century thinking about energy and money will stop the idea,  however 21st century thinking where resources are decentralized and financial wealth is not calculated in the same traditional way suggests other things are possible. 

 

I see batteries (or even whole electric cars for that matter) as a stop gap measure.  May as well enjoy wireless charging if it works.  Because with the rate technology is advancing it is not likely to have an impact so large that it will prevent other technologies or  ruin the environment any more.

 

 

I hope you're right, though I'm not convinced that enough change in the common persons finances will happen to change the voters opinion of higher taxes

[mr moose]

Just now, Jtalk4456 said:

I hope you're right, though I'm not convinced that enough change in the common persons finances will happen to change the voters opinion of higher taxes

I think it will definitely happen.   Already twice in our history we have seen two technologies reshape how we do business and personal wealth.  The introduction of railways had a huge impact of the lives of everyone, better health, more holidays, more options for different jobs.  If you had of told someone from 18th century England that in the 19th century coal (their equivalent of today's electricity) will be half the price and you will be able to read news from London in the country or buy fresh fish from the country in London within hours of harvest they would laugh at you. the thought would be that it's not possible because how are the coal minors and horse and cart companies going to make their money.  Then the same thing happened with the internet.  We have seen entire industries change (photography and post). we have seen the reduction in the use of paper (saving tree's) and the instant nature of information speeds up business to the point new loans are now decided in 48 hours (rather than weeks). 

 

In all this the standard of living keeps going up for everyone, I see no reason why another major change in how we operate our networks (be they transport, information or energy) will not bring about a new way of living.  We've had the transport revolution, were are now having the information revolution it is time for the energy revolution. 

 

 

[Jtalk4456]

58 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think it will definitely happen.   Already twice in our history we have seen two technologies reshape how we do business and personal wealth.  The introduction of railways had a huge impact of the lives of everyone, better health, more holidays, more options for different jobs.  If you had of told someone from 18th century England that in the 19th century coal (their equivalent of today's electricity) will be half the price and you will be able to read news from London in the country or buy fresh fish from the country in London within hours of harvest they would laugh at you. the thought would be that it's not possible because how are the coal minors and horse and cart companies going to make their money.  Then the same thing happened with the internet.  We have seen entire industries change (photography and post). we have seen the reduction in the use of paper (saving tree's) and the instant nature of information speeds up business to the point new loans are now decided in 48 hours (rather than weeks). 

 

In all this the standard of living keeps going up for everyone, I see no reason why another major change in how we operate our networks (be they transport, information or energy) will not bring about a new way of living.  We've had the transport revolution, were are now having the information revolution it is time for the energy revolution. 

 

 

I hope you are right, but those are examples or major infrastructure that benefit everyone, where developing wireless charging pads for the few with enough money for ev's is a luxury. right now at least, it doesn't benefit nearly enough people for those not getting the benefits to justify paying more on taxes