Slashdot Mirror
Inductive Charging For EVs To Be Tested In Berlin
cylonlover writes "The increasing availability of more practical electric vehicles has seen inductive charging technology attract the attention of those looking for for a cable-free way to charge EV batteries. German automakers are taking the opportunity to put inductive charging of EVs to a real-world test as part of the 'Effizienzhaus-Plus mit Elektromobilität' project. The project is a German government-backed initiative to build an energy-efficient house that generates more electricity than it consumes, with the surplus being fed back into the grid or used to charge the occupants' electric vehicles."
I suppose when you only need a few watts of energy for a cellphone or something, I can understand the use of inductive charging. But if you lower your efficiency by a significant amount in a single step while charging a car (a few dozen kWh), and this is multiplied across a population of EV owning people, this is potentially adding a lot of unnecessary strain to the electric grid.
Is it so hard just to plug the dang thing in? We don't have tubeless fuel transfer do we?
Who would? I'd much rather be caught alive in one.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Who's the idiot who decided to put 'inductive charging' and 'energy-efficient' in the same paragraph? If you're trying to be efficient, inductive charging is the LAST thing you want to do. If you really are that opposed to having to plug in, come up with some innovative solution using contacts embedded in the garage like cordless phone cradles. Or do something like bumper cars. Though I bet people wouldn't like the thought of having exposed high voltage contacts...but I'm sure they could figure out a way to make it safe. Hell, even a plug on the front of the car that drives into a receptacle. Inductive is just stupid.
I took EE in school. Many years ago. Haven't done a thing with it since. However, the part you seem to be missing (and the AC you responded to) is simple logic, not EE-specific. We're not comparing inductive charging to gas vehicles. We're comparing inductive charging to non-inductive charging. That is, driving your EV to a specific area of your garage vs driving your EV to somewhere that it can reach the proper outlet and be plugged in.
86% efficiency for inductive charging means that when you buy 1KWh from the power company, you're only getting .86KWh to your vehicle. Additional losses come into play after that (and before that as well), but they should be the same losses whether we're using inductive charging or not, so they're entirely irrelevant. Copper wire's losses are negligible over this short of a distance, so when you buy 1KWh from the power company, you're putting 1KWh of energy into your vehicle, for all intents and purposes. That 14% loss is increasing the cost of "refueling" your EV by about 16%.
When comparing against gas vehicles, the mode of charging is relevant in that it affects the overall efficiency of the system. And you have a valid point that the overall efficiency of an EV likely far surpasses gas and diesel vehicles. However, we then open whole new cans of worms - depending on your energy source, the EV may not be a significant overall improvement when considering things like pollution. If your electricity is from a coal-fired plant vs natural gas vs nuclear/wind/solar/hydro, for example. If from coal, the EV advantage may not be nearly as significant.
Having said all that, induction charging can make the convenience of an EV very attractive. You don't have to think about it, you have a fully-charged vehicle every morning. No worrying about making a run to the gas station for regular commutes. If someone else can solve the distance problem, we could get a long way toward a serious contender to take gas vehicles off the road. While this doesn't make the EV a must-have, it is another parallel attempt to get there.
No it isn't. For one the test was mostly show. Without accelerometers a crash test is of limited value. But visually, the car holds together but it is so rigid the passengers would have to take almost the full force of the acceleration of the impact. There is no real crumple which is what helps reduce the G forces on the passengers in bigger nosed cars if they crash. Even the windshield of the Smart Car crashed in the test lab didn't break. And when they crashed a Smart Car into concrete at 70 mph the driver's door still functioned. Given that the door basically starts at the front of the car, this thing didn't crumple hardly at all. As unscientific as the tests in that video are even the presenters noted this (I transcribed a short excerpt on it):
The downside of the shells rigidity is that there is a greater potential for the crash forces to be transmitted through to the passengers. Ideally you ought to slow them down as slowly as possible.
If the people have to take the acceleration of a crash at any sort of speed, they will die. But maybe the resale value of the car would still be good. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable riding in one at any sort of highway speed. But what am I saying??? I ride a motorbike. Never mind... I still wouldn't feel comfortable.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.