Slashdot Mirror


England To Test "Electric Motorways"

DaneTerry88 writes: Highways England plans to test under-road wireless charging equipment that could be buried beneath motorways to top-up cars as they drive. Charge-as-you-drive technologies have already been used in the South Korean town of Gumi. The town has a 12km (7.5 miles) route that allows buses to be charged as they drive over it. In a press release the agency says: "The trials are expected to begin later this year following the completion of an ongoing procurement process. The trials will involve fitting vehicles with wireless technology and testing the equipment, installed underneath the road, to replicate motorway conditions. Full details of the trials will be publicised when a successful contractor has been appointed."

74 comments

  1. Privacy Issues? by polyp2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Think of the Big Brother scenarios . Presumably cars will have to be fitted with some sort of identifier so that drivers / owners can pay for the charging in some way.

    So while its a great idea - Id want to know whats happening to the data about my driving habits!

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re: Privacy Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hope it would be included as as part of the tax disc (road fund tax)

    2. Re:Privacy Issues? by wilfie · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm afraid it's a bit late to worry about that in the UK. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Privacy Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy isn't the first thing I'd worry about. What are the potential ramifications to people with sensitive medical equipment like insulin pumps and pacemakers? Does the car's body shield them adequately from the magnetic fields?

    4. Re: Privacy Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose such a tax would be linked to consumption.

    5. Re:Privacy Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy? In the UK? You must be a djihadist or a child molester! BWAHAHAHA!

    6. Re:Privacy Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are Automatic Numberplate Recognition cameras stationed on roads all over the UK. Cars are tracked across the country, except in the most remote locations. Even tax discs are not necessary anymore, because systems attached to the cameras check that your tax+insurance is up to date as you drive past.

      To clarify, every road user in the UK has their movements monitored with a fairly fine level of detail by government.

      When people ask me why I do not drive or fly anymore, I explain the above, and I'm looked at as some sort of mad conspiracy theorist. Yet a few decades ago we were condemning "the East" for levels of monitoring that were positively casual compared to this. This country is full of snivelling cowards who will give up anything as long as it doesn't interfere with their daily dose of nothing much.

    7. Re:Privacy Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your driving habits?

      You are assuming too much. First it won't be your car, but a leased car if you deserve it.

      Then it will be an autonomous drive car. You will never drive it!

    8. Re:Privacy Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the registration plate which is already used for exactly this purpose, e.g. on the Dartford crossing

    9. Re:Privacy Issues? by amalcolm · · Score: 0

      And you'll be the first to bitch when an unisured driver totals your car. It was reported in Manchester 1 in 4 cars is uninsured, and often the driver has no licence, is disqualified etc. etc. The cameras are there for good reason.

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    10. Re: Privacy Issues? by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2

      No I'm sure they wouldn't bother with basic safety testing like that and i would expect to see people dropping like flies and multicar pileups a daily occurrence until all people with pacemakers are dead.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    11. Re:Privacy Issues? by Greystripe · · Score: 2

      If 1 in 4 drivers are currently uninsured it appears the cameras are not there to prevent uninsured motorists. Or they are failing miserably at it.

    12. Re:Privacy Issues? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What a marvelous and original way to promote cycling and physical exercise in the UK!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:Privacy Issues? by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      The trouble is the courts do nothing when the police catch them. If you don't lock them up, these lawless characters just carry on as before. I suspect the situation would be worse if the cameras wre not there. They are more efficient that a beat bobby checking tax discs.

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    14. Re:Privacy Issues? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I would have assumed that this is that fancy near field thing that could work with precise limited range.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Privacy Issues? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What a marvelous and original way to promote cycling and physical exercise in the UK!

      You can recognize people by their gait when on foot, and I wouldn't be surprised if you could recognize cyclists based on what they look like while pedaling. Cycling won't save you, it'll just make you easier to catch.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re: Privacy Issues? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Artificial selection at work!

    17. Re:Privacy Issues? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'd still think it won't make it any easier for them.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:Privacy Issues? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They're easy to spot without any high-tech at all - at the left of the licence plate there's a little blue rectangle with "PL" or "RO" in white.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Privacy Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be done without revealing one's identity. For example the transit authority could release a colored coin backed by GBP and use micropayment channels to let users pay for electricity by the second.

    20. Re: Privacy Issues? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Depending on how extensive the network is, the car's conventional odometer could be used to assess a usage tax.

      If the system is not extensive enough then a special trip-odometer could be fitted to count the distance driven on the system.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    21. Re:Privacy Issues? by TWX · · Score: 2

      I've suggested a fairly straightforward approach before, as we have a lot of problems with insurance here too... When conditions prompt an officer to confirm the paperwork for an automobile and driver, if two forms of paperwork are not in-order then the car is impounded. So, if the driver cannot produce both current proof of insurance and cannot produce a driver's license, or if the insurance and the vehicle registration are both expired, or if the driver's license is suspended and the registration is expired, the car is at least temporarily seized until such time that the owner of the vehicle can produce valid paperwork. On top of that, if any paperwork should prove to be fraudulent like forged proof of insurance or forged registration/title paperwork or a VIN mismatch, the vehicle should be impounded even if only that one form of paperwork is out-of-order, and if the State-issued paperwork is out-of-order, the officer should detain the driver on the scene until the VIN issue can either be resolved (ie, confirm that the VIN on the car itself is not registered as stolen) or the driver should be arrested pending resolution of the situation.

      Yes, these situations will result in some people having their cars confiscated who will probably not be able to sort-out the problems to get them back. On the other hand everyone is held to the same standard- one must have a license, one must have insurance, and one must have a properly titled and registered vehicle. Where I live a license costs something like $30 and one has to pass a couple of simple tests, and be able to produce vital-records paperwork to get the license. Title is literally $5 if I remember correctly, and registration is a sliding-scale based on a depreciation of a percentage of initial purchase price, until reaching a floor of $25 after a decade. The only part of driving that is actually expensive is the insurance, but again, everyone is supposed to have it. My point is, if someone cannot maintain these then they really shouldn't be driving, and if they drive after having these taken away in defiance of the law then I don't really have a problem with the law being used to take away the instrument that they've used to break it. If someone is not allowed to drive and they leave the car parked then there isn't a problem and thus there's no need to confiscate it, but if they drive anyway then they do so at the peril of their vehicle.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  2. efficiency by mrvan · · Score: 1

    Half the advantage of electric cars is efficiency (the other half being moving the pollution out of the city to a place where less people live). Can anyone comment on the theoretical or actual efficiency of this process? And is it simple induction, or does "Shaped Magnetic Field" mean more than activate a coil?

    1. Re:efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > actual efficiency of this process

      KAIST's (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) system is 60% efficient in the lab, and is estimated to be somewhat lower in the real world. There's a reason Republicans are pushing wireless charging. It is because it is so inefficient so we will have to buy more oil and mine more coal. That is why they're doing this.

    2. Re:efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The efficiency is less than 70% (depends on the distance between transmitter and receiver). I believe you only can reach 70% if there are less than a few millimetres between sender and receiver. That is not a good distance for speed bumps.
      More on the technologie: http://www.powercastco.com/frequently-asked-questions/

    3. Re:efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Efficiency is not a big advantage of electric cars. All things considered, electric cars are not much more efficient than cars with internal combustion engines. The big advantage of electric cars is that they don't need fossil fuel. Electricity can be created from renewable resources. The big disadvantage is that storing electricity in batteries in the car is expensive and also makes the cars very heavy. "Electric motorways" don't remove the advantage of not needing fossil fuel, but do reduce the disadvantageous need for heavy and expensive batteries.

    4. Re:efficiency by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Well I can tell you straight up that it pales in comparison of putting the electric wires up in the air above the busses.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:efficiency by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The electric wires are unsightly though, and require maintenance, and limit the height of vehicle that may operate on that stretch of road.

    6. Re:efficiency by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      that's why they're so popular in eastern europe. some cities in russia anyways.

      (the road buried will require maintenance too I'll bet though)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:efficiency by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I believe you only can reach 70% if there are less than a few millimetres between sender and receiver.

      We're way past that by now.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Hot Wheels? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    This technology is so old it's in my attiic collecting cobwebs. Literally.

  4. I'm disappointed by hackertourist · · Score: 3, Funny

    that this won't take the shape of 2 metal strips along the centerline of each lane.

    1. Re:I'm disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a very bad idea for motorcyclists. metal strips are slippery, especially when wet.

    2. Re:I'm disappointed by Oxygen99 · · Score: 1

      No, but the proposal does include costings for a series of giants to be located at each turn.

      --
      I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    3. Re:I'm disappointed by KGIII · · Score: 1

      And this is how we ended up with a Bon Jovi album. Thanks, guys.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:I'm disappointed by volmtech · · Score: 1

      With a slot in the middle.

  5. Question about efficiency by sanf780 · · Score: 1

    I thought wireless charging was inefficient. A quick search over the internet shows me claims of between 50 and 70% efficiency on power delivery for the mobile charging standard Qi. As for automobiles, I like the following graph, but I cannot tell how true it is: ecoupled-infographic.png
    Please note that charging may behave differently while in motion.

    1. Re:Question about efficiency by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It seems reasonably accurate - perhaps conservative these days. But 20% of losses is not a big a deal if you have a potential oversupply of cheap electricity and you're taking battery wear into consideration. For example, if a car battery cost $10k and lasted 1000 cycles with 200 miles per cycle, and you were to drive 100 miles on a roadway, you could either pay $0.5-1 for extra electricity...or you could wear out $5 worth of battery life.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Question about efficiency by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      We're talking about energy losses here. Energy which is either polluting or which is clean but we can't make enough of it to supply the demand. How is energy loss even acceptable in this day and age?

    3. Re:Question about efficiency by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You don't think that extra manufacturing to compensate for the inability to consume electricity directly is cheaper in environmental impact, do you? There's a reason why money generally works - it does roughly correspond to expenses of all sorts. If you think ten times greater industrial expenses mean a better alternative in any environmental aspect, then I'm not going to agree with that. The extra PV panels will have a lower impact than the extra batteries, unless automotive batteries somehow increase their cycle life by a factor of at least several.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Question about efficiency by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Plus, there's research into wireless transfer that has already demonstrated better efficiencies than 80% at the kinds of distances we're talking about here, so that point is moot.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  6. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Ob by Ziktar · · Score: 1

      Replying to remove wrong moderation; I meant to say this was Funny!

  7. It will never happen by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    Badly needed road widening schemes taking decades, very few new roads being built and pot-holes are left for years in smaller roads. It is obvious that we don't spend enough on our current road system - sop what's the chance of this getting funding?

    1. Re:It will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't get why there hasn't been a push for road widening. In my experience 90% of holdups are caused by HGV's sitting in the middle lane spending 10 minutes overtaking each other because one guys limiter is set 0.5 mph faster than the guy in front, and everybody trying to squeeze past in the outside lane (including 60mph middle lane drivers.) As soons as you hit a section with a crawler lane everything suddenly runs far more smoothly, at least for a mile or 2.

      The only time I've not seen widening work is on the M25, but I put that down to having 3 lanes trying to merge on / off at the same time rather than an actual capacity problem.

    2. Re:It will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same way they enforce the whole TV license thing? Just my guess. It will be a ridiculous try if you can opt-out system where everyone must pay at first then they must prove they are not stealing the electricity in order to opt-out of payments...

    3. Re:It will never happen by thrig · · Score: 1

      Road widening? While I suppose collecting yet more data on the phenomena known as induced demand might be fun and all, there's probably more sensible transportation investments to be made than laying down yet more expensive tarmac everywhere.

  8. Question! by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

    How do you prevent any other party stealing electricity from one system like this?

    1. Re:Question! by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      Some sort of transponder on the 'approved' vehicle that turns the power on?

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    2. Re:Question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you prevent any other party stealing electricity from one system like this?

      Charge the same price as any other charging facility, i.e., don't subsidize it.

      Still, there will always be ways of hacking into something like this. Nothing really prevents you from bypassing your meter at home except for routine inspections. That's probably how this will have to be done.

  9. It's a shame by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    Shame that driving on motorways in England has become tedious as hell now that they're installing average speed cameras everywhere. Slip over the the paltry 70mph limit a few times and you get banned from driving for a year. I try to avoid the motorways when driving nowadays.

    *prepares to be cuckolded by speed limit Nazis who think even 70mph is "too dangerous"*

    1. Re:It's a shame by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Except that the average speed camera sections are set to catch people driving above 85MPH, so you have a lot of leeway there to "slip" over the speed limit.

    2. Re:It's a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the newer ones aren't quite so lenient.

      I read recently about one police force that is planning on ticketing at 1mph over.

    3. Re:It's a shame by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      *prepares to be cuckolded by speed limit Nazis

      You think that your wife will screw speed limit Nazis? I suppose that's possible...

      On the other hand, you might have meant cold-cocked instead....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:It's a shame by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The police don't get to set the average speed camera limits, they are set by the Highways Agency.

    5. Re:It's a shame by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      In Canada our highways have a high speed limit of 62.1371 miles per hour. We even have a low speed limit of 37.2823 miles per hour. The roads are icy? Too bad, motherfucker! Drive at 60 km/h or you get arrested!

    6. Re:It's a shame by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      The idea with speed limits is not only to make people go slower, it is also to make most people go at the same speed.
      This has several benefits, including :
      - safety, by reducing the relative speed between two vehicles
      - lower congestion, by limiting the need for overtaking and speed changes that can cause waves of traffic jams.
      The 70mph limit was probably selected because it is close to the speed most people would drive naturally and serve as a baseline for road design. The speed itself is not that important, consistency is.

      As for average speed limit cameras, how about just following the law? It is not like with regular speed traps where you can get caught by surprise because you aren't watching the speedometer constantly. You should have time to react if you slip over the speed limit.

    7. Re:It's a shame by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      As for average speed limit cameras, how about just following the law?

      Because 70 is too goddamn slow. Have you ever driven on a British motorway? 70mph definitely isn't the speed people naturally drive at in good conditions; it's frequently more like 90-100mph and yet motorways have the lowest accident rates of any roads.

      It's all to do with screwing the driver over, as usual, and using safety as a pathetic excuse.

    8. Re:It's a shame by billybob2001 · · Score: 1

      ...you get banned from driving for a year...

      ...speed limit Nazis...

      We have ways of making you walk!

    9. Re:It's a shame by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I didn't drive on British motorways but I did in French motorways that are good quality and with a 130 km/h (about 80 mph) speed limit and yet I drive at... 70 mph.
      The reason is that with my car, the small time gain doesn't make up for the lower fuel economy.
      So yeah, some busy people with nice cars may be comfortable driving at 90-100 mph but it is not a majority. The road is also shared with trucks, trailers, not too powerful cars and drivers who value their fuel economy.

  10. nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nice post for us
    http://news24.lanbd.com/

  11. Vehicle support? by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

    And which vehicles will support this method of charging? How about currently? Why waste the money on a road for a feature that nothing supports.

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
  12. Wrong Concept by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, powering wireless while driving is extremely expensive, as large portions of the road must be equipped with coils. This approach is also very resource hungry and therefore not applicable. Second, installing such coils for parking or on traffic lights is also expensive and complicated, as they have to be switched on and off 100s of times every day. Third, cars are by concept very inefficient, as normals cars weight 1-2 t and are used to carry around 1.3 persons weighting 80-120 kg. 1:10 to 1:20 ratio. In addition, they require a lot of space. While this is not a problem in large areas of North America, it is a problem in densely populated areas, like Central and Western Europe, and even more in India, China, Japan, etc.

    The solution to present day transportation issues in metropolitan areas, where most people live, are public transport. Well implemented, it is faster than cars in traffic, they require less space than cars, and they require less energy. In addition we should promote bicycles, as they are more flexible and a good short range people mover. They also come with the bonus of better health. The individual traffic (with cars) is dead, as there is no individuality in traffic jams and when thousands of people all drive in the same direction every morning and back in the evening.

    1. Re:Wrong Concept by bigpat · · Score: 1

      First, powering wireless while driving is extremely expensive, as large portions of the road must be equipped with coils. This approach is also very resource hungry and therefore not applicable. Second, installing such coils for parking or on traffic lights is also expensive and complicated, as they have to be switched on and off 100s of times every day.

      Yes, embedding cables in the roadway is not going to be viable for a variety of reasons and I don't need any pilot program to tell me that.

      Third, cars are by concept very inefficient, as normals cars weight 1-2 t and are used to carry around 1.3 persons weighting 80-120 kg. 1:10 to 1:20 ratio. In addition, they require a lot of space. While this is not a problem in large areas of North America, it is a problem in densely populated areas, like Central and Western Europe, and even more in India, China, Japan, etc.

      Inefficient in terms of what? Cost, energy, time? In terms of time cars are often twice or 2.5 times as time efficient as public transport for most people, even during peak commuting times. Just do some comparisons using Google Maps and you will get a good idea of the differences. Sure in dense metropolitan downtown areas, cars are going to be less time efficient because there is nowhere to park.

      Cost wise public transport is going to win out from an individual perspective, but the difference is most likely because public transit systems are heavily subsidized, while car transportation is heavily taxed.

      Energy wise, it depends on the efficiency of the vehicle in question, but yes on average mass transit is going to give you a fuel efficiency economy of scale type of effect.

      The solution to present day transportation issues in metropolitan areas, where most people live, are public transport. Well implemented, it is faster than cars in traffic, they require less space than cars, and they require less energy. In addition we should promote bicycles, as they are more flexible and a good short range people mover. They also come with the bonus of better health. The individual traffic (with cars) is dead, as there is no individuality in traffic jams and when thousands of people all drive in the same direction every morning and back in the evening.

      I think most is more like 50-50, because just outside the metropolitan urban core mass transit sucks it pretty hard. I think if there is an obvious under addressed and under utilized transportation system it is the two legs that people have under them. Yes, bikes are pretty good for short trips, but making sure we have complete streets and walking oriented development are key.

      Instabilities in the labor market combined with rise of gender equality has meant that at least one person in a household is going to have a longer commute. Gone are the days when Dad got a job and the family moved close to where that job was in order to lessen the commute. Now the chances of Mom and Dad getting a job right down the street are much much less and cars are here to stay.

    2. Re:Wrong Concept by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      In the US, most suburban areas are dominated by houses surrounded by (potential) gardens. In such areas mass transit by tram or even by bus is not easy to realize because you need a specific amount of people to make the system work. However, when the population is denser which is in fact the case in poorer communities in the US and applies in (Western) Europe to most bigger cities.

      It is also a chicken and the egg problem. The mass transit sucks because no one is using it. And no one is using it because it sucks so much.

      In Europe, China and Japan mass transit is much faster when you need to get to a location in the city or metropolitan area, as they can go easily up to 80 km/h and have an average speed of 50 km/g while cars only have up to 17 km/h (in German cities that is).

      However, he real solution is not in installing a system which is able to shuffle people around more quickly. As history shows that never resulted in less traffic. It would be better to relocalize businesses. For example, why must people working in an office drive all to the city center to sit in an office together with their neighbors. In most cases it is more helpful and even cheaper for the company to rent offices closer to the home. However, then most of those tall buildings are useless.

      European cities were constructed during a time where people worked close(r) to home and had no cars. Therefore, the cities are dominated by 4-8 story high buildings and narrow roads. Shops where located in such structures on street level while the people were living above their shops. Traffic wise this is very clever.

      Ah yes, and you asked about efficiency of mass transit vs. cars. In my previous post this efficiency comprises all resources used to transport the person. However, I left out time. While I know that this is an important factor for people, it depends highly on the area where you live how much faster you are at average and at the time when most people commute.

    3. Re:Wrong Concept by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Good discussion. Although, I think that often overlooked in discussion of settlement patterns is the affects of the sexual revolution and more recently the Internet revolution. When you had a primary "bread winner" you could more easily cluster around that person's employment. But transportation that provides for faster travel times to more jobs enables better job options for everyone in the household.

      Alternatively, with jobs that can be done remotely, then it does provide some flexibility and people rely on communication rather than transportation.

      Personally I've been in the situation of moving to be closer to work, then having the job change, then moving again, then having the job change. Finally you settle down and it becomes harder and harder and more costly to move, but yet the job market doesn't stay the same for a lot of people in the economy. Time efficient transportation has to be available to fill in some of that gap to enable opportunity.

      It is all well and good to lament the changes in settlement and development patterns from a time when most people relied on walking for their daily jobs, but the loss of job opportunities for households with multiple bread winners when you don't have a flexible and time efficient transportation system should be the main consideration in transportation planning. Efficient transportation is an enabler of the middle class.

  13. A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q: Why is starting a comment in the Subject: line incredibly irritating? Reply to This

  14. Safety ? by frog_strat · · Score: 1

    Seems like that system would need to deliver a lot of current. Are there potential safety issues here, for example a piece of metal falling on the road over the inductors ?

  15. I know wh by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

    at you mean. It's real irritating.

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  16. You're supposed to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from top to bottom

  17. Will it be... by ai4px · · Score: 1

    Qi compatible? Just think of all the poor saps standing the middle of the roadway trying to charge their phones!

  18. How about revisiting good old treadmills? by alexandre.oberlin · · Score: 1

    Wouldn’t it be cheaper to install chains of synchronized declutchable treadmills on motorways? With today’s electronic controls wouldn’t it be worth studying? BTW it might make charging easier since the car does not move relative to the treadmill (until it is passed on to the next one).