You haven't proven it to be a lie. It's been outright stated that physically connected chargers are in the 90% range, efficiency wise, and I've posted plenty of links showing that inductive chargers can reach those ranges as well.
Wired EV chargers aren't just a cable either, remember? They're a lot like computer power supplies, AC-DC transformers. Except instead of spitting out 12V, they spit out something like 400VDC. 90% is good efficiency for that.
Hell, I save money on running my desktop because I sprung for the higher efficiency power supply.
Basically you're switching from a 100% efficient cable to 80% efficient wireless.
Problem: 1. As LynnwoodRooster identified, cables aren't 100% efficient themselves. 2. The 80% efficiency is for the entire charging circuit, and is a false number. I'm seeingnumerousexamplesaround90%.
Of course, the ideal isn't to just look at the "wireless link" and assume all other parts are still present and the same loss. It's better to look at the loss from the input on the charging 'station' to what the vehicle receives. Most charging stations have extensive electronics, after all. Inductive chargers allow some of the loss to be "shifted" to the inductive link, as the link itself remains ~90% efficient.
A hypothetical efficiency model, that doesn't even account for varied driving where EV gains efficiency from regenerative braking?
That's actually accounted for in the EPA mileage estimate. What isn't said is that Solandri is doubling up a lot of the inefficiencies. For example, the EPA mileage estimate ALSO takes charger inefficiency into account. They're not measuring the kWh used inside the car, they're measuring how many kWh were fed to the charger. IE how much it will actually cost you. When looking at inductive charging, they're ignoring that charging efficiency is ~90% whether it's a wired or wireless charger. Wireless charging is, right now, within a percent or so of wired, efficiency wise. They're slapping an extra 20% loss assumption in there that isn't born out when I go looking on the internet for the details of the systems. 20-40% waste applies if you're inductively charging a cellphone at under 100W, not if you're inductively charging an EV at around 5kW. Which is ~240V@21A. Easily in range of a dryer socket, for example. A circuit at 50 Amps, popular for stoves and welders, is nearly 10kW even with overhead(80%) to make sure you don't scorch your breaker over time.
Right off the bat, ignore LynnwoodRooster. Otherwise known as an Ad Hominem fallacy. The rest of your argument suffers from problems as well, such as strawman. For example, "There is ALWAYS loss in an inductive system". Well, duh. I never said inductive charging doesn't have losses. For example, I said "extra inefficiency", the Cleantech article mentions "No charging method is 100%", and I follow up mentioning that while low power systems ( < 100W) have major problems with inefficiency, high power systems ( > 5kW) don't have that issue.
I even identified why this is largely so - dedicated chargers need a transformer to adjust the incoming voltage (generally 240V), to that of the battery pack (~400V). With a wired charger, this is part of the circuit. With inductive chargers, the inductive coil itself can be used to adjust the voltage, acting as a huge transformer. Transformers aren't 100% efficient, and are actually a major cause of battery charging being less than 100%. The battery itself is around 90-90% efficient. The rest is lost in transforming the electricity to the necessary voltage, primarily the transformer.
The Wiki article notes that the "efficient" Magne Charge system is 86% efficient, and that's probably at an optimal positioning of both coils. Offset the receiving coil by 10% and watch that efficiency cut in half.
And most EV chargers are 80-90% efficient, so 86% is right in the efficiency band for even corded chargers. Yes, optimal positioning is necessary, but not actually very difficult at the sizes we're talking about. Especially if the EV has automatic parking assist. Let it do the parking job and get you optimal positioning every time. Also note that Magne Charge is also depreciated. It's old. Newer techs are better, but not necessarily widely enough deployed or public enough to give the actual percentages.
So you start small, local, in a setting where a small scale rollout can stand on its own. Like wirelessly charging taxis in a single city. Even if a different wireless EV charging standard emerges a few years down the line, those taxis can either adopt the new system or continue to use the existing infrastructure, neither of which should incur large costs or inconvenience.
Indeed, which is why I mentioned it being risky, not that it is universally stupid. If a new standard becomes standard, one could install the new standard next to the old ones, then as taxis age out and are replaced with ones with new style chargers(whatever that is), you hold the occasional minor construction project to swap out old chargers with new. Assuming that you can't make chargers compatible with both, of course.
I just wanted to counter the "extremely smart" idea that it is a universally good move by pointing out that these initiatives actually fail more often than not(note: New business creators fail approximately 2/3rds of the time). But investors have to accept a level of risk to make the good money, so what one really needs to do is moderate the risk by good analysis of known information.
I think you made a couple mistakes though. First up, the inductive charger would REPLACE the 80% charging efficiency of the leaf's charger, not be in addition to it. In short, a wash. This is what I've found when I researched it myself, for EVs wireless and wired charging are effectively equal in efficiency.
Second, you make absolutely no adjustment for the energy costs involved in extracting, refining, shipping, and pumping gasoline.
I've towed trailers dozens of times for hundreds of miles, have you ever towed one?
Around the same as you, I've towed for over 2.5k miles. And I'm sure there'd be plenty of edge cases that they WOULD need to be trained for. Buses are already big enough without adding even more.
As for swappable battery packs, the answer thus far has been more "swappable buses". I'm sure that bus lines would go towards swapping battery packs before they start towing trailers.
It even makes some sense. Have a problem with a bus? Park it, do the minimal amount of paperwork necessary to tell the station what the problem is, grab another bus that is fully charged, cleaned, and otherwise clear of known problems. No need to build a charging station swap point, just plug the bus in. No need to mess with trailers. Etc...
For a bus, instead of using a road to charge, they could use a troley like system. Something like this here
From what I've read, trolly type overhead wires involve a surprising amount of maintenance and expense because the wires have to be out in the weather and you're constantly rubbing your contacts on them, so the contacts have to be replaced frequently.
Induction systems don't have traditional wear points, and can be completely sealed.
Actually, I was just checking up on this, it seems that inductive charging tends to be most wasteful at under 100W, and more efficient above around 5kW. EV charging being closer to 5kW than 100W....
That said, you have the problem that universal standards themselves tend to be cludges and thus slightly less efficient, but a wired charger might not encourage people to use them as much as wireless as they'd require the driver to not only get out to hook them up, but they'd have to remember to get out and unhook before driving away. While with a wireless they just pull up to the proper spot and everything else is automatic.
Would also be more compatible with driverless systems down the road, as it is easier to make an AI car pull into a wireless charging station and line everything up correctly than it is to add a robot to plug the wire in.
That said, consider the matching prices, and maintenance. With a robot arm, you have to maintain the robot arm. An inductive charger is at least solid state. You need some sensors for both the robot and the inductive charger, but the sensors for the robot arm are going to be more complicated, sensitive, and subject to breakage. With the inductive charger, you can build it INTO the road, build it so that it can be run over. What happens if somebody runs into the robot arm cable? I've seen enough stuff hit in parking lots. Take a look some time. Odds are that if it is in a parking lot and sticks up, it WILL be hit eventually. In a lot of them many times a year. One greenhouse owner has a state-mandated "watch out for pedestrians!" sign in his parking lot in the pedestrian zone, on a concrete block between the lanes. He runs a video camera livestream of it, and has a collection of video from people hitting it. He has to go out regularly to drag it back to its proper spot.
In addition, if we're looking at quick charge boosts to give an electric taxi or bus that extra hour of driving to make it through the day at regular pick-up points, fast connection and disconnection is essential. It took the tesla robot about 30 seconds to hook in and start charging. An inductive pad can be doing the same in under a second.
Wireless EV charging is just as efficient — or more efficient — than plugging in. Most people think they have to plug in an electric car to get the most efficient charging possible, but that’s not true. No charging method is 100% efficient. Conventional chargers are typically 88% to 95% efficient. Wireless charging is right in the middle of that range at 90% to 93% efficiency. That means it does as good a job of transferring electricity from the charger to a car’s battery as most conventional charging equipment that uses a cord.
This is largely because a wired charging system still needs to use a transformer to match voltage to the battery, while with a wireless charger, the inductive loop IS the transformer.
Even wikipedia notes that inefficiency is primarily a problem for systems under 100W, and becomes inapplicable over 5 kW. Which is interesting that it is more efficient to plug our small devices - IE smartphones and such, in, but better to charge our huge devices (electric vehicles) wirelessly.
First up, you're operating under a misconception. A properly designed wireless charging solution can be every bit as fast as a cabled charge. In many cases, faster, if you're, for example, comparing a 110V@15A cable compared to a induction system designed for 10kW.
It's actually very interesting. At the sizes and power levels we're looking at for induction charging EVs, the 6" or so between the wires doesn't give you much loss. Indeed, if designed properly, the system can act as a voltage changing transformer, eliminating the need to have one elsewhere. So they're actually efficient as well.
As for your van solution - Problem 1 I see with a "heavy support van" is that you've just doubled the number of vehicles you need to drive around, you can fit fewer buses and battery vans into an area than just buses, etc... Problem 2 Is that you're doubling the number of vehicles you drive around, which doubles the number of drivers you need(for now) or if self-driving, you're still doubling the number of vehicles and drivetrains you need to maintain. Problem 3 is that it is currently entirely possible to fit an entire day's worth of energy into batteries that fit within a standard bus frame, at least for buses that spend most of their day stopped or at low speeds. IE downtown loops more than greyhound between town. This eliminates the need for the battery van completely. Problem 4 is that the van will probably end up costing as much as a bus, so just buying twice as many buses actually gives you more flexibility. Have a problem? Swap the bus.
Most cities/towns run fewer buses at night, so you can charge most of them then. Even at the most severe use scenarios, you need to haul a bus in occasionally just for cleaning and other maintenance, so if the need is great enough you can simply swap out with a fresh bus, giving them 8 hours while on a charging station while they also clean/disinfect the bus, perform any repairs needed, etc... Or they can build a battery swap station, swap the batteries out, and be good for another 12 hours without charging at all.
Then, depending on route and all that, you can put charging pads under the bus stop spots, and depending upon the ratios, never really need to come in due to running out of energy, if the use tends to be 5 minutes of charging for every 10 minutes of driving.
If you want to get really, really, fancy, it's also possible to put a series of induction loops into the road surface and use electronics to charge the vehicle from the road even as it moves down the road at speeds in excess of 60 mph. You could have a system where, over the course of a mile, every EV running over the road gains a mile of charge. Though I'll admit that spots where the average speed is less or stops are expected can give you more charge ability with fewer loops, and are therefore cheaper. So, first you put it where the buses are stopping to load/unload. Then you put them in at redlights and such. Then you start building what I'd call 'runways' where the bus can accelerate using power from induction loops rather than its battery packs, preserving them. This is more useful than trying to give the bus power when it's stopping due to regenerative braking.
All this stuff is possible, of course, but the question is whether it's cheaper than just adding more batteries, cutting some weight from the bus, swapping out buses more frequently, or putting in a more efficient electric motor?
Okay, I've seen a number of similar "smart build outs" through history, and the problem that you can run into is that you can miss the direction technology is actually moving in and the infrastructure ends up wasted, never used. Or you end up with a sub-optimal beta solution that needs custom engineering for anything new, because you're literally the only install.
Guess right and it's glorious. Guess wrong and it's an expensive boondoggle.
It's like companies and governments coming together to design universal EV plugs - but there's three "universal" plug systems in common use worldwide, none of them are wireless, and Tesla came along and has probably the most charging stations, which are largely proprietary*, which succeed because they're like 4X as powerful as any of the universal designs, and sleeker to boot.
*As I understand it, nearly all Tesla stations have some universal heads, and Tesla actually released their specifications to the public domain, so if I want a tesla charge plug, I can put a tesla-compatible charge plug into my EV, but I'd have to pay at the superchargers, and no EV maker has made their EV "tesla supercharger capable" yet.
Probably not, because then you'd have to train all the drivers on how to move with a trailer behind them.
On the other hand, if you're buying hundreds of electric buses, have the battery pack be modular, between the wheels on the bottom where it enhances stability, then swap using a dedicated swap station, or even a forklift. Some electronics in the bus and you could even have the bus itself unhook the battery and rehook the new one.
I'd tend to say that we aren't seeing proposals for self driving buses because of: 1. Lower market share - lots of cars, fewer busses. Less profit potential. 2. Bus drivers do more than drive. They also monitor payment for passengers and oversee passenger behavior, etc... you would need to deploy additional automation, expensive. 3. Unions
Long haul trucking, without #2 and less #3, is seeing more interest.
You also have the Sam Vines boot theory. A good set of boots that will last you for life might cost as much as 5 sets of boots that each last a year, especially if you take care of them, but it's the rich people who will buy the good boots, while the poor stay in the hole buying a new pair of boots every year or less, despite it costing more over the long run.
It's expensive to be poor.
In this case there's a good chance that Gava bought a good car, though I'd argue his car is lasting mostly because he doesn't drive it much. Less than 100k miles on a car that old is extremely low mileage, less than 5k/year, when the average is 12-15k.
Average miles driven per year is ~13k in the USA, so if your car is under 100k, you're driving around a third of average. Even a '90s era car could expect to do 100k miles without major issues, so "runs great" is assumed as long as it wasn't exposed to excessive environmental problems.
That said, you are correct. It will take a "long" time for the shift. I tend to rate it in milestones. We're currently at "testing on public roads". Some other milestones: First self-driving commercial vehicles available for sale/lease - taxis, delivery, intra-company transfers, areas where a certain amount of limitations are acceptable, and more attention can be made for specialized maintenance requirements. Looking cool matters less than practical. Next, self-driving car available for public sale to private individuals/parties. Self driving cars become dominant, IE over 50% of sales Self driving cars become exclusive - only special duty vehicles aren't self driving. Note, these milestones are basically at the dealer - it isn't what is actually on the road. so you realize that the average age of cars on the road today are 11.7 years, so if half of new cars sold are self driving, that doesn't mean that half of the cars on the road are. Maybe 5% are.
So, if each milestone takes only 5 years(them moving to dominate could happen very quickly, but we're lagging on the introduction itself), that's 20 years before virtually all cars sold are self-driving. Then, another 20 years to get most of the remaining human driven cars off the road. Time for virtually all cars on the road, short of the occasional dude taking his Model-T out for a spin? 40+ years.
I'd argue that a "strong" level 4, something that can handle something like 90% of the tasks a human driver would be expected to be able to handle, but 99%+ of daily tasks, would still be useful for taxi and similar services. It's more for personal owners that you need full capability. Even a city is an artificial construct, and could handle some modification to better suit self driving cars.
For professional services, if the taxi runs into a problem it can't handle, there could be a central office with trained drivers to get the car out of any sticky situations.
it already has been. It's called Uber and Lyft and there are 0 excuses to drive buzzed let alone drunk when all it takes is a few taps and 7 or 8 bucks to get home safely without putting a ton of other peeps on the roads at risk.
I remember reading some studies on this, and the reduced cost of Uber/Lyft has indeed dropped drunk driving. However, rm does have a point. Taxis have been available for centuries, starting with horse and even human drawn carriages. Let somebody else get sweaty hauling you to your location. The question is cost and convenience. A ride-share ride is a bit more than $8 for me, and in some ways even $8 is pricy when you realize that I need to spend it twice - getting home is one leg, of course, but either I need to ride-share to the bar as well, or rideshare back the next day. With a self-driving car, we'd get rid of the need for TWO alternatively driven trips, not just one. So you're saving closer to $20.
In addition, with a self-driving car, presumably he doesn't have to remember to call them, even in a drunk state.
Keep in mind that I didn't actually suggest taking one(or actually a generic EV) on an interstate trip. I said to rent an ICE vehicle - Internal Combustion Engine.
Also, the interstate trip being interesting is a given that I'll fully admit that the infrastructure is nowhere near complete.
Last year I put more than 25k miles on my car. I can find the exact number when I look at my oil change record. I grew up as a Navy brat and the 3 year itch wasn't purged when I left home.
Then you're a sigma or so heavier driver than average.
Note that my objections to your postings is that you have posted unrealistic estimates, and is definitely more about the "average" person. I'll fully admit that EVs can't satisfy all uses, much like how back in the day there have always been a minor demand for electric vehicles, even if they were mostly golf cart types in warehouses where they didn't want exhaust emissions. The only question is the ratios.
Please for the love of God consult an electrician before suggesting something like that. You have no idea what you're talking about...
Or, alternatively, I have much more idea than you think, having actually worked with heavy duty cords. Like the cord that connects my generator to my house(through the disconnect switch).
It is actually a trick question. The answer is basically "none" for rare earths. The Tesla uses a standard AC induction motor, which doesn't use permanent magnets, thus no rare earths.
The batteries use lithium and cobalt, and while scaling is an issue in that they need to expand and build new mines to meet the demand, are not rare earths. The cobalt isn't necessary either, and even the lithium could be changed out if they get something like a flow battery developed enough.
Considering most places have rolling blackouts from the demand of heaters in the winter?
Huh? Where the hell do you live, where have you lived, that you think that blackouts from heaters are normal? I've lived in half a dozen states(and about that many countries) and never experienced that. Power outages due to storms, certainly, but a grid unable to handle standard demands?
I see you don't get out much. That's ok. You do you. But please don't apply your understanding of the world to everyone else. It doesn't fit.
You do realize that this is an ad hominem fallacy, a personal attack, not a counter for my argument?
You might want to be careful with you accusations as well. I have more miles on me than 95% of people. Fact is, the average for cars in the USA is only 15k miles a year, and most people aren't exceeding 300 miles on a single trip on a monthly basis. If you only bust that a couple times a year, like my driving through two midwestern states to visit my parents, there are solid reasons to rent a vehicle anyway.
Actually, laptop batteries have the energy density/potential of a grenade, not the explosive force. LiIon batteries tend to burn more than explode. They're like thermite, not nitroglycerin. There is no boom, just a big fire.
Dozens of Teslas have caught fire at this point. One incident resulted in Tesla installing a fancy titanium shield. The car ran over what was probably one of those multi-ball trailer hitches, penetrating the battery. The Tesla progressed through various alarm stages over the next 15 minutes or so. Trouble, seek service soon to serious trouble, seek service immediately to stop now to get out of the car. About 5 minutes after the last the car was engulfed in flames and burned completely. After that incident Tesla installed guards strong enough to either flatten any road debris or actually cause the car to lift over the debris without penetration.
Of course, ICE vehicles catch fire fairly frequently as well.
As for the maintenance/replacement fund, congrats. I highly recommend it. My current vehicle should be the last one I get a loan for(excluding giveaways like 0% interest), new vehicles are expensive, but when your old vehicle had a 5 year loan at $400/month and is hitting 11 years with only minor maintenance and is still running great...
If nothing else, given even just a few months that surprise $2k repair job(had to get my clutch fixed at 100k miles) is suddenly not daunting at all. Interest alone covered that...
Nobody "Trash Talking" Teslas. We are calling out the glaring misconceptions regarding it's sustainability as a vehicle of the future.
Then stop being vague. Now, I'm not going to say that Teslas, specifically, are the wave of the future, they're just the forerunner in manufacturing the most capable EVs. They may be replaced shortly, as soon as major car companies decide to produce actual competition for the car in those aspects. To wit, I use them more as an example.
Things to stop being vague with: What rare earth materials are we going to run out with that are essential to EVs? Why can't the electric grid be updated to handle more EVs? Where are the sources saying it's $20k per battery at every 5 years when there are articles saying $10-12k and more like 15 years of miles?
A battery isn't an engine. A battery is essentially just a box of electric cells. There are already companies specializing in refurbishing EV batteries where they pull the cells, test them individually, replace any that fail testing, put them all back in the box and sell the refurbished battery. It doesn't require casting or heavy machining.
As such, as long as there's enough demand, even if Tesla goes tits up I figure that businesses will pop up to sell refurbished and even new batteries compatible with Tesla vehicles.
After all, it only needs to be a box of set dimensions and strengths, hold a certain amount of energy, and provide/receive power with set ranges of voltage and amperage. The chemistry inside the battery can actually be changed out as long as the outputs stay within the set ranges. Want to trade out 3.7V batteries with the newest 5V hotness? Just put fewer batteries in per string.
The battery is going to die depending on how much and how hard you use it, sooner or later.
As does anything. The question is whether it's like motor oil, replace every 5k miles(or so), or like the one car that had its owner put 1M miles on the engine. We're saying it's shaping up to be closer to the latter.
It's going to require a personal loan to replace. IF you have good credit. Likely, more than likely not for the vast majority of Tesla owners.
1. Why? An EV owner could note the declining range, look at replacement values, and like me with my truck repair fund where I took my old truck payment and put it into a 'repairs/replacement' investment fund when I paid it off, save up to replace it. Toss $100/month of avoided gasoline, oil, and such costs into the fund and in a decade you'll have plenty of money to replace the battery without taking a loan. 2. I'd assume that most buyers of Model S cars to have good credit, not to mention being in the upper incomes. Why would you think that 'most' Tesla owners would have bad credit?
Slashdot Mirror
Then why haven't you quit?
You haven't proven it to be a lie. It's been outright stated that physically connected chargers are in the 90% range, efficiency wise, and I've posted plenty of links showing that inductive chargers can reach those ranges as well.
Wired EV chargers aren't just a cable either, remember? They're a lot like computer power supplies, AC-DC transformers. Except instead of spitting out 12V, they spit out something like 400VDC. 90% is good efficiency for that.
Hell, I save money on running my desktop because I sprung for the higher efficiency power supply.
Basically you're switching from a 100% efficient cable to 80% efficient wireless.
Problem:
1. As LynnwoodRooster identified, cables aren't 100% efficient themselves.
2. The 80% efficiency is for the entire charging circuit, and is a false number. I'm seeing numerous examples around 90%.
Of course, the ideal isn't to just look at the "wireless link" and assume all other parts are still present and the same loss. It's better to look at the loss from the input on the charging 'station' to what the vehicle receives. Most charging stations have extensive electronics, after all. Inductive chargers allow some of the loss to be "shifted" to the inductive link, as the link itself remains ~90% efficient.
A hypothetical efficiency model, that doesn't even account for varied driving where EV gains efficiency from regenerative braking?
That's actually accounted for in the EPA mileage estimate. What isn't said is that Solandri is doubling up a lot of the inefficiencies. For example, the EPA mileage estimate ALSO takes charger inefficiency into account. They're not measuring the kWh used inside the car, they're measuring how many kWh were fed to the charger. IE how much it will actually cost you. When looking at inductive charging, they're ignoring that charging efficiency is ~90% whether it's a wired or wireless charger. Wireless charging is, right now, within a percent or so of wired, efficiency wise. They're slapping an extra 20% loss assumption in there that isn't born out when I go looking on the internet for the details of the systems. 20-40% waste applies if you're inductively charging a cellphone at under 100W, not if you're inductively charging an EV at around 5kW. Which is ~240V@21A. Easily in range of a dryer socket, for example. A circuit at 50 Amps, popular for stoves and welders, is nearly 10kW even with overhead(80%) to make sure you don't scorch your breaker over time.
Right off the bat, ignore LynnwoodRooster. Otherwise known as an Ad Hominem fallacy. The rest of your argument suffers from problems as well, such as strawman. For example, "There is ALWAYS loss in an inductive system". Well, duh. I never said inductive charging doesn't have losses. For example, I said "extra inefficiency", the Cleantech article mentions "No charging method is 100%", and I follow up mentioning that while low power systems ( < 100W) have major problems with inefficiency, high power systems ( > 5kW) don't have that issue.
I even identified why this is largely so - dedicated chargers need a transformer to adjust the incoming voltage (generally 240V), to that of the battery pack (~400V). With a wired charger, this is part of the circuit. With inductive chargers, the inductive coil itself can be used to adjust the voltage, acting as a huge transformer. Transformers aren't 100% efficient, and are actually a major cause of battery charging being less than 100%. The battery itself is around 90-90% efficient. The rest is lost in transforming the electricity to the necessary voltage, primarily the transformer.
The Wiki article notes that the "efficient" Magne Charge system is 86% efficient, and that's probably at an optimal positioning of both coils. Offset the receiving coil by 10% and watch that efficiency cut in half.
And most EV chargers are 80-90% efficient, so 86% is right in the efficiency band for even corded chargers. Yes, optimal positioning is necessary, but not actually very difficult at the sizes we're talking about. Especially if the EV has automatic parking assist. Let it do the parking job and get you optimal positioning every time.
Also note that Magne Charge is also depreciated. It's old. Newer techs are better, but not necessarily widely enough deployed or public enough to give the actual percentages.
So you start small, local, in a setting where a small scale rollout can stand on its own. Like wirelessly charging taxis in a single city. Even if a different wireless EV charging standard emerges a few years down the line, those taxis can either adopt the new system or continue to use the existing infrastructure, neither of which should incur large costs or inconvenience.
Indeed, which is why I mentioned it being risky, not that it is universally stupid. If a new standard becomes standard, one could install the new standard next to the old ones, then as taxis age out and are replaced with ones with new style chargers(whatever that is), you hold the occasional minor construction project to swap out old chargers with new. Assuming that you can't make chargers compatible with both, of course.
I just wanted to counter the "extremely smart" idea that it is a universally good move by pointing out that these initiatives actually fail more often than not(note: New business creators fail approximately 2/3rds of the time). But investors have to accept a level of risk to make the good money, so what one really needs to do is moderate the risk by good analysis of known information.
I think you made a couple mistakes though. First up, the inductive charger would REPLACE the 80% charging efficiency of the leaf's charger, not be in addition to it. In short, a wash. This is what I've found when I researched it myself, for EVs wireless and wired charging are effectively equal in efficiency.
Second, you make absolutely no adjustment for the energy costs involved in extracting, refining, shipping, and pumping gasoline.
I've towed trailers dozens of times for hundreds of miles, have you ever towed one?
Around the same as you, I've towed for over 2.5k miles. And I'm sure there'd be plenty of edge cases that they WOULD need to be trained for. Buses are already big enough without adding even more.
As for swappable battery packs, the answer thus far has been more "swappable buses". I'm sure that bus lines would go towards swapping battery packs before they start towing trailers.
It even makes some sense. Have a problem with a bus? Park it, do the minimal amount of paperwork necessary to tell the station what the problem is, grab another bus that is fully charged, cleaned, and otherwise clear of known problems. No need to build a charging station swap point, just plug the bus in. No need to mess with trailers. Etc...
For a bus, instead of using a road to charge, they could use a troley like system. Something like this here
From what I've read, trolly type overhead wires involve a surprising amount of maintenance and expense because the wires have to be out in the weather and you're constantly rubbing your contacts on them, so the contacts have to be replaced frequently.
Induction systems don't have traditional wear points, and can be completely sealed.
Actually, I was just checking up on this, it seems that inductive charging tends to be most wasteful at under 100W, and more efficient above around 5kW. EV charging being closer to 5kW than 100W....
That said, you have the problem that universal standards themselves tend to be cludges and thus slightly less efficient, but a wired charger might not encourage people to use them as much as wireless as they'd require the driver to not only get out to hook them up, but they'd have to remember to get out and unhook before driving away. While with a wireless they just pull up to the proper spot and everything else is automatic.
Would also be more compatible with driverless systems down the road, as it is easier to make an AI car pull into a wireless charging station and line everything up correctly than it is to add a robot to plug the wire in.
It's not that it's too hard, it's that it's too creepy for most people.
Tesla built one.
That said, consider the matching prices, and maintenance. With a robot arm, you have to maintain the robot arm. An inductive charger is at least solid state. You need some sensors for both the robot and the inductive charger, but the sensors for the robot arm are going to be more complicated, sensitive, and subject to breakage. With the inductive charger, you can build it INTO the road, build it so that it can be run over. What happens if somebody runs into the robot arm cable? I've seen enough stuff hit in parking lots. Take a look some time. Odds are that if it is in a parking lot and sticks up, it WILL be hit eventually. In a lot of them many times a year. One greenhouse owner has a state-mandated "watch out for pedestrians!" sign in his parking lot in the pedestrian zone, on a concrete block between the lanes. He runs a video camera livestream of it, and has a collection of video from people hitting it. He has to go out regularly to drag it back to its proper spot.
In addition, if we're looking at quick charge boosts to give an electric taxi or bus that extra hour of driving to make it through the day at regular pick-up points, fast connection and disconnection is essential. It took the tesla robot about 30 seconds to hook in and start charging. An inductive pad can be doing the same in under a second.
I'd be careful with presuming that there's extra inefficiency with inductive charging.
For example, Cleantechnia
says,
Wireless EV charging is just as efficient — or more efficient — than plugging in. Most people think they have to plug in an electric car to get the most efficient charging possible, but that’s not true. No charging method is 100% efficient. Conventional chargers are typically 88% to 95% efficient. Wireless charging is right in the middle of that range at 90% to 93% efficiency. That means it does as good a job of transferring electricity from the charger to a car’s battery as most conventional charging equipment that uses a cord.
This is largely because a wired charging system still needs to use a transformer to match voltage to the battery, while with a wireless charger, the inductive loop IS the transformer.
Even wikipedia notes that inefficiency is primarily a problem for systems under 100W, and becomes inapplicable over 5 kW. Which is interesting that it is more efficient to plug our small devices - IE smartphones and such, in, but better to charge our huge devices (electric vehicles) wirelessly.
First up, you're operating under a misconception. A properly designed wireless charging solution can be every bit as fast as a cabled charge. In many cases, faster, if you're, for example, comparing a 110V@15A cable compared to a induction system designed for 10kW.
It's actually very interesting. At the sizes and power levels we're looking at for induction charging EVs, the 6" or so between the wires doesn't give you much loss. Indeed, if designed properly, the system can act as a voltage changing transformer, eliminating the need to have one elsewhere. So they're actually efficient as well.
As for your van solution -
Problem 1 I see with a "heavy support van" is that you've just doubled the number of vehicles you need to drive around, you can fit fewer buses and battery vans into an area than just buses, etc...
Problem 2 Is that you're doubling the number of vehicles you drive around, which doubles the number of drivers you need(for now) or if self-driving, you're still doubling the number of vehicles and drivetrains you need to maintain.
Problem 3 is that it is currently entirely possible to fit an entire day's worth of energy into batteries that fit within a standard bus frame, at least for buses that spend most of their day stopped or at low speeds. IE downtown loops more than greyhound between town. This eliminates the need for the battery van completely.
Problem 4 is that the van will probably end up costing as much as a bus, so just buying twice as many buses actually gives you more flexibility. Have a problem? Swap the bus.
Most cities/towns run fewer buses at night, so you can charge most of them then. Even at the most severe use scenarios, you need to haul a bus in occasionally just for cleaning and other maintenance, so if the need is great enough you can simply swap out with a fresh bus, giving them 8 hours while on a charging station while they also clean/disinfect the bus, perform any repairs needed, etc... Or they can build a battery swap station, swap the batteries out, and be good for another 12 hours without charging at all.
Then, depending on route and all that, you can put charging pads under the bus stop spots, and depending upon the ratios, never really need to come in due to running out of energy, if the use tends to be 5 minutes of charging for every 10 minutes of driving.
If you want to get really, really, fancy, it's also possible to put a series of induction loops into the road surface and use electronics to charge the vehicle from the road even as it moves down the road at speeds in excess of 60 mph. You could have a system where, over the course of a mile, every EV running over the road gains a mile of charge. Though I'll admit that spots where the average speed is less or stops are expected can give you more charge ability with fewer loops, and are therefore cheaper. So, first you put it where the buses are stopping to load/unload. Then you put them in at redlights and such. Then you start building what I'd call 'runways' where the bus can accelerate using power from induction loops rather than its battery packs, preserving them. This is more useful than trying to give the bus power when it's stopping due to regenerative braking.
All this stuff is possible, of course, but the question is whether it's cheaper than just adding more batteries, cutting some weight from the bus, swapping out buses more frequently, or putting in a more efficient electric motor?
Okay, I've seen a number of similar "smart build outs" through history, and the problem that you can run into is that you can miss the direction technology is actually moving in and the infrastructure ends up wasted, never used. Or you end up with a sub-optimal beta solution that needs custom engineering for anything new, because you're literally the only install.
Guess right and it's glorious. Guess wrong and it's an expensive boondoggle.
It's like companies and governments coming together to design universal EV plugs - but there's three "universal" plug systems in common use worldwide, none of them are wireless, and Tesla came along and has probably the most charging stations, which are largely proprietary*, which succeed because they're like 4X as powerful as any of the universal designs, and sleeker to boot.
*As I understand it, nearly all Tesla stations have some universal heads, and Tesla actually released their specifications to the public domain, so if I want a tesla charge plug, I can put a tesla-compatible charge plug into my EV, but I'd have to pay at the superchargers, and no EV maker has made their EV "tesla supercharger capable" yet.
Probably not, because then you'd have to train all the drivers on how to move with a trailer behind them.
On the other hand, if you're buying hundreds of electric buses, have the battery pack be modular, between the wheels on the bottom where it enhances stability, then swap using a dedicated swap station, or even a forklift. Some electronics in the bus and you could even have the bus itself unhook the battery and rehook the new one.
https://www.tesla.com/videos/b... - showing that an in-chassis battery swap is indeed possible.
I'd tend to say that we aren't seeing proposals for self driving buses because of:
1. Lower market share - lots of cars, fewer busses. Less profit potential.
2. Bus drivers do more than drive. They also monitor payment for passengers and oversee passenger behavior, etc... you would need to deploy additional automation, expensive.
3. Unions
Long haul trucking, without #2 and less #3, is seeing more interest.
Because even though it is free as a college student for me, mass transit is a sick joke in my area.
You also have the Sam Vines boot theory. A good set of boots that will last you for life might cost as much as 5 sets of boots that each last a year, especially if you take care of them, but it's the rich people who will buy the good boots, while the poor stay in the hole buying a new pair of boots every year or less, despite it costing more over the long run.
It's expensive to be poor.
In this case there's a good chance that Gava bought a good car, though I'd argue his car is lasting mostly because he doesn't drive it much. Less than 100k miles on a car that old is extremely low mileage, less than 5k/year, when the average is 12-15k.
Average miles driven per year is ~13k in the USA, so if your car is under 100k, you're driving around a third of average. Even a '90s era car could expect to do 100k miles without major issues, so "runs great" is assumed as long as it wasn't exposed to excessive environmental problems.
That said, you are correct. It will take a "long" time for the shift. I tend to rate it in milestones. We're currently at "testing on public roads". Some other milestones:
First self-driving commercial vehicles available for sale/lease - taxis, delivery, intra-company transfers, areas where a certain amount of limitations are acceptable, and more attention can be made for specialized maintenance requirements. Looking cool matters less than practical.
Next, self-driving car available for public sale to private individuals/parties.
Self driving cars become dominant, IE over 50% of sales
Self driving cars become exclusive - only special duty vehicles aren't self driving.
Note, these milestones are basically at the dealer - it isn't what is actually on the road.
so you realize that the average age of cars on the road today are 11.7 years, so if half of new cars sold are self driving, that doesn't mean that half of the cars on the road are. Maybe 5% are.
So, if each milestone takes only 5 years(them moving to dominate could happen very quickly, but we're lagging on the introduction itself), that's 20 years before virtually all cars sold are self-driving. Then, another 20 years to get most of the remaining human driven cars off the road. Time for virtually all cars on the road, short of the occasional dude taking his Model-T out for a spin? 40+ years.
I'd argue that a "strong" level 4, something that can handle something like 90% of the tasks a human driver would be expected to be able to handle, but 99%+ of daily tasks, would still be useful for taxi and similar services. It's more for personal owners that you need full capability. Even a city is an artificial construct, and could handle some modification to better suit self driving cars.
For professional services, if the taxi runs into a problem it can't handle, there could be a central office with trained drivers to get the car out of any sticky situations.
it already has been. It's called Uber and Lyft and there are 0 excuses to drive buzzed let alone drunk when all it takes is a few taps and 7 or 8 bucks to get home safely without putting a ton of other peeps on the roads at risk.
I remember reading some studies on this, and the reduced cost of Uber/Lyft has indeed dropped drunk driving. However, rm does have a point. Taxis have been available for centuries, starting with horse and even human drawn carriages. Let somebody else get sweaty hauling you to your location. The question is cost and convenience. A ride-share ride is a bit more than $8 for me, and in some ways even $8 is pricy when you realize that I need to spend it twice - getting home is one leg, of course, but either I need to ride-share to the bar as well, or rideshare back the next day. With a self-driving car, we'd get rid of the need for TWO alternatively driven trips, not just one. So you're saving closer to $20.
In addition, with a self-driving car, presumably he doesn't have to remember to call them, even in a drunk state.
I know how the Tesla performs on interstate trips
Keep in mind that I didn't actually suggest taking one(or actually a generic EV) on an interstate trip. I said to rent an ICE vehicle - Internal Combustion Engine.
Also, the interstate trip being interesting is a given that I'll fully admit that the infrastructure is nowhere near complete.
Last year I put more than 25k miles on my car. I can find the exact number when I look at my oil change record. I grew up as a Navy brat and the 3 year itch wasn't purged when I left home.
Then you're a sigma or so heavier driver than average.
Note that my objections to your postings is that you have posted unrealistic estimates, and is definitely more about the "average" person. I'll fully admit that EVs can't satisfy all uses, much like how back in the day there have always been a minor demand for electric vehicles, even if they were mostly golf cart types in warehouses where they didn't want exhaust emissions. The only question is the ratios.
Please for the love of God consult an electrician before suggesting something like that. You have no idea what you're talking about...
Or, alternatively, I have much more idea than you think, having actually worked with heavy duty cords. Like the cord that connects my generator to my house(through the disconnect switch).
It is actually a trick question. The answer is basically "none" for rare earths. The Tesla uses a standard AC induction motor, which doesn't use permanent magnets, thus no rare earths.
The batteries use lithium and cobalt, and while scaling is an issue in that they need to expand and build new mines to meet the demand, are not rare earths. The cobalt isn't necessary either, and even the lithium could be changed out if they get something like a flow battery developed enough.
Considering most places have rolling blackouts from the demand of heaters in the winter?
Huh? Where the hell do you live, where have you lived, that you think that blackouts from heaters are normal? I've lived in half a dozen states(and about that many countries) and never experienced that. Power outages due to storms, certainly, but a grid unable to handle standard demands?
I see you don't get out much. That's ok. You do you. But please don't apply your understanding of the world to everyone else. It doesn't fit.
You do realize that this is an ad hominem fallacy, a personal attack, not a counter for my argument?
You might want to be careful with you accusations as well. I have more miles on me than 95% of people. Fact is, the average for cars in the USA is only 15k miles a year, and most people aren't exceeding 300 miles on a single trip on a monthly basis. If you only bust that a couple times a year, like my driving through two midwestern states to visit my parents, there are solid reasons to rent a vehicle anyway.
Actually, laptop batteries have the energy density/potential of a grenade, not the explosive force. LiIon batteries tend to burn more than explode. They're like thermite, not nitroglycerin. There is no boom, just a big fire.
Dozens of Teslas have caught fire at this point. One incident resulted in Tesla installing a fancy titanium shield. The car ran over what was probably one of those multi-ball trailer hitches, penetrating the battery. The Tesla progressed through various alarm stages over the next 15 minutes or so. Trouble, seek service soon to serious trouble, seek service immediately to stop now to get out of the car. About 5 minutes after the last the car was engulfed in flames and burned completely. After that incident Tesla installed guards strong enough to either flatten any road debris or actually cause the car to lift over the debris without penetration.
Of course, ICE vehicles catch fire fairly frequently as well.
As for the maintenance/replacement fund, congrats. I highly recommend it. My current vehicle should be the last one I get a loan for(excluding giveaways like 0% interest), new vehicles are expensive, but when your old vehicle had a 5 year loan at $400/month and is hitting 11 years with only minor maintenance and is still running great...
If nothing else, given even just a few months that surprise $2k repair job(had to get my clutch fixed at 100k miles) is suddenly not daunting at all. Interest alone covered that...
Nobody "Trash Talking" Teslas. We are calling out the glaring misconceptions regarding it's sustainability as a vehicle of the future.
Then stop being vague. Now, I'm not going to say that Teslas, specifically, are the wave of the future, they're just the forerunner in manufacturing the most capable EVs. They may be replaced shortly, as soon as major car companies decide to produce actual competition for the car in those aspects. To wit, I use them more as an example.
Things to stop being vague with: What rare earth materials are we going to run out with that are essential to EVs? Why can't the electric grid be updated to handle more EVs? Where are the sources saying it's $20k per battery at every 5 years when there are articles saying $10-12k and more like 15 years of miles?
A battery isn't an engine. A battery is essentially just a box of electric cells. There are already companies specializing in refurbishing EV batteries where they pull the cells, test them individually, replace any that fail testing, put them all back in the box and sell the refurbished battery. It doesn't require casting or heavy machining.
As such, as long as there's enough demand, even if Tesla goes tits up I figure that businesses will pop up to sell refurbished and even new batteries compatible with Tesla vehicles.
After all, it only needs to be a box of set dimensions and strengths, hold a certain amount of energy, and provide/receive power with set ranges of voltage and amperage. The chemistry inside the battery can actually be changed out as long as the outputs stay within the set ranges. Want to trade out 3.7V batteries with the newest 5V hotness? Just put fewer batteries in per string.
The battery is going to die depending on how much and how hard you use it, sooner or later.
As does anything. The question is whether it's like motor oil, replace every 5k miles(or so), or like the one car that had its owner put 1M miles on the engine. We're saying it's shaping up to be closer to the latter.
It's going to require a personal loan to replace. IF you have good credit. Likely, more than likely not for the vast majority of Tesla owners.
1. Why? An EV owner could note the declining range, look at replacement values, and like me with my truck repair fund where I took my old truck payment and put it into a 'repairs/replacement' investment fund when I paid it off, save up to replace it. Toss $100/month of avoided gasoline, oil, and such costs into the fund and in a decade you'll have plenty of money to replace the battery without taking a loan.
2. I'd assume that most buyers of Model S cars to have good credit, not to mention being in the upper incomes. Why would you think that 'most' Tesla owners would have bad credit?