Trading gas nozzles for electric sockets may be
the green thing to do -- in
more ways than one -- but wouldn't plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles be that much sweeter if you could just forget about the plug? That's what Evatran is trying to do with its
Plugless Power technology, shown off at Plug-In 2010 in San Jose, which charges your car automatically when you pull up to the company's specially-designed curb. The "station block" above is a wireless induction charger (yes, a car-sized
Powermat) that beams electricity to a shoebox-sized device you mount to the undercarriage of your vehicle, magnetically detecting and gravitating towards said shoebox even if you park somewhat crooked. The system presently works with 80 percent efficiency when firing electrons across a two-inch gap (engineers are shooting for 90 percent by the time it hits production) but of course the base station itself doesn't get power from the ether -- it requires one of the company's own Level 2 wired chargers (and
compatible wiring) to run. Should your residence or place of business be equipped, the 240 volt towers will set you back $3,245 this December, and the proximity charger will be available to early adopters in Q2 2011 (we're hearing April) for the bargain price of $800.
posted July 28th 2010 10:10PM
Pave the roads with this please!
@Grubasaurus Rex
I dont think we can live with taxes that high man
@Grubasaurus Rex
Wow. This is seriously exactly what we talked about 2 days ago in the Nissan Leaf article. Thanks for stealing our ideas Evtran!!
@Grubasaurus Rex I have two problems with this:
1) Charging a car requires a shit ton of electricity and so an 80% efficiency wastes a shit ton of energy which can't possibly be good for the environement therefore negating the entire reason for getting an electric car
2) Unless there is a mechanism which would raise the induction plate off the floor after you have parked to get it to within 2 inches of the companion box on the chassis, this technology can never be implemented in the real world. You can't have parts of the car with only two inches of clearance it just doesn't work.
@NikAmi Haha, I know. But could you imagine if never had to fuel up again, because you could just drive. That would be pretty amazing. Maybe when the tech gets cheaper.
@Grubasaurus Rex
Im having a hard time figuring out the actual size of this thing..
The curtain ripples look tiny, which lead me to believe that that charging dock is big enough for a car, but those 'buttons' are huge..
Wait.. holy crap I have never been this tripped out.. ever.
@Mike10010100 actually the idea of inductive charging of cars has been around since the 1950's. Arthur C Clark and other SF writers wrote about highways that charge the car as you drive.
@MrLinux
Lol, I realize that. We were just talking about it in the context of lazy/stupid users.
@Mike10010100
Evatran built the prototype just yesterday ;)
@detonator
Curses! I knew I should have patented the idea. And I bet they won't even include the "shock stupid user" feature... lol
@Grubasaurus Rex I wonder if its possible to utilize beam forming technology in this sort of application. Maybe thats how they get the relatively high efficiency numbers.
@NikAmi
Agree, two inches gap is too small.
@Firewave
But the ability to fly on hover boards would totally make it all worth it.
Make it fry bacon and I'll think about it.
@Ouill inductive cook tops have been around for over 30 years.
When Apple releases the first proximity charger in the future, it will be touted as the world's first proximity charger. Because as we all know, no products existed prior to Apple.
@liquidkernel Quit looking for excuses to hate on Apple.
@liquidkernel
i can already hear the hysterical clapping now as josh brings a demo of it onto late night with jimmy fallon show.
What happens when I stand on it? Instant potato chip?
@Aphus
If you're an american that eats only steak and mashed potatoes. Yeah.
If only one of these were in every parking lot.
From the looks of it, it seems they took a design cue from Apple. They must have conjured up some of that magic too because unless they have uncovered the holy grail, there is no way in hell that it operates at 80%, probably less than half that.
And at 2 inches? It would have to lower itself upon parking then retract when starting the car because almost all cars on the roads in the US sit a lot higher than 2 inches. Other wise it would get wasted at speedbumps, drivethroughs, potholes or just bad driving.
To give an idea of scale, your thumb knuckles are about 1 inch wide. Put one thumb on top of the other. Now does your car ride that high? Three thumbs? Of course not.
90% LOL! unless the damn thing has gold or copper contacts you will NEVER get a efficiency rate of 90%. Thats a fact.
@slipdisc
Or if you don't have thumbs, average flacid penis length is about 3-4". So if you think about baseball and hold your winky up against your car while squatting, that should give you a pretty good idea what we're talking about here.
@slipdisc the inductive pick up just lowers itself down once the car is parked. there, problem solved.
@MrLinux And a company could mfg that and make it reliable for $800? No way. Theres no doubt that idea would work, just not going to happen for 8 Bennies.
@slipdisc
Agreed. Even if they could get to 90%, it would be quite a waste of energy.
Sorry to nitpick but this doesn't work by "firing electrons" across the gap, it most likely uses induction. Electrons are moved in the car pad by a change the field around them, which is caused by the charging pad.
@deloreanz
Very true. Just seeing that statement makes me disregard the whole article.
I don't get how electric cars solve global warming. The gas will be replaced with the extra coal used to create electricity. Also how much will the electricity cost ? Not to mention the startup costs associated with the electric cars/industry.
@jwb3913
1) Average ICE efficiency is around 18%. Average coal plant efficiency is around 45%. The transport of electricity along the grid is more efficient than the transport of oil and gasoline by ships and trucks. Although energy conversion is not free, most EV's operate above 90% efficiency and do not consume power idling, still creating a net efficiency gain.
2) All coal plants in the US are now "clean coal" plants. What amounts to giant catalytic converters like on your car, often with steam and other processes, scrubs the emissions. While you are left with C02, even that is being tackled as you can see in Texas with carbon sequestration plants (stored in a deep underground layer).
3) Coal is a domestic product that is in great supply, and does not carry with it the same political issues as reliance on hostile neighbors for oil (the US gets a lot of oil from anti-US dictator Hugo Chavez for example, and one has to ask the question if we would even be remotely involved in the middle-east if oil were not a vital national resource).
4) Coal is only ONE way to produce power on the grid. EVs allow for total flexibility in power sources including hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, bio, and other upcoming technologies. Texas is in the process of building what should be the largest wind farm in the world upon completion.
5) Large plants are simpler to mandate and update than millions of small ICE scattered about that one has to consider grandfathering out of new laws and the like. Further, the pollution can remain in isolated industrial sectors, rather than in neighborhoods and streets right where we all work, eat, play, and sleep.
So when you factor in our national security, self-sufficiency, improved reliability and stability, and so forth in a domestic power source over foreign oil, I think most would agree its wise to transition. If we could wean our selves of oil and cut ties with Israel whose relationship with the US is very one-sided otherwise, I think we could finally unentangle ourselves from the middle-east, and my brother-in-law and soon sister wouldn't have to risk their lives every day.
@Ducman69 Good info. Thanks :)
@Ducman69
Way to throw around percentages, guy.
The ICE efficiency in cars is more like 20% to 30%, not 18%.
Average coal plant efficiency is more like 30% to 35%, not 45%.
Power transfer efficiencies across the grid vary widely depending on various factors such as distance. It's not uncommon to have as much as 50% loss in some areas. Saying the grid is more efficient than transfer of oil by ship or truck (you forget pipelines) is quite tenuous. Oil products have a very high energy density which is why it is economical for us to use ships and trucks.
Given all that, your first assertion is totally whack.
As far as your second statement goes, not all coal plants are "clean coal". Far from it. The first "clean coal" plant didn't come online until 2008.
So your second assertion is also totally whack.
Your third assertion is true. US coal reserves are quite large.
Number 4.....duh.
Number 5....Hah! Most coal fire plants have a life of 30 years! Given the first "clean coal" plant came on-line in 2008, it is going to take quite some time to get all coal plants up to that level as plants are life-extended. Also, the pollution doesn't hang around locally...it gets spread all over either way.
As far as your end-argument, the wisdom of transitioning to electric vehicles varies from area to area. If you have "clean" electricity, it can make sense, but areas heavily dependent on coal are better off sticking with the traditional gasoline model, or possibly some synthetic fuel derived from coal.
@gn7465 the numbers will vary dependin on your locations and your source, but the fact remains that, powerplant-->home is significantly more efficient that any ICE, making a larger scale move towards electric vehicles desirable, especially when a higher adoption rate will more rapidly promote advances in generation and distribution (smart grid, alternative energy, etc)
@mhunterjr
Bogus. Your assertion doesn't make it true.
Take locomotives, for instance. The wheels are driven by electric motors. Do the get their electrical power from the grid? No. They burn diesel in generators ON THE TRAIN to get the electricity. Electrical transmission just isn't practical or efficient for the long haul. They only use electrical distribution systems for local runs, just as electric cars are only practical for local runs.
The fact of the mater is the current grid isn't even close to adequate for widespread EV use. It is not as efficient as you say it is. It is not terribly reliable or fault tolerant. It just plain doesn't have the capacity.
At best, we're looking at 20 to 30 years to get the grid up to the necessary spec. Maybe 15 if we really, really, push like the Apollo program.
@gn7465
Oh, the 90% conversion for EV may sound cool, but they forgot to mention the battery efficiency.
So from a 35% efficient power plant (generous), you lose 20% of that in transmission (also generous), another 10% or 20% of that for this inductive power coupler, then 20% or so for the battery charging/discharging efficiency, a few percent more for storage losses, wow...that's not much left...it's less than the efficiency of an ICE.
Bottom line: Battery technology still sucks. You have to figure in those losses which are currently quite significant.
Cool beanz... I think
Wireless automatic charging of your electric car IS really cool, I agree. But the sole fact that it isnt 100% efficient makes it absolutely worthless. I can simply plug the car in, and achieve damn near 100% efficiency, in regards to the charger to battery connection. I dont see how you can get this type of system to 90% efficient unless the thing is making physical contact, but even then... 10% of your power is thrown out the window? You will see lots of people on forums removing this system, saving weight, and cutting down the monthly power bill...
@ZOMGVTEK the problem with chargers with contacts is they are not only dangerous (high voltage/wet garage/open contacts = ded people) but unless maintained do become inefficient due to dust and dirt. What would be a better compromise is a charging male plug that is an inductive charger with no exposed contacts. Yes you would still have to plug the car in but you would have reasonable efficiencies and lower maintenance costs.
@MrLinux
Actually, direct connect technology that is safe, efficient, and reliable is already available. We're only talking 240V. It's not hard.
So it's basically a giant Touchstone. I wonder how fast it would charge my Palm Pre?
@otrc It would probably take 0.2 sec to charge, and 0.002 more to fry your Palm Pre!
Is it so difficult to step out of your car and plug it into a charging station?
Citizens of the USA are all a bunch of lazy fat arse.
@darkmax reminds me of a comedian I heard years ago "do you think a skinny health nut invented power steering, no some fat lazy bastard invented it".
@darkmax
I like how you assumed that citizens of the US are fat and lazy just because some company is offering something that you think is useless.
@darkmax Yea we're lazy fat american's because we strive for innovation??? get over yourself.
The platform that you drive on to will more than likely be able to rise itself to within the two inches to charge the power cell.
does anyone see the irony of carging your 'green' vehicle with the least efficient charging method. Sure it's convinent, and 80-90% is efficiency is good for this tech, but more wasteful than the alternative.
"80 percent efficiency when firing electrons across a two-inch gap"
It totally doesn't fire any electrons. It sets up resonance between an emitter and an antenna in the car. The rapidly changing magnetic and electric fields in the emitter cause an electromotive force in the antenna, moving its electrons. There's no actual "beaming" of electrons. Check out the wikipedia page on near field effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field) and electromagnetic induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction)