Self-charging electric cars

[HenrikOlsen]

it has to be focused within a receiver. on say, the underside of the car. the density of this beam would have to be much higher the one from the DSN. much higher in fact. than the power density inside a microwave.

The charger is coupled through magnetic resonance, not through microwave beaming, you're ranting against a straw man.

[noncryptic]

But here's the thing, unless you're in a remote location that's off the grid why would you want to use panels in the first place?

Because then you don't have to contribute to the profit margin of someone/some corporation that does have panels.
Local energy production also reduces losses due to conductor resistance.

Where do you buy 100% efficient solar cells from?

You know how efficient solar cells are at the moment, right?

You know van Rijn introduced hypothetical 100% efficient solar panels into this discussion, right?

[djellison]

You know van Rijn introduced hypothetical 100% efficient solar panels into this discussion, right?

Some 4 years ago some researchers proposed something that might reach 100% in theory.

I'll ask again - where do I buy 100% efficient solar cells from?

IN the non hypothetical world - here is the best actually functioning cells are 21% efficient.

Not 100. Not 40. 21.

[quotation]

if you output 20Kw at 2,4GHz then i don't wanna be anywhere near that sucker either. That is a LOT of power being transmitted. Sometimes the screaming does have a good justification.

Just saw this today: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...120708/227131/
Apparently there is some work going on that uses microwaves to transmit power to electric vehicles. Not nearly as far along as magnetic resonance technologies from a product-to-market perspective, but they did manage to jump from 40% to 80% efficiency

by developing a high-efficiency "rectenna." A rectenna is a device made by combining an antenna and a rectifier, and it converts electromagnetic waves into direct-current electricity

. Like you, I'd be a bit skeptical of it for vehicle use (given the scream quotient), but may have other applications.

[NEOWatcher]

I see this story as another example of laziness in the media. I googled about this, and opened up a couple of dozen links. They all report the "wow" factor, and not one of them addresses the cost or how "microwave transmission" isn't inherently dangerous to humans.

News by press release.

[quotation]

Cost and inherent danger must certainly be considered, which is why I don't think it will play a meaningful role in day-to-day transportation solutions, but if criticality outweighs cost and danger (providing electrical service to hospitals, for example, following a natural disaster or even in certain combat situations) then it might be a "nice to have" in your back pocket, so to speak.

[Antice]

The charger is coupled through magnetic resonance, not through microwave beaming, you're ranting against a straw man.

No. I was commenting on another coment about using wi-Fi style power transfer. (it more known for it's potential use for beaming power from space)
Using magnetic resonance is not truly wireless. it's extremely short range, and when used on a stove top we use it's to inductively heat the frying pan/pot/kettle. It has it's own issues to deal with. like it's tendency to cause eddy currents in any and all conductive objects that get too close being a pretty big one. that being said. it does solve all of the friction issues that comes from using a more conventional power pickup.(this would be a big maintenance issue with thousands of cars passing by every day).
I think it's better used when standing still however. otherwise you just get a less efficient power rail system with maybe some improved safety features. Inductive heating in metal objects may be a danger if you wear conductive footwear like steel soled safety shoes oftentimes worn by construction workers.

In my mind tho. calling this technology wireless is like calling power transformers on the grid for wireless. power transfer between coils in a transformers is using the exact same phenomena as that witch they are touting as a way to "wirelessly" charge EV's.
The word wireless in most laymens terms is what Wi Fi networks do. giving you a connection troughout a substantive amount of area from a single connection node without any wires between the two. magnetic resonance does not allow this. it's range is pathethically short.

[Van Rijn]

You know van Rijn introduced hypothetical 100% efficient solar panels into this discussion, right?

I made a point about the limitations of solar for this application. Even if you had 100% efficient panels, for the limited area to place panels on a car, you just wouldn't get much energy compared to what a practical car under typical driving conditions would need. I did not suggest 100% efficient panels exist or are likely.

[Ara Pacis]

I made a point about the limitations of solar for this application. Even if you had 100% efficient panels, for the limited area to place panels on a car, you just wouldn't get much energy compared to what a practical car under typical driving conditions would need. I did not suggest 100% efficient panels exist or are likely.

Something else worth examining is how low-energy of a car we could make while still being practical.

[djellison]

Because then you don't have to contribute to the profit margin of someone/some corporation that does have panels.?

You just have to contribute to the profit margin of a company that makes panels instead.

[danscope]

In the future, we surely will make lighter, and much more energy efficient vehicles than today's behemoths. Suv's as we see them
in the two ton variety + will be used infrequently, weekends, vacation , special purpose. Everyday commuting ought to be tooled up
for by employing lightweight vehicles, which means a different set of driving habits across the board. Speed limiters and proximity sensors will do for us what the law enforcement officials attempt. The type A maniac which threatens all polite and rational drivers will be quashed by technology and the speed nanny. They brought it on them selves. This will contribute to an environment safe enough for light vehicles to operate . Then you will see all kinds of new designs come out of the woodwork.
These things change the game. Eventually.

[djellison]

In the future, we surely will make lighter, and much more energy efficient vehicles than today's behemoths. Suv's as we see them
in the two ton variety + will be used infrequently, weekends, vacation , special purpose.

Building twice the number of vehicles isn't very environmentally sound. The public simply wont go for it either. The public wants a car. That's the car that takes them to work, the kids to school, the dog to the park, the bikes into the country etc etc.

Everyday commuting ought to be tooled up for by employing lightweight vehicles, which means a different set of driving habits across the board. Speed limiters and proximity sensors will do for us what the law enforcement officials attempt.

Again - the public will not got for that either. Totally unacceptable.

The type A maniac which threatens all polite and rational drivers will be quashed by technology and the speed nanny. They brought it on them selves. This will contribute to an environment safe enough for light vehicles to operate . Then you will see all kinds of new designs come out of the woodwork. These things change the game. Eventually.

They don't need to go down that route, and indeed - the public will not let it. The car of tomorrow must be as good, or better, than the car of today. I've said it a dozen times across this and other threads...because it's true.

It can, and will, happen. The Honda Clarity and the cars that will follow it are the way forward.

The Leaf, the Volt, the Tesla Roadster...are not. They are short term, interim, gimmicky stop-gaps.

[Van Rijn]

They don't need to go down that route, and indeed - the public will not let it. The car of tomorrow must be as good, or better, than the car of today. I've said it a dozen times across this and other threads...because it's true.

It can, and will, happen. The Honda Clarity and the cars that will follow it are the way forward.

The Leaf, the Volt, the Tesla Roadster...are not. They are short term, interim, gimmicky stop-gaps.

What is better about the Clarity than the Volt from a driver perspective?

[Ara Pacis]

In the future, we surely will make lighter, and much more energy efficient vehicles than today's behemoths. Suv's as we see them
in the two ton variety + will be used infrequently, weekends, vacation , special purpose. Everyday commuting ought to be tooled up
for by employing lightweight vehicles, which means a different set of driving habits across the board. Speed limiters and proximity sensors will do for us what the law enforcement officials attempt. The type A maniac which threatens all polite and rational drivers will be quashed by technology and the speed nanny. They brought it on them selves. This will contribute to an environment safe enough for light vehicles to operate . Then you will see all kinds of new designs come out of the woodwork.
These things change the game. Eventually.

I suspect there will always be type A people who will somehow manage to get a hold of a huge vehicle and use it to intimidate other people just for kicks and spend the extra money on fuel because it's their entertainment and self-image. We could ban certain types of vehicles, but I think it will sort itself out over time. As we run up against hard limits on fuel resources and higher costs and possibly rationing, we'll see people give-up large, thirsty vehicles for smaller vehicles if they still want to go to their jobs, go to the store, or go across town to bowling or to pick the kids up. Mass transit may be an option for large urban areas, but there's a lot of small, isolated communities in North America. It won't matter what people will want, they'll be stuck picking from what they can have.

[HenrikOlsen]

Something else worth examining is how low-energy of a car we could make while still being practical.

First you have to assume the driver is not American. . . <grin>

[djellison]

What is better about the Clarity than the Volt from a driver perspective?

Really? It's not self evident to you?

The Volt burns fossil fuels after 30-40 miles, consuming them at pitiful approx 31-35 mpg. The Clarity does not.

The Volt needs to be plugged in and charged if you wish to avoid this. The Clarity does not.

The Volt requires large quantities of lithium. The Clarity does not.

The Electricity that a Volt uses will be primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The Clarity's hydrogen can be produced at home, for zero emissions - http://world.honda.com/news/2012/412...ion/index.html

Things like the Prius, the Volt, the Leaf - they may be as good as the market provides today....but they are not the cars of tomorrow. They are interim. Stop gap. Compromise.

Fuel Cell cars will be the cars of tomorrow. Because they will be an improvement over cars of today - not a step sideways.

[NEOWatcher]

Building twice the number of vehicles isn't very environmentally sound. The public simply wont go for it either. The public wants a car. That's the car that takes them to work, the kids to school, the dog to the park, the bikes into the country etc etc.

It's going to depend on the minimum use car and it's capabilities. If you can shuttle the kids, take bikes to the country, pack a few bags into it for vacation, then it's one car. I don't know what Dan's thinking is, but he did say behemoth and SUV.
I'm already in that situation. I have an SUV and an economical car. If I didn't tow, then the car would still fit all my needs.

Again - the public will not got for that either. Totally unacceptable.

I think it's unacceptable, and think it will not be accepted across the board, but there are a lot of people accepting it to save money on car insurance.

The Leaf, the Volt, the Tesla Roadster...are not. They are short term, interim, gimmicky stop-gaps.

Short term and stop-gap, yes. Gimmicky? not in my opinion.

Really? It's not self evident to you?

I agree with your post and opinions, but...

The Electricity that a Volt uses will be primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The Clarity's hydrogen can be produced at home, for zero emissions - http://world.honda.com/news/2012/412...ion/index.html

Isn't quite true. The article states..

Using Solar and grid power, the system is capable of producing 1.5kg of hydrogen within 24 hours which enables an FCX Clarity to run approximately 150km or 90 miles

So; some portion of that process is pulling off that primarily fossil fuel burn.
Considering they are talking about a 24 hour time span, then we can safely assume that less than 50% is clean.
So; when they claim with "ZERO CO2 emissions", we can only assume clean grid power which we would have to be fair to the electrics for thier "plug-in" portion of use.

[danscope]

DJellison: The public may just be smarter than you give them credit for. And how many muscle cars are rolling off the assembly lines today? Hmmmm....... Times change. Even you will change......in time .

[noncryptic]

Some 4 years ago some researchers proposed something that might reach 100% in theory.

I'll ask again - where do I buy 100% efficient solar cells from?

I'll say again: same place van Rijn bought his.

IN the non hypothetical world

As you might know, we were talking hypothetically.
So your question is irrelevant.

[danscope]

I suspect there will always be type A people who will somehow manage to get a hold of a huge vehicle and use it to intimidate other people just for kicks and spend the extra money on fuel because it's their entertainment and self-image. We could ban certain types of vehicles, but I think it will sort itself out over time. As we run up against hard limits on fuel resources and higher costs and possibly rationing, we'll see people give-up large, thirsty vehicles for smaller vehicles if they still want to go to their jobs, go to the store, or go across town to bowling or to pick the kids up. Mass transit may be an option for large urban areas, but there's a lot of small, isolated communities in North America. It won't matter what people will want, they'll be stuck picking from what they can have.

Hi, I quite agree, I think larger vehicles may stay around for dedicated purpose, but annual mileage will be limited. Driving 80 miles round trip by yourself to pick up groceries may become a thing of the past. Replaced by a three-wheeled bubble top commuter.
...with a fuel cell .
Best regards,
Dan

[djellison]

DJellison: The public may just be smarter than you give them credit for.

Really?

Look at the sales figures for F series pick up trucks vs Prius / Leaf / Volt etc.

The public is making its opinion very well made at the moment.

[NEOWatcher]

Really?
Look at the sales figures for F series pick up trucks vs Prius / Leaf / Volt etc.
The public is making its opinion very well made at the moment.

It depends on the metric you use. I don't think that a traditional vehicle at one end of the spectrum compared to niche vehicles is a fair comparison.

I don't have numbers, but this has been a news topic for the last few years as gas prices were soaring. Manufacturers were rushing to improve fuel economy in light of the demand according to the reports. Sure; people aren't buying the ultra-efficient cars, but it seems they have moved to more economical cars. What I would like to see is comparisons by class of car (subcompact, compact, midsize, etc). It's probably a more telling number.

Being that pickups are still required as personal business vehicles, I don't think the number would drop as fast as all the other classes. I think I see a drop in full-size vans though. Also; other "beefy" vehicle choices are getting smaller. So; the ones left will naturally get people moving to them for the capacity.

For example: I have a mid-size SUV that's beefy enough for my use. The replacements in that catagory can not meet my needs. To replace it, I would either need to spend a small fortune for a large SUV, or I would have to move to a full size pickup.

[Van Rijn]

Really? It's not self evident to you?

The Volt burns fossil fuels after 30-40 miles, consuming them at pitiful approx 31-35 mpg. The Clarity does not.

Instead, the Clarity requires hydrogen, which is not generally available. I see that as a substantial disadvantage.

The Volt needs to be plugged in and charged if you wish to avoid this. The Clarity does not.

The Clarity can't be plugged in when you can't get hydrogen. This seems to me to be a substantial disadvantage.

As I've mentioned before, it's likely that if fuel cell cars take off, they will do it as plug-in hybrids. They need batteries anyway to handle transient power needs, it would allow for regenerative braking, and a plug-in hybrid design would allow for more flexibility.

The Volt requires large quantities of lithium. The Clarity does not.

Instead, the Clarity requires much more expensive platinum for its fuel cells. Cost per vehicle is well over $100,000. The current design isn't economically feasible - the number of Claritys available (and only available for lease) is quite small because of the fuel cell limitation. There will need to be substantial changes in the fuel cell design before it could become economically competitive. In the meantime, battery technology is also expected to improve.

The Electricity that a Volt uses will be primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The Clarity's hydrogen can be produced at home, for zero emissions

That's going to take some big solar panels, and today that would be quite expensive. In practice, you have to buy hydrogen, almost all of it is produced from fossil fuels, there aren't many places where you can get it, and it isn't established that it will ever become generally available.

So you're talking about something that might make sense in a couple decades depending on how the technology and infrastructure changes, but it doesn't make sense today. But in a couple decades, other technologies will also have advanced, and may still be better choices.

So, no, I see nothing self-evident about the Clarity's claimed advantages. Today, if I were forced to choose between them, I would take a Leaf over a Clarity, and Volt no contest over both of them. But at least the Leaf and Volt are being sold in substantial numbers. That simply isn't possible with the Clarity, because of fuel cell production limitations. What's on the road is basically for show, the cost far above what the company will get back from the leases.

[Van Rijn]

One other point: If you can produce a significant amount of hydrogen at home, you can certainly produce electricity for a Volt. You don't even need a hydrogen generator for it (which is probably not going to be cheap, if you want something efficient, safe, and that will keep working for years with minimum maintenance).

[djellison]

Today.

And repeatedly I have said 'the car of tomorrow'

Not today.

Absolute straw man on your part.

[Van Rijn]

And repeatedly I have said 'the car of tomorrow'

Not today.

Absolute straw man on your part.

You were comparing the Clarity to the Leaf and Volt. You were claiming a self evident advantage. If you were only talking about what might possibly occur with some hypothetical future vehicle, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

[Ara Pacis]

Hi, I quite agree, I think larger vehicles may stay around for dedicated purpose, but annual mileage will be limited. Driving 80 miles round trip by yourself to pick up groceries may become a thing of the past. Replaced by a three-wheeled bubble top commuter.
...with a fuel cell .
Best regards,
Dan

Right, but maybe those can be rented intermittently, unless someone needs a pickup for their small business, but those can still be hybrids.

[djellison]

You were comparing the Clarity to the Leaf and Volt.

So? One can compare the the Model T to a Prius The past, the present, the future.

And of course, you were the one demanding I directly compare the Clarity to the Volt.

. If you were only talking about what might possibly occur with some hypothetical future vehicle, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

I'm not sure how many times I have to use the word 'TOMORROW' before it's clear that I'm talking about - you know...the future. (The title of this thread 'self-charging electric cars' clearly puts the subject into the future). How much clearer could I possibly make it for you to realize that this is a discussion of the future?

Oh, by the way, I'm not talking about something hypothetical. The Clarity is real. I maintain - it represents the first of what cars of the future will be.

[Van Rijn]

So? One can compare the the Model T to a Prius The past, the present, the future.

And of course, you were the one demanding I directly compare the Clarity to the Volt.

Uh, no. You compared the Clarity to the Volt in this post:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...04#post2045504

and in response I asked (not demanded) what was better about the Clarity from a driver's perspective, because it was (and still is) unclear to me. If you didn't intend to compare the Clarity to the Volt, you could have just said that in your response.

I'm not sure how many times I have to use the word 'TOMORROW' before it's clear that I'm talking about - you know...the future. (The title of this thread 'self-charging electric cars' clearly puts the subject into the future). How much clearer could I possibly make it for you to realize that this is a discussion of the future?

Oh, by the way, I'm not talking about something hypothetical. The Clarity is real. I maintain - it represents the first of what cars of the future will be.

The Clarity IS real. You're not talking about a hypothetical. But you are talking about the future? Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

Look, you've been arguing about practicality and choosing a car based on that. Let's review:

(1) The Clarity (and presumably similar future cars) requires hydrogen, which might never be generally available. Unless and until it is, it will remain impractical . . . unlike vehicles that use commonly available fuel, or that can be charged from commonly available electrical connections.

(2) The Clarity is not commercially feasible because of the fuel cells. Future technology improvements could change that, but it isn't certain this will be the case because:

(3) Other technologies aren't standing still, so you shouldn't be comparing what might occur in future fuel cell cars to present day vehicles. Even if a 2025 Clarity descendent would have advantages over a 2012 Volt, that is no guarantee it will be able to compete with a 2025 Volt descendent, or even just a 2025 pure conventional IC engine vehicle.

[djellison]

That's your opinion.

I have mine.

They differ.

We're kind of done here.