Will Highways of the Future Offer Inductive Charging for Electric Vehicles?
My good friend Cameron Atwood asked for my comments on this concept of electrifying our highways by installing inductive charging in a certain lane of each of our major roadways. The attraction, of course, is that the concept eliminates, or at least greatly reduces, the drawback associated with the limited range EVs currently suffer due to small battery capacities.
I’m betting against it, for the same reason that I’m betting against ARES (advanced rail energy storage), i.e., that the window for it is only as wide as our lack of cheap and portable electrical energy storage. What happens when we have developed the technology around any of several promising new battery chemistries…pick one….zinc-air, sodium-ion, etc.?
This concept also assumes that nothing happens to do violence to our basic paradigm of transportation, i.e., that we all own 3500-pound four-wheeled compartments that we take out on the roads for perhaps 45 minutes out of each 24-hour day. Personally, I don’t think this whole idea is long for the world. (Bonus: excellent poem linked above. Have you ever read anything more uplifting?)
The concept also has some negative unintended consequences, e.g., it would tend to push more traffic onto highways, causing increased levels of congestion.
Its promoters say, “Charge-as-you-go technology could revolutionize the automotive industry.” It could. But it won’t.
Of course, I could be wrong. That has happened once or twice in the past….
Thanks for your perspective on this, Craig. You make excellent points, as always.
It is wonderful concept of electrifying our highways by installing inductive charging in a certain lane of each of our major roadway and it is a welcome development and we will like to demonstrate this to our major highway in Nigeria
I would see a greater role for this in bus lanes/ bus stops, and maybe tram lines – these might justify the dedicated infrastructure in cities with electric public transport where the public transport system is to some degree under the control of the same administrative body as the roads.
Against this thought would have to go into how to deal with road works on sections of road with induction charging – you wouldn’t want to have to rebuild the charging system every time the road is dug up to install a new water pipe!
There will always be issues with infrastructure for inductive charging.
I wonder why so little mentions are made of moving roadways. Think more mass transit for cars versus peoplemovers, but similar concept wither way
I think you mean what in British English is called a travelator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_walkway
They can work very well for agile users, but it’s hard to see how they could operate at very high speeds. It’s unclear whether they would be technically feasible for long distances or in extreme climates.
The concept may be sexy approach to getting more EV transportation going at greater scale It may appeal to the ongoing cultural flaw common thru out the public’s slow adoption rate for new technology. Things that propels and delivers society to a higher level of sustainability etc.
Our conditional culture says make it fun, make it easy, make it super convenient and trendy as well then I may use it ! Hard Facts or good no matter for the majority.
Technically a foolish idea as Gary pointed out just one fatal flaw in this fool’s errand concept
Regular EV’s just need to come down in affordability, the next gasoline price hikes will come after lower cost stocks of oil are drained off in the latest oil drilling pricing wars . In California a network of roadside charging stations are being deployed and this is happening along other interstates in the US. So the problem will go away and charging will be easy. Also Forward looking utilities are going to build super fast charging stations in Urban areas that can provide FAST REcharge in less than 20 minutes. They will deliver convenience and the Utilities need to find ways to sell power and stay afloat.
Over Thinking a perceived challenge or problem into a new product is a common mistake made more often than we dare to discuss. Have Blessed Days
Since local journeys are short there would be no need for these on every road but on interstates or other main connectors this could be provided as a toll service.
Solar and wind along the route could power sections independently, in-road pressure transducers could also regain energy from passing cars.
The dutch are developing some modular (recycled) plastic road sections that could be used.
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-dutch-city-is-planning-to-build-roads-from-recycled-plastic-2015-7
Cost-effective, dynamic charging is clearly a transformative technology worthy of research focus. Most areas of EV research will not transform the value proposition of EVs.
The problem with wireless power transfer from a road is the distance between the coils on the underside of the vehicle and the coils in the road surface. If the power transfer coils are more than an inch or two apart the equipment needs to be large, heavy and expensive.
A German research institute has come up with a neat solution that is both cheap and simple:
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/blog/cutting-cost-wireless-charging-electric-vehicles
But it means giving up on the dream of recharging on the move.
On ARES: don’t you see niche opportunities for the technology where water is scarce and there is a large capacity of intermittent renewables, creating power balancing and quality issues?
Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/09/08/achieving-economies-of-scale-with-clean-energy-concepts/.
I don’t see charging off the road as practical or cost effective. That method may improve the convenience at charging stations. However we still have a long way to go to recapture kinetic energy more completely. For instance whilst we now recapture energy downhill by electric motors and braking I don’t think anyone has explored adding wind turbines that only activate when going down hill with automatic openings in a body designed especially or even when parked facing a strong wind. So I think we have not exhausted innovation enough in the efficiency area which reduces the need for more on board storage or increases the distance you can travel with our existing technology.
The most efficient method to capture energy during downhill braking is from the wheels. Even if it were practical to use wind turbines for braking the efficiency would be much lower. Air propellers generally have an efficiency of less than 70% on airplanes and using them to capture energy should result in a similar efficiency; electric generators often have an efficiency greater than 95% and the rotational power to drive them is already there at the wheels. Moreover, propellors would not work well at low speeds and the size required even at higher speeds would make them impractical. I very much doubt that that method will ever be considered since the efficiency would be much lower and there would be considerably greater complication including additional generators. Probably with google searches you can find the efficiency of air propellors.
Years ago, before I got my degree, I worked as an electrical technician for a manufacturer of engines and generators and designed the dynamometer control system. Out of curiosity I tested the efficiency of a D.C. dynamometer since doing so was easy and convenient. Even though the design was somewhat archaic, I found that the efficiency under the conditions when I measured it was about 92%. The generators used as dynamometers were designed in the late 1940s. Obviously we could do better now.
There is considerable room for improvement in capturing energy during braking. Currently it is done by charging the batteries. However, ultra capacitors are much more efficient especially under heavy load so it would be more efficient to combine them with batteries in such a way that the ultra capacitors would capture braking energy and use the captured energy to resume speed while using battery power to maintain speed and for acceleration only when the ultra capacitors are discharged. Of course it would have to be computer controlled to obtain optimum efficiency.
Although using that approach would make EVs more complicated and more expensive, it would significantly improve efficiency. Perhaps the next iteration of the Toyota Prius will do that.
Some feel that because electric vehicles use electricity that can be “regenerated” there should be a path to a perpetual motion machine. Unfortunately we are still dealing with closed systems of energy that obey the laws of thermodynamics. A car, any car, uses energy to overcome rolling resistance, mechanical resistance, air resistance and inertia. It is only the energy used to overcome inertia that we can recover with regenerative breaking of any type. Recovering that energy will naturally slow the vehicle. For the other expenditures of energy we can try and make the vehicle more efficient with aerodynamic design, special tires and fewer moving parts. All these improvements are subject to a cost benefit analysis that is sometimes missing. Improvements that could be done are then not because it simply does not pay.
Very good post.
One of the problems we are facing could perhaps have been prevented if physics had been required in both high school and at the college level. It would also be helpful to require enough accounting so that people would understand internal rate of return and how to determine whether investments make economic sense. They should also understand externalities.
Craig,
The idea of electrified highways is one of those intriguing concepts that’s been around for decades. I have an old copy of ‘Popular Science ‘ from the 1930’s, praising it’s virtues and prophesying introduction. In recent years, US, Holland, South Korea. Germany etc have even built experimental strips, although the first example appears to be an experimental electric highway contemplated for the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games.
These sorts of projects are usually stymied once the potential economic liabilities involving maintenance and usage are realistically assessed.
In most cities, electrified trains and tramways were originally built as a method of selling suburban land. With the introduction of convenient, mass produced, affordable automobiles, the need to provide mass transport diminished and throughout the middle of the twentieth century many cities saw tramways fall into terminal economic decline.
It was also a period of flight by the upper and middle-class from the old centralized inner urban areas, to the new suburbs where automobiles dominated. Like the modern new homes built on large plots of suburban land, the shiny new automobile was a symbol of individual status and success.
The old urban mansions became boarding houses or demolished to build office or apartment buildings and many inner suburbs decayed.
The new suburbs no longer required household servants. Labour saving technology replaced manual labour. Convenience, became the new mantra. Supermarkets, giant shopping malls, country clubs, all with huge car parks, replaced the old department stores and arcades of the city. The age of the commuter was born, and in many cities the old inner suburbs were abandoned to the decay of crime ridden, bleak, soulless government housing projects.
In recent years, a new generation of affluent residents has moved back to the inner cities. These residents are attracted to a more creative lifestyle offered by the suburbs, with it’s giant shopping malls.
These residents are transforming urban decay, into vibrant new communities charmed by the old building and individualism offered in the urban areas. These residents, see the bicycle or mass transport as a more convenient method of travel, than the long commuter drive to the suburbs. They are employed in clean new industries, that have no need for massive office space, or factories.
But it’s still all about practical convenience. Is it more convenient to belong to a car share, or own an automobile ? Different individuals have different aspirations and different lifestyles.
No transport system can hope to satisfy the needs of 1005 of the populace.
I know many EV owner who derive satisfaction from plugging in their EV. For myself, I far prefer wireless charging.
I agree with your analysis that as EV ESD storage capacity increases, projects like electric roadways will become increasing less economically viable
Excellent. Thanks. We agree on most of this (!). I’m not sure that’s ever happened before. 🙂
Our only difference here is that I think social and economic planning can work; in fact, it really must at this point, if our civilization is to survive the next few decades.
Craig,
Conservatives are naturally suspicious of “social and economic planning”, not because they don’t want to advance the commonweal, but because such terms are always employed by governments to spend vast sums on projects that turn out to be disasters !
Private enterprise projects also have a fair share of disasters, but usually the cost is largely born by investors, and directors are held responsible.
When governments commit to ‘grand schemes’ that prove white elephants , no one apologizes, or accepts responsibility. Often, even more public money is spent trying to save face and make the unworkable seem justified. Governments can even resort to quite draconian methods of coercion to keep unworkable projects from being exposed as failures.
That’s not to say that all government projects are necessarily poorly planned, or badly administered, especially when organized as public/ private partnerships, but a level of caution is understandable, given the dreadful legacy of “social engineering’ and “government planning” .
Conservatives also worry about the freedoms, rights and interests of the individual, when pitted against the intrusive, coercive power of the State. The excuse of governments when limiting freedoms or removing individual freedoms has always been that they are acting in “common good”, and their actions are justified, ” if civilization is to survive “.
Somewhere in the middle is a common ground that is truly “in the common good” , the trick is discovering the right path. It’s the road paved with good intentions that needs the closest scrutiny :).
Well stated and you seem to have thought it through Marco Polo The background on the changing social and demographic as well as living habits make for a sound analysis on why this concept most likely will remain another interesting concept with actual need or development very Unlikely.
The nature of auto transportation and even ownership is evolving and it may result in less auto ownership and more reliance on varied transportation options.
The domestic natural gas sector is really trying to woo the trucking industry to convert to Natural Gas options for long distance routes. Trying to build a net work of refueling stations and the capital expense and recruitment of investors is not an easy task. It remains to be seen how successful these infrastructure investments will actually be.
Many businesses make money and survive by providing a safe consumer experience for refueling vehicles in transit, this sector will be a competitor for this electrified roadway, and as others have said the road maintenance issues may be a fatal flaw to add to many of the others .
The energy output from solar and wind can be better applied for Higher Value end uses other than a road way.
Interesting comments though people like novel concepts , stimulating !
Marcopolo,
Perhaps we could both agree that Popular Science is more popular than scientific. I haven’t read it for years but I do recall reading articles which indicated a very poor knowledge of physics. They were obviously written by journalists who were scientifically incompetent, let their imaginations run wild, and were primarily interested in exciting readers. Popular Mechanics was often written at the same level.
Yes, the articles tend to be more science fiction than scientific, but ‘Popular Science’ did help popularize and make science interesting and exciting for people who were otherwise traditionally prejudiced against science and scientists.
This is such a many faceted issue with the potential technologies available, the politics and the human aspect It is possible to reach opinions on a surface understanding that may change when more complexity is added. It is also a subject I have studied extensively and come to the conclusion that it is inevitable long term if you accept associated trends. Short term it is almost a political impossibility in the US while it is a vision of the future in South Korea.
Energy transfer is a subject by itself. It could be wired or wireless. There is a present experiment in California with wired energy transfer to trucks on a highly trafficked route with a goal to reduce local pollution. There are about 5 or 6 ways we can do wireless energy transfer. Induction has been used for many years in transformers (and toothbrushes) but using tuned capacitors is far more attractive as it resolves distance and efficiency issues. Efficiency of over 90% has been achieved at a distance over 10 cm. Acceptable efficiency is possible at more than 18″. With this we could be talking about deeply buried components that do not have to be disturbed with road resurfacing that can reach vehicles with a high clearance.
Just as we are not eliminating batteries when we power an electric car with a hydrogen fuel cell we would not eliminate batteries by depending upon wireless energy transfer. We could make the vehicles have virtually unlimited range with no need to recharge a battery (it would be automatic.) This fits with the American interest in supporting individual freedom and is a different kind of support for electric vehicles than an advanced battery tech.
Batteries could be substantially reduced as they are in hybrids, solar cars and fuel cell vehicles. Along with storage capacity we would be reducing somewhere between 25% to 50% of the cost of the vehicle. … a Tesla model S for $30,000 then or an economy electric vehicle for less than $10,000. When you consider people as a group it is cheaper to wirelessly power the vehicle than the more extensive cost of materials and labor for larger batteries. (From another study.) This may appeal more to Asian countries that are not so afraid of top down solutions.
Long term, energy for vehicles will be less of a problem than traffic congestion. Many options are offered but one that we will certainly have to accept is reduced operator control. Recent impressive advances in autonomous control leads the technology but it is central control that will enable us to pack more vehicles, moving more quickly, with fewer delays on the same roadways. It will likely become a choice between not moving or less control over the vehicle. When transmitted control of vehicles becomes acceptable then central energy transfer may well follow the trend and the infrastructure. It would also eliminate the variable of how much energy is on the vehicle, eliminate the need for vehicles to stop for fuel and eliminate the space taken up for fueling stations. It begins to look then like a personal mass transit system.
There is a separate concept of an electrified roadway. This uses glass panels with the potential for PV and changing electric displays. This has received some crowd funding but I have seen a critique that ran the math and all but called it a hoax.
It may be that future historians will see the interstate highway system, which was conceived and started in the 1950s, as a disaster. It was built during the Cold War. The reason given for its construction was that it was essential for defense because it was necessary to move troops and military equipment around the country quickly. It, combined with freeways through cities, destroyed very efficient public transportation systems and made us dependent on private cars to get around with reasonable speed. That, of course, resulted in greatly increased demand for gasoline. Employers no longer considered the availability of public transportation when locating factories, offices, etc. Poor people who had previously been able to walk to work or use public transportation were forced to buy cars even if they could ill afford them. If they could even get to work via public transportation, it often (and still does) requires multiple transfers; a trip that might take 20 minutes by car can easily take more than two hours via public transportation.
Reversing the situation so that we will again have efficient public transportation will be difficult. Of course cars will always continue to exist, which is fine, but they should not be the primary means of daily transportation in urban areas.
To Freggersjr and Breath on the Wind your Historical perspective is good guidance and speaks to the need to really think concepts completely and thoroughly before expending precious capital both monetary and political on them.
The concept of EV charging roadways is technically and politically and socially disruptive and would require much time. We are running low on time on reversing the damages the free wheeling carbon burning has done to our society and the earth planet.
Much simpler and more deployable energy technologies have emerged in the previous 15 years that are cost competitive to fossil fuels and they are delivering multiple benefits to multiple stakeholders in our country and other parts of the world. Gaining mass momentum etc.
Despite these advances and the Multiple realized benefits spread across all segments of society there is NOW Well Funded and Falsely orchestrated Blow Back from entrenched interests who are losing market share and money – the campaigns waged by the entrenched class creates distortion and delays and more division.
The acceptance factor for a technology has much to do with its success in becoming a reality and not remaining a nice cocktail conversation item
In pursuit of better transportation methods we must employ precise Wisdom
There are many ways to choose the course of society: “Wisdom” may be the most precious and rare element. Presently it is popular to substitute personal interest and benefit. Even lacking “wisdom,” personal interest, or benefit sadly some politicians will agree to just do anything in an effort to appear to be doing something.
Well said Breath on Wind, wisdom is the under used skill set that our system tends to use.
My sense of Wisdom based on over 38 years of energy sector efforts tells me that there are many other wise paths to expanding electric vehicle deployment but electronic roadways does not appear to be a wise pathway.
Intellectually interesting and sexy but lacks fundamentals.
Like the previous persons said about Popular Mechanics and Popular Science having lots of half baked interesting concepts Energy CURIOS but not deployable real world deliverables
so it goes
As you might notice from (several) other comments here I tend to see value in the concept of power from roadways. It is difficult to predict the future but I think it follows a trend moving toward a personalized public transport. This article and its comments are a (welcome) bit of an “eye opener” for me as I had no idea that there was such an aversion to the idea.
Regarding magnetically recharging electric vehicles on the road, research on the practicality can be done in a laboratory without carrying out expensive experiments on roads. If laboratory tests indicate that it may be practical, then the concept could be tested on a road perhaps a few hundred feet long. I doubt the practicality of the concept, but ideas which were once seen as impractical have, with R & D, proved practical.
At least the nature of the concept is such that the cost of testing it would not be outrageous.
Here is some information on two proposed tests of wireless charging for moving vehicles: http://www.govtech.com/transportation/Utah-State-University-Researchers-Want-to-Cure-Range-Anxiety-in-Electric-Cars.html
http://www.gizmag.com/uk-electric-highways-trial/38897/
In a perfect world a transportation system and the locations that need to get to would be considered as part of a common solution.
But factories were also once located on train lines or had spur lines to the factory to facilitate the movement of goods and supplies.
In practice we don’t often design such a coordinated system but rely upon existing elements. It is one of the reasons why most of the world’s population is located on costal areas. Later we used canals and then it was trains. Now it is planes and trucks along with a continued use of shipping. Tomorrow it may be a hyperloop. The petrochemical industry took note of this fractured system and supported the lobbying efforts for the interstate road system. This in turn helped to drive another nail into the coffin of the rail industry.
As much as I don’t like petrochemicals for their pollution I have to give credit to the operators of the industry for being very smart in promoting their industry. I am also not sure however if being smart and promoting an industry is equal to the best course for society.
As you pointed out Craig predicting the future is perilous, but another positive reason to invest in the infrastructure of charging roadways may be the potential return on the investment. Studies have also shown that rail lines tend to encourage more investment in the real estate along the line then bus lines. It has been speculated that the rail lines are seen as more substantial and less likely to change. Investing in a charging roadway may be compared to a rail line. Electric vehicles may tend to prefer the roadway that will charge their vehicle over one that will not. Services along that route would tend to benefit.
I consider the major weakness to be political and conflicting interests not technology or economics. It may be that a consortium of battery manufacturers will try to politically derail such an investment in the same way that petrochemical interests have done in the past. But just because we like batteries over petrochemicals does not mean that they are the ultimate or best solution.