EV charging robots

September1

VW is proposing using robots to fully automate charging cars on underground parking




https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/press-releases/world-premiere-revolution-in-the-underground-car-park-volkswagen-lets-its-charging-robots-loose-5701

unkel

Meh. Wireless induction chargers in the floor is where the future's at (in relation to slow AC charging)

KCross

If they were serious about it they'd have pics and videos of real protoypes. All they've shown is cartoon mockups! :rolleyes:

Its just a PR stunt.

At least Tesla showed something like it actually working

Northumberland

Electric buses, not trams or trolly buses, are already in routine service in Geneva. They get recharged at each bus stop by a robot chargertgat docs with bus from overhead, and a 45 second charge is sufficient to get bus to next stop.

BigAl81

This is mad and genius at the same time.

It would be perfect for apartments for example. No need to dig up roads or whole car parks either.

I could really see this format catch on. No need to worry about ICEing either, the charger comes to your car space!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMC1H__xL3Y

I really think this would work very well compared to other current options.

listermint

unkel wrote: »

Meh. Wireless induction chargers in the floor is where the future's at (in relation to slow AC charging)

It's really not. The loss from such a future is ridiculous. You can't really think that is the future can you...?

I mean I thought you were into efficiency..

unkel

listermint wrote: »

It's really not. The loss from such a future is ridiculous. You can't really think that is the future can you...?

I mean I thought you were into efficiency..

You are stating that efficiency loss from wireless charging is a lot worse than from wired charging as if it were a fact. Care to back that up?

There is an ongoing experiment with wireless induction charging of taxis in Oslo (Norway) at up to 75kW and they have found induction charging to be 96% efficient, which is significantly better than the 93% efficiency they measured with wired charging

Linky


But say even if it were less efficient. Would a slight loss not be perfectly acceptable for increased convenience and safety?

I've been wirelessly charging my mobile phones pretty much exclusively for 8 years now. It really is the future imho. Plugging in is so early 21st century.

listermint wrote: »

I mean I thought you were into efficiency..

Out of interest, what makes you think that? Efficiency is nowhere near the top of any of my priorities and never has been.

ELM327

Nonsense!
What a waste of resources and R+D!

September1

Wireless charging would be having loss on wireless power transmission only.

Meanwhile for those robots we are looking as following losses:
- AC/DC conversion by mobile battery charger
- mobile battery losses
- DC/AC conversion by mobile battery charger

This losses could be offset by using off peak power, significantly lower initial investment cost and higher utilization as there is no ICEing problem and or cars that are fully charged left at destination charger.

listermint

unkel wrote: »

You are stating that efficiency loss from wireless charging is a lot worse than from wired charging as if it were a fact. Care to back that up?

There is an ongoing experiment with wireless induction charging of taxis in Oslo (Norway) at up to 75kW and they have found induction charging to be 96% efficient, which is significantly better than the 93% efficiency they measured with wired charging

Linky


But say even if it were less efficient. Would a slight loss not be perfectly acceptable for increased convenience and safety?

I've been wirelessly charging my mobile phones pretty much exclusively for 8 years now. It really is the future imho. Plugging in is so early 21st century.



Out of interest, what makes you think that? Efficiency is nowhere near the top of any of my priorities and never has been.

Sorry that's absolutely rubbish. The percentages are laughable.

No just no. One random article does not make it so.

And yes you keep going on about how efficient the ioniq is and you've put solar to your house id imagine efficiency is a high concern judging solely on your posts..

Your even at pains to point out Charging times on vehicles... I mean fast charging... This isn't possible on wireless tech.

listermint

ELM327 wrote: »

Nonsense!
What a waste of resources and R+D!

Driverless cars.... Not really a waste of anything tbh. The future would involve driverless cars and charging such as this.

unkel

listermint wrote: »

Sorry that's absolutely rubbish. The percentages are laughable.

Says listermint?

Poor post, imho. Come up with some proof. Failing that, at least try to argue your point rather than just dismissing a published article's test results as rubbish

listermint wrote: »

you've put solar to your house id imagine efficiency is a high concern

I'd say a good 70-80% of the solar PV I have produced with my current setup has gone back to the grid for free. It's very hard to be more inefficient even if I tried

listermint wrote: »

And yes you keep going on about how efficient the ioniq is

Yep, Ioniq is the most efficient EV there is. I don't give a toss about its efficiency per se though, but I do care that this cheap EV (EUR25k) has a reasonable range despite its tiny battery. If it could fast charge at double its maximum current speed (140kW) with 50% efficiency losses, I'd happily take the speed over the inefficiency / extra costs

listermint

I'd going to bother giving a rebuttal because I don't think it deserves one. I'm an electronic engineer so in my world it was would be laughed at.

If you truly were interested in it then your Google the thousands of other articles slating your view point.

Wireless charging is quite simply not as efficient or effective as a wired equivalent. No one is arguing it doesn't have a space but you argued on efficiency.

I won't bother rebutting ..it's pointless

unkel

listermint wrote: »

you argued on efficiency

If you bothered to carefully read my post, you will find I did no such thing. But you didn't read my post properly and you obviously formed an opinion on me from my posting history that efficiency was important to me. So you clearly have form in jumping to false conclusions

I merely pointed to an article based on a study that showed there was very little in it efficiency wise compared to charging wirelessly or wired in their setup

And then I argued that even if there are extra losses because of wireless charging, they might be acceptable giving the convenience and safety

You are not doing yourself any favours with your posts in this thread so far, maybe you can still redeem yourself?

liamog

September1 wrote: »

Meanwhile for those robots we are looking as following losses:
- AC/DC conversion by mobile battery charger
- mobile battery losses
- DC/AC conversion by mobile battery charger

Its CCS so that second DC/AC step is unnecessary.

listermint

unkel wrote: »

If you bothered to carefully read my post, you will find I did no such thing. But you didn't read my post properly and you obviously formed an opinion on me from my posting history that efficiency was important to me. So you clearly have form in jumping to false conclusions

I merely pointed to an article based on a study that showed there was very little in it efficiency wise compared to charging wirelessly or wired in their setup

And then I argued that even if there are extra losses because of wireless charging, they might be acceptable giving the convenience and safety

You are not doing yourself any favours with your posts in this thread so far, maybe you can still redeem yourself?

You argued 96 percent with induction versus 93 percent wired.

If anyone needs to redeem themselves....


Seriously man. It's like reading water whispers.

unkel

listermint wrote: »

You argued 96 percent with induction versus 93 percent wired.

I didn't argue efficiency dude, just quoted the article. Why don't you come up with some serious arguments about the Oslo taxi experiment and how they came to their findings?

Or maybe we won't bother. Let's assume wireless is less efficient. Then the next question is, by how much? Surely there must be plenty of mobile phone charging studies to show the difference fairly comprehensively?

The only argument I made is that even if wireless is less efficient, it might still make more sense to prefer it over wired. Like it makes more sense to me to only ever charge my phone wirelessly

I do about the national average, 16k km per year. This costs me about €160 per year in electricity charging at home at the night rate. If this would cost me 25% more because of less efficient wireless induction charging, I'd gladly pay the extra €0.10 per day for the convenience and safety.

September1

liamog wrote: »

Its CCS so that second DC/AC step is unnecessary.

In that case DC/DC conversion would need to be there, but one less DC/AC conversion.