• rdyoung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is never going to be worth the investment. What is needed is more charging stations at rest stops, and points of interest off the highway. People can stop and top up their battery while they use the restroom, get some food, stretch their legs, etc.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Worth the investment how? Traditional ROI? No, it won’t be. Encouraging adoption of EVs and reducing emissions? Quite possibly. There’s a concept called “Social ROI” that includes outside effects like that

      • rdyoung@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m talking efficiency of the tech compared to standard chargers where everyone will have to park eventually, grocery stores, rest stops, hair salons, etc.

        I’m not against spending money like this, my concern is that it’s a waste of money that could be going to something else. Not to mention that cars on the road now aren’t designed to take a charge while moving. Wireless charging in charging spots like places in Europe sure, that makes a lot more sense, but this makes no sense if you actually understand the tech needed to make this work.

    • bobs_monkey
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      If the state is funding the project and and usage is covered by taxes, this could realistically be the future of individual transportation and widespread EV adoption, while also eliminating the need for charging depots. Where I could see this fall on its face is squabbling over how people pay for usage, and then consumers getting charged through the nose. But implemented properly in a public-minded way, this could be huge.

      • rdyoung@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Do you have any idea how inefficient this is? You can’t realistically charge a vehicle while it’s moving at a rate that makes this kind of investment worth it.

        Plus the cost to redo the road when it needs it.

  • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 months ago

    When I read the headline my immediate thought was “roads now have subscription services” and the most upsetting part of that is that I wasn’t even surprised.

    • RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Modern roads having subscription services aren’t even new: we pay for our roads with gas tax, registration fees, parking fees, and congestion pricing… And it’s still not enough, so we take from income and property tax to make up the difference.

  • lemmus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Maybe reduce the highway from 12 to 8 lanes and build a train line in the middle that can “charge” moving trains.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      As an Indiana resident, the vast, vast majority of our highways and interstates are two lanes each direction.

      • GiddyGap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Also, the vast majority of Indiana residents would not know how to use a train. May not even know what it is.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh, we all know what trains are. They come through our towns constantly. Unfortunately, usually only carrying freight. But Amtrak does have a line going through Indianapolis and there is a commuter line running through a lot of northern Indiana, so it’s not as dire as it could be.

          It needs to be far better though.

    • AToM.exe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      ދިވެހި
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      And how would this magic train transport me to the Walmart parking lot? Does it also drive to my flat? No, I don’t think so. /s

    • Dontsendfeetpics
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Idk about the middle unless they can make it more convenient than Chicago’s passenger rail system. Sometimes you’ve gotta do this ridiculously long detour to cross the pedestrian bridge because they put transit stops in the middle of the highway. Like sorry but a highway is not a destination.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      In the US, trains are generally used for freight transport, not passenger transport.

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This has got to be about the least efficient way to charge a car. Are the going to put solar panels in the road to power the wireless car chargers so they can waste even more money?

    • bobs_monkey
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not to charge it, but to power it in such a way that it doesn’t deplete the battery, especially on long distance trips. You’d obviously still need a battery for surface streets that aren’t retrofitted, or for driveways, parking lots drive thrus, etc, but this could possibly negate the need for all of these charging stations everywhere. Hell if enough cars have those undercarriage receivers as on the article, charging your car could be as simple as parking over a stationary coil, no cord needed.

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        Wireless charging isn’t the most efficient in the best of conditions. The efficiency drops off rapidly as the distance between the coils is increased. The coils will have to be far enough under the road that they won’t be destroyed by traffic and far enough off the ground to not get ripped off the car. Using wireless charging for something that requires 10’s of kWh per charge is a terrible idea and will waste massive amounts of power. It’s an even worse idea for stationary charging. People shouldn’t be wasting all that power because the are too damn lazy to plug a cord in.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I like the idea of just having a U-Haul-type system with battery trailers. Stop in, hitch up, do long-haul trip, drop off battery trailer.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think the weight would be prohibitive if you’re talking battery packs. However, an engine running on biodiesel fuel would work pretty well.

    • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Wireless FRICKIN roadways!

      Looking forward to this taking ten years and resulting in a single coil in front of a library stoplight

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      That one still cracks me up. It’s like the kind of thing a kid thinks sounds brilliant but is so easily torn apart under even the slightest bit of critical thought.

  • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    This would require both

    1. Vehicles be made/modified to utilize this
    2. The roads be well maintained enough for this to not disintegrate in under a year

    Neither is likely.