[RFI] [External] Re: Wireless Power Transfer with electric vehicles

[Grant Saviers]

Before C-19 I was in Germany - wall to wall solar panels.  Electricity 
residential rate 6/2020 $0.387 per KWH and going up.  Back a bit, they 
had 3 days, no wind and clouds.  Fortunately the French nukes helped as 
did other's they bought from.

With more load percent of wind/solar renewables, the stability of the 
net decreases, and every KWH not produced as above needs hydro, carbon 
or nuke backup.  So it's a losing game that gets worse the more the 
renewables provide.  See the engineering studies of this phenomena in 
Germany.

OTOH, I had 15KW of solar (all Sunpower USA) that I installed in CA.  A 
terrific deal considering the CA and Fed rebates.  Plus, it knocked the 
penalty peak rate ($.35/KWH) off my bill and ran another meter backward 
net for the year. (PG&E paid me $0.03/KWH for selling them power - ha 
ha!!).  ROI was above 25%.  So politics can make it a financially good 
deal as well as some nice "I'm green" points.

Assuming the infrastructure will somehow get built has no basis in 
reality considering NIMBY, eco-warriers, and general government 
incompetence.  Pretty much proven the last 20 years.  Which President 
promised "shovel ready"?

To pile on with one more gotcha.  Two EV cars, with batteries @ 250KWH 
to recharge every night in your home?  Do the math per house and per 
neighborhood.  Get a price to upgrade your entrance service.

Grant KZ1W


On 4/20/2021 13:12, David Eckhardt wrote:
> Ed, your points are well taken.  However, consider the required
> infrastructure expansion in the power grid that full implementation of the
> EV is highly likely to precipitate.  The EV movement is a loser with the
> present power grid and generating capability.  Take California as an
> example.  This is likely a worst case for the nation, but very real.  Every
> summer with all the air conditioners, areas of that state issue rolling
> blackouts and brownouts.  Five decades ago with the rolling brownouts in S.
> Cal., I had to replace our frig. due to a burned out compressor.  This is a
> common failure with low voltage - they draw too much current.  At the time,
> I measured 104 vrms.  And this was five decades in the past!  If every new
> house were equipped with solar to the extent that they became totally
> independent of the power grid, would that make up the difference?  I think
> not as the load of an air conditioner on a 100+ degree day in S. Cal. can
> not be supplied by a typical solar power installation while still providing
> enough overhead for the remainder of the house.
> 
> Take the same situation in California and address PFC, Power Factor
> Correction.  This is analogous to SWR on our feedlines and transceivers.
> If the SWR is high and no measures are taken to correct it before it's
> presented to our transceivers, damage to the finals is a very likely
> outcome.  Same goes for the power generation industry.  SWR on the power
> grid, lack of PFC, causes just that phenomenon.  The generators produce
> more heat in dealing with the reflected power and must generate more power
> to compensate for the reflected power - lack of PFC on large
> installations.  At present there are no laws on the books to correct this
> situation.  If there were, the likelihood of rolling brownouts and
> blackouts every hot summer might be noticeably reduced.   While this does
> not directly address RFI and the RF FOG, it certainly plays directly into
> the overall picture of power generation which is the issue.
> 
> So, where is the womb-to-tomb analysis of the various power alternatives?
> Politicians wouldn't understand the fine points if they bit them in the
> face.  I have a study conducted at Los Alamos by some extremely qualified
> scientists - not politicians.  It specifically addresses 10 energy
> alternatives *from womb-to-tomb*.  The entire *womb-to-tomb* analysis has
> never been presented to the .....well.......I'll be polite, here.....
> Washington DC occupants.  I am unfortunately not able to share the entire
> study.  However, the conclusion of the study is that EVs and solar power
> are losers when the entire life cycle from digging stuff out of the ground
> (recovery of the natural resources) to accomplishing its purpose (use
> cycle) to final disposal of the parts (EOL) is taken into proper account.
> 
> Light pollution:  Can no longer see stars in the cities.  Everyone cares.
>               RFI and RF Fog:  Can not be 'seen" so out-of-site and
> out-of-mind (except for a few, amateurs included).
> 
> Dave - WØLEV
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:11 PM Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi at arrl.org> wrote:
> 
>> We can speculate, but the solar system on a given house is probably no
>> more than 1% of the total mass and electronics present in that house over
>> the decades the solar system will be in place, and its components are far
>> more likely to be recycled than the seven TVs that people will own over the
>> lifetime of the system.   You and I don't know where that balance is, so we
>> are just speculating that it might cost more energy to make than it
>> produces.
>>
>> I don't think that to be the case. Let's conservatively estimate that a
>> home solar system generates 3 kW for 8 hours a day.  If that system has a
>> lifetime of 20 years, can we really think that it would take the energy of
>> running a 1.5 horsepower motor continuously, 24 hours a day, for 20 years
>> to create that solar system from obtaining raw materials until disposal?
>> That alone seems to be way more energy than I can imagine it taking.
>>
>> Then, if we don't do things with solar, what are the energy costs of
>> creating and replacing the huge electric generators that will be needed to
>> power all those unsolared homes? What of the additional costs of upgrading
>> transmission lines to bring power in from outside rather than pushing it
>> around on neighborhood distribution lines. Then factor in the fact that
>> most of the energy created by those generators is derived from
>> carbon-producing fuels and in my mind, I think that actual math has to come
>> out on the side of solar power being quite energy positive. If it took more
>> energy to produce the panels than they produced, none of the solar farms
>> would be economically viable, yet they are springing up all the time.
>>
>> Now, as global citizens, we can be interested in these questions, but as
>> amateurs, and especially wiht ARRL, we have to be very careful not to step
>> past the bounds of our standing, because if we are to raise this point
>> based on speculation, we will lose the big EMC battle, and be sidetracked
>> by people who HAVE done the math.
>>
>> Solar will happen, and right now, working with the manufacturers to
>> sensitize them to the importance of avoiding interference is the right
>> step.  I must got ready with a a mobile van with a loop antenna located on
>> a trailer behind it, 99% noise free except for what I believe to be a bit
>> of tire static, ready to go visit local solar farms to really assess their
>> interference potential.  I can calibrate that antenna against my calibrated
>> loop and get a really good estimate of antenna factor, so, using a spectrum
>> analyzer with RMS detection capability, I can get some good measurements to
>> compare solar-farm noise to existing noise levels.
>>
>> Well, this will keep me busy for a few more years, so no need to retire
>> yet. all the rumors notwithstanding!
>>
>> Ed Hare, W1RFI
>> ARRL Lab
>>
>> Ed, W1RFI
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org at contesting.com> on behalf of
>> Leonard Halvorsen via RFI <rfi at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 2:43 PM
>> To: rfi at contesting.com <rfi at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RFI] [External] Re: Wireless Power Transfer with electric
>> vehicles
>>
>> One issue I have never seen addressed is the consideration of how much
>> energy is used to BUILD the components of the systems (solar arrays,
>> wireless chargers, etc.), and the associated pollution (read that: global
>> warming) resulting from that construction/production. Resources/Minerals
>> must be mined; then processed; then used in the production of the devices
>> in question. All of this takes energy. Probably more energy (including
>> fossil fuel energy) than would have been used if we spent that energy
>> (joules) directly on the work (watts, ft-lbs, calories, BTUs, etc.) to be
>> done (driving a car, heating/cooling your home, et-al). You are
>> saving/buying nothing if that EXTRA energy you use OVER the direct use of
>> the original expenditure EXCEEDS what you save at the end with the new
>> devices/systems/etc. Remember: Some of that extra expended (wasted) energy
>> is coming down your antenna feedline as noise.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Leo
>> WA2AMW
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Rob
>>> Atkinson
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:48 PM
>>> To: rfi <rfi at contesting.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [RFI] Wireless Power Transfer with electric vehicles
>>>
>>> The people who buy electric cars to Save The World are blissfully
>> ignorant
>>> of all the pollution associated with making and recycling batteries.
>> They
>>> will also be blissfully ignorant of the fact that wireless charging
>> energy
>>> transfer is about 50% efficient compared to a direct cable connection.
>>> Some won't care--they only want to virtue signal with their cars and have
>>> plenty of money to waste.  But maybe enough will avoid this idiocy IF
>> they
>>> find out how expensive it will be.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Rob
>>> K5UJ
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RFI mailing list
>>> RFI at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>> _______________________________________________
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>>
> 
>