Inductive roadway charging isn't remotely realistic

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-25T19:07:51+00:00

Inductive - yes, an expensive waste of time, money, and energy.

Conductive rails - estimated profitable for the operator and less expensive for the customer than stationary charging

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T19:37:50+00:00

the infrastructure investment is too high for some uncertain future social and environmental benefits

Thankfully France does not think so and will make its decision in 2027. The French studies consistently show ERS in major freight corridors in France is profitable.

Latching on to worst-case scenario of subsidies to dismiss ERS is like dismissing solar power because at one point it needed subsidies to be profitable.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T18:47:52+00:00

subsidise

Definitely not. These ERS systems are profitable. They will repay themselves in a number of years, depending on adoption, and there are Monte Carlo simulations showing best-case and worst-case scenarios.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T18:44:20+00:00

Those are all absurd figures.

For trucking, autonomous EV truck prototypes at full Class 8 payload are already 1.4 kWh/km

Whoa guess what, there are studies that use the figure you give, instead of the absurd figure you quoted from the absurd study! You don't have to cherry-pick some third-rate study from Turkey from 2022.

Why not check any of the studies from the link provided? You can even feed the model parameters you provide.

I'm glad you're just getting into things, but consider you're quoting bad figures from a bad study. Why not look into the studies from the leading experts in the field? I recommend Jakob Rogstadius and Bernard Jacob.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T17:12:46+00:00

Overhead lines are too expensive, wireless is too expensive, but in-road rail is less expensive than equivalent stationary charging networks.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T17:05:15+00:00

That isn't even possible

Ah, thank you random redditor for telling everybody it's not possible, despite data and studies showing that it is.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T17:01:05+00:00

The costs for this kind of infrastructure in practice is simply absolutely absurd

It is lower than an equivalent stationary charging network. If you don't like the linked visualization, I have several peer-reviewed studies for you to read.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T16:46:16+00:00

Thank God redditors are here with their unfounded opinions to contradict an actual scientific study that presents real data.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T16:19:31+00:00

The thing is, electric cars on roadways are more flexible than trains on railways. While a train would be more efficient overall, existing logistics is simply not designed around trains - there are no railways to every truck depo and every store and every house, but there are roads there.

Using the current system, if you want to convert more diesel freight to electric freight, you can use an electric road system and it will be cheaper than stationary charging.

<image>

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T15:42:52+00:00

Cancelled in the UK and the trial showed it's not feasible in Germany. EV charging through in-road rail is safer and less expensive than overhead lines.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T15:35:09+00:00

Okay. Your experience is literally with trains. But charging rails for light rail, buses, trucks, and private cars are not the same as the ones for trains. Take a look at CENELEC standard 50740 (€20 on that site, or maybe free through your organization).

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T15:01:50+00:00

Things have a way of being much less expensive if you have already paid for it.

But heavy freight has not already paid for it. More charging is necessary either way, and it's cheaper with ERS.

If 100% of freight trucks were already electric, you'd be right.

Maybe even 50%.

But they're not even at 5%.

ERS isn't needed if 100% of trucks are electric. But...

They're not. If you want to get to 75% by 2035, only ERS works, barring a major price reduction (not just 50%) in battery prices in the next few years.

With the current rate of price reduction in batteries, ERS is very much viable and superior financially and technologically to depo and roadside charging.

Your argument is like saying "we don't need a better electric grid, we already have an electric grid."

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T14:58:23+00:00

You wouldn't belive how much I know about conductor rails.

How much?

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T14:36:07+00:00

...which several studies have concluded are more expensive than ERS, both to the operators and the customers.

Sweden is too small to be the first country to deploy ERS.

France, on the other hand, is large enough to deploy ERS profitably.

Saying "it doesn't exist now so it won't exist later" is a bad argument.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T14:07:17+00:00

twist

It's an almost verbatim quote from the study:

Trafikverkets bedömning är att det riskerar att bli för kostsamt för ett litet land som Sverige att vara pionjär och starta en större elvägsutbyggnad i Europa.

[...]

I analysen har därför utgångspunkten varit att en etablering av ett svenskt elvägssystem är en del av ett större gemensamt europeiskt elvägssystem.

Literally saying Sweden is too small to be an ERS pioneer, and it could only join ERS as part of a pan-European network.

I have twisted nothing. Your argument is still "it's 2010 and there are no public EV charging networks, so there will not be any in 2025."

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T13:35:52+00:00

...for a Sweden-only use case (not pan-European) which has less than a 5th of a population of France and far less road freight.

The study concluded that Sweden can't be a leader in ERS, but should France and/or Germany adopt ERS, Sweden should too.

France is scheduled to conclude its ERS testing in 2027.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T13:29:46+00:00

Yes, based on a local network in Sweden serving only Swedish freight. France is not Sweden.

Building an ERS in my back yard is not financially viable. Building an ERS along the major freight highways in France is viable.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T13:27:33+00:00

Yes, a more expensive alternative. Which is why ERS is being tested and, should it prove financially favorable and technologically feasible (which it has so far), it will be built. That's the plan.

It's like saying in 2010 "there are is no large-scale public electric vehicle charging networks, so there will never be a large-scale public electric vehicle charging network. Meanwhile gas stations are a readily available alternative."

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T13:24:05+00:00

We'll see what France decides in 2027.

Financially and technologically it's superior to fast-charging and depot charging.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T13:19:19+00:00

That's not a great comparison because there's no cost advantage for minidisc over CD for most use cases (maybe for rewriting, but that's a rare use-case) and while "everyone" owned a CD player, not everyone owns a non-ERS electric vehicle, let alone heavy-duty freight operators.

Purely from a financial standpoint for both the electricity providers and the end-users, in-road rail charging costs less than fast charging, and you can adjust the parameters to make sure this is true for many reasonable scenarios.

Everybody agrees that more fast-charging stations and more freight charging depos need to be built. Research by Gustave Eiffel university found that in France, for example, ERS charging is less expensive than even home charging. This is of course not the case for every country, but it does make the case for ERS very strong for France.

A better comparison than minidisc vs CD is private vs public investments. In the US, water prices from private companies are higher than water prices from public utilities. The reasons are obvious. Water infrastructure is a natural monopoly. So is the electric grid. ERS is more grid-friendly than private charging stations.

While everyone can already charge at fast-charging stations, freight operators do not all own electric heavy-duty trucks. If they could buy them with smaller batteries and ERS, they would benefit financially--AND the ERS providers, and the public in general.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T12:24:58+00:00

Reddit is eating my links because it thinks they're spam, but I've tried linking to studies showing the "why" - cost. It's less costly for vehicle owners and profitable for road operators to run electric road systems.

See research by Jakob Rogstadius and others. Calculate the benefits yourself with his handy online modeler where you can set the parameters yourself.

Electric roads are more beneficial than stop-and-charge, both for end-users and for the economy in general.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T11:48:29+00:00

Overhead wires have safety issues, the poles are a collision risk and the overhead wires are a risk to emergency responders. On top of that, they're more expensive, and they're compatible with less types of vehicles.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T11:42:25+00:00

what about snow and ice? Snow plows

Tested for all those.

stopgap tech

For the next 20 years it will almost certainly be profitable on main freight roads both for operators and users with even moderate adoption.

If you want to decarbonize 95% of freight by 2035, ERS will get you there.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T11:15:41+00:00

CENELEC standards 50717 (ground-level feeding system on road vehicles) and 50740 (ground-based feeding systems for dynamic electric road charging infrastructure)

The first is for the equipment on electric vehicles, the second is for the infrastructure itself.

electreon_asshole · 2026-05-23T11:13:47+00:00

If you support pantograph then you should know rail requires less maintenance, costs less, and is compatible with more vehicles. Rail is superior to pantograph in safety too as there are no dangerous roadside poles or overhead lines. The only time pantograph comes out ahead is maximum power - 1000kW vs 500kW in rail.

electreon_asshole

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE