Detroit is now home to the country’s first chunk of road that can wirelessly charge an electric vehicle (EV), whether it’s parked or moving.

Why it matters: Wireless charging on an electrified roadway could remove one of the biggest hassles of owning an EV: the need to stop and plug in regularly.

    • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Are you implying other countries don’t have train stations? They just stop at each individual houses because it’s a small country?

      Also, the biggest city in the US is set up on a giant train system (Im referring to New York’s subways).

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        No, obviously not. But they also don’t have stations in rural areas where there are houses with many, many miles between them.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s nice. It’s a small percentage of the population, and getting smaller. They can keep using cars if they want. We don’t need to hold back all other progress on their account.

        • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          To be honest, I do see where you are coming from. If we had public transportation as good as our network of roads, people would have incentives to cluster up in the first place.

          Shape defines function and function defines form. In this case that means the public transit would be built near the denser populations which will then cause people to move closer to the transport I on for ease of moving goods. It’s why these other countries look the way they do, they didn’t plan these out 3000 years in advance.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Other countries are no percent of the size of the US. The entire Indian subcontinent can fit on our eastern seaboard with room to spare.

        The US is big, and has a lot of cities. We have an enormous amount of existing road infrastructure. We are not going to stop using all of that infrastructure any time soon - that’s just reality.

        You’re acting like this change would be “just build trains lol” and that couldn’t be more incorrect.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          We built those highways over the last 70 years, with most of the work done in the first decade or two of that timespan. These decisions are not immutable laws of nature. They can be undone if we determine they are bad, and they pretty clearly are.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I have not seen a convincing argument that highways are bad. Do you have a link on that?

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Global warming and highways aren’t causally linked.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Too many too adequately cover here, but let’s start with induced demand. You notice your highway is backed up constantly at rush hour. You figure adding a new lane will help, so you do, and it appears to help at first. What happens over the next year or so is that people who were taking other options now use the highway, and it fills up again. That leads to needing another lane, and at some point, you’ve invented the Katy Freeway.

              Or how about that we’re subsidizing the trucking industry with our taxes? The wear and tear on our roads goes up exponentially with weight–not by a square factor, not by a cube factor, but by the fourth power. There is no way that the additional amount trucks pay in taxes can be covering that. These trucks could be largely replaced by a better freight rail network (we already have a pretty good one, just needs to be better), which would be far more fuel efficient per ton of goods.

              Or how about that highways encourage urban sprawl, which makes all other infrastructure more expensive. Have to run sewer and electricity to all those far flung neighborhoods. Your taxes are higher because of this. Not only that, but the neighborhoods that are subsidizing other neighborhoods might not be what you think (I linked to the pertinent point around the 5 minute mark, but the whole video is worth a watch on this subject) (and the whole channel, for that matter).

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                You’re not going to teach me to support density and mass transit, because I already do. Passionately. I am incredibly annoying to everyone I know because I beat them over the head with zoning reform rants and the paradox of more lanes.

                That’s not what we’re discussing here.

                Or how about that we’re subsidizing the trucking industry with our taxes?

                There is no viable means of moving goods in this country without trucks. I’ve worked in logistics. There is no intermodal method that can possibly service all of the non-arterial areas of population with only last-mile trucking.

                We’d have to forcibly relocate millions of people (as the Chinese did) in order to have this kind of conversion away from single vehicles.

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You asked for “why highways are bad?” and I gave it to you. Now you’re running over there acting like we were talking about something else.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    Hey sorry man I edited and added a lot more. I thought of it right after posting. That’s my b.

                    I appreciate your take and agree with these things, but I view this argument as our over-reliance (I would even say cultural addiction) to highways rather than their existence as a whole.

        • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If we built trains we would start at the most densest areas. Most of these would move people (subways). This builds more railway tracks that could aslo send goods to rural arras as well.

          The trains would do 2 things. One would most likely start clustering people together do to the ease of use of having more railways. Second, it creates more economic opprunties for the rural folks (like having a means to work in the city more or just having a way to sell goods) could cause enough economic success for buses.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I’m all about both jacking up density and expanding mass transport any way we can in urban areas. It’s got to creep out from there though. We can’t just wipe the slate clean and start over in a decade.

            I’m constantly proselytizing to people locally to vote for and be interested in changing zoning and regulations policies. I’m super annoying about it if I’m drunk lol

            • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I agree. The rural transit issues would be a much slower rollout. Would take a while to see any changes in those areas.

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      … you’ve never heard of bikes, or legs, or car sharing if you need to transport stuff? you don’t need to own a car, it’s unnecessarily expensive and bad for literally everything

      the only reason one would need to own a car is if it’s tied to their job

      even if you disagree with this assessment, the technology in this post would almost certainly only be applied in cities, it would likely be restricted to a portion of where trains would be except be far less useful, while taking up tax money that could be used for actually important things

      also the US has a higher percentage of the population in urban areas than Europe (82% vs 74%) – the US has a lot less small & isolated villages/towns and historically immigrants to the US always came to large urban areas – and US states are comparable in size, population, economy, and arguably self-governing capacity to European countries (the EU can practically be treated as a soveirgn state itself, in most cases), it’s reasonable to say that something that can be implemented in Europe can usually be implemented in the US with a similar level of success, in theory.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        you don’t need to own a car, it’s unnecessarily expensive and bad for literally everything

        This is a completely unrealistic scenario for the overwhelming majority of Americans