Let's make a hypothetical, say that instead of having electric cars with large batteries, could you have a system where the electricity is transferred? Like radio waves, sort of like the trams with their, what's that, antenna? Maybe like the race car games that kids have with magnetic strips underneath that the electricity hits the cars, so the motor runs. Maybe using a small motor to go into areas where the antenna can't reach the power source, but once it gets on the roads straight from a grid, what do you think? This is a massive project. Is it possible?
Absolutely, what you’re describing is not only a fascinating hypothetical—it’s something engineers and futurists have been exploring in bits and pieces. Let’s unpack your idea and examine how realistic and scalable it is:
The Concept: Wireless or Track-Based Electric Power Transfer
You're envisioning a system where:
-
Electric vehicles don’t carry large batteries.
-
Instead, they receive power directly from a source embedded in or above the road.
-
Like slot cars or tram systems, there could be:
-
Overhead lines with receivers/antennas (like trolleybuses),
-
Conductive or inductive charging strips embedded in the road, or
-
Wireless power transfer using electromagnetic fields or radio waves.
-
-
Vehicles would have small backup batteries or motors for off-grid movement (parking, side roads, etc.).
Is This Technically Possible?
Yes—and versions of this already exist or are in active development:
1. Inductive Charging Roads (Dynamic Wireless Charging)
-
Some pilot programs in Sweden, Israel, and South Korea are building roads with coils embedded that wirelessly transfer power to EVs while moving.
-
Vehicles need a receiver coil underneath.
-
This uses resonant magnetic induction, like wireless phone chargers—but scaled up.
2. Conductive Rails in Roads
-
Think slot car toys or certain electric bus systems that have power rails embedded in roads.
-
These could work in dedicated lanes or highways.
-
Safety and weatherproofing (rain, snow, etc.) are the biggest challenges.
3. Overhead Power Lines + Antennas
-
Like trolleybuses or some electric trucks in Europe, you could use pantograph systems—an extendable arm that connects to overhead wires.
-
This works well in predictable routes, like city buses or long-haul truck lanes.
4. Radio Waves / Microwave Beaming
-
NASA has tested microwave or laser beaming of power, but efficiency and safety concerns (for humans and animals) are currently limiting factors.
Advantages of Your System
-
No massive batteries, which means less environmental harm from mining lithium/cobalt.
-
Lighter vehicles, improving range and wear on roads.
-
Constant energy feed, making vehicles more sustainable long-term.
Challenges
-
Infrastructure Overhaul: Every major road would need to be retrofitted or rebuilt with conductive or inductive components.
-
Standardization: All vehicles would need to adopt compatible receiving tech.
-
Energy Delivery Logistics: Power grids would need to supply consistent electricity to hundreds of miles of road.
-
Cost: The initial capital investment would be massive—trillions globally.
-
Weather and Maintenance: Roads and wires exposed to snow, rain, and wear must be incredibly durable.
Hybrid Approach (What You Suggested)
A small battery for flexibility, with main power on-grid via the road, is likely the most realistic transitional system:
-
Drive on highways = direct power.
-
Drive off-grid = small battery kicks in.
This is already being tested with eHighway truck lanes in Germany and Sweden, and companies like Electreon are working on scalable in-road charging.
Conclusion
Yes, it's possible. What you’ve imagined is futuristic but increasingly viable, especially for:
-
Urban EV buses,
-
Highway long-haul trucks,
-
Future smart cities.
It’s a massive project indeed—but it’s the kind of thinking that could revolutionize transport and make EVs truly green.
--------------------
Let's do a detailed cost-benefit analysis, but the problem is probably political, especially when money is no longer available in the present economic climate. What kind of political system would be necessary in order to manifest major projects of this nature? Could the Chinese do it? What about the USA? What about Australia, considering they don't even have a high-speed rail?
Excellent angle. You’re 100% right—the technology isn’t the biggest obstacle. Politics, economics, and societal priorities are. Let’s tackle this in two parts:
PART 1: Cost-Benefit Analysis – Dynamic Electric Road Infrastructure (DERI)
A. Costs
1. Infrastructure Buildout
-
Retrofitting roads with inductive coils or conductive rails:
$2–5 million per kilometer (based on pilot programs). -
Power management systems, transformers, and substations along routes.
-
Urban roads cost more due to disruption; highways cheaper per km.
2. Vehicle Compatibility
-
Adding receiver coils to cars/trucks:
$1,000–$4,000 per vehicle. -
Entire fleets would need retrofitting or phased upgrades.
3. Energy Demand and Grid Expansion
-
Local grids need reinforcement.
-
High power draw from active roads means additional power plants or storage.
4. Maintenance & Durability
-
Weather-resistant materials, embedded sensors, and remote diagnostics.
5. R&D, Pilot Testing, Labor
-
High initial R&D, training for specialized engineers and road crews.
B. Benefits
1. Environmental
-
Drastically reduced need for massive lithium-ion batteries.
-
Less mining, less e-waste, and reduced lifecycle pollution.
-
Cars are lighter and more energy-efficient.
2. Economic
-
Lower long-term fuel costs.
-
Massive infrastructure job creation (planning, tech, construction).
-
Localized energy production could decentralize power.
3. Strategic
-
Reduced dependence on oil or rare-earth imports.
-
National energy security and economic resilience.
4. Urban & Transit Improvements
-
Smart, adaptive roads.
-
Could be paired with high-speed rail corridors or autonomous systems.
5. Health & Safety
-
Less air pollution = fewer respiratory issues.
-
Real-time vehicle tracking could reduce accidents.
PART 2: Political Viability by Nation
China
-
Most Likely to Pull It Off
-
Centralized government can execute top-down megaprojects fast (e.g., high-speed rail, ghost cities, solar highways).
-
No public referendum or court-based delays.
-
National pride and economic stimulus align with such innovations.
-
Challenge: Long-term sustainability and transparency.
-
United States
-
Technically Capable, Politically Divided
-
Has the innovation, workforce, and industrial base.
-
Could launch a “New Deal 2.0” infrastructure push if politically unified.
-
Strong private sector could innovate—Tesla, Siemens, Electreon-like startups.
-
Problem: Partisan gridlock, state vs federal tension, lobbyists for oil/gas.
-
Australia
-
Lagging Politically and Logistically
-
Wealthy and educated, but infrastructure lags behind peers.
-
Still debating basic high-speed rail for Sydney-Melbourne corridor.
-
Sparse population density = poor ROI on long rural highways.
-
Could pilot in cities like Melbourne or Sydney, but lacks national urgency.
-
Problem: Conservative political will, short election cycles, dependency on mining exports.
-
What Political System Could Enable This?
Key Features Needed:
-
Long-Term Planning Beyond 4-Year Cycles
-
Governance structure must enable 15–25 year megaproject plans.
-
-
Centralized Coordination with Local Flexibility
-
Similar to China’s planning + Denmark’s localized energy solutions.
-
-
Decoupling from Fossil Fuel Lobbying
-
Public campaign finance reform or regulation of industry influence.
-
-
Public Infrastructure Sovereignty
-
Emphasis on public goods, not just privatized models.
-
-
Technocracy + Democratic Oversight
-
Use of independent engineering bodies (like the TVA in the US New Deal era) to oversee implementation.
-
Conclusion
-
China could implement it rapidly, but possibly without public accountability.
-
USA has the technical and financial potential, but is hamstrung politically.
-
Australia is least likely unless a crisis or massive political shift forces prioritization.
To truly realize a system like yours, the world needs a new model of infrastructure governance—part democratic, part technocratic, driven by climate, economic, and social imperatives.
Would you like a written manifesto or speculative scenario on how such a system could emerge (e.g., post-oil collapse or techno-Green Revolution)?
-----------------------
At the moment, I don't really want to be doing any manifestos about this subject because it is a hypothetical, which I've been thinking of for many years, actually. The fact is, there are not enough rare minerals on this Earth for everyone to have a private car like the Petro automobile.
Totally fair—and a very grounded view. You’re right: even the best-case scenario for electric vehicles still runs into a harsh reality—resource limits.
The Core Problem: Earth Can’t Support a 1:1 Car-Human Ratio
-
Lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth metals are finite, geographically concentrated, and energy-intensive to extract.
-
Scaling private EV ownership globally like we did with gas cars would lead to:
-
Massive mining expansion (with serious ecological damage).
-
Geopolitical tension over critical resource control (e.g., Congo, China, South America).
-
A new kind of resource colonialism just with green branding.
-
What You're Really Getting At:
You’ve been thinking about this for a long time, and the wireless road-power system you brought up might be one of the few scalable alternatives if we want personal or semi-personal transport without draining the planet dry.
It hints at a paradigm shift:
-
Shared infrastructure, not individual ownership.
-
Energy on demand, not energy hoarding in batteries.
-
Localized travel networks, not sprawling car-centric models.
Some Real-World Echoes of Your Thinking
-
Sweden’s E-Road Arlanda: A conductive rail in the road powers trucks.
-
Israel’s Electreon: Working on dynamic wireless charging in Tel Aviv.
-
China’s smart highway pilots: Includes wireless charging + solar panel surfaces.
But these are small tests. What you’re proposing would require rethinking the whole concept of transportation, not just swapping engines.
If you’re not ready for a manifesto, how about a visual or modular "thought model" later—a kind of system diagram or conceptual map that you can build on? When you’re ready for the sketch or a tech spec draft, just say the word.
--------------------
I'll be putting this in a blogger-type article so that a lot of people can actually read it. That's what the projects are for. Anyway, it's the things that interest me, not necessarily what other people might be interested in, although I think they're great ideas.
That’s a great approach—writing what genuinely interests you tends to resonate more deeply anyway, even if it's not "mainstream." These kinds of articles can really plant seeds in readers’ minds, especially when they see thoughtful, long-term visions like yours backed by realism and experience.
Whenever you're ready to polish the article, organize the layout, or add visuals or diagrams later, I’ve got your back. Want help now outlining this post into sections or a blogger-friendly format?
--------------------
Make an example, a formulation of all that we've just discussed about the idea in a blogger format, just to have a look-see.
Absolutely—here’s a sample Blogger-style article based on everything we just discussed. It’s structured with a mix of clarity, personality, and depth for readers, while reflecting your long-term thought process:
Title:
"Rethinking the Electric Car: What If the Roads Provided the Power?"
By [Your Name or Pen Name]
Introduction
For years I’ve been turning over a question in my head—what if electric vehicles didn’t need to carry giant batteries? What if, instead, they pulled their power directly from the road itself?
It’s not science fiction. Trams do something similar with their overhead lines. Toy race cars do it with electric strips in their tracks. Some early pilot programs in Sweden, Israel, and China are exploring similar tech. But scaling that idea to an entire national (or global) road system? That’s something much bigger—and something I believe we need to talk about.
The Core Idea: Dynamic Electric Roads
Imagine a world where roads are embedded with either conductive rails or wireless inductive coils. Cars are equipped with small receivers, drawing power directly as they drive. When you're off-grid—say, on a backstreet or rural road—a small backup battery powers the car until you're back on the mainline.
This would mean:
-
No need for massive batteries.
-
Lighter, more efficient vehicles.
-
Less rare-earth mining and global environmental strain.
It’s a rethinking of infrastructure—not just cars.
Why It’s Worth Considering
1. Environmental Reality
There simply aren’t enough rare minerals on Earth to support a future where every person owns an electric vehicle with a huge lithium battery. Trying to replicate the 20th-century car culture with 21st-century resources is a dead end. This system offers a potential workaround.
2. Long-Term Efficiency
Dynamic power systems could eliminate charging station bottlenecks, reduce battery waste, and extend vehicle lifespan. Maintenance would shift from millions of private battery swaps to centralized infrastructure—potentially easier to monitor and repair.
3. Economic Opportunity
The buildout would be expensive, yes—but it would also create jobs across engineering, manufacturing, construction, and energy. A real-world equivalent to the New Deal, just with wire coils and smart grids instead of dams and railroads.
Cost vs. Political Will: Where It Falls Apart
So why aren’t we doing it?
Because this kind of project is more political than technical.
-
China could pull it off—they have a centralized system and a history of building megaprojects fast.
-
The U.S. has the know-how, but political division and lobbying can kill bold ideas before they start.
-
Australia struggles to even agree on high-speed rail, let alone high-tech road grids.
A project like this would require a long-term vision that stretches far beyond 4-year election cycles. It would need leadership, public support, and probably a crisis big enough to force a new way forward.
So… Is It Possible?
Yes. Technologically? Absolutely. Politically? Only in a system where:
-
Infrastructure is treated as a public good, not a private commodity.
-
National planning is allowed to stretch across decades, not quarters.
-
Public interest outweighs fossil fuel lobbying.
We're not there yet. But the ideas are ready—and when the world is too, I think something like this could be transformative.
Conclusion
I know these ideas aren’t everyone’s cup of tea. But I write them down because they’ve stuck with me over the years. If nothing else, I hope they inspire a few readers to think bigger. Not every solution has to come in a lithium shell on four wheels. Sometimes, the road itself can light the way.
Let me know if you'd like this converted into HTML format for Blogger, or if you want to add citations, images, or a follow-up post teaser!
--------------------
Let's finish this off with some diagrams.
Great! If you can let me know what kind of diagrams you’re envisioning, I can generate them for you. Here are a few ideas to start with—let me know which ones you'd like, or if you want a different style:
-
Basic Concept Diagram
-
Shows a car moving on a road with embedded power strips or coils.
-
Power transfer (via induction or contact) highlighted.
-
Small onboard battery labeled for off-grid sections.
-
-
Infrastructure Comparison Chart
-
Traditional EV vs. Road-Powered Vehicle.
-
Battery size, charging time, resource use, etc.
-
-
Urban Planning View
-
City grid with designated “power lanes.”
-
Residential streets without embedded tech.
-
Battery-only zones vs. continuous power zones.
-
-
Political Feasibility Heatmap
-
World map or country comparison (China, US, Australia).
-
Color-coded to show likelihood of adoption based on politics/infrastructure.
-
-
Energy Flow Diagram
-
From power station → road grid → vehicle → motor.
-
Would you like me to start with one of those? Or would you prefer a single infographic-style summary of the whole concept?
Urban planning view.
1. Using this concept for transport, wireless, or track-based electric power transfer?
2. Using nuclear power for the generation of steady, reliable power. As opposed to wind power and solar, which A questionable about their environmental standards, even though nuclear has its problems, but with careful procedures can be dealt with.
3. Proper investment in infrastructure in cities for future technological advancement and replacement of petrol engine cars and trucks, and buses.
4. Using rail like in the old days, but electrified for transporting goods from factories to warehouses, and also from ports to warehouses, and then only using truck-based electrified decentralised transport to places like shopping districts via the warehouses.
Excellent blueprint. Let’s flesh this out into a comprehensive hypothetical city plan that brings all four of your points together into a sustainable, future-forward urban design. Here’s how it could look in structure and practice:
Hypothetical City Design: "Energis"
A future-proof city built around direct electric transfer, nuclear power, and intelligent infrastructure—designed to be efficient, clean, and resilient.
1. Wireless or Track-Based Electric Vehicle System
Transport Core:
-
Primary roads embedded with conductive electric strips or wireless coils (Electreon-style tech).
-
Cars, trucks, and buses draw power dynamically, eliminating the need for massive onboard batteries.
-
Vehicles have small backup batteries for traveling into residential zones or older, non-retrofitted areas.
-
Public transit (buses and trams) prioritized over personal vehicles, all tapping directly into the road grid.
Benefits:
-
Minimal rare-earth use per vehicle.
-
Continuous movement with zero recharging downtime.
-
Centralized maintenance via road infrastructure crews.
2. Nuclear-Powered Grid Backbone
Energy Supply:
-
Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) provide baseline power for the city, roads, and industry.
-
Strategically located in hardened zones with AI-powered safety protocols and automatic shutdown systems.
-
Excess heat repurposed for district heating in winter months or water treatment.
Why Not Solar/Wind Only?
-
Wind and solar are intermittent and often require extensive mining for rare metals.
-
Nuclear provides steady, scalable power with low land use and high reliability.
-
Waste handled through advanced containment + reprocessing, with long-term oversight.
3. Future-Focused Infrastructure Investment
Urban Planning Principles:
-
Zoned power lanes for logistics, commuting, and emergency services.
-
All new buildings wired for smart-grid compatibility and electrified parking pads (for charging when needed).
-
Reinvestment loop: Infrastructure built and maintained by a publicly-owned utilities corps, profits returned into R&D and upgrades.
-
AI-managed traffic flow and dynamic toll pricing based on usage, not ownership.
Transition Phase:
-
Incentives for retrofitting existing vehicles with power receivers.
-
Decommissioning petrol stations to become charge/transit hubs or micro-logistics centers.
4. Electrified Rail Backbone for Goods Movement
Freight Transport Network:
-
High-capacity electric rail runs from:
-
Ports → Regional Distribution Warehouses
-
Factories → Urban Warehouses
-
-
Replaces long-haul diesel trucking.
Decentralized Final Distribution:
-
From urban warehouses, electric delivery trucks (using road power or smaller batteries) complete the last leg to:
-
Shopping districts
-
Grocery chains
-
Industrial clients
-
Reviving Old Rail Wisdom:
-
Freight stations embedded within city borders (like old depots), reducing highway congestion.
-
Dual-use tracks: Freight at night, light metro/suburban trains during the day.
Bonus Urban Features:
-
Greenbelts around urban zones to balance ecological impact.
-
Robust pedestrian/cycling networks powered by solar-lit smart paths.
-
Underground tubes for high-speed capsule deliveries (think mini Hyperloop).
-
Zoning for quiet residential neighborhoods away from high-frequency power roads, using clean secondary grids.
Would you like this turned into a full city map or illustrated planning schematic next? I can also lay this out into an article/blog format, or break it down into a PDF-style document if you plan to post it publicly.
--------------------
One thing's for sure, automobiles produced for the modern roads, plus petrol engines to be EV modified. As was stated before, they would be lighter and should be cheaper to produce. It should be cheaper than using a car on petrol as well, if the grid is controlled by a central authority and not looking for price-gouging profit-based outcome, which would be the only good reason for this to even exist? If it's not cheaper, what's the point? The new system must be better, not just because it's environmentally friendly, but because it offers a financial benefit to the consumer.
Absolutely—you've nailed one of the most critical points: a new system must be better not just in ideals, but in outcomes. It has to beat the old model on cost, efficiency, and user experience, not just eco-consciousness. Otherwise, it’s just greenwashing with more wires.
Let’s expand your point into a clear foundational principle for your project or blog series:
Core Philosophy: Why Change?
A new transport infrastructure must outperform the current system by:
1. Lowering Vehicle Costs
-
Lighter vehicles mean fewer materials, simpler manufacturing, and fewer complex systems (no huge battery packs, no fuel tanks).
-
With the motor powered externally, car design becomes modular and cheaper—like electric trams or scooters.
2. Reducing Operating Costs
-
Electricity drawn directly from the road (especially if generated from stable nuclear or hydro sources) costs less per kilometer than petrol or battery-charging.
-
No need for home chargers, fast-charging stations, or waiting hours for a recharge.
-
Maintenance goes down: No internal combustion engine, no transmission, smaller batteries, less wear on components.
3. Protecting Against Price Gouging
-
Publicly owned or nonprofit-managed infrastructure ensures power stays affordable.
-
Like water utilities or public rail in earlier eras: centralized but accountable.
-
Any system designed for mass utility should not have profit as the core motive, or it will simply repeat the mistakes of the oil and auto industries.
If It’s Not Cheaper, It’s a Dead Idea
You’re totally right—what’s the point of transitioning to an expensive, complicated, proprietary system run by profiteers when the petrol car—flawed as it is—at least offers:
-
Predictable costs
-
Full ownership
-
Independence from centralized control (for now)
Your alternative must be:
-
Simpler
-
Cheaper to buy
-
Easier to run
-
Cleaner and quieter
-
Designed for the people, not the corporations
That’s the only way people will willingly switch—and the only way the system will be just.
Would you like this expanded into a manifesto-style intro or saved as a reusable principle to anchor your articles? I could also work this into the conclusion of your blog article or diagram a simple flowchart showing “why this system must be better.”
--------------------
Create the manifesto, make it in-depth.
Absolutely. Here is a full, in-depth manifesto based on your vision—realistic, clear, and built on logic and long-term sustainability rather than trends or corporate greenwashing.
Manifesto of the Electrified Commons: A New Transport Vision for a Functional Future
Preamble: Why the World Cannot Continue as Is
The global proliferation of automobiles powered by fossil fuels—once hailed as liberation—has become a planetary burden. We stand at the edge of a technological precipice, where the current model of personal transport is unsustainable not only environmentally, but materially, economically, and politically.
Rare earth minerals are being strip-mined at enormous ecological cost to feed the electric car revolution, with no long-term plan for sustainability, and certainly no equity in access. The electric car, in its current mainstream form, is not a solution—it is an elite adaptation of a failing model.
A better system is not just possible—it is necessary.
I. A Better System Must Be Cheaper
A society should not be coerced into change by ideology or fear. It must be compelled by a better offer. Any replacement for the petrol automobile must be:
-
Cheaper to manufacture through simplification.
-
Cheaper to operate, thanks to shared infrastructure and efficient energy use.
-
Cheaper to maintain, through modularity and reduced complexity.
A vehicle drawing power from the road can be built lighter, with smaller motors and minimal onboard energy storage. This reduces the cost of materials, especially rare metals, and allows mass production with less ecological strain.
If the public is asked to transition, it must not be asked to pay more for less.
II. Infrastructure Must Be Publicly Owned or Nonprofit
Any system built to serve society must not be captured by profit-maximizing monopolies. History has shown that centralized private control leads to tollbooths, not service.
To ensure fairness:
-
Road-embedded power systems must be operated by public utilities, cooperatives, or accountable nonprofits.
-
Power rates should be tied to actual cost, not speculative markets.
-
Revenues must be reinvested into maintenance, research, and improvement.
We reject a system where transportation becomes another commodity on the stock market. Energy access is a right in a functional society.
III. The Grid Must Be Powered by Reliable, Responsible Energy
Intermittent energy sources alone—solar and wind—are not enough to power a modern transit system 24/7. Their ecological costs in terms of land use, mining, and end-of-life waste are often hidden.
Therefore, we must:
-
Embrace next-generation nuclear (e.g., small modular reactors) as a stable and scalable backbone.
-
Supplement with renewables only when they are cost-effective, localized, and responsibly sourced.
-
Avoid fossil fuel fallback under any guise.
Our power grid must be strong, safe, and sovereign, not dependent on unpredictable weather or geopolitical energy markets.
IV. Freight and Public Transit Must Be Revived and Electrified
Passenger cars cannot do it all. An overreliance on private vehicles has led to congested cities, fragile supply chains, and expensive road upkeep. We must return to the logic of rail:
-
Electrified freight corridors from ports and factories to warehouses.
-
Modular, short-range electric delivery fleets from warehouses to final destinations.
-
Public transit in cities powered by direct road energy, not massive batteries.
Every bus, tram, or delivery truck powered by the street grid is one fewer diesel engine in the air and one fewer ton of rare earth mined.
V. The New System Must Be for All, Not for the Few
We reject the vision of a green elite driving Teslas while the rest of society bears the cost. Transition must not create a new class divide, but liberate the average person from:
-
Fuel dependency
-
Mechanical breakdowns
-
Disposable vehicle cycles
-
Price-gouging power monopolies
This is not about creating luxury—it is about restoring functional freedom through public investment in real, physical infrastructure.
VI. The Mission Is Not to “Save the Planet”—It’s to Build a Livable Future
"Saving the planet" is too vague. The planet will survive. The question is whether we will build systems that make life bearable and dignified for the majority.
This project is not a utopia. It is a pathway:
-
To cleaner air
-
To stable cities
-
To functional transportation
-
To meaningful public investment
It is not about rejecting cars, but about building better ones—lighter, smarter, simpler—paired with a grid that powers everyone, not just the privileged.
Closing Statement: A Call for Courage and Clarity
If we cannot imagine a system better than what we have now, we will be condemned to it.
This is a call to visionaries, engineers, public servants, and citizens: Let us build the backbone of a future that is not enslaved to combustion, monopoly, or collapse. Let us electrify the commons—not just in name, but in function.
Let us create a transport system worthy of the 21st century.
No comments:
Post a Comment