Indeed cell phone batteries will still be needed, but with sufficiently ubiquitous witricity they will live much longer because they will be more or less permanently on charge, even when in your pocket: this lengthens considerably a cell phone's life, as it lowers the number of cycles in a given period. This is of particular interest for newer cell phones, which are used for many other purposes than phoning and therefore use more energy.
If the battery lives say twice longer, then the total cost of your cell phone's energy is divided by about two (the cost of the electricity itself being negligible compared to that of the battery wear out). So witricity will save you money, and will probably save energy globally, as manufacturing batteries takes energy. Michel P.S. The top posting convention is a disability thing like Terry said. It has been adopted by most email software providers to make life easier for blind people. Since they use text to speech software to read their emails, with bottom posting thay have to hear all the old stuff they have already heard before getting to the new stuff. 2009/9/15 John Fields <[email protected]>: > I doubt whether the impact on batteries will even be noticeable, since > devices designed to be mobile will still need to be powered by batteries > when they're not in the vicinity of a transmitter, the only "advantage" > being that their batteries can be charged without having to directly > connect a charger to the device. ... > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:28:26 +0200, you wrote: > >>A more informative video on the subject of witricity here: >> >>http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_demos_wireless_electricity.html >> >>Transfer efficiency is not 5% like John suggested but more like 50% >>and growing. I suspect the energy loss compared to traditional >>solutions will be globally more than made up by the savings in >>disposable batteries or rechargeable battery cycles in many nomadic >>battery powered applications such as hearing aids and cell phones.
