It's always a little strange to see the 'New York to London' figure given for something that is fairly clearly intended for blunt-force diplomacy, not passenger travel.
Just like car racing and F1 has improved and generated many technological advances in and for regular road cars, military tech development and research is usually, in one way or another, also matured into improved consumer technology; jet engines and the Internet beeing prime examples.
Basically, even if this research is as single mindedly focused for pure military use, as you make it out to be, it will eventually also be of use for the general consumer.
For me they seem like they are trying to solve the wrong problem. For the Electric Car, it is having locations where we can plug in the wire, which is the same as having locations to park your wireless charger. Will work pay the power bill if you park your car at work and plug it in or wireless charge it? Probably Not.
Rfid/or similiar tech on car + EV-charging subscription with some electrical company + a cut of the earnings to whoever owns the pad = Problem solved? (And incentives to invest in pads)
The big problem is infrastructure, not pushing a button and plugging in a big wire.
Yes, and having something that's easy to deploy is far more likely to actually be deployed compared to the likely much higher cost, and time consuming installation, of corded charging stations.
Besides if the goal with electric cars is to be green, why waste so much power on transferring it wirelessly?
Because it is still lightyears better than fossil fuel? (And actually not so bad you make it sound like)
Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.