10% is so low, that I doubt it's factual. For comparison, QI charging loses 20-30% in addition to what wired chargers lose. Here is an article with cited studies: https://www.engadget.com/2200186/wireless-charging-wastes-electricity-why/

Moral of the story: plugging the phone in is worth it in the long run.

https://electreon.com/blog/debunking-wireless-ev-charging-myths/ Hand waving with no sources https://www.energysage.com/ev-charging/wireless-ev-charging/ This only cites the witricity article, we'll get to that but it didnt add anything https://www.witricity.com/blogs/comparing-efficiency.php They claim that a regular wall charger is 90% efficient with no sources and that their wireless one is 96%, basically marketing hype. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1876291 Finally a source, it literally says their charger is 90% efficient, their coil to coil efficiency is 96% so that's pretty good but still about 4% lost in transmission, in lab conditions with the coils 6" apart. https://www.ornl.gov/news/ornl-demonstrates-120-kilowatt-wireless-charging-vehicles#:~:text=97%20percent%20efficiency%2C%20which%20is%20comparable%20to%20conventional%2C%20wired%20high%2Dpower%20fast%20chargers This is just summarizing that paper on osti.gov https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/perspectives-on-wireless-and-automated-charging-for-electric-vehicles#:~:text=A%20wireless%20inductive%20charging%20system%20is%20at%20least%20one%20or%20two%20percentage%20points%20more%20efficient%20than%20a%20DC%20%5Bdirect%20current%5D%20fast%20charger%20at%20the%20same%20power%20level Literally marketing hype from the people that sell it, no actual useful data.

So that whole wall of text had one source that showed 4% losses in a lab with coils really close together, which is still a lot more loss than a copper conducter.

The marketing hype basically says if you factor in all of the losses from the power generation and transmission all the way to the wall then our additional 10% loss is no big deal so you can ignore that 1kW of lost heat you have to pay for on top of the grid's losses that are already a part of your costs.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Mate, focus (and would you please avoid shoving advice and links when not openly asked?!): 90 percent efficiency claim is directly in the OP.

The number can even be confirmed at the press release by Porsche (which boldly claims charging efficiency to be "over 90 percent").

Focus and keep the number in your mind (the number found BOTH in the OP and confirmed at the Porsce's press release) while trying to explain where the losses do take place.

I totally understand, that losses do happen when the electricity is converted first to DC and then back to high freq.AC and during the inductive charging itself.

This is expected and is a convenience tax of sorts (getting rid of cables and plugs) and yet, it's less efficient than plugging directly. Once again, only 90℅ efficient.

I don't have the crayons to explain it to you any simpler 8)

That's not in the cable

Well, Sherlock, good catch! That's an affing wireless charging system. /S

The 90 % efficiency claimed in the OP - is the claimed TOTAL efficiency of the PRODUCT by Porsche (wireless charging station). Of course "it's not in the cable" (rofl), it's in ALL the electric components of the system - which is OVERALL less efficient than a similar (as in function and provided power) charging station.

Similar, but noticably POORER in efficiency (~ it has 10% more losses than a similar wired charging solution). As even the Porsche marketing claims.

If you still fail to get it - then you might want to follow your own unsolicited advice:

Have a web search.

I can rewrite the whole press release by Porsche for you, but i can not understand it for you.

Still cables in wireless believe it or not