Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine(economist.com)
economist.com
Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21726071-it-had-good-run-end-sight-machine-changed-world-death
157 comments
My amateur expectation is that if 100% of vehicles are autonomous, they can be FAR better drivers and you could get far more cars on the same roads with considerably less stopping and waiting.
The problem will be when fewer than 100% of vehicles are autonomous, then it will simply remain as awful as it is today.
The problem will be when fewer than 100% of vehicles are autonomous, then it will simply remain as awful as it is today.
I wonder if road signs will evolve too. The other day a few red lights were put in blinking mode because of roadwork. While asking for way more attention, it also avoid many 50sec pauses.. I found it very very nice. With collaborating SDV you could get rid of many stuck intersections that creates bloat and useless consumption (even though EV can just cut power on stop ...)
I Fantacise of a world with far far fewer road signs.
Certainly many slowdowns on highways and major roads stem from awkward, inefficient merging traffic - I can imagine autonomous cars would come together like the teeth of a perfectly smooth zipper.
Self-Driving Cars Will Improve Our Cities. If They Don’t Ruin Them.
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/self-driving-cars-will-improve...
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/self-driving-cars-will-improve...
I do think it's a fair ways out, but it wouldn't shock me at all to see at least some cities banning empty cars from driving around.
Not banning, but charging higher tolls for empty cars than cars that have a load or person in them.
Econ 101!
Econ 101!
It may be Econ 101 but a lot of people (aka voters) tend not to like fee schemes that make it blindingly obvious that the wealthy are effectively allowed to use public infrastructure in ways that they are not.
We already subsidize roads over public transportation so the subsidies to the wealthy are already there. We're just attempting to internalize externalities of a resource with physical limits.
The convenience of a public transportation systems is priced into the housing near its stations, meaning it mostly benefits the wealthy. The road network, on the other hand, reaches into neighborhoods which are far enough away from the center to be affordable to working-class families.
The people who end up driving despite the tolls, parking elimination, etc. are those who can't afford the rent near the public transit system. Cars are a significant cost for them, but not as much as the rent premium they'd have to pay for a well-connected location.
The people who end up driving despite the tolls, parking elimination, etc. are those who can't afford the rent near the public transit system. Cars are a significant cost for them, but not as much as the rent premium they'd have to pay for a well-connected location.
> The convenience of a public transportation systems is priced into the housing near its stations, meaning it mostly benefits the wealthy.
That's a very Ameri-centric view. In most European countries people of all classes live near and regularly take public transit.
That's a very Ameri-centric view. In most European countries people of all classes live near and regularly take public transit.
Doesn't seem to be that way in America. At all.
I wonder if we could start charging tolls proportional to the spot congestion at any given time.
Washington state does this on the lanes that are otherwise HOV on I-405, which runs N/S through Bellevue (Expedia, Microsoft) and meets up with 520 E/W to Redmond (Microsoft). The tolls are proportional to demand, and they often hit the upper max of $10 each way. [1]
It's astonishing how much some people are willing to pay for the pleasure of driving free of traffic... We should charge them as much as they are willing to pay...
[1] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/the-...
It's astonishing how much some people are willing to pay for the pleasure of driving free of traffic... We should charge them as much as they are willing to pay...
[1] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/the-...
[deleted]
I don’t think they’re cheaper yet.
I’m not sure but I believe the batteries are still too expensive. Also, we might need solid state batteries before we have acceptable range and charging speed for many people.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/253065-toyota-wants-leap...
Finally, the US federal subsidy, Norway’s subsidy, etc have helped the recent models. However, the US subsidy will disappear for Tesla, for example, shortly after they reach the 200,000 car limit.
I’m not sure but I believe the batteries are still too expensive. Also, we might need solid state batteries before we have acceptable range and charging speed for many people.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/253065-toyota-wants-leap...
Finally, the US federal subsidy, Norway’s subsidy, etc have helped the recent models. However, the US subsidy will disappear for Tesla, for example, shortly after they reach the 200,000 car limit.
Definitely not yet. You can buy a new Nissan Versa for under $13,000. $22,000 under the Tesla Model 3 buys a lot of gasoline. Of course the Tesla is a nicer car in many ways, and a "fair" comparison would look at more similar cars, but the relative cheapness of the ICE drivetrain lets traditional cars go much more downmarket than EVs can for now.
Battery costs are dropping steadily and it seems like it won't be too much longer before TCO for an EV is lower than even a cheap gas car, but we're not there yet.
Battery costs are dropping steadily and it seems like it won't be too much longer before TCO for an EV is lower than even a cheap gas car, but we're not there yet.
New Nissan Leafs were selling for the same price here in Kansas City:
$7,500 federal tax credit and $10,000 KCP&L rebate off a $31,000 car.
http://metroenergy.org/2017/03/10000-off-nissan-leaf-june-30...
I bought a lightly used one for $8,500.
http://metroenergy.org/2017/03/10000-off-nissan-leaf-june-30...
I bought a lightly used one for $8,500.
I worry that self-driving cars are going to be used as an excuse not to expand public transit, especially in the Bay Area. The problem is scale -- once the population reaches a certain size, the roads are going to be gridlocked even if every car is self driving. I'm not sure if the Bay Area is at that point yet, but NYC certainly is, as are most of the major cities of the world.
I worry that self-driving cars are going to be used as an excuse not to expand public transit, especially in the Bay Area.
By reducing people's sunk cost in cars, it may well free up the public mind to alternative forms of transportation. A lot of political inertia comes in the form of personal sunk costs. Also, self driving vehicles could themselves be used to expand public transit. IIRC, In Portland in the 90's, there was this thing called the "Custom Bus" where an late-night adapted bus route could be formed by people phoning in a request for a pickup within 2 miles of a normal bus route. Automated vehicles and networked computers could let us do an even better job of adaptive transportation.
By reducing people's sunk cost in cars, it may well free up the public mind to alternative forms of transportation. A lot of political inertia comes in the form of personal sunk costs. Also, self driving vehicles could themselves be used to expand public transit. IIRC, In Portland in the 90's, there was this thing called the "Custom Bus" where an late-night adapted bus route could be formed by people phoning in a request for a pickup within 2 miles of a normal bus route. Automated vehicles and networked computers could let us do an even better job of adaptive transportation.
> By reducing people's sunk cost in cars
I love this conversation. The US new auto sales run rate is ~17 million vehicles/year, with an average price right around $35k. That's $595,000,000,000 per year in capital being allocated to automotive mobility alone. Think what better things we could do with that capital (or everyone could work far less!) if we only spent a fraction of that on automotive capital costs.
I love this conversation. The US new auto sales run rate is ~17 million vehicles/year, with an average price right around $35k. That's $595,000,000,000 per year in capital being allocated to automotive mobility alone. Think what better things we could do with that capital (or everyone could work far less!) if we only spent a fraction of that on automotive capital costs.
You may love that conversation, but how many Americans are willing to give up their vehicles?
In America, the privately owned vehicle isn't just transportation, it's a status symbol. That's not going to change just because someone crunched some numbers.
In America, the privately owned vehicle isn't just transportation, it's a status symbol. That's not going to change just because someone crunched some numbers.
I have a hard time believing this will be as big an issue as many believe.
The biggest reason is generational die off.
We're already seeing younger people forgoing even getting a license. Urban population growth is rendering it less valuable.
The only cohort that licensing is up is boomers. 55-75 are more likely to have a license than they were a generation ago.
Licensed 16 year drivers is way down. Something like half the number are licensed versus a generation ago.
Some of it is "blamed" on cost of owning a car. Those that can afford it but don't buy say they just don't need it. Rides are readily available; friends, Uber/Lyft, and pub trans are enough for a lot of folks as urban density increases.
I'd post references but this is easily Googled from multiple sources. And I'm on a slow mobile connection right now.
Younger folks tend to see cars as noisey, smelly, expensive, and passé already. Not sure that status symbol thesis holds up
The biggest reason is generational die off.
We're already seeing younger people forgoing even getting a license. Urban population growth is rendering it less valuable.
The only cohort that licensing is up is boomers. 55-75 are more likely to have a license than they were a generation ago.
Licensed 16 year drivers is way down. Something like half the number are licensed versus a generation ago.
Some of it is "blamed" on cost of owning a car. Those that can afford it but don't buy say they just don't need it. Rides are readily available; friends, Uber/Lyft, and pub trans are enough for a lot of folks as urban density increases.
I'd post references but this is easily Googled from multiple sources. And I'm on a slow mobile connection right now.
Younger folks tend to see cars as noisey, smelly, expensive, and passé already. Not sure that status symbol thesis holds up
> Younger folks tend to see cars as noisey, smelly, expensive, and passé already. Not sure that status symbol thesis holds up
That might be some of it, but Millenials on average are also less well off than older cohorts; they simply can't afford a new car, or possibly even a car at all (but might require one; not everyone lives in a metro with good public transit).
That might be some of it, but Millenials on average are also less well off than older cohorts; they simply can't afford a new car, or possibly even a car at all (but might require one; not everyone lives in a metro with good public transit).
> but how many Americans are willing to give up their vehicles?
That's not the question. Can you afford your own car if the cost efficiencies are no longer there because there are so many fewer cars on the road?
How many people own their own Cessna versus buying tickets on Southwest? Even with a private pilot license, I would never consider owning a plane myself. Too expensive!
That's not the question. Can you afford your own car if the cost efficiencies are no longer there because there are so many fewer cars on the road?
How many people own their own Cessna versus buying tickets on Southwest? Even with a private pilot license, I would never consider owning a plane myself. Too expensive!
Don't forget maintenance, insurance, and gas costs
Do we seriously spend 1 thousand billion dollars per year personally getting our asses around with cars after it's all said and done?
Holy crap. That's more than 5% of GDP.
Holy crap. That's more than 5% of GDP.
Shoe leather wasn't cheap in the middle ages, and leather soles used to wear out all of the time. Transport is something people are willing to pay for.
I haven't checked the numbers but it doesn't surprise me. A car is the most expensive or second most expensive asset that most people own. (And/or they spend a lot of money on taxi/Uber/Lyft/etc.) And most people spend a decent chunk of their days getting from Point A to Point B. Only some of that is commuting.
The cost of not being a subsistence farmer, I suppose. (Somewhat joking, but a big part of what makes modern civilization possible is mobility and a lot of that requires cars. In some situations, they're less important but they're still common pretty much anywhere.)
The cost of not being a subsistence farmer, I suppose. (Somewhat joking, but a big part of what makes modern civilization possible is mobility and a lot of that requires cars. In some situations, they're less important but they're still common pretty much anywhere.)
Not expanding public transit already happens. Google/Cisco/Apple/Facebook was running its own shadow public transit system for free to the cities, but the anti-techie lobbies demanded that SF regulate it to a shadow of its former self and tax the tech companies every time a bus stops to pick up passengers.
In Seattle, Google just gives its employees a bus pass, because their public transit system isn't full and dysfunctional.
In Seattle, Google just gives its employees a bus pass, because their public transit system isn't full and dysfunctional.
In Seattle Microsoft also runs its own substantial bus service, "the Connector". There are so many Microsoft employees commuting in and out of Redmond every day that it makes a lot of sense.
Hopefully Uber/Lyft start a van/bulk transit service. This would help reduce traffic by combining trips while being more efficient than buses because the server can dynamically route the driver to optimize pickups and departures.
Perhaps even adding discounts for riders willing to trek the last mile on foot.
Perhaps even adding discounts for riders willing to trek the last mile on foot.
Then why isn't that being done today? As you increase the number of passengers, the cost of the driver becomes relatively trivial. It seems as if this were a service people were willing to pay for these money-losing companies are missing a significant market opportunity. I know there's UberPool but as far as I can tell it isn't a wildly popular option.
Routing. Turning an efficient set of start > points to a combined path is a complex traveling salesman problem. But this is worse as you need to find multiple such sets from raw data. It's not hard to get some overlap but if you go past 2-3 passengers everyone gets a longer trip.
That's probably true. Plus a lot of people just don't want to share vehicles. At some point, you're basically creating most of the disadvantages of a bus in a smaller vehicle.
> while being more efficient than buses because the server can dynamically route the driver to optimize pickups and departures.
There's a big assumption here that this dynamic routes would actually be more efficient than the simple fixed routes we have now. I'm skeptical.
There's a big assumption here that this dynamic routes would actually be more efficient than the simple fixed routes we have now. I'm skeptical.
Only for SF and CHI. I'd love this but I'm not in their zone.
Congestion? I don't think you're taking into account the huge advantage that autonomous cars have with respect to coordination among themselves. Much, if not most, congestion is caused by human drivers attempting to accrue advantage to themselves through maneuvers that disadvantage everybody else on the road.
No most of congestion is caused by the spacial inefficiency of car based infrastructure. Cars are big and roads have fixed capacity. Autonomous cars will not significantly change this.
> Autonomous cars will not significantly change this.
Autonomous cars (if used exclusively) over time should decrease safe separation, increasing capacity, but there's a limit to the gains from that.
Some additional gains if they are networked at routing is optimized to utilize all available roads rather than just the usually-best route.
Autonomous cars (if used exclusively) over time should decrease safe separation, increasing capacity, but there's a limit to the gains from that.
Some additional gains if they are networked at routing is optimized to utilize all available roads rather than just the usually-best route.
Right we all expect this sort of thing, but so far it's all theory and I haven't seen anyone seriously test and study the idea based on real world factors.
For example I doubt we'll see any benefits of decreased safe separation in cities where there are cyclists and pedestrians and other factors that are hard to predict.
My prediction would be that the efficiency gains will be marginal and will be dominated by other factors that affect congestion.
For example I doubt we'll see any benefits of decreased safe separation in cities where there are cyclists and pedestrians and other factors that are hard to predict.
My prediction would be that the efficiency gains will be marginal and will be dominated by other factors that affect congestion.
> For example I doubt we'll see any benefits of decreased safe separation in cities where there are cyclists and pedestrians and other factors that are hard to predict.
Well, yeah, that applies to roads with exclusive use of autonomous vehicles, which clearly doesn't apply to roads shared with cyclists and pedestrians, but limited access freeways. But even within cities those can serve as arterial routes.
Well, yeah, that applies to roads with exclusive use of autonomous vehicles, which clearly doesn't apply to roads shared with cyclists and pedestrians, but limited access freeways. But even within cities those can serve as arterial routes.
There are a number of ways autonomous could significantly change this including:
Platooning https://youtu.be/t9uEPnGI6zA?t=54s
Shuttling to and from stations
Road pricing to get people to share
More road available as there would be less parked cars
Platooning https://youtu.be/t9uEPnGI6zA?t=54s
Shuttling to and from stations
Road pricing to get people to share
More road available as there would be less parked cars
Watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-pZp_mi0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-pZp_mi0
Possibly but it's unlikely you get a lot of that benefit while you have a mix of people and computers driving. So many many decades out.
I think I've read that congestion (at least highway congestion) is mostly caused by overbraking.
Thank you for pointing this out, it seems like it's often forgotten. We're probably about to make all the same mistakes we did when cars first showed up in cities. Of course, if we actually get coordinated driving that allows long-distance 100+ mph runs mere feet apart, the city will expand to cover... well, even more of what little remains of wild habitat. We're already urbanizing an area the size of Britain every year. Why pay high rent to be close to work when you can have a villa in what used to be Big Sur and nap during your hour commute to work?
Pity the motorcyclists, walkers, and cyclists who dare to get in your way.
Pity the motorcyclists, walkers, and cyclists who dare to get in your way.
Global adoption of autonomous vehicles is quite far fetched, ofttimes i suspect when people talk of its widespread usage they're referring to developed economies.
Maps and GPS triangulation or pinpointing operates on a margin of error and sometimes routes you to a wrong location even in New York
Maps and GPS triangulation or pinpointing operates on a margin of error and sometimes routes you to a wrong location even in New York
> But congestion? That's going to get a lot worse, it's not going to be the utopia that people here seem to expect.
Some congestion, but other congestion will get better. Parking shortage is a form of congestion that will get better when cars can drop you off rather than needing to find a parking space. Also, circling and searching for parking when there's little available causes congestion. There's few more frustrating driving experiences than being stuck behind someone going 10mph while looking for parking.
I can imagine one of the initial big selling points to self-driving cars will be a "go earn money" mode where, instead of parking your car, you tell it what time to come back and pick you up and it goes to drive for Uber/Lyft in the interim and accepts any ride that doesn't preclude it from returning in time.
Some congestion, but other congestion will get better. Parking shortage is a form of congestion that will get better when cars can drop you off rather than needing to find a parking space. Also, circling and searching for parking when there's little available causes congestion. There's few more frustrating driving experiences than being stuck behind someone going 10mph while looking for parking.
I can imagine one of the initial big selling points to self-driving cars will be a "go earn money" mode where, instead of parking your car, you tell it what time to come back and pick you up and it goes to drive for Uber/Lyft in the interim and accepts any ride that doesn't preclude it from returning in time.
Elon has already said that this is coming to Tesla. Super exciting stuff.
Yeah I don't understand this enthusiasm for autonomous cars. It seems like the HN-crowd seems to wax enthusiasm for solutions that don't yet exist, and absolutely reject alternatives (bikes, public transit) that already exist and work. With new solutions comes new problems, and I can see congestion being a big one.
I guess it's not sexy to implement the tried-and-true, but it's a lot more sexy to dream.
I guess it's not sexy to implement the tried-and-true, but it's a lot more sexy to dream.
"Absolutely reject" seems a bit much. The same people can be enthusiasts for driverless cars and also take public transit and/or biking.
Also, it's easy to see how driverless cars could be used along with public transit or biking for different parts of a trip.
Also, it's easy to see how driverless cars could be used along with public transit or biking for different parts of a trip.
I'd argue that the most useful aspect of driverless cars is going to be as short-range taxis. I live in San Diego. We're not LA but we're not tiny. I'd take the trolley basically everywhere if I could but that would increase my ride time by somewhere around an hour and a half. The VAST majority of that time isn't waiting for the trolley. It's sitting on a bus and waiting for it to take me to the trolley station which is only two miles away from where I live. If I drive to the trolley station, my A-to-B ride time becomes about fourty minutes total. If I could just buy a bus pass that included autonomous pickup that shuttled me quickly to the trolley station then I would give up my car in a heartbeat.
The tried and true has no possibility to transform society.
Carriage gets from A to B.
Car gets from A to B.
More of the same, should have stayed wit the eco-friendly solution back then, shouldnt we? And yet, its not the same society we would have had.
More of the same, should have stayed wit the eco-friendly solution back then, shouldnt we? And yet, its not the same society we would have had.
The technology for autonomous cars does exist. Latest data from Waymo is that they can drive 5.000 miles on average before disengagement (https://medium.com/waymo/accelerating-the-pace-of-learning-3...).
They are not ready to be widely deployed but are close, which is why we're talking about them. It's an exciting technology with great potential impact on the future and a lot of that impact is positive.
As far as bikes go: no one is complaining about them. It's all in your mind.
As far as public transit: autonomous cars will improve it. By my calculations, autonomous car will be cheaper, unsubsidized, than a $2.50 bus ride subsidized by the city from our taxes (SF has ~$1 billion budget to fund money-loosing bart, buses etc.).
And that's cars. Things will be even cheaper if we get buses to be autonomous. At which point it's likely bus service will be cheaper and provided by a commercial company (the only reason public transport is government owned is because it looses money, so it wouldn't exist as private company).
They are not ready to be widely deployed but are close, which is why we're talking about them. It's an exciting technology with great potential impact on the future and a lot of that impact is positive.
As far as bikes go: no one is complaining about them. It's all in your mind.
As far as public transit: autonomous cars will improve it. By my calculations, autonomous car will be cheaper, unsubsidized, than a $2.50 bus ride subsidized by the city from our taxes (SF has ~$1 billion budget to fund money-loosing bart, buses etc.).
And that's cars. Things will be even cheaper if we get buses to be autonomous. At which point it's likely bus service will be cheaper and provided by a commercial company (the only reason public transport is government owned is because it looses money, so it wouldn't exist as private company).
> They are not ready to be widely deployed but are close, which is why we're talking about them. It's an exciting technology with great potential impact on the future and a lot of that impact is positive.
If you've ever implemented anything in your life, you should know that completely new solutions often come with unexpected failure modes. Very well thought out solutions often address all of these, but more often than not we have to address failure modes through iteration. Unfortunately, physical infrastructure isn't like software: iteration isn't nearly as cheap or fast.
> As far as public transit: autonomous cars will improve it. By my calculations, autonomous car will be cheaper, unsubsidized, than a $2.50 bus ride subsidized by the city from our taxes (SF has ~$1 billion budget to fund money-loosing bart, buses etc.).
And how will that scale? When SF's streets are filled grid-to-grid with vehicles that can only fit 5 people at once (and will probably only accept 4 due to customer sentiment), what will we do then? Also, care to share your calculations?
> And that's cars. Things will be even cheaper if we get buses to be autonomous. At which point it's likely bus service will be cheaper and provided by a commercial company (the only reason public transport is government owned is because it looses money, so it wouldn't exist as private company).
A bus driver is far from the main cost of a bus service. Many buses in SF/Berkeley are already electric or hybrid, so it's not even fuel anymore. Buses are expensive because they are large vehicles and because maintaining them is expensive. Autonomous driving tech won't make a bus cheaper to purchase or maintain.
If you've ever implemented anything in your life, you should know that completely new solutions often come with unexpected failure modes. Very well thought out solutions often address all of these, but more often than not we have to address failure modes through iteration. Unfortunately, physical infrastructure isn't like software: iteration isn't nearly as cheap or fast.
> As far as public transit: autonomous cars will improve it. By my calculations, autonomous car will be cheaper, unsubsidized, than a $2.50 bus ride subsidized by the city from our taxes (SF has ~$1 billion budget to fund money-loosing bart, buses etc.).
And how will that scale? When SF's streets are filled grid-to-grid with vehicles that can only fit 5 people at once (and will probably only accept 4 due to customer sentiment), what will we do then? Also, care to share your calculations?
> And that's cars. Things will be even cheaper if we get buses to be autonomous. At which point it's likely bus service will be cheaper and provided by a commercial company (the only reason public transport is government owned is because it looses money, so it wouldn't exist as private company).
A bus driver is far from the main cost of a bus service. Many buses in SF/Berkeley are already electric or hybrid, so it's not even fuel anymore. Buses are expensive because they are large vehicles and because maintaining them is expensive. Autonomous driving tech won't make a bus cheaper to purchase or maintain.
it's not going to be the utopia that people here seem to expect
Look for the emergent problems. It's the insightful thinker who can observe cars then predict strip malls and parking lots. It's the emergent problems which will point the way to new disruptive business opportunities.
Look for the emergent problems. It's the insightful thinker who can observe cars then predict strip malls and parking lots. It's the emergent problems which will point the way to new disruptive business opportunities.
At the moment electrics have lower marginal cost but much higher capital cost. That implies the average miles per car has to go up in order for them to make sense ...
The capability of "autonomous" is also overstated - at the moment there aren't the Level 6 autonomous cars that would be capable of dead-head journeys.
The capability of "autonomous" is also overstated - at the moment there aren't the Level 6 autonomous cars that would be capable of dead-head journeys.
> Anytime you make something cheaper, easier to use, more useful and/or more efficient you get an increase in usage.
This isn't inherently true. You only get an increase in usage if people want/need that usage but previously couldn't have it. (i.e, if there was already a shortage -- if we were severely undeserving the need previously, or a new undeserved need was discovered).
If there is no shortage already and/or no newly-discovered need for something, then making something cheaper or easier does not increase it's usage.
(This is the big common mistake nearly everyone makes when talking about "Induced Demand". If you don't understand that Induced Demand is really about critical shortages further up the chain, then you trap yourself into doing nothing under the false belief that any new capacity added will automatically "induce" a failure of the new system).
This isn't inherently true. You only get an increase in usage if people want/need that usage but previously couldn't have it. (i.e, if there was already a shortage -- if we were severely undeserving the need previously, or a new undeserved need was discovered).
If there is no shortage already and/or no newly-discovered need for something, then making something cheaper or easier does not increase it's usage.
(This is the big common mistake nearly everyone makes when talking about "Induced Demand". If you don't understand that Induced Demand is really about critical shortages further up the chain, then you trap yourself into doing nothing under the false belief that any new capacity added will automatically "induce" a failure of the new system).
That's certainly true but I have to believe that, for most people, effectively having a private driver at their beck and call would increase the amount of time they spend in a car.
You're right that it's not infinite; I don't want to spend 8 hours a day commuting just because someone else is doing the driving. But, speaking as someone who lives about an hour outside of the nearest large city, I would absolutely go in more for the evening--as well as take more weekend trips--if I didn't have to drive.
That's likely typical of a lot of people, albeit not everyone.
You're right that it's not infinite; I don't want to spend 8 hours a day commuting just because someone else is doing the driving. But, speaking as someone who lives about an hour outside of the nearest large city, I would absolutely go in more for the evening--as well as take more weekend trips--if I didn't have to drive.
That's likely typical of a lot of people, albeit not everyone.
Could you expand on "critical shortages up the chain?"
It seems like if slightly less-preferable alternatives are already being used, this would be enough to induce demand when the price drops a bit. Many car trips are optional; consider shopping and the ability to combine trips or order online, if you're motivated to do so. Also, there are many alternatives for entertainment, whether by going somewhere else or staying home. And people do take traffic into account when choosing when and where to drive.
It seems like if slightly less-preferable alternatives are already being used, this would be enough to induce demand when the price drops a bit. Many car trips are optional; consider shopping and the ability to combine trips or order online, if you're motivated to do so. Also, there are many alternatives for entertainment, whether by going somewhere else or staying home. And people do take traffic into account when choosing when and where to drive.
A good example is to focus on things that aren't cars first.
For instance, no one says "we shouldn't make the air cleaner. If clean air became too cheap or too easy to breathe, people might breathe too much". Such a thought is ridiculous. It's understood that, once we have enough so that there is no longer any shortage for anyone, demand simply won't rise, no matter how much cheaper or easier to use that becomes. To the extreme that it's infinitely easy and has absolutely no cost for me to breathe extra clean air right now, but I still don't over-breathe because it would be pointless, there's nothing to gain by doing that.
Another example is a hospital. No one says "we should never build a new hospital. If healthcare becomes too cheap or too easy to get, people might become overly-healthy." Or "If we build a new hospital, we'll just encourage people to be more sick". Someone will even print up some misleading statistics. They'll say, "see, last year we had a 500-bed hospital, and it was always full of sick people. Now we have two 500-bed hospitals, and they're both full. Sickness has doubled since last year! We have more sick people now than ever before". It's understood that a new hospital does not create sickness, it does not induce sickness. These people were still sick, they just weren't counted because they weren't in the hospital. They were getting ill at home or at work, and not getting recorded at the hospital because it was already full.
---
Transportation works the same way. But it's been so under-built, poorly-built, and under-serviced for so many years, that everyone approaches it with starvation mentality to scrape by with, instead of approaching it as a problem to be actually solved well.
Cheaper and more convenient cars do not create demand, they expose shortages up the chain. There is already, today, many people who have a shortage of housing and transportation across the US. Clean/cheap/safer cars allow them to meet needs that previously were unmet. This will create the illusion of new congestion (because transportation will be more accessible to people), but that congestion is not new, it already existed. It just was not being not measured, it was spilling out into other areas where it is unaccounted for (such as people who ordering online who would have preferred to shop in stores but couldn't, or people just giving up on life altogether and not going places they want or need to go, because no transportation exists to make the trip possible).
For example, Autonomous cars will likely increase total car trips because empty cars will be summoned around to places. That's not really new demand though, that's an exposing of a critical shortage of parking. If Autonomous cars were cheap enough, and parking was cheap enough, Autonomous cars would never need to make empty trips. They could wait for people right where people already are without any problems. But because most cities have a critical shortage of parking, that shortage will spill out into the streets as "induced demand", where cars will waste lots of time and energy driving around empty into and out of cities, just so they can avoid parking in cities. Autonomous cars "solve parking" by moving parked cars into city streets and circulating them. It's not new demand, its old demand being pushed around to different places, hot-potato style.
Similarly, autonomous cars will likely increase total driving distances, as they make it easier for people to live further away from cities and endure longer commutes. But this too isn't really induced demand for cars, this is an exposing of the critical shortage of housing that most US cities have. If there was enough quality affordable housing in cities, people wouldn't waste their time commuting further away, even if doing so had zero cost. But because we are not willing to solve that problem, it too will spill out into our transportation infrastructure, and then get blamed on "cars" or "induced demand", when neither is a really accurate representation of the problem, nor an accurate path for finding a solution.
For instance, no one says "we shouldn't make the air cleaner. If clean air became too cheap or too easy to breathe, people might breathe too much". Such a thought is ridiculous. It's understood that, once we have enough so that there is no longer any shortage for anyone, demand simply won't rise, no matter how much cheaper or easier to use that becomes. To the extreme that it's infinitely easy and has absolutely no cost for me to breathe extra clean air right now, but I still don't over-breathe because it would be pointless, there's nothing to gain by doing that.
Another example is a hospital. No one says "we should never build a new hospital. If healthcare becomes too cheap or too easy to get, people might become overly-healthy." Or "If we build a new hospital, we'll just encourage people to be more sick". Someone will even print up some misleading statistics. They'll say, "see, last year we had a 500-bed hospital, and it was always full of sick people. Now we have two 500-bed hospitals, and they're both full. Sickness has doubled since last year! We have more sick people now than ever before". It's understood that a new hospital does not create sickness, it does not induce sickness. These people were still sick, they just weren't counted because they weren't in the hospital. They were getting ill at home or at work, and not getting recorded at the hospital because it was already full.
---
Transportation works the same way. But it's been so under-built, poorly-built, and under-serviced for so many years, that everyone approaches it with starvation mentality to scrape by with, instead of approaching it as a problem to be actually solved well.
Cheaper and more convenient cars do not create demand, they expose shortages up the chain. There is already, today, many people who have a shortage of housing and transportation across the US. Clean/cheap/safer cars allow them to meet needs that previously were unmet. This will create the illusion of new congestion (because transportation will be more accessible to people), but that congestion is not new, it already existed. It just was not being not measured, it was spilling out into other areas where it is unaccounted for (such as people who ordering online who would have preferred to shop in stores but couldn't, or people just giving up on life altogether and not going places they want or need to go, because no transportation exists to make the trip possible).
For example, Autonomous cars will likely increase total car trips because empty cars will be summoned around to places. That's not really new demand though, that's an exposing of a critical shortage of parking. If Autonomous cars were cheap enough, and parking was cheap enough, Autonomous cars would never need to make empty trips. They could wait for people right where people already are without any problems. But because most cities have a critical shortage of parking, that shortage will spill out into the streets as "induced demand", where cars will waste lots of time and energy driving around empty into and out of cities, just so they can avoid parking in cities. Autonomous cars "solve parking" by moving parked cars into city streets and circulating them. It's not new demand, its old demand being pushed around to different places, hot-potato style.
Similarly, autonomous cars will likely increase total driving distances, as they make it easier for people to live further away from cities and endure longer commutes. But this too isn't really induced demand for cars, this is an exposing of the critical shortage of housing that most US cities have. If there was enough quality affordable housing in cities, people wouldn't waste their time commuting further away, even if doing so had zero cost. But because we are not willing to solve that problem, it too will spill out into our transportation infrastructure, and then get blamed on "cars" or "induced demand", when neither is a really accurate representation of the problem, nor an accurate path for finding a solution.
There's an assumption with induced demand that all the extra trips are mostly unnecessary, because there are slightly-less-convenient alternatives. It sounds like you're making the opposite assumption that they're mostly necessary: "critical shortage of parking".
It seems like this isn't likely to be settled via armchair reasoning in an online discussion; someone needs to look at the data (for example, at pricing), and that's likely to lead to a complicated economics discussion.
It seems like this isn't likely to be settled via armchair reasoning in an online discussion; someone needs to look at the data (for example, at pricing), and that's likely to lead to a complicated economics discussion.
Autonomous cars may dramatically expand the set of people that can drive cars, which will accordingly increase the amount of cars on the road.
Right now the set of potential drivers are limited to 16 to around 80 (though many seniors may be forced to stop earlier). When skill and attention and licensing are no longer requirements for driving, then children and seniors that would have been forced to bicycle, walk or take transit will be able to call an autonomous car.
Right now the set of potential drivers are limited to 16 to around 80 (though many seniors may be forced to stop earlier). When skill and attention and licensing are no longer requirements for driving, then children and seniors that would have been forced to bicycle, walk or take transit will be able to call an autonomous car.
Predicting future human behavior is hard, but I disagree (under the assumption that self-driving cars will be as good as perfect)
Firstly, I disagree about your congestion claim. It is 'easy' to program self-driving cars to create road trains, where cars ride at speed with centimeters distance. That way, road capacity can easily quadruple. Traffic may slow down in rush hour, but traffic jams due to driver misjudgments could become a lot rarer, if not a thing from the past.
Traffic jams due to cars breaking down also might be avoidable. Cars could be programmed to push other cars out of the way, if one were to break down.
I also disagree with your claim the number of cars will go down. Reason? For many people, cars are too much of a status symbol. They also serve a bit as an extension to one's home (both psychologically and practically, for example to store a child's seat, umbrella, tennis rackets).
So why, if everybody able to afford a car today will still be able to afford one, would they do away with it?
Also, I don't see lots and lots of possibilities of decreasing the peak demand for cars. Many people still will want to go to work between 7 and 9 (all else being equal), and most cars will not be able to make two trips between suburbs and offices in a single rush hour (even without congestion, as I expect people to move further out of town in response, where gardens are larger and houses cheaper). Also, parents who can afford it will have third or fourth cars to drive their kids to school.
Firstly, I disagree about your congestion claim. It is 'easy' to program self-driving cars to create road trains, where cars ride at speed with centimeters distance. That way, road capacity can easily quadruple. Traffic may slow down in rush hour, but traffic jams due to driver misjudgments could become a lot rarer, if not a thing from the past.
Traffic jams due to cars breaking down also might be avoidable. Cars could be programmed to push other cars out of the way, if one were to break down.
I also disagree with your claim the number of cars will go down. Reason? For many people, cars are too much of a status symbol. They also serve a bit as an extension to one's home (both psychologically and practically, for example to store a child's seat, umbrella, tennis rackets).
So why, if everybody able to afford a car today will still be able to afford one, would they do away with it?
Also, I don't see lots and lots of possibilities of decreasing the peak demand for cars. Many people still will want to go to work between 7 and 9 (all else being equal), and most cars will not be able to make two trips between suburbs and offices in a single rush hour (even without congestion, as I expect people to move further out of town in response, where gardens are larger and houses cheaper). Also, parents who can afford it will have third or fourth cars to drive their kids to school.
If I had to choose between a world where 1) everyone owned electric cars 2) no one owned cars but just hitched rides on autonomous ones and 3) no one used cars at all, I would take the third option.
I think it's possible if we start building new cities designed for walking, instead of just expanding our current cities, with all the problems that presents. I think the trick would be to strictly limit their footprint to something that would allow anyone to walk from one end to another in ~30 minutes. You can still have a big city, you just have to rely on the world's greatest form of public transportation (the elevator) and build up.
Aside from the serenity of not having cars wiz around, dividing up the city and running people over, there are a bunch of other benefits. Not having to provide services to every residence makes the government's job much easier (so less government); the city would become more of a community if everyone is always walking everywhere and running into each other; you'd have more public green space since the city would be surrounded by a large green loop; and it could fit into some really amazing locations, like a lush valley, or between a lake and a mountain. You can connect a bunch of them with a hyperloop (or something as simple as a bus service).
I think it's possible if we start building new cities designed for walking, instead of just expanding our current cities, with all the problems that presents. I think the trick would be to strictly limit their footprint to something that would allow anyone to walk from one end to another in ~30 minutes. You can still have a big city, you just have to rely on the world's greatest form of public transportation (the elevator) and build up.
Aside from the serenity of not having cars wiz around, dividing up the city and running people over, there are a bunch of other benefits. Not having to provide services to every residence makes the government's job much easier (so less government); the city would become more of a community if everyone is always walking everywhere and running into each other; you'd have more public green space since the city would be surrounded by a large green loop; and it could fit into some really amazing locations, like a lush valley, or between a lake and a mountain. You can connect a bunch of them with a hyperloop (or something as simple as a bus service).
> ... we start building new cities ...
I hope that you realize that cities are not just begun and built up (like the ghost-cities of China), but are built up over time because the area was desirable and people migrated to those areas.
The US isn't in the habit of just building a city somewhere. That just doesn't happen.
That -new city building- is something that happens when a country's GDP is slipping so low they have no choice but to spend money (looking at you China) to falsely inflate their growth metric.
In the west, we are capitalist driven. That means a city will spring up around a feature. Doesn't matter what that feature is, but it's growth is organic and not necessarily well-planned as you're suggesting.
We could theoretically do this, but we don't.
I hope that you realize that cities are not just begun and built up (like the ghost-cities of China), but are built up over time because the area was desirable and people migrated to those areas.
The US isn't in the habit of just building a city somewhere. That just doesn't happen.
That -new city building- is something that happens when a country's GDP is slipping so low they have no choice but to spend money (looking at you China) to falsely inflate their growth metric.
In the west, we are capitalist driven. That means a city will spring up around a feature. Doesn't matter what that feature is, but it's growth is organic and not necessarily well-planned as you're suggesting.
We could theoretically do this, but we don't.
I don't think that's a fair representation of what's happening. It's like judging a movie theater based on it's attendance the day before the movie opens. For China, planned cities look like a "ghost town" for a while... until the people start moving in, and suddenly it's not a ghost town anymore. I'm not claiming their approach is perfect, but I do like that they tried to plan ahead, something the US does not do often enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/mar/21/china-west-gh...
I personally think America could benefit from taking a little bit of China's approach here. Can you imagine how much more affordable housing would be in San Francisco if a bunch of "unnecessary" / "ghost" housing got built before all the new tech jobs moved in.
And sure, it's possible to misjudge things, not every future plan will be wildly successful. But what's really the worst case scenario? "Oh no, we built too much housing. I guess apartments will be really easy to afford. I guess we can start sheltering homeless people really cheaply now, or artists can retrofit some for cheap studio space."
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/mar/21/china-west-gh...
I personally think America could benefit from taking a little bit of China's approach here. Can you imagine how much more affordable housing would be in San Francisco if a bunch of "unnecessary" / "ghost" housing got built before all the new tech jobs moved in.
And sure, it's possible to misjudge things, not every future plan will be wildly successful. But what's really the worst case scenario? "Oh no, we built too much housing. I guess apartments will be really easy to afford. I guess we can start sheltering homeless people really cheaply now, or artists can retrofit some for cheap studio space."
Someone has to front the money though, and there have to be developers who believe that they are going to make their money back. sigh The US is profit-driven, so developers go where the money is at. No promise? No money.
That would also make the city completely inaccessible to people who can't walk those distances. The elderly, the disabled, the temporarily injured, etc. You'd also drastically increase commute times for the average person; a distance that takes 5 minutes to drive can take 30-60 to walk, and that's a huge amount of time wasted. (Not everyone can live within a few minutes walking distance of their workplace.) If you're talking about not having roads at all, you'd also break things like shipping and package delivery, other types of deliveries, trucking in general, many aspects of emergency services, and so on. Or just the ability to go pick up large/bulky items.
I'd love to see designs that rely less on cars as a sole means of transportation. They still have a place in the ecosystem, however, and they serve a useful function.
I'd love to see designs that rely less on cars as a sole means of transportation. They still have a place in the ecosystem, however, and they serve a useful function.
I can see a city with the third option, but the whole world? What if you want to go someplace that isn't in a city? Public transportation can't cover every rural destination.
I've lived in Rome. It's basically like that. Everything you need is within a 3-4 block radius. It was very pleasant and I only rarely needed public transportation, and never a car.
Groceries were a total pain in the ass, every time.
Groceries were a total pain in the ass, every time.
And for people not interested in living in a city?
I'm genuinely curious on this note. I love utopian visions of cities, but also recognize that even if they existed, more than a few folks wouldn't want to inhabit them.
I'm genuinely curious on this note. I love utopian visions of cities, but also recognize that even if they existed, more than a few folks wouldn't want to inhabit them.
They can live somewhere else and drive their ICE cars around. I don't care that much what they do, but I want a live in a city that's livable. I think my vision would make for the most livable city possible.
I live in a city which has a central district unavailable for most of the cars(aside from residents, but parking spaces are very limited).
I would never want to live in that district. Reasons:
- Buildings are very close to each other which makes the place dark and noisy(sound bounces off the walls).
- Rent is high, because apartments are so close to everything that landlords can get away with high prices.
- Trash day is once a week, because you can't have a garbage truck roaming the streets every morning waking everybody up.
- Summer is hell, because air can't travel through all this tight space.
Once you get rid of the roads you create a perverse incentive to place something there instead, e.g. buildings. And this is what ultimately happens.
Also: assuming you're walking at a brisk pace of 6km/h. In 30 minutes you're going to travel 3km, which means that in order to be able to walk from one end to another you'll need a city with an area of at most 7km^2.
I would never want to live in that district. Reasons:
- Buildings are very close to each other which makes the place dark and noisy(sound bounces off the walls).
- Rent is high, because apartments are so close to everything that landlords can get away with high prices.
- Trash day is once a week, because you can't have a garbage truck roaming the streets every morning waking everybody up.
- Summer is hell, because air can't travel through all this tight space.
Once you get rid of the roads you create a perverse incentive to place something there instead, e.g. buildings. And this is what ultimately happens.
Also: assuming you're walking at a brisk pace of 6km/h. In 30 minutes you're going to travel 3km, which means that in order to be able to walk from one end to another you'll need a city with an area of at most 7km^2.
> - Trash day is once a week, because you can't have a garbage truck roaming the streets every morning waking everybody up.
While I agree with the rest of your points, "once a week" trash service is pretty standard in many areas. And if you have properly integrated mechanisms within buildings, even that might be more often than needed.
While I agree with the rest of your points, "once a week" trash service is pretty standard in many areas. And if you have properly integrated mechanisms within buildings, even that might be more often than needed.
> I think the trick would be to strictly limit their footprint to something that would allow anyone to walk from one end to another in ~30 minutes.
How many inhabitants do you think that will be?
How many inhabitants do you think that will be?
The Upper East Side of Manhattan (one of the wealthiest and most desirable neighborhoods in the world) has over 200,000 residents. The UES doesn't have much office space though, which would be needed. But you could probably have a little bit bigger footprint than that, and certainly many more much taller buildings. So, I don't really know, but maybe 100,000 to 400,000 residents?
I agree with you in principle, but any city has to have the ability for delivery services and emergency vehicles to move around.
I think there are ways to deal with those things. You could have underground tunnels that allow limited motorized transit.
Boston
You mean a city like Tokyo?
>I think it's possible if we start building new cities designed for walking, instead of just expanding our current cities, with all the problems that presents. I think the trick would be to strictly limit their footprint to something that would allow anyone to walk from one end to another in ~30 minutes. You can still have a big city, you just have to rely on the world's greatest form of public transportation (the elevator) and build up.
We can build new cities, or expand current ones, with concepts in place that eliminate the need for travel, but a more pressing problem that requires immediate attention is the population currently in cities.
In the given circumstances, mass public transport systems (like the one envisaged by Musk) are the best way forward, IMO.
Electric cars are the next best option, considering the overall eco-friendly nature of coal to miles drive efficiency of electrical systems, plus their suitability to go off grid.
To me one major focus point seems to be investment in technologies, concepts and constructs of nano-grids, at the level of individual communities and homes, drastically reducing fossil fuel usage. This could be a major push point for governments, and yes, problems of this scale require massive push from governments, to pull people kicking and screaming into a greener future, before it's too late. For that the world need strong leaders and forward thinkers.
To quote an example, in India, where I am from, the govt. is pushing very hard for solar power generation, to the detriment of existing thermal power plant manufacturing infrastructure. There is a lot of resentment in affected companies, vendors, operators, etc, for this move. But what has to be done has to be done. Left to their own, or to market forces, we will boil ourselves dead.
Remember, climate change has a lot of lag. It's effects are not immediate, nor apparent until it is too late. We are already seeing that now.
> Aside from the serenity of not having cars wiz around, dividing up the city and running people over, there are a bunch of other benefits. Not having to provide services to every residence makes the government's job much easier (so less government); the city would become more of a community if everyone is always walking everywhere and running into each other; you'd have more public green space since the city would be surrounded by a large green loop; and it could fit into some really amazing locations, like a lush valley, or between a lake and a mountain. You can connect a bunch of them with a hyperloop (or something as simple as a bus service).
This seems too fantastical to be made true in reality. Maybe I'm wrong, but IMO it's better we plan and do things keeping in mind the nature of the average human. After all, we still have huge swaths of population still thinking climate change is not caused or accelerated by human activities.
We can build new cities, or expand current ones, with concepts in place that eliminate the need for travel, but a more pressing problem that requires immediate attention is the population currently in cities.
In the given circumstances, mass public transport systems (like the one envisaged by Musk) are the best way forward, IMO.
Electric cars are the next best option, considering the overall eco-friendly nature of coal to miles drive efficiency of electrical systems, plus their suitability to go off grid.
To me one major focus point seems to be investment in technologies, concepts and constructs of nano-grids, at the level of individual communities and homes, drastically reducing fossil fuel usage. This could be a major push point for governments, and yes, problems of this scale require massive push from governments, to pull people kicking and screaming into a greener future, before it's too late. For that the world need strong leaders and forward thinkers.
To quote an example, in India, where I am from, the govt. is pushing very hard for solar power generation, to the detriment of existing thermal power plant manufacturing infrastructure. There is a lot of resentment in affected companies, vendors, operators, etc, for this move. But what has to be done has to be done. Left to their own, or to market forces, we will boil ourselves dead.
Remember, climate change has a lot of lag. It's effects are not immediate, nor apparent until it is too late. We are already seeing that now.
> Aside from the serenity of not having cars wiz around, dividing up the city and running people over, there are a bunch of other benefits. Not having to provide services to every residence makes the government's job much easier (so less government); the city would become more of a community if everyone is always walking everywhere and running into each other; you'd have more public green space since the city would be surrounded by a large green loop; and it could fit into some really amazing locations, like a lush valley, or between a lake and a mountain. You can connect a bunch of them with a hyperloop (or something as simple as a bus service).
This seems too fantastical to be made true in reality. Maybe I'm wrong, but IMO it's better we plan and do things keeping in mind the nature of the average human. After all, we still have huge swaths of population still thinking climate change is not caused or accelerated by human activities.
I'm all for increased public transportation, electric cars, and renewable energy. But I'm also hoping to give people ideas for what would be ideal.
I think you could argue that my idea is less fantastical than Musk's. People have built and migrated to new cities since the dawn of civilization. It's a more recent phenomenon that we stopped building large cities. My idea doesn't require any new technology. It doesn't require the government to do that much. It doesn't require people to behave any differently that what is natural.
I think you could argue that my idea is less fantastical than Musk's. People have built and migrated to new cities since the dawn of civilization. It's a more recent phenomenon that we stopped building large cities. My idea doesn't require any new technology. It doesn't require the government to do that much. It doesn't require people to behave any differently that what is natural.
A green space that city folk can reach in a 15 minute walk? Welcome to the forest of trash!
You don't realize it until you focus on it, but walking around a city, even a relatively clean one like Boston, how much of the air is full of exhaust. City busses that don't run on natural gas spew huge amounts of black smoke, it's disgusting. I can't wait until electric cars take over, the air is going to be so much cleaner, even in dense urban environments.
Getting rid of combustion in urban areas is one of the biggest public health wins available, on the same scale as famous past examples like banning leaded gasoline. The only reason we haven't already done it is lack of alternatives.
We have electric cars now, and we had plenty of ways to make public transport electric in the past without significantly reducing its flexibility - this makes me think it's not about lack of alternatives, but something else. My first suspicion is that fossil fuel transportation is still cheaper. Hopefully this will change soon.
> but something else.
The high cost of completely changing your fleet of vehicles, your driver and mechanics training and bringing in a whole new set of vendors and service professionals to tie it all together.
> My first suspicion is that fossil fuel transportation is still cheaper.
Yes, it's just about a lot more than the vehicles themselves.
The high cost of completely changing your fleet of vehicles, your driver and mechanics training and bringing in a whole new set of vendors and service professionals to tie it all together.
> My first suspicion is that fossil fuel transportation is still cheaper.
Yes, it's just about a lot more than the vehicles themselves.
Especially now that we're seeing effects of air pollution that go beyond respiratory issues: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25310992
Plus the noise! It can be hard to have a conversation with someone next to you while walking down a busy street. Switching to EVs will really help make cities quieter as well.
I have a theory that people will treat gas cars like they treated smokers. There was a stretch of time where smoking was popular in restaurants but the common shtick was the table next to you would go 'ewww!' and wave their hands around their nose or faux-cough causing all kinds of conflict and pressure. Pedestrians at stop signs might do the same for ICEs, etc.
>Pedestrians at stop signs might do the same for ICEs, etc.
Two groups of people will drive ICEs in that future. Poor people who are still driving 2023 Camrys and rich people driving higher end or enthusiast target ICE stuff.
More than a few in the latter group will consider such an attempt at shaming them as an invitation to spin the tires all the way through the intersection when the light turns green. Tire smoke smells bad to most people.
Two groups of people will drive ICEs in that future. Poor people who are still driving 2023 Camrys and rich people driving higher end or enthusiast target ICE stuff.
More than a few in the latter group will consider such an attempt at shaming them as an invitation to spin the tires all the way through the intersection when the light turns green. Tire smoke smells bad to most people.
I don't think it'll be that simple. There will be plenty of people who hold on to ICEs for no good reason but habit. When prompted they will say head-scratching things like 'I like the way it sounds' or 'it's safer from hacking' or 'God put dead algae in the ground billions of years ago for a reason'.
Difference here is that transportation is a daily requirement. Smoking is not. It's just a disgusting habit.
Sure, but most people will assume the person made the choice to pick an ICE and treat it like a disgusting habit\decision that's ruining their environment, even if many hold off judgement.
Difference being they won't necessarily be able to afford a new fancy electric vehicle. Just like there are people today driving old clunkers. Smoking is a choice, buying a new vehicle sometimes isn't.
The testable prediction I am making here is that people will exert social force quite similar to the mini-shamings applied to smokers. Your point is that smokers and ICE drivers have different reasons to be those things, and they may color how things play out, but the mini-shamings will continue to exist both because not all ICE drivers do so without a choice, and not all mini-shamers will care one way or another about the underlying facts.
Anyway, it's just an idea. I guess I'm bored. Cheers!
Anyway, it's just an idea. I guess I'm bored. Cheers!
"German carmakers are likely to stop developing new combustion engines in as little as six years as they focus investments in electric cars and self-driving technology, Continental said."
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20170803/ANE/170809854
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20170803/ANE/170809854
As if ICEs are going to be replaced for emergency power generation any time soon. And with new tech coming out where regular gasoline engines can be as efficient as diesels (in fact using the Diesel cycle to a degree) if not more, you're going to find a resurgence of them in hybrid-electric vehicles. I doubt you're going to be rolling around with a solar-powered weed-eater to do your yardwork. I can guarantee you aren't replacing the ICE for things as large as earth movers any time soon.
> I doubt you're going to be rolling around with a solar-powered weed-eater to do your yardwork.
I wouldn't doubt that. I have a carbon-neutral wireless electric weed-eater. Throw some spinning blades on it, and it will cut down small trees too. I also have a carbon-neutral wireless electric lawnmower. And a carbon-neutral wireless electric snowblower.
You can buy all three yourself, today, in the US at almost any Home Depot store nationwide.
I wouldn't doubt that. I have a carbon-neutral wireless electric weed-eater. Throw some spinning blades on it, and it will cut down small trees too. I also have a carbon-neutral wireless electric lawnmower. And a carbon-neutral wireless electric snowblower.
You can buy all three yourself, today, in the US at almost any Home Depot store nationwide.
>carbon-neutral
I almost guarantee those plastics were not manufactured using a carbon-neutral process.
I almost guarantee those plastics were not manufactured using a carbon-neutral process.
"I doubt you're going to be rolling around with a solar-powered weed-eater to do your yardwork"
They already have electric weed-eaters. I can easily imagine those engines having a battery, complete with a solar powered charger, likely with an option for direct power. If your house power is solar as well, it still works.
I don't think this stuff is hard to imagine.
Large earth movers are a different beast, simply because of the heavy load. I predict these will be much further off. But so long as they have enough power, I don't see the issue with them being electric at some point.
They already have electric weed-eaters. I can easily imagine those engines having a battery, complete with a solar powered charger, likely with an option for direct power. If your house power is solar as well, it still works.
I don't think this stuff is hard to imagine.
Large earth movers are a different beast, simply because of the heavy load. I predict these will be much further off. But so long as they have enough power, I don't see the issue with them being electric at some point.
You could have a highly efficient ICE that powers a DC bus in your home, that is also connected to your Solar array, that provides clean / efficient power to all our devices.
With recent advancements in electronics, DC power seems to be a good bet, especially when considering the ubiquity of solar systems.
With recent advancements in electronics, DC power seems to be a good bet, especially when considering the ubiquity of solar systems.
Weed-whackers are probably not the best example. Apparently the current battery-powered ones are pretty good for typical personal home use. But absolutely for anything bigger or with a higher duty cycle (e.g. that lawn services would use).
I was at a beach resort recently and the grounds crew were mowing the lawn with battery powered commercial electric riding lawn mowers. Apparently the guests appreciate not breathing the exhaust fumes and they are much cheaper to operate. The future is here.
Small engines like those are also horrendously dirty. A gas-powered lawnmower, for example, produces an order of magnitude more pollution than a car in the same amount of time. Weed whackers, despite being smaller, can be even worse because smallness means less complete combustion.
Lawn equipment is fairly low-hanging fruit for electrification, much easier than cars, and would have a disproportionate impact on air quality.
Lawn equipment is fairly low-hanging fruit for electrification, much easier than cars, and would have a disproportionate impact on air quality.
The big difference is that two-cycle engines mix oil in with the gasoline. Something small like weed-whackers are usually two-cycle. Lawn mowers can be either.
As I said, the current crop of battery-powered weed whackers are apparently pretty good. When I've looked into robo electric-powered lawn mowers though, they really seemed to be for pretty minimal yards. I don't keep much of my property as lawn and, still, nothing out there seemed like it would be very effective.
As I said, the current crop of battery-powered weed whackers are apparently pretty good. When I've looked into robo electric-powered lawn mowers though, they really seemed to be for pretty minimal yards. I don't keep much of my property as lawn and, still, nothing out there seemed like it would be very effective.
no, we use battery powered lawn equipment though.
Electric car will be new smart phone. Without adding new features, electric car price can be reduce dramatically. A electric motor drive and tons of investment in battery tech can reduce entry level car price to four digit. But that is not at all wanted by industry. So automotive industry will keep adding automation and smart configurable suspension and other such nonsense to keep the price high. Good news for software industry nonetheless.
Does the new car market need to offer EVs for less than $10,000 if the used market already is? I purchased my 2013 Nissan Leaf SV for $11k in 2015.
New Nissan Leafs were selling for ~$13k here in Kansas City: $7,500 federal tax credit and $10k KCP&L rebate off a $31k car.
http://metroenergy.org/2017/03/10000-off-nissan-leaf-june-30...
I bought a lightly used 2015 for $8,500 in 2017.
http://metroenergy.org/2017/03/10000-off-nissan-leaf-june-30...
I bought a lightly used 2015 for $8,500 in 2017.
Ohh yes. I can imagine a tuk-tuk, vehicles that transport millions in third world countries, converted to electric vehicles.
- No AC - No Heaters - Light weight - Ample amount of luggage space - Not much range required
- No AC - No Heaters - Light weight - Ample amount of luggage space - Not much range required
I don't see how you could publish an article about the death of ICEs and fail to mention any other application but consumer vehicles.
It is also possible to design roads and charging around electric cars.
Charging while driving the car through induction. https://www.wired.com/2013/08/induction-charged-buses/
Self driving car guidance built into the roads. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/178640-volvo-designs-mag...
Road signs that communicate to the cars via wireless protocols etc. https://phys.org/news/2017-05-traffic-frisco-cars-technology...
Charging while driving the car through induction. https://www.wired.com/2013/08/induction-charged-buses/
Self driving car guidance built into the roads. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/178640-volvo-designs-mag...
Road signs that communicate to the cars via wireless protocols etc. https://phys.org/news/2017-05-traffic-frisco-cars-technology...
For most of the time, I'd be totally cool with an electric vehicle (this has changed in recent years as ranges and cold-weather performance has improved dramatically). However, that time when I'm traveling off the "grid" would be an absolute nightmare.
For example - taking a vacation up in the mountains. No power, limited direct sunlight for solar, and your car is your lifeline. Or cross-country travel that isn't on the highways (i.e. no superchargers every 100 miles). Limited to 400 miles in a day, and required to stay at a hotel or spot with a plug in. Or someplace not in the continental US - for example Alaska or Canada.
That said, I think my ideal theoretical vehicle would have an all electric power train, and a gas turbine generator for those long trips. Best of both worlds (combustion and electric).
For example - taking a vacation up in the mountains. No power, limited direct sunlight for solar, and your car is your lifeline. Or cross-country travel that isn't on the highways (i.e. no superchargers every 100 miles). Limited to 400 miles in a day, and required to stay at a hotel or spot with a plug in. Or someplace not in the continental US - for example Alaska or Canada.
That said, I think my ideal theoretical vehicle would have an all electric power train, and a gas turbine generator for those long trips. Best of both worlds (combustion and electric).
I think about it the same way as owning a boat. If you go fishing every weekend then by all means buy a boat. If you only go once a year for a weekend then just rent a boat. Same principal can be used for longer than 650 km drives
Probably the easiest answer. Not necessarily with the current car rental prices (it immediately adds $300-400 to the cost of a vacation), but overall a decent model.
Not sure why they would get a lot cheaper than they are today. For people who live in a place like NYC, it's pretty common to not own a car and just rent one when they go skiing or whatever. The driving factor tends to be not so much the cost of owning a car but the costs associated with keeping one (parking, etc.) in a place like Manhattan.
I dont' think it'll be so bad. Sure, you might not be able to do that at first as we won't have the infrastructure and accessories built for it. But we will. Folks enjoy such things. I can imagine being told:
Now, as part of your trailer, you have extra energy storage, perhaps some solar capacity to refill the trailer batteries, possibly using the movement of the vehicle itself too.
Trailer too much? You also have the option of a "luggage case" on top, which isn't as powerful as the above but still lets you have freedom and maybe has a little wind turbine that works as you drive.
And I'm pretty sure we'll have some cars that just automatically come with extra batteries, for exactly the sort of travel you are talking.
Now, as part of your trailer, you have extra energy storage, perhaps some solar capacity to refill the trailer batteries, possibly using the movement of the vehicle itself too.
Trailer too much? You also have the option of a "luggage case" on top, which isn't as powerful as the above but still lets you have freedom and maybe has a little wind turbine that works as you drive.
And I'm pretty sure we'll have some cars that just automatically come with extra batteries, for exactly the sort of travel you are talking.
A wind turbine that works as you drive? Nonsense on stilts...
Probably won't stop someone from trying to sell it to people :/.
(For those who didn't have their morning coffee today: the power that this wind turbine would capture would be (fraction of) the one coming from your car's battery. I.e. this would do nothing but increase the drag.)
(For those who didn't have their morning coffee today: the power that this wind turbine would capture would be (fraction of) the one coming from your car's battery. I.e. this would do nothing but increase the drag.)
> Nonsense on stilts
Sigh. Time for a new keyboard.
I'm keeping that one around for awhile; thanks for the laugh.
Sigh. Time for a new keyboard.
I'm keeping that one around for awhile; thanks for the laugh.
Yeah, that seems a bit ridiculous to me as well and I wrote the thing :) Without tech being much better, that is, and even then it doesn't seem proficient.
But I can see it being sold. We put fake blowers, oversized spoilers, and other such things on cars now.
But I can see it being sold. We put fake blowers, oversized spoilers, and other such things on cars now.
You don't even need a gas turbine. A simple ICE generator will suffice. I'd personally go for a DC generator (domestic power supply is AC), that plugs directly into the battery charging system of the car.
A few gallons of fuel can certainly add more than a 100 miles.
A few gallons of fuel can certainly add more than a 100 miles.
I'd still prefer a turbine, for many of the same reasons as an electric motor. Fewer moving parts, more fuel efficient.
As a point of their reliability, most of the old pumpjacks you've seen about (if you're my age) are powered by turbines. Turned on, and left running for years without stopping.
As a point of their reliability, most of the old pumpjacks you've seen about (if you're my age) are powered by turbines. Turned on, and left running for years without stopping.
I am under the impression that as the size of a turbine reduces, to maintain the same efficiency, you'd have to increase the running speed.
So for small turbines and with safe speeds, I guess the efficiency is compromised.
Having said that, I have come across efficient micro-turbines.
So for small turbines and with safe speeds, I guess the efficiency is compromised.
Having said that, I have come across efficient micro-turbines.
I don't have enough knowledge to discuss the power/fuel consumption of miniature turbines compared to a similarly sized ICE, but for those with that knowledge:
http://www.jetmodelproducts.com/amt.htm
157 N/16KG thrust at 450 g/min (grams, not gallons ;))
http://www.jetmodelproducts.com/amt.htm
157 N/16KG thrust at 450 g/min (grams, not gallons ;))
Ok, this looks like a Jet, to provide thrust. But to me, those parameters look like very poor fuel efficiency.
I could manage easily without a car at home, I live in a city with good public transport and plenty of shops nearby.
For vacations though I tend to travel between two countries that have announced that all cars will be electric relatively soon. Maybe a solution for the future is a standardized small shipping container that goes with you by train to fairly near a destination then gets put on the back of something like a small electric pickup truck that you rent while there.
For vacations though I tend to travel between two countries that have announced that all cars will be electric relatively soon. Maybe a solution for the future is a standardized small shipping container that goes with you by train to fairly near a destination then gets put on the back of something like a small electric pickup truck that you rent while there.
With a range extension of 115 miles, that's not quite the distance I'd like to see.
It's fine as a proof of concept, and maybe even for a daily driver with a bit of emergency range, but not for my aforementioned trips.
It's fine as a proof of concept, and maybe even for a daily driver with a bit of emergency range, but not for my aforementioned trips.
> With a range extension of 115 miles, that's not quite the distance I'd like to see.
It sounds like you want a Volt. 53-ish miles of zero-emission electrical driving. If your battery dies, the gas generator clicks on, and a single tank of gas gets you an extra 315+ miles at freeway speeds.
It's not perfect. But (IMHO) it's pretty close to the best of both worlds, since the i3 isn't allowed to have a real range extender.
It sounds like you want a Volt. 53-ish miles of zero-emission electrical driving. If your battery dies, the gas generator clicks on, and a single tank of gas gets you an extra 315+ miles at freeway speeds.
It's not perfect. But (IMHO) it's pretty close to the best of both worlds, since the i3 isn't allowed to have a real range extender.
The more important part of article is the raise in price for Lithium Carbonate, from $4000 to $14000, how does that help reduce cost of batteries. We already have cheap oil, it may not be forever, but lets assume adoption of EVs improves drastically the would make OIL dead cheap, and most of the oil would be diverted to power generation or to other countries that do not have Electric Infrastructure etc. The point is the article is full of linear thinking and no room for second order effects and most optimistic projections.
US drivers drive 3.1 Trillions miles per year [0]. Every month, the 12 Month moving average has been going up at 5 billion miles [0]. So every month we need to install enough charging stations to charge 5 billion miles/year. Lets use a Level 2 charger that adds ~25 miles of charge per hour. So 5B miles / 25 miles of charge per hour / 24 hours per day / 365 days per year = about 23,000 Level 2 chargers need to be added every month.
There are currently about 44,000 Charging outlets in the US [1]. So just to keep up with the increase miles we drive each month, and not increase the percentage of electric vehicle miles, we need to install more than 50% as many charging outlets as have ever been installed EVERY MONTH forever. Time for that exponential curve to help us out some more.
[0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA [1]: https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html
There are currently about 44,000 Charging outlets in the US [1]. So just to keep up with the increase miles we drive each month, and not increase the percentage of electric vehicle miles, we need to install more than 50% as many charging outlets as have ever been installed EVERY MONTH forever. Time for that exponential curve to help us out some more.
[0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA [1]: https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html
You forget charging at home. There are currently around 100M home charging stations in the US, most of them completely underused :-)
So every home is a charging station and if the range for EVs keep increasing 10 percent per year we will reach 400 miles in 2 years, 500 miles in less than 5 years. By then, road side charging stations will be for people driving more than 7 hours in a day and for the very forgetful.
I drove more than 300 miles in one day once this year, and I still haven't driven more than 400 miles in a single day this year.
Even if you commute 30 miles to work and 30 miles back, you would only have to charge your Tesla model 3 in the weekends. In 5 years you could drive 100 miles a day and still only charge your EV every weekend.
So every home is a charging station and if the range for EVs keep increasing 10 percent per year we will reach 400 miles in 2 years, 500 miles in less than 5 years. By then, road side charging stations will be for people driving more than 7 hours in a day and for the very forgetful.
I drove more than 300 miles in one day once this year, and I still haven't driven more than 400 miles in a single day this year.
Even if you commute 30 miles to work and 30 miles back, you would only have to charge your Tesla model 3 in the weekends. In 5 years you could drive 100 miles a day and still only charge your EV every weekend.
I wonder if someone could come along and make an app to connect people possessing home chargers with people traveling long distances in EVs, like a mixture between GasBuddy and AirBnB.
For comparison, there were approx. 168,000 gas stations in the US in 2004 [1] and that number had been steadily decreasing during the decade before (202,000 in 1994).
[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/quizzes/answerQuiz16.shtml
[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/quizzes/answerQuiz16.shtml
98% of all charging on my car is done at home, at night.
Charging stations are for long trips or connivence at points of interest.
Charging stations are for long trips or connivence at points of interest.
[deleted]
>The World Health Organisation says that it is the single largest environmental health risk, with outdoor air pollution contributing to 3.7m deaths a year.
I hate this metric. Its nearly meaningless to the average person. Why not report it for what it is, days of lost life expectancy per person?
I hate this metric. Its nearly meaningless to the average person. Why not report it for what it is, days of lost life expectancy per person?
The Economist article fails to mention that electrical vehicles are massively subsidized by governments. The production and adoption of electrical vehicles would not exist, but for these http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/tesla-is-hemorrhaging-mone... subsidies. As an honest observer, the natural market forces that would influence a rational decision to adopt electrical vehicles, do not exist. The true cost of electrical vehicles for transportation far exceeds that of the internal combustion, for motive power.
I will stipulate to the fact that electrical vehicles are more efficient. But efficiency doesn't equate to "less expensive."
I will stipulate to the fact that electrical vehicles are more efficient. But efficiency doesn't equate to "less expensive."
The subsidies you bring up to justify your argument do exist. But they also exist in greater numbers for the gas/car manufacturers, so your argument that market forces would make electric cars untenable is very questionable.
https://electrek.co/2016/10/10/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-challenge...
https://electrek.co/2016/10/10/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-challenge...
I disagree, due to the not-so-coincidental timing of the introduction of hybrids and all-electrics, to coincide with augmentation of the CAFE standard, implementation of incentives for production and consumer purchase of said vehicles, etc etc. Where it not for the push and pull of incentives and regulatory pressure, they simply would not be on the road, today.
They also fail to mention how much the federal government subsidizes oil. One benefit of driving an EV is not funding the Middle East.
The federal government does not directly subsidize fossil fuel production, distribution or consumption. The government allows for losses, due to failed exploration. Not every well that you drill, brings in oil; or brings in sufficient oil to make that endeavor profitable. Any cost-offsets are in place to help ease the pain of failed wells.
So the $7,500 tax credit for an EV buyer is a subsidy? Yet the tax write-off for a failed well is not a subsidy?
Anyway, I think the whole idea of a tax savings classified as a subsidy is ludicrous. It's as if the federal government owns 100% of may paycheck, and the 70% they allow me to keep is then a subsidy.
Anyway, I think the whole idea of a tax savings classified as a subsidy is ludicrous. It's as if the federal government owns 100% of may paycheck, and the 70% they allow me to keep is then a subsidy.
And I get modded down, why? Because these comments do not reflect a purely progressive viewpoint? You should reconsider whom are allowed to moderate these forums.
There may be a decrease in the number of cars; the increase in car sharing may be higher than the increase in miles, but I doubt it.
But congestion? That's going to get a lot worse, it's not going to be the utopia that people here seem to expect.