Electric cars are not the answer to air pollution, says UK adviser(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Electric cars are not the answer to air pollution, says UK adviser
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/04/fewer-cars-not-electric-cars-beat-air-pollution-says-top-uk-adviser-prof-frank-kelly
84 comments
> The article doesn't talk about electric cars reliance on whatever powers the national grid of that country
Right! You'd be delusional to think that EVs are somehow solving pollution. However, they are almost like debt consolidation - each EV on the street becomes cleaner as each coal power plant is decommissioned. Burning dead dinosaurs in an engine will always be burning deal dinosaurs.
Right! You'd be delusional to think that EVs are somehow solving pollution. However, they are almost like debt consolidation - each EV on the street becomes cleaner as each coal power plant is decommissioned. Burning dead dinosaurs in an engine will always be burning deal dinosaurs.
I hope it's not delusional to note that, even if you're burning fossil fuels to power your EVs, at least you're not doing it in the middle of urban environments, mere feet from houses, businesses, and sidewalks.
> I'm not sure an environmental conscience is the reason, rather the cost of keeping your car taxed and insured, then finding somewhere for it to stay in London, and then finding a use for it, outweighs simply using public transport.
That's (part of) the reasoning behind car tax, petrol tax, etc.: to turn vague, idealistic goals (environmental concerns, efficient public transport rather than umpteem invididual cars, etc.) into concrete economic decisions.
The problem arises when these start to be abused, e.g. getting more people to drive in order to raise tax revenue ;)
That's (part of) the reasoning behind car tax, petrol tax, etc.: to turn vague, idealistic goals (environmental concerns, efficient public transport rather than umpteem invididual cars, etc.) into concrete economic decisions.
The problem arises when these start to be abused, e.g. getting more people to drive in order to raise tax revenue ;)
Particles from brake and tyre dust are bigger than from exhaust fumes, so less dangerous. Electric vehicles use regenerative braking so they uses brakes less. But they are heavier, but I think electric vehicle are still way better than other vehicles.
Yes. The regen breaks will last a long time. There's also a lot less maintenance and parts. But they do weigh more.
Curb weight of a Nissan Versa is about 2400 lbs.
Curb weight of a Nissan Leaf is about 3350 lbs.When I test drove a Model S last year the rep proudly told me that many (around 10 I believe) of the Model S's in the U.K. had done over 150,000 miles and none had had a brake pad change yet thanks to the regen.
I would say that the car slowed down about twice as quickly as a conventional car and I used the brakes much less than normal and unless another car was coming, the speed at the intersection was perfect for rolling through without using the brakes.
This is all anecdotal of course but interesting change nonetheless I thought.
I would say that the car slowed down about twice as quickly as a conventional car and I used the brakes much less than normal and unless another car was coming, the speed at the intersection was perfect for rolling through without using the brakes.
This is all anecdotal of course but interesting change nonetheless I thought.
Tires and brake disks/pads aren't cars. If the chemicals that make them are so dangerous, why not focus on replacements? Last I checked, bicycles have tires that wear out too.
> Tires and brake disks/pads aren't cars.
I think they're part of a car, aren't they? I mean, you cannot drive a car with no tires, and it's advisable that you should also have brake disks/pads.
I think they're part of a car, aren't they? I mean, you cannot drive a car with no tires, and it's advisable that you should also have brake disks/pads.
Well with regard to brake discs/pads I'm surprised that the electric car manufacturers are working towards a fully regenerative system.
If you could return all of the forward momentum as energy to the battery that would remove the need for discs and pads.
If you could return all of the forward momentum as energy to the battery that would remove the need for discs and pads.
Mechanical brakes have two major advantages over regenerative braking.
One is that they can handle extremely high transient power levels. For example, maximum-effort braking at high speed can easily involve over a megawatt of power in the initial stages. Dumping that power into your brake pads and rotors as heat is fairly easy to manage. Dumping that into your battery without wrecking it is much, much harder. For comparison, a high-end Tesla can charge at up to 120kW, and can discharge around 600kW in short bursts.
The other advantage is that they're cheap, reliable, and can easily be built with redundancy. You can lose all of your car's computers and half of your brake hydraulics and still be able to stop the car.
In order to have no mechanical brakes at all, you'd need a battery that could charge fast enough to absorb the power of full braking at maximum speed, and a sufficiently redundant drivetrain that you could still make regen work even if major components failed.
One is that they can handle extremely high transient power levels. For example, maximum-effort braking at high speed can easily involve over a megawatt of power in the initial stages. Dumping that power into your brake pads and rotors as heat is fairly easy to manage. Dumping that into your battery without wrecking it is much, much harder. For comparison, a high-end Tesla can charge at up to 120kW, and can discharge around 600kW in short bursts.
The other advantage is that they're cheap, reliable, and can easily be built with redundancy. You can lose all of your car's computers and half of your brake hydraulics and still be able to stop the car.
In order to have no mechanical brakes at all, you'd need a battery that could charge fast enough to absorb the power of full braking at maximum speed, and a sufficiently redundant drivetrain that you could still make regen work even if major components failed.
That's why mega capacitors are so interesting even if they can't store as much as a battery. We could instantly store all current kinetic energy in it and then recharge the battery "slowly" with the energy from the capacitor.
I agree about your second point, mechanical brakes are very simple and reliable. I'm pretty sure we will forever have them in our cars for safety/emergency reasons.
I agree about your second point, mechanical brakes are very simple and reliable. I'm pretty sure we will forever have them in our cars for safety/emergency reasons.
But the important thing isn't that the mechanical brakes exist, it's that they get used. Presumably with computers driving cars and regional coordination, you would have cars doing mostly regenerative braking and reserve the mechanical brakes for emergencies.
Indeed, and this is more or less how it is already. Hybrid and EV drivers report their brakes lasting far, far longer.
> Dumping that into your battery without wrecking it is much, much harder
Use capacitors?
Use capacitors?
And designing mechanical systems that don't produce so much friction.
Any idea why its called bicycle and not quadcycle ?
The wear and tear on tires and bikes with a 100kg system weight is much less than car to say the least.
The wear and tear on tires and bikes with a 100kg system weight is much less than car to say the least.
Also the linked paper doesn't take regenerative breaking of electric cars into account.
"It only reduces pollution by half, so there is no point"
More importantly, cars are not even the main pollution source in general.
We could probably ban cars completely if not for social and lobby reasons. (Replace with rail and public transport.) But that is only a quarter of total pollution anyway.
The real trouble is UK either needs desert solar with huge investment, nuclear power or drastic reduction in power use.
Electric cars are not even a stopgap measure.
We could probably ban cars completely if not for social and lobby reasons. (Replace with rail and public transport.) But that is only a quarter of total pollution anyway.
The real trouble is UK either needs desert solar with huge investment, nuclear power or drastic reduction in power use.
Electric cars are not even a stopgap measure.
So it's kind of a virtuous cycle though. First cell phones and laptops drove up demand for energy storage and so battery tech and production efficiency improved and prices fell to the point putting them in cars was kind of sort of economically not insane.
Now cars are driving up demand by another leap of magnitudes since each car requires magnitudes more batteries than a phone. The number of phones and cars people would like to own per capita is well within an order of magnitude though it's probably close.
Eventually this enables storage of solar derived power an again order of magnitude larger application than cars in at first niche applications then eventually it will be broad based.
Because just like the massive overprovisioning of dark fiber in the dotcom boom, one producers start competing in what is in some sense a dollar auction. The momentum of their growth and the people and processes tasked with ensuring that growth will fight to keep growing supply since it is their livelihood and perceived purpose to do so (both to grow the capacity and to justify that growth, those that don't justify won't be as likely to do the growth and will be selected against).
This will lead to a massive amount of batteries being produced since there doesn't seem to be any supply limits beyond how many mines we can make (and then ocean water than can be filtered for lithium from what I have read). I therefore think that "the cars are only 1/2 as polluting and thus pointless" statement lacks vision and an understanding of the positive externalities of growing electric cars.
The spin off tech is great. ICE cars have played that out. What was their most recent spinoffs? Tar sands / fracking? I guess we got a lot of cheap natural gas which was a step forward and what's really crushing coal. But if we get another oil spike I don't see the money flowing to oil just a much more agressive push towards EVs and battery tech.
Now cars are driving up demand by another leap of magnitudes since each car requires magnitudes more batteries than a phone. The number of phones and cars people would like to own per capita is well within an order of magnitude though it's probably close.
Eventually this enables storage of solar derived power an again order of magnitude larger application than cars in at first niche applications then eventually it will be broad based.
Because just like the massive overprovisioning of dark fiber in the dotcom boom, one producers start competing in what is in some sense a dollar auction. The momentum of their growth and the people and processes tasked with ensuring that growth will fight to keep growing supply since it is their livelihood and perceived purpose to do so (both to grow the capacity and to justify that growth, those that don't justify won't be as likely to do the growth and will be selected against).
This will lead to a massive amount of batteries being produced since there doesn't seem to be any supply limits beyond how many mines we can make (and then ocean water than can be filtered for lithium from what I have read). I therefore think that "the cars are only 1/2 as polluting and thus pointless" statement lacks vision and an understanding of the positive externalities of growing electric cars.
The spin off tech is great. ICE cars have played that out. What was their most recent spinoffs? Tar sands / fracking? I guess we got a lot of cheap natural gas which was a step forward and what's really crushing coal. But if we get another oil spike I don't see the money flowing to oil just a much more agressive push towards EVs and battery tech.
Electric cars use regen braking so their breaking pads see many times less use than those of gas powered cars...
Yes, I had the same thought. Has anyone quantified the difference?
I'm actually super excited about eliminating noise pollution when evs are common.
Imagine walking through downtown midday and it sounds like 2am.
Imagine walking through downtown midday and it sounds like 2am.
Don't be, you must think of the children first! Europe is already talking about having laws forcing EV to make fake noises so that pedestrians can continue jay walking without looking for cars.
So basically, current brown noise will be replaced with trademarked noises with recognizable frequencies.
So basically, current brown noise will be replaced with trademarked noises with recognizable frequencies.
Tires are as loud if not louder than the drivetrain noise of most modern cars
I was excited about it too until i heard a tesla roll up behind me on my bike...
It's less noise for sure, but they're not silent.
It's less noise for sure, but they're not silent.
I think once we have automated cars people in major cities will stop owning cars. Membership to a "club" makes a ton more sense if you can call up a car on an app and it drives itself o your location.
I go back and forth on this idea. It sounds very convenient, but then I also think about the crap I keep in my own vehicle that I like having close at hand: a serious first aid kit, some food and water, a cheap picnic style blanket, flash light, multitool. Stuff that I'm probably not going to carry on me but that I want nearby in case there's an accident or someone gets hurt or if I get stuck somewhere for a few hours without warning.
Any reason that couldn't be in the trunk of a shared car? Each piece could have a sensor in it to know when it was removed/returned, and things like bottled water/snacks could simply be charged with the ride. Additionally, if you're concerned about recycling/$ for the water, you could carry a bottle with you, which is not an unusual change of habit.
Golf clubs. Softball/baseball equipment. Gym bag. Change of shoes. Umbrella.
The original list was mostly shareable items, but there's a lot of non-shareable items in my trunk at the moment.
The original list was mostly shareable items, but there's a lot of non-shareable items in my trunk at the moment.
Yeah. Around here cars are required by law to have first-aid kits anyway.
OT, but this is very sensible.
In addition to the usual stuff you'd find in a kit, I threw in a four-pack of single-serve Krazy Glue (cyanoacrylate superglue), which is useful for controlling bleeding (a spray might even be nicer). Since I live in a climate that sees actual winters, I also included a pair of mylar emergency blankets (they also make a "sleeping bag" style), and I of course keep the usual extra set of boots/gloves/hat in the trunk during winter as well (totally standard around here).
I'd be interested to hear any other "unorthodox" additions to the usual kit, if anyone has suggestions.
In addition to the usual stuff you'd find in a kit, I threw in a four-pack of single-serve Krazy Glue (cyanoacrylate superglue), which is useful for controlling bleeding (a spray might even be nicer). Since I live in a climate that sees actual winters, I also included a pair of mylar emergency blankets (they also make a "sleeping bag" style), and I of course keep the usual extra set of boots/gloves/hat in the trunk during winter as well (totally standard around here).
I'd be interested to hear any other "unorthodox" additions to the usual kit, if anyone has suggestions.
That's a good idea. What's the locality?
It's classic idealistic futurism. We imagine a bright and shiny version of everything.
We don't think about handicapped people whose cars carry medication and equipment for them.
We don't think about carrying stuff like nail clippers, stain sticks tampons in the car, either. So we'll waste more money without persistent access to this infrequently-used items.
We don't think about occupational vehicles like plumbers' and electricians. With fewer ICE vehicles on the road, their vehicle maintenance will be more expensive and our maintenance and construction bills will increase.
Not that I'm arguing against car clubs, etc. I'm trying to validate your line of thought.
We don't think about handicapped people whose cars carry medication and equipment for them.
We don't think about carrying stuff like nail clippers, stain sticks tampons in the car, either. So we'll waste more money without persistent access to this infrequently-used items.
We don't think about occupational vehicles like plumbers' and electricians. With fewer ICE vehicles on the road, their vehicle maintenance will be more expensive and our maintenance and construction bills will increase.
Not that I'm arguing against car clubs, etc. I'm trying to validate your line of thought.
You're conflating EVs with Autonomous Vehicles. Why can't plumbers and electricians use electric trucks?
Not only that, but cars shared with no supervision (as in a taxi driver) are going to be the nastiest places in the city. All sorts of things are going to happen in those cars that you don't want to follow.
Unfortunately this will make the pollution worse. For example if I drive my car to work, my car does 6 miles round trip .
If someone else does the same in total we did 12 miles. However if we share one car and the car needs to go even a mile between two places, it will have to drive significantly more.
Well, that's an interesting problem to solve.
In the situation you propose, you have would-be car owners who now share a car. That eliminates the pollution involved in the manufacturing of one car from the story. And yes, if the car had to make back and forth trips from a central location, that would be inefficient. But I think the idea is to have a network of shared infrastructure (similar to uber), so that if someone needs a car, they can have access to the closest available one.
In the situation you propose, you have would-be car owners who now share a car. That eliminates the pollution involved in the manufacturing of one car from the story. And yes, if the car had to make back and forth trips from a central location, that would be inefficient. But I think the idea is to have a network of shared infrastructure (similar to uber), so that if someone needs a car, they can have access to the closest available one.
Even for uber-like car sharing/pooling, each car will have to travel more, and occasionally will be driving empty (when autonomous).
If automated cars are billed per mile, you could still arrange the same sort of multi pickup trip you would ordinarily, I'd hope.
How about renting the cars with shared cost per mile? That would encourage users to always share them when possible.
You're driving a 3 mile distance? This is exactly why electric cars are not the messiah of transportation.
[deleted]
Well, I can't walk on the highway so yes I have to drive.
Cars pollute significantly more at the start of the journey. One long journey is better than 2 short journeys.
A fancy idea, but I see several problems with assurance companies and laws.
Will you agree for example to be billed more for your assurance company because one of the co-proprietaries of your car is a bad driver?
And there is also the real use time, ie: you buy a car that is crashed each month when used by other guys and must remain in boxes to be repaired four months/year.
Will you agree for example to be billed more for your assurance company because one of the co-proprietaries of your car is a bad driver?
And there is also the real use time, ie: you buy a car that is crashed each month when used by other guys and must remain in boxes to be repaired four months/year.
Both your problems (bad driving, buying a car) seems to completely ignore the 'autonomous' and 'club' parts of the idea.
If does not matter if your car is autonomous when you use it in different roads, streets or contexts. Two people will use it and one of them will have more accidents or more wear than the other. Each street has different probability to having a crash or get your tires stoled. And 'club' means that you pay an average, you'll pay for both your errors and the other's errors.
The idea that "everybody will want to share their car with strangers" is probably just this, a marketing desire IMHO. Bad drivers will want to share the car for sure, but a lot of common people would probably frown at the idea.
The idea that "everybody will want to share their car with strangers" is probably just this, a marketing desire IMHO. Bad drivers will want to share the car for sure, but a lot of common people would probably frown at the idea.
Then, maybe we can use this data to find some popular routes and just have cars driving along them, stopping at popular locations for pick up and drop off. Now, stop me if you heard this one before, but maybe if lots of people use a route, we'll have bigger cars, with like a ~50 person capacity, go less frequently, you know, for efficiency.
Personal vehicles eliminate waiting. Waiting is the biggest problem with mass transit. It's preferable to have slightly longer journey times as long as your expected wait time is less.
The tube runs every few minutes on popular lines, and don't suffer from congestion (when there isn't problems on the line), so they're acceptable. Trains running on a timetable less so (they make you pay much more attention to the time, and they're frequently delayed and increasingly often cancelled), while buses just feel like a massive waste of time.
The tube runs every few minutes on popular lines, and don't suffer from congestion (when there isn't problems on the line), so they're acceptable. Trains running on a timetable less so (they make you pay much more attention to the time, and they're frequently delayed and increasingly often cancelled), while buses just feel like a massive waste of time.
I think this, plus e-bikes are probably going to feature hugely in future of transport in many major urban areas.
e-bikes are starting to get really good, much cheaper and usually don't require anything like the regulatory approvals, driver licencing or running costs cars do.
I can certainly imagine myself using a hypothetical autonomous car club augmented with an e-bike for shorter ad-hoc journeys ("crap I'm out of milk" etc) very happily.
e-bikes are starting to get really good, much cheaper and usually don't require anything like the regulatory approvals, driver licencing or running costs cars do.
I can certainly imagine myself using a hypothetical autonomous car club augmented with an e-bike for shorter ad-hoc journeys ("crap I'm out of milk" etc) very happily.
We can probably expect licensing, stickers and taxes to arrive once bicycles are a main source of transportation. Oregon already floated the idea:
https://taxfoundation.org/oregon-bike-tax/
Why e-bike just for "short ad-hoc journeys"? I mean, people already use regular non-electric bikes for far more than that.
My business partner is a perfect example of this. He tried cycling to work on a normal bike but hated it as he always arrived clammy or sweaty and felt gross for the rest of the day. He then picked up a GTech electric bike and has since all but ditched his car for journeys less than 5 miles (which is most of his journeys).
He, like most people, would not consider himself a cyclist and as such is less willing to put up with the post exercise issues of using a bike as a primary mode of transport. I'm a keen cyclist and am happy to put up with the faff of a change of clothes etc but I can see how it's off putting for most people.
Also, rain.
He, like most people, would not consider himself a cyclist and as such is less willing to put up with the post exercise issues of using a bike as a primary mode of transport. I'm a keen cyclist and am happy to put up with the faff of a change of clothes etc but I can see how it's off putting for most people.
Also, rain.
It was just one example. Of course you could use any kind of bike for many types of journey.
I'm very curious. How will people react when people start smoking in these cars? I really can't wrap my mind around these cars having a well maintained interior without a driver to ask rule violators to leave.
I know you're really talking about the state of the interior in general but with regard to smoke they could be fitted with immobilising smoke alarms.
If the smoke alarm goes off the car pulls over and stops at the side of the road.
The rental company will already knows who in the car at any one time (or at least who has rented it) and they can just issue a massive cleaning fine.
Like setting off an airline toilet smoke detector.
If the smoke alarm goes off the car pulls over and stops at the side of the road.
The rental company will already knows who in the car at any one time (or at least who has rented it) and they can just issue a massive cleaning fine.
Like setting off an airline toilet smoke detector.
The car will take photos of the occupants, stop the journey, send them a bill for cleaning, and add them to a banned user list.
Of course it won't "solve" the pollution in cities. It will lessen it to a greater extent.
Power is generated away from.l cities and it is easier to mitigate the pollution all in one place.
As other people have mentioned regenerative breaking helps too.
No reason we can't encourage people out of cars at the same time as transitioning the remaining vehicles to electric.
Power is generated away from.l cities and it is easier to mitigate the pollution all in one place.
As other people have mentioned regenerative breaking helps too.
No reason we can't encourage people out of cars at the same time as transitioning the remaining vehicles to electric.
Well, of course one should walk or bike instead of taking the car, but if this is not possible EV are much better than regular cars, and if it's not the ultimate solution to air pollution it doesn't mean it doesn't help.
The title is misleading. The main argument of Professor Frank Kelly from KCL is not against EV but against all cars. So burn calories by walking and cycling or use public transits, which is appropriate for highly populated megacities with severe congestion problems, let alone public health concerns.
The title is misleading. The main argument of Professor Frank Kelly from KCL is not against EV but against all cars.
Automated EV cars are a necessary step! Once automated EV cars become the norm, there will be even more value placed on Public Spaces of Value. Right now, the dirt and fumes from current automotive technology -- along with the requirement for vast paved areas for parking -- make it harder to achieve the traditional urban Public Spaces of Value so common in the US in the 18th and 19th centuries. (That said, not having horse excrement everywhere was an environmental boon of cars.)
Once automated EV cars become the norm, society will think about urban transport differently, and we will change the urban environment in just as drastic a fashion as we did to make way for internet combustion engine cars.
Right now, public spaces most often have to be of a large granularity. We can return to a time when urban Public Spaces of Value were ad-hoc and adjacent to residences and businesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fRIGphgtk
Automated EV cars are a necessary step! Once automated EV cars become the norm, there will be even more value placed on Public Spaces of Value. Right now, the dirt and fumes from current automotive technology -- along with the requirement for vast paved areas for parking -- make it harder to achieve the traditional urban Public Spaces of Value so common in the US in the 18th and 19th centuries. (That said, not having horse excrement everywhere was an environmental boon of cars.)
Once automated EV cars become the norm, society will think about urban transport differently, and we will change the urban environment in just as drastic a fashion as we did to make way for internet combustion engine cars.
Right now, public spaces most often have to be of a large granularity. We can return to a time when urban Public Spaces of Value were ad-hoc and adjacent to residences and businesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fRIGphgtk
I don't think autonomous cars are going to be more efficient than public transport since you'll still need plenty of them at peak time.
And plenty of autonomous cars means traffic jams.
They can't replace public transport on that aspect as the transport density is way higher in a train or a bus than on individual autonomous vehicles.
Sure they are going to revolutionise car ownership but I don't think they will change the daily commute for the average office worker.
And plenty of autonomous cars means traffic jams.
They can't replace public transport on that aspect as the transport density is way higher in a train or a bus than on individual autonomous vehicles.
Sure they are going to revolutionise car ownership but I don't think they will change the daily commute for the average office worker.
My point is, that the model of car ownership will change, along with a public awareness of the benefits of a different model. When everyone owned their cars, they had sunk costs that would align them against putting more public resources toward other forms of transit. When cars transformed urban landscapes into paved-over internal-combustion pollution zones, the traditional charms of Public Spaces of Value were obscured or in some cases wiped out. But when autonomous EV cars start to undo some of that mess, people will start to think, "You know, we still have these traffic jams, maybe there's a better way of doing things?"
EDIT: >sigh< My whole point is that automated EVs will free public thinking, enabling yet further changes to the public's thinking about how urban transport works. Please provide a quote where I say that automated cars are more efficient than other forms of public transport. (I only say that they will be more efficient than current cars.) Also, please provide a quote that shows I consider automated EVs to be an endpoint in the evolution of transportation.
I'm far too often unpleasantly surprised at the level of reading comprehension here on HN.
EDIT: >sigh< My whole point is that automated EVs will free public thinking, enabling yet further changes to the public's thinking about how urban transport works. Please provide a quote where I say that automated cars are more efficient than other forms of public transport. (I only say that they will be more efficient than current cars.) Also, please provide a quote that shows I consider automated EVs to be an endpoint in the evolution of transportation.
I'm far too often unpleasantly surprised at the level of reading comprehension here on HN.
You are still missing the point. Streets in megacities just don't have enough space for cars, automated or not. It's about efficient transportation not automation. This is the same reason Elon Musk is so frustrated in LA traffic (just like London, NYC, Paris etc.) that he is doing The Boring Company to dug underground tunnels solve the transportation.
Well, you could argue that automation could improve driving efficiency. Will full automation, you could potentially have more cars use the same amount of road space, since they have more immediate reaction times. Maybe not enough, but it's something. You may also eliminate a fair number of trips by one-car families who have to drive a spouse to work, then go home, then go back out again to pick them up and home again. Little things like that might add up. But yeah, overall, public transport would be preferable. Of course, automating buses would probably make for cheaper operating costs, and potentially make them more available.
Also, the point about parking seemed to be overlooked. Being able to eliminate almost all the parking spaces in a built-up area would be a pretty huge boon. Vehicles could simply drive out to less cramped areas during low volume times when they aren't needed, or to recharge.
Also, the point about parking seemed to be overlooked. Being able to eliminate almost all the parking spaces in a built-up area would be a pretty huge boon. Vehicles could simply drive out to less cramped areas during low volume times when they aren't needed, or to recharge.
No matter how efficient the automated algorithm moves the cars around, the vehicles are still take spaces on the road, no? Given that streets spaces are more or less fixed (expanding road lanes are usually very costly long term projects in megacities), there is always a cap for how many cars can be run on the road. Hence walking/cycling/public transits make much more sense than cars.
There is a cap, but the question is whether that cap is high enough to meet demand. If demand stays the same, and you increase the number of cars that can fit on a given road at once by decreasing the space between them, you've potentially reduced congestion.
Walkers, cyclists, and public transits also take up space, and there is a theoretical cap to how many a city can support. It's just that the cap is well above any reasonable expectation of demand, because those are all very efficient in terms of space. So, it's not really a difference in class, just a difference in degree. Cars don't necessarily have to be as space efficient as walking, just space efficient enough.
Walkers, cyclists, and public transits also take up space, and there is a theoretical cap to how many a city can support. It's just that the cap is well above any reasonable expectation of demand, because those are all very efficient in terms of space. So, it's not really a difference in class, just a difference in degree. Cars don't necessarily have to be as space efficient as walking, just space efficient enough.
My whole point is that automated EVs will free public thinking, enabling yet further changes to the public's thinking about how urban transport works. Please provide a quote where I say that automated cars are more efficient than other forms of public transport. (I only say that they will be more efficient than current cars, and you'll have to go to an entirely different day to find that one.) Also, please provide a quote that shows I consider automated EVs to be the endpoint in the evolution of transportation.
Automation is a piece of efficient transportation.
However, I think driverless cars are not a solution by themselves. They bring efficiency gains in the form of reducing jams because they can drive closer, communicate with city infrastructure, etc. But these gains probably wouldn't offset the number of people who will all of the sudden gain access to a more convient (and probably cheaper, without regulation) method of transit, who will thus increase total car usage.
It's going to be a challenge to reach transport homeostasis among driverless cars, driverless buses, subways, etc. Taxes or surge prices will probably need to be added to distribute people in an optimal way across multiple forms of transit so not to overload city infrastructure. I'm thinking prices are going to be driven more by physical limitations than individual operational costs (eg subway electricity usage). But this will need to be government regulated because private companies are not currently incentivized to minimze traffic (visible currently in ridesharing companies).
However, I think driverless cars are not a solution by themselves. They bring efficiency gains in the form of reducing jams because they can drive closer, communicate with city infrastructure, etc. But these gains probably wouldn't offset the number of people who will all of the sudden gain access to a more convient (and probably cheaper, without regulation) method of transit, who will thus increase total car usage.
It's going to be a challenge to reach transport homeostasis among driverless cars, driverless buses, subways, etc. Taxes or surge prices will probably need to be added to distribute people in an optimal way across multiple forms of transit so not to overload city infrastructure. I'm thinking prices are going to be driven more by physical limitations than individual operational costs (eg subway electricity usage). But this will need to be government regulated because private companies are not currently incentivized to minimze traffic (visible currently in ridesharing companies).
I have to disagree.
Most traffic jams are more a factor of human nature then anything else. Ever been in a slowdown due to drivers checking out a fender bender going in the other direction on a divided highway? Combine the lack of unneeded slow downs with closer following distances with fewer crashes and road capacity will go way up.
Most traffic jams are more a factor of human nature then anything else. Ever been in a slowdown due to drivers checking out a fender bender going in the other direction on a divided highway? Combine the lack of unneeded slow downs with closer following distances with fewer crashes and road capacity will go way up.
> Most traffic jams are more a factor of human nature then anything else. Ever been in a slowdown due to drivers checking out a fender bender going in the other direction on a divided highway? Combine the lack of unneeded slow downs with closer following distances with fewer crashes and road capacity will go way up.
Even with autonomous cars, roadways still have a peak capacity. Yes, the peak capacity will probably go up if every driver is driving "perfectly", but there will still be plenty of bottlenecks, whether those are slower moving trucks, crosswalks, traffic signals, etc. I'd guess that we might even see more traffic than we currently have because if you don't have to drive yourself, people are incentivized to take their car; even if it's slower than mass transit, sitting in your own car is more pleasant for most people than a train or bus.
Even with autonomous cars, roadways still have a peak capacity. Yes, the peak capacity will probably go up if every driver is driving "perfectly", but there will still be plenty of bottlenecks, whether those are slower moving trucks, crosswalks, traffic signals, etc. I'd guess that we might even see more traffic than we currently have because if you don't have to drive yourself, people are incentivized to take their car; even if it's slower than mass transit, sitting in your own car is more pleasant for most people than a train or bus.
Morning and evening rush hours are still going to be a thing.
If autonomous vehicles reduce the per-vehicle impact of rush hours, I expect that we'll just start seeing more cars participating in rush hours via induced demand. (People will not avoid them as much; people will switch from public transport to private autonomous transport; people will be more willing to live farther from work for cheaper housing/more land/whatever.)
If autonomous vehicles reduce the per-vehicle impact of rush hours, I expect that we'll just start seeing more cars participating in rush hours via induced demand. (People will not avoid them as much; people will switch from public transport to private autonomous transport; people will be more willing to live farther from work for cheaper housing/more land/whatever.)
It seems like there are plenty of ways self-driving cars and public transport could work together, by picking up and dropping people off without the need for parking, making car sharing easier, and by letting some less-used routes shut down off-peak.
hypothetically, forget friction (air, tire,..), then all energy injected with the accelerator must be remove by the break. So converting fuel to kinetic energy is only half of the emission. Breaking must save that energy and electric car (bike, truck,..) could do that.
edit: hokkos beat me :|
edit: hokkos beat me :|
This didn't even cover the part of my rant from a couple days ago (heavy electric cars in areas deriving a lot of power from coal)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14877569
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14877569
Boil the ocean much? Clearly they are a step in the right direction, no?
I'm not sure an environmental conscience is the reason, rather the cost of keeping your car taxed and insured, then finding somewhere for it to stay in London, and then finding a use for it, outweighs simply using public transport.
The article doesn't talk about electric cars reliance on whatever powers the national grid of that country - and they can only be as green as the country's means of energy production[1], although that is still better than a petrol/diesel car for most countries.
[1] http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green