Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Relinquishing private automobile ownership, and hoping the previous occupant of your autonomous electric vehicle taxi didn’t have lice.
Hitting the Books: How autonomous EVs could help solve climate change
Andrew Tarantola·Senior Editor
Sun, 29 November 2020, 2:30 am AESTClimate change is far and away the greatest threat of the modern human era — a crisis that will only get worse the longer we dither — with American car culture as a major contributor to the nation’s greenhouse emissions. But carbon-neutralizing energy and solutions are already on the horizon and, in some more developed countries like Sweden, are already being deployed. In his latest book, Our Livable World, science and technology analyst Marc Shaus, takes readers on a fascinating tour of the emerging tools — from “smart highways” to jet fuel made from trash — that will not only help curb climate change but perhaps even usher in a new, more sustainable, livable world.
…
Depending on where you live, going electric may still be perceived as elitist or unnecessary. But neither of these stigmas can survive much longer. The more states roll out pro-EV regulations, build the necessary charging infrastructure, and offer incentives for buyers, the more these vehicles become a near-term solution for our transport problems. Many countries and individual regions have EV charging stations along major highways already or have those projects in development. Some of these charging stations even have the promise of being renewably powered. If publicly funded, they could also be free to use. Multiple larger global companies have likewise installed free EV charging stations in their parking lots for employees to use. Or, of course, to lure potential customers to parking lots with the promise of free electrons.
…
The promise of wireless charging tech for electric vehicles is not simply to save homeowners the hardship of plugging in their car at night—the real promise is encouraging public transit operators to transition with increasing ease. Taxi companies may scale up EV fleet ownership if they know that charging pad locations throughout cities will help them avoid re-routing back to the company HQ for power. Any city’s fleet vehicles could also employ this technology. Think, too, of stopping zones by hospitals, schools, and anywhere else people routinely idle. Analyses from experts see the global wireless EV charging market increasing from the $21.8 million it was in 2017 to about $1.4 billion by the year 2025.
…
You have likely heard about driverless cars, but for most auto market analysts, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that autonomous vehicles (AVs) will eventually dominate the market. In assessing expert analysis, Project Drawdown estimates that AVs will likely capture a market share of approximately 75 percent of cars on the road by the year 2040.
AVs can contribute to decarbonizing our transport sectors in a number of ways. For example, increased data coupled with connected vehicle systems can cut down on collisions, gridlock conditions, and potentially even the number of drivers on the road (more on that soon). Reducing collisions and idling cars can have direct implications for the footprint of remedying either.
…
Two cars exchanging the same data points in real time will essentially be able to “see around corners” with the situational awareness of where other cars on the road are. Hence, aside from reducing the number of drivers operating cars under the influence or falling asleep at the wheel, AV applications offer more safety through interconnectivity. We’ll also see gridlock improvement when AVs become connected to a larger, smarter set of citywide driving data for route optimization.
…
For these reasons, some industry commentators see the possibility of future AV ride-sharing services actually reducing the number of people who even purchase a car. After all, it may one day be cheaper to simply call an AEV from a shuttle service, which may have a fleet in motion at any moment; purchase a ride somewhere for smaller amounts of money than fuel, insurance, and possible monthly car payments; and then send the AV on its way. AVs equipped with charging commands could know in advance whether a pre-set passenger destination will deplete its energy reserves and signal operators that a trip back to a charging station may be necessary first.
…
Read more: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/hitting-the-books-our-livable-world-marc-schaus-diversion-books-163013416.html
In my opinion, what is missing from this vision is a little engineering reality.
AI is nowhere near ready for controlling autonomous vehicles. As an expert software developer I’ve created useful commercial AI systems, some of them from scratch. I disagree with people who say AI is a myth, the systems are genuinely intelligent. But their intelligence is insect level intelligence.
Why don’t I trust insect level intelligence in charge of my vehicle? Because we all know what happens to insects when they encounter a situation beyond their ability to comprehend – they splat against the windscreen. Or in the case of AI insect autonomous vehicles they splat into obstacles, as occurred in Taiwan in May this year.
As for those contact less charger points, where will operators get the energy to power those charging points? Renewable systems which cannot reliably replace fossil fuel are in no position to provide additional energy for charging EVs. Add to that substantial transmission losses from wireless charging, and the situation becomes utterly absurd. Anyone who has used a wireless mobile charger knows how close the mobile has to be to the charger to receive energy. Even when the device is touching the charger there are substantial losses.
This apparent confusion between fantasy and reality is not unusual in renewable energy circles. Anyone who can do the math can calculate that renewable energy is not ready to power the modern world, and may never be ready. Yet billions of dollars are being wasted every year on the baseless green fantasy that if you spend enough cash on something which doesn’t make sense it will all work out.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Seems to be the standard CV for “senior technology editors” today.
Other recent articles: “What we’re buying; Our New Home and Garden Essentials” (perhaps an autonomous weed-whacker?), and “‘Pokémon Go’ raises the level cap and adds seasons in its biggest update yet”.
You are all killing me, I for one can’t wait until I can sleep my way to work, now I am beginning to think ill be retired first, UGH!
With 5G AVs (autonomous vehicles) will have on board AI and network systems support to see the landscape and roadway. I did a study for government on the topic with industry and stakeholders. AVs need not be EVs, only if so mandated. AVs will not solve congestion, that is a myth. In NYC it was found that Uber, a foreshadowing of mobility for hire, increased congestion due to hovering or cycling vehicles looking for a ride. AV will have a similar issue. They will be part of a future transportation solution, but the difficulty is transition. Roads will best operate with all AVs or no AVs the in traffic mix is a challenge so getting there is a problem.
That sounds like a very poor study. AV will not behave as Uber drivers trying to maximize their individual incomes. AVs will organize fleet wide toward heat zones to maximize efficiency. And much much more efficient use with all AV roadways
Ah, yes. The same old story:
1. Midwit has a brainwave.
2. <<– Magic happens here.
3. We live in an AV utopia.
Let's get back to some basics:
1. AVs are supposed to replace all private vehicles because we'll no longer need to own a car when we can just call an AV when we want to go somewhere.
2. This means there need to be enough AVs available to handle peak traffic.
3. This means that, most of the day, there'll be far more AVs than are required for the amount of trips people want to make.
4. This means those AVs need something to do for the rest of the day. Like driving around or sitting in a parking lot somewhere.
5. If people don't want to be waiting ten minutes for a ride when the AV has to come from a parking lot, they're going to be driving around all day waiting for someone to call them.
AVs basically offer all the downsides of public transport except you don't have to share it with people coughing and sneezing all over you. Though you might have to share it with the poop the previous passenger left on the seat.
It's absolutely insane that anyone takes this nonsense seriously, let alone tries to push it on society.
Who will clean the vomit and piss left by uncaring previous passengers. Don’ t forget the used condoms, needles and left over food wrappers thrown on the floor.
The cars could be built to be hosed down internally. This is not as big an issue as people make it out to be.
How big a tank do you propose the car carry with it? Enough water for one flush, two flushes, ???
Do you propose the car drive to a central flushing station after each use?
Beyond that, how long does it take to dry the car after the flush?
You’ve solved one problem by creating a much bigger one.
Charles,
I have four friends/relatives that are law enforcement. Some of the patrol cars they use are made for the backseat area to be hosed out to clean things up. They will all tell you that the one thing you can *never* clean up is the smell. No amount of hosing that thing down can remove the smell of vomit, feces, BO, etc. At some point it has to be taken apart and everything sanitized with a strong cleaning agent, e.g. bleach.
My guess is that some of those AV’s, if they are public, will become defacto homes/outhouses for homeless. Someone will have to be assigned the responsibility for evicting the squatters and disinfecting the entire vehicle. What will the overhead be? How many will be out of service for maintenance at any one time? Ask anyone responsible for running a school bus service or city bus service. I suspect you’ll find the overhead to be 30% or higher.
As Mark said your “solution” merely creates multiple more problems.
How do you propose this “hosing down internally” happen?
1) automated system which requires an onboard storage of cleaning supplies: How many cleaning supplies (including, one assumes, water) can a single car hold without taking away from passenger room and trunk space (and space for the battery, since were also talking EV as well as AV)? and what will the extra weight and reduced space for the battery do to the AV’s range and fuel efficiency?
2) a central location where the cleaning takes place: how long will it take the AV to get there, get cleaned, and off to the next client? Might not be so long in a densely packed city, where distances are small, but what about rural areas where the “central location” is many miles away?
regardless of which of the above options you are thinking of, other obvious questions are:
How long will the AV be “out of commission” for cleaning (Cleaning and drying time, possibly travel time to a central location, etc)?
How often will the AV be cleaned? after every client? that out of commission time per AV will add up awfully quick. Gonna need a bigger fleet to service the customer base. Not to mention the amount of extra earth-unfriendly cleaning chemicals your fleet will be using up in a year. And this is supposed to be the eco-friendly solution?
And that just the most obvious questions that spring to mind, there’s always the no-so-obvious unintended consequences that will come along.
I know, I know, you’re “not going to go over your lists” (mainly because you can’t). The bottom line is, at this point in time, the AV is a pipedream not a realistic solution to anything.
Good points, all.
Let’s add one more- what about various known and unknown pathogens? I cannot think of a more efficient means of transmitting diseases than this proposal (short of actual bio-warfare, that is).
Every one of these issues can be dealt with efficiently on a fleetwide basis assuming mass acceptance, and a different approach to transportation.
Your objections remind me of the cab drivers who told me autonomous vehicles wouldn’t be accepted because they wouldn’t be able to have the driver put on the radio station the passenger requests. Yes I really heard that.
I’m not going to go over your lists, but don’t picture AV as cars of today with automated control. Imaging little cubes with wheels and some side windows for the passenger.
Who is going to replace the side windows when they get shot out by a kid with a pellet rifle? Don’t put windows in them at all. Just a coffin on wheels will be sufficient. Make it an adventure! If the AV drives you into a jack-knifed semi then let it come as a huge surprise – you wouldn’t see it coming out a side window anyway! The insurance companies might even find a profit in selling “trip” insurance like they do “flight” insurance.
You claim that these problems are easily solvable. Yet the only solution you have presented (against many complaints) has been shown to be unworkable.
Every one of these issues can be dealt with efficiently on a fleetwide basis assuming mass acceptance, and a different approach to transportation.
That a big ass assumption. Why assume mass acceptance when we already have several different options of not-owned transport (Buses, taxis, ubers, lyfts, etc) yet the masses continue to own (or rent) their own cars rather then rely entirely on those not-owned transport options? (In the US more than 50% of household own cars, IE the masses are car owners!). What is so special about AVs that those other options don’t already cover just as well? AVs (if they ever get them safely working) would simply be one more niche option to add to the pile (barring government mandates that make ownership difficult/impossible).
Every one of these issues can be dealt with efficiently …. I’m not going to go over your lists
Translation: I got nothing.
1. AVs are supposed to replace all private vehicles because we’ll no longer need to own a car when we can just call an AV when we want to go somewhere.
And yet, we already have services we can call instead of owning a car (public transport, Taxi cabs, ubers & lyfts, etc.) Hasn’t stopped millions of people owning cars….
5. If people don’t want to be waiting ten minutes for a ride when the AV has to come from a parking lot
….And that’s just one of the many reasons why. People don’t like waiting. Be it for a train, a bus, an uber, or an AV. When people want to go somewhere, they want to go at the time of their choosing even if that choosing is “spur of the moment”.
Unless the service is being offered for free, then whoever does own them will program them to do whatever they can to maximize individual incomes.
Your claim makes no sense.
AV will not behave as Uber drivers trying to maximize their individual incomes. AVs will organize fleet wide toward heat zones to maximize efficiency.
Organized by who? Someone is going to have to pay for this fleet and all of this organization, and likely that someone (unless it’s the government) is going to want to at least cover their costs if not make some amount of profit – which means, yep, maximizing their individual incomes. (and if it’s the government, well since when has the government ever done anything with “maximize efficiency” in mind, let alone succeeded in achieving said “maximized efficiency” the only thing the government is good at maximizing is the amount of bureaucracy & red tape)
Eric,
I am in total agreement with you about autonomous vehicles. I’ve been programming since around 78, and based on my experience, I don’t trust these things either. They simply can’t parse all the possible parameters required to make intelligent decisions. Granted, a lot of PEOPLE can’t do that, either, but these systems have a long way to go before they’re even close to that level (as you mentioned).
The great EV/AV pump and dump in stock markets is still in phase one.
Contactless charging points are substantially less efficient compared to directly connected chargers.
We better start increasing the supply of body bags now for the national stockpile.
In addition, I smell a huge rescue package for Ford and GM coming from this risky scenario setup by California and CARB. Better start writing blame text versions now and blame Trump or Bush for it or maybe Fox news.
In reality, the major transport problems in the West are related to congestion in large urban areas. You don’t really want the hassle of driving in much of London.
While the above is true, the people at the top of the economic pyramid would much prefer it if there weren’t so many poor people who can afford to own and operate a car. The “pro-EV” regulations will change that. The grockels will still have to pay for the infrastructure charges, but only the modestly wealthy will still be car owners because the extra costs won’t matter so much for the wealthy.
The fly in the ointment is the amount of revenue European governments get from petrol taxes. They will want to replace it. So, as well as no longer being able to run a car, the average citizen is going to see other taxes rise commensurately. Practice treading water to stop yourself drowning economically.
“The fly in the ointment is the amount of revenue European governments get from petrol taxes. They will want to replace it.”
….they’re on the case.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/11/23/australian-state-governments-introduce-tax-on-electric-vehicles/
Curiously, from the photo, driving into the roof of an overturned truck looks like one of the better ways to come to an immediate halt in a head-on collision.
We already have cars that you don’t have to drive yourself: Taxi cabs. What advantage is conferred to the rider in a short time-rented car if it is operated by a computer instead of a man? None than I can see. A computer-operated car is a wonderful technological marvel, but it’s like an electric toothbrush. It’s a lot technology for a need that doesn’t exist.
+10!
There is one major problem that has yet to be addressed. discussed even,
If a driver of an EV is very positive and meets a more pessimistic or negative driver, there will be an attraction and inevitable collision.
If there are a lot of positive EV owners on the road…the repulsion will be horrible
We hear so much about AI- Artificial Intelligence.
Why do we not hear more about the much more prevalent AS- Artificial Stupidity?
Fatuous.
“… American car culture as a major contributor to the nation’s greenhouse emissions.”
So, culture causes emissions of greenhouse gases? A dopey on sequitur, but we’ll assume what’s really meant is ICE-powered motor vehicles in the US.
So, what’s “major”? On a global basis, the human contribution of “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere is ~ 5% of the total, and the US contribution to that 5% is ~15%, or 0.75% of all the greenhouse gases (~ 1/2 that of China and falling). Globally, cars & trucks contribute ~ 20% of total greenhouse gas emission. So, the US contribution of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is ~ 0.25% of all global greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. And records shows that the US portion of global emission is falling, and, bear in mind that water vapor is by far the greenhouse gas with the highest atmosphere concentration of ~ 1-4%, or ~ 70x that of CO2.
Conclusion: At .25%, if all the ICE-powered vehicles disappeared from the US tomorrow (not counting the effects of the economy tanking), the reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions would be nearly immeasurable. But the effects of the economy tanking would be obvious, immediate, and catastrophic, including the loss of electricity needed to charge the batteries of so-called “green” electric vehicles.
Were you replying to me?
I’m more concerned about the deliberate stupidity.
Artificial Stupidity doesn’t get much press because it’s crowded out by all the numerous stories about the natural variety of Stupidity.
Well, I suspect that Artificial Stupidity has its origins in the government school system. If you really want to go “whole hog”, you send your “best and brightest” “skulls full of mush” to Ivy League universities to fill their brains with anti-American nonsense and socialist drivel.
That is the sort of Artificial Stupidity to which I referred.
From the article:
“If publicly funded, they could also be free to use.”
Anyone else like to point out the flaws in that sentence?
If you pay for it, then you won’t have to pay for it. Or more correctly in practice, if people who aren’t you pay for it, then you don’t have to pay for it.
It is a bit like the dream of ‘Free Education’, which in real terms is getting people who work for a living to pay for different people to study for a living. Occasionally crudely put as ‘A Tax on Stupid People’.
Socialism – Other People’s Money will pay for your dream.
If cars are free to use you will end up with the tragedy of the commons, where no-one takes any responsibility for the common.
Who clears up the sweet wrappers and spilt drinks the kids have left?
The main thing about artificial intelligence is that it is artificial. Real intelligence has an aspect of intuition in it, and that is part of how we humans get to solve stuff that we have never before encountered.
Show me an AI with intuition and I will slowly turn towards respect.
The new mandate from DC and Paris:
You can have any color you want as long as it’s EV.
A very big lithium battery charging in every garage at night-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/crime/california-dive-boat-captain-charged-with-manslaughter-in-maritime-disaster/ar-BB1bxGd9
What could possibly go wrong?
>and hoping the previous occupant of your autonomous electric vehicle taxi didn’t have lice
or BO that is powerful and lingering