Slashdot Mirror
Autonomous Cars Could Be Worse For Carbon Emissions
HughPickens.com writes: David Roberts writes at VOX that it stands to reason that vehicle automation could save energy and reduce emissions in some ways. Cars will be able to chain together more aerodynamically, drive at more consistent speeds, and perhaps serve as shared vehicles in lieu of individual vehicle ownership. But it also stands to reason that automation could increase energy use and emissions in some ways. If driving is easier and more pleasant, people will do it more. Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access. Self-driving cars could increase the overall amount of vehicle miles traveled. (Read more, below.)
Hugh Pickens continues: A new study: "Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles," suggests that the big swing factor is travel cost reduction — in other words, how cheap and easy driving gets. If that stays at the low end, then the effects of self-driving cars on energy use are almost certain to be a substantial net positive. However if it reaches the high end, a 60 percent boost in energy consumption for transportation, all the energy-saving benefits could be wiped out, for a net increase in energy and emissions. "This leads to somewhat surprising policy implications It may be that the socially optimal outcome, at least for now, is partial, not full, automation. That way the energy and emissions benefits of smarter driving practices can be fully captured, without allowing drivers to tune entirely out — without making it too easy," concludes Roberts. "Perhaps when we get farther down the road (ahem) — when more vehicles are electrified, when car sharing is more firmly established, when the benefits of automation have proven out — we can move to full automation without the risk of carbon blowback."
Let's say 1 million people die or are maimed all over the world thanks to human driven cars. How much "carbon emissions" will be caused by all the
funerals, ambulance trips, etc. this entails? Couldn't we say autonomous cars will "save" on "carbon emissions" due to avoiding 1 million
such experiences?
Don't let this click bait headline fool you.
Just my $0.02.
Someone with a vested interest in generating clicks had an idea!
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
If a technology makes people's lives better, then it should be banned. Fuck off commie Luddite authoritarian assholes.
...they could put a ton of people out of work in the transportation industry, enrich a few corporations, and further wreck the economy through knock-on effects as the unemployed push wages down by widening the already huge pool of desperate labor. No wonder they keep predicting we won't own these autonomous cars... Most people won't be able to afford to.
Today, people who don't own a car and/or don't want to drive just take a taxi or Uber. If they buy a self-driving car instead, how does that lead to more trips and more pollution?
>> Self-driving cars could increase the overall amount of vehicle miles traveled.
Yes it will. One of the OTHER ways it will do this will be to take the pain out of commuting (e.g., you can watch TV instead of drive; you'll no longer feel as stressed when in traffic) so people will start living further and further out from their jobs again - should be great for the suburbs.
Personally, I can't wait for it. If you want to cut my emissions with my self-driving car, make it electric and self-charging too (e.g., drive to the charging lot, get full while I'm at work) - no complaints here.
Unloaded cars driving to the depot as well.
To be able to hit rush hour demand you will need a lot of cars to cover that need.
Which is why those Republicans oppose these safer cars.
If driving is easier and more pleasant, people will do it more.
The autonomous car isn't going to make traffic, construction, nor other idiot drivers magically disappear, so I'd say this is a hopeful but doubtful claim.
Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access. Self-driving cars could increase the overall amount of vehicle miles traveled.
Except that these are the people that almost always have someone ELSE drive them places (loved, ones, friends, taxis...), requiring pickups. So it's easy to argue that they could decrease the overall amount of miles travelled very easily. Nevermind the automated vehicles would presumably use smart navigation to avoid traffic, take the shortest routes possible, and drive under the speed limit.
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
I'm more worried about how much NO/NO2 they are putting out than CO2. Carbon dioxide is mostly harmless, but nitrous is dangerous.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption
Oil consumption is about 7.3 billion barrels per year.
At $100 a barrel that is $730 billion dollars.
Car crashes cost $871 billion a year. Motor vehicles crashes cost the USA $871 billion a year in economic loss and societal harm, according to a new study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/29/steep-economic-toll-of-crashes/9715893/
I'll let people draw their own conclusions
the young
For the -very- young: Realistically, there are obviously laws that will have to address just whom can ride in an autonomous vehicle. When a child rides a bus alone, essentially the bus driver takes temporary custodianship. When on a plane, flight attendants take care of their care. In a fully autonomous vehicle, there's no custodian, which will likely be judged illegal.
For the not so young: Yes, the rich teenager could ride aton's vs. taking more efficient travel like buses / trains. That said, economics will be a large factor in this.
the elderly
Many many old people take buses to travel currently. One -could- say that they'd all flip over to aton's, but IMHO, much of the time they're travelling it's to find be around people. They might frown at some young punk kids on the bus, but it gives them something to do. Riding in an aton alone is much more lonely but at least you get some new views. Ultimately I don't see -that- big of a % of increased use, but considering the growing elderly demographic, this could at least be a problem as a short/medium term aberration.
the visually or otherwise impaired
A small population which shouldn't even show up as a significant factor.
Bye!
Old age and vision problems will come to all of us, sooner or later.
Be careful what you ask for, Mr. Pickens. You WILL get it.
Don't forget that you're most likely not going to be able to retrofit your '72 Olds Cutlass or similar with self-driving technology. Future cars are likely to be electric and very energy efficient, so the greenhouse gases would be generated at the point of power generation, which is also getting more efficient year on year.
I'm a little more concerned about other things surrounding autonomous driving:
- Atrophy of driving skills, so if the computer does end up causing a problem, the human won't be able to recover
- Knocking yet another entire class of labor (taxi drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, delivery drivers, and so on) out of the ranks of the employed. No one wants to address this fact, but the reality is that driving is often a "job of last resort" for some people, and often the only job paying a decent wage that the holder is qualified to do.
- Privacy -- Remember Google seems to be the ones driving this the hardest. The second they get a key patent that locks out competitors, it's game over for privacy. Your driving history will be for sale to advertisers who will bombard you with ads while you drive past their establishments.
and it kills black people and puppies. Even 1 ounce of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause tornadoes, cancer, and male pattern baldness. So the hive collective of right thinking liberal do-gooders needs to come up with some means of transportation that does not produce carbon. Even bicycles increase the man made CO2 output. We need some system or means of energy production that does not rely on combustion. I propose we install small modular nuclear reactors in all the auto-mobiles. The other solution might be to use wind energy. Perhaps we could install sails on auto-mobiles. Of coarse that would affect global wind patterns. We could use put solar sells on the top of tricycles. Of coarse we would have to remove the pedals to keep people from respirating too hard and making too much CO2. That I think is the sweet spot. They may only go 5 mph, but you should not be moving fast in the first place. It is dangerous.
Let's do it. Can we get a go fund me program started to create an environmentally sustainable solar powered trycycle that goes 5 mph.
I won't click the link. I cannot stomach the elderly or impaired gaining mobility and freedom. Not at the (really?)cost of our environment!
The whole "more miles driven = more pollution" premise is based on the flawed assumption that:
a) no more advancements in combustion engine efficiency or pollution reduction will be made
b) no more advancements in electric vehicle efficiency will be made
c) the ratio of fossil fuel to clean electricity generation will never improve.
Pretending that autonomous car technology will advance to the point that it is ubiquitous, while all other advancements in automotive systems grind to a halt, is just plain stupid.
That's a common argument used against ANY human activity by zero growth advocates and radical environmentalists. Just pick an activity and make something up. (lets not have backup cameras because it will allow the elderly and disabled to drive more, which will lead to a tiny amount of increased pollution, nevermind the lives it saves)
By using that argument you are demeaning all of the people that the post admits would benefit the most, such as the elderly, disabled, the most vulnerable of our population.
The idea of arguing against something because it is easier to use therefore more people will use it is mind boggling. The vast majority of road pollution today comes from semi trucks. Modern cars are incredibly clean and efficient compared to their counterparts 30 and 40 years ago. By comparison they emit almost no pollution at all. You're debating over a small percentage of a small percentage that's not even worth worrying about on any scale. Also, having automated car services will lead to less cars on the road overall.
My plan is to just set the car to roam around while i'm not using it, so at least one of us is having a good time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In my neighborhood I see so much wasted travel because a human driver is needed. I see huge chains of cars dropping kids off at school. Many of these cars drive from the parent's workplace to the home, pick up the kid, drop off at school, then back to the workplace. 90% of that is wasted travel. I see people drive their spouse all the way to work, turn around and drive all the way home again. 50% wasted travel, repeated at the end of the workday.
An additional benefit of robot cars is nobody will feel territorial about them. Nobody will give a crap about their kid sharing a robot car with a neighbor kid or three, or sharing a robot car to work.
Plus, with the decreased accidents and improved efficiency of robotic navigation there won't be as bad traffic so travel time and inefficient detours will be reduced massively.
I see it as pure win. Drivers will be out of work, but we'll find something else to do with their time. We always have found things before.
Man, you really need that seminar!
>> dumbest fucking retarded article I've seen
You must be new here. Just wait until Friday.
This article just reminds me on the essays I wrote in high school and university. I could find 1000 evidence to support my argument, I could also find 1000 evidence to go against my argument. What it matters is how many people click the link and how much ad revenue one could get.
The best application of autonomous driving would be public transport. Having a bus that will pick you up, you tell is where you what to go, and it will factor your destination into its current route will remove the need for most cars on the road. Most people use cars to get them from A (home) to B (work) and back again. If autonomous public transport will do this faster and cheaper, and more conveniently than current (slower than driving and doesn't drop you at the door) driving, them it will prove to be the "killer app" on autonomous driving, removing the need for the privately owned car, removing vehicles from the roads, and ultimately producing less carbon emissions.
This was written by the oil companies, right? Of course it was.
Yes, there might be higher Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), but in a 100% autonomous vehicle-shared world, the average age of the car would be much younger. Today, the average age of vehicles on the road is 10+ years because we drive relatively infrequently and pile up miles slowly. If all cars were shared and autonomous, their usage rate would be much higher and maybe the average age of cars would be more like 5 years. Younger cars usually mean better engine technology and higher efficiency, so this may offset the VMT increase. Not to mention that autonomous vehicles probably don't accelerate and brake as aggressively as most drivers, saving gas in that way too.
Autonomous cars are coming to market at just the right time as fully electric cars and more renewable energy are coming to market. Autonomous cars will be electric and be charged by solar, wind, nuke and other renewable or green resources that don't irresponsibly burn coal and oil.
It will also change the dynamic of society again, much like the horseless carriages already did. Vehicle ownership may become a thing of the past. And owning a vehicle may only be for those in remote locations who are not close to ride pooling areas where they can get a vehicle on demand.
I really wish the people writing these things were actually capable of thinking of the future and stop applying how things work today with how they will work in 20-50-100 years.
I smell massive lawsuits.
Parents with dead kids never give up when robots kill their kids.
Ever.
One of the interesting thing in terms of carbon emissions is that higher MPG cars have not reduced miles driven, but increased them.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Electric cars will take over.
Once upon a time, CRT monitors were everywhere. LCDs were desirable but they were newer than CRTs, thus more expensive to make. But as the cost of manufacturing LCDs came down close to CRTs, they took over. All other things being equal, LCDs were more desirable than CRTs *AND* they were LESS expensive to ship. Ergo, they won.
Now, gas cars were everywhere. Electric cars are more desirable (in general) but they are newer than gas cars, thus more expensive to make. But as the cost of manufacturing electric cars comes down, they'll take over. All other things being equal, electric cars will be more desirable than gas cars (cheaper to "fill", quieter, etc.) *AND* they'll eventually be LESS expensive to make since they are much less complicated than gas cars. Ergo, they'll win.
LCDs had some other obstacles to overcome, eg. image quality, but eventually, that got worked out. Electric cars have some obstacles to overcome, eg. range and charge time, but that will get worked out. As of this minute, a Tesla Model S is just about perfect for most families, other than that it currently costs $90k. But remember when 15-20" LCD monitors were $2,000?
(I used computers to make an analogy about cars. Do I get a prize?)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Speak for yourself. I died when I was 26 and in the prime of my life!
Tesla owners report how wonderful it is to drive in their EVs. That is without using autopilot. It is just that the car is a decent drive. But, that is leading to those owners jumping from 12-15K miles / year, to driving 20-25K miles / year. Yes, these owners are simply increasing their fun driving, the way that we use to do back in the 60s and 70s.
With the autopilot, it is very likely that they will increase driving distance as well. Tesla owners are going 200 miles on autopilot and simply enjoying the view. Not a bad thing, but the fact is, that it will increase energy used.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well obviously a million people dead means significantly lower carbon emissions as they will no longer laugh, play, love and all of the other things that emit evil carbon
Win-Win!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
See Jevons Paradox.
If you are looking to reduce greenhouse emissions, you need to address root causes, such as "cars make X CO2, could make less", "giant freighters free monumental amounts of carbon as they take raw materials from the US to China and finished products back to the US", and "cities are oppressive for many, who live in suburbs, creating a vast amount of useless travel each day".
If your philosophy is saying "more people will live better lives- WHAT A PROBLEM!", then just ditch that philosophy. It sucks.
[sarcasm]Yes, the much better solution is to lock up all those children and old peoples in their houses and not let them out! Tie them to the water pipes in the basement!
Let's not improve their life at all ever!
[/sarcasm]
grr.
The cars will be electric most of them.
Which means that the CO2 that they produce can be sequestred at the production point, not in the vehicle or in the middle of nowhere.
Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access.
Driverless cars will not only not be free, they will be substantially more expensive than a dumb manual car. They won't magically appear for these people. Those who don't currently have access use bikes, buses, taxis, carpools, and friends to get around.
" ... if driving is easier and more pleasant ... "
Wild-ass assumption that just happens to be completely and utterly wrong.
I seem to remember the advent of PC's once promised a paperless office but instead it just made it easier to print and consume more paper.
Old age and vision problems will come to all of us, sooner or later.
Bullshit. *pulls trigger* Damn, I missed. You win, this time.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Over the next several years, by the time self-driving car technology is good enough to be mainstream, and by the time legislation has changed to allow them in general use, electric cars will have sufficient range and price reduction that they will be a viable alternative for most current uses of personal automobiles and taxis/ubers etc.
When electric cars provide a viable alternative, and have lower carbon emissions even if coal generation continues, there is no excuse not to introduce a significant and ramping up price on carbon, for automotive fuels.
This would reduce the tendency for non-electric uses of personal vehicles to increase.
Proceeds from a sufficient carbon price could also be applied to speeding the conversion of the electricity generating system to more clean renewables,
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access.
No, for these people, it will not. Autonomous cars will always require an educated, trained, tested, licensed, and insured driver at the controls (the full set of manual controls, that is) at all times, so anyone who is excluded from being a licensed driver (too young, too old, too impaired) will not be able to operate a so-called 'autonomous car'; they will still have to get someone else who is properly licensed to go with them, or call or a cab, or take the bus. To allow otherwise would put the public safety at risk. Get used it it, people, that's just the way it's got to be.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
To clean up the syringes and other paraphernalia. Plus all the fluids from sex, lots and lots of sex.
Should be interesting to see a self-driving car on blocks in some neighborhood, with all them fancy components ripped out. I'll be singing kumbaya when I drive by.
And just how do they prove out if you strangle them in the cradle with your fears?
And for how long? Sure, it's plausible that the transportation emissions curve over the period of transition to autonomous vehicles will have some rises. But it's unlikely that the overall effect will be a higher curve than a world without them. Moreover, to quote Victor Hugo, "One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas."
Auto-cars are coming, like it or not. Temporary inefficiencies and problems be damned.
So, we must look to ways the efficiencies will increase to offset higher demand. One major way is through the coupling of passenger and shipping (at least for last-hop). If I'm going from a market area to a residential area, and a nearby family orders food delivery, it may be that my auto-car will carry that family's groceries or take-away. That's just one example, but a plausible one as fleet-owners will seek to maximize per-mile car revenue.
Quoted: "and perhaps serve as shared vehicles in lieu of individual vehicle ownership" Um, this is called CAR POOLING and was pushed in the 1970s energy crisis.
i'm thinking if I have a totally autonomous car, why ever park it? Instead of paying $40 for a parking spot while you are shopping somewhere, just keep it driving around and around until you're ready to be picked up.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Gas prices will most likely be the limiting factor to how much extra driving people will do. It is already fairly easy to drive from place to place.
Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access. Self-driving cars could increase the overall amount of vehicle miles traveled.
Unless laws requiring the occupant of the autonomous vehicle to be able to take over control of the vehicle change, it is unlikely that too many young, elderaly or visually or otherwise impaired people will be using autonomous vehicles independently.
"Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access. "
You mean the people who drive taxis right now will switch to driverless taxis?
Do you think people will consent to sharing "their car" with others? If you are waiting for a "car", maybe you could wait for an autonomous bus instead.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
And these shared cars will be as clean as the shared restroom at the football stadium...
I'd be willing to car pool if there were a fleet of autonomous cars that charged a reasonable rate. Then I won't have to replace my own car and I could put fewer miles on it to help it last me a bit longer.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
how is not driving your car yourself more pleasant?
Car automation means private cars are no longer needed. Electric vehicles (cars and bikes) mean fossil-fueled cars are no longer needed. Advances in renewable technology means fossil-fueled electricity generation is no longer needed. It's up to politics to finally outlaw all those things that are unnecessary and have catastrophic effects on our health and ecosystem.
What, is my vehicle going to be a clown car? I drive to get to somewhere. I'm not going to increase that 60% because it's more efficient. I don't see any mention of the estimate that we should be able to get by on about 30% of the number of vehicles on the road. How much carbon goes into manufacturing those? Hard hitting journalism VOX.
So we can solve global warming by making driving such a PITA that no one will do it. Sounds like a plan...
See the autonomous car like a taxi. It's there somewhere, you go in, it drives you somewhere and somebody else uses it afterwards. So the total amount of cars needed decreases.