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."
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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!
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.
How much "carbon emissions" will be caused by all the funerals, ambulance trips, etc. this entails?
Not nearly as much as those 1 million people would have created had they lived out the rest of their natural lives. The fact they were killed prevents enormous quantities of greenhouse gas emissions going forward.
I think the reason that most people don't take public transport (at least around here) is the convenience factor.
I don't think most people would have a problem with ride sharing if the convenience factor is similar.
So, you just need to make your algorithm keep most of the vehicles that took people home the previous evening in the general vicinity, perhaps even in your driveway until it is needed elsewhere. No need to go back to some central hub. That is an outdated model.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
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.
The same thing happened with the advent of computers. When computers came out, they made a lot of human jobs obsolete. The glut of unemployment drove down wages, and nobody but the very rich could afford the computers. To this very day, only the top 1% own computers.
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.
If only someone would create technology to allow a single driver to take a bunch of kids to school and back. Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait for autonomous vehicles. Surely that will inject some sanity into this madness!
Most successful people do because most successful people are. The ethical trick is to keep to making the best of bad situations caused by others, rather than causing them yourself.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The vast majority of road pollution today comes from semi trucks.
A surprising amount of congestion and pollution also comes from cars circling the block looking for parking. One hope is that autonomous cars could self-park somewhere else, reducing congestion around popular destinations. Any system which avoided you needing to park near your destination (mass transit, Uber, taxis, robocars) has the same effect.
Back to TFA, the world is complicated. It's hard to say whether robocars will increase, decrease, or leave unchanged emissions. I expect they'll change too much other stuff for anyone to accurately predict the new equilibrium.