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.
...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.
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."
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!
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.
I'm more worried about how much NO/NO2 they are putting out than CO2. Carbon dioxide is mostly harmless, but nitrous is dangerous.
Agreed. Nitrous oxide is no laughing matter.
Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
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.
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!
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.
Because sometimes I don't go out because I don't 'feel' like driving. Sure I could go to the grocery store to get this ingredient I am out of or I could just substitute this bag of rice I have for the called for pasta and still have a reasonable dinner. People make marginal decisions like that all the time. If going to the grocery does not mean having to drive and pay attention but instead means I can take my tablet with me and finish the TV show I am watching, just in the car instead of on the sofa, I might go when I otherwise would not have.
I have family about 2 hours away. Now there is no way I am driving 2 hours there and 2 hours back after work on a Tuesday night. 4 hours of driving isn't just a time investment its an mental and physical investment. On the other hand if I leave the office at 5:30 and can be at Mom's by 7:30 while I watch the news, read a book, and have a cocktail.... Well new I could go have dinner with my parents, get back in that car an hour later at 8:30 and still be home to bed by 11 or so. Does not sound so bad.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
See Jevons Paradox.
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?
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.
I think this effect will be minimal. You still only have 24 hours in a day, so just because the commute is less stressful doesn't mean you're going to want to spend another hour or two sitting in a car every day. Maybe if you're able to sleep in the car, but most people probably won't: you're not going to get restful sleep this way. You might also make the argument that you could read or watch TV or do work on a computer while the car is driving itself. To that argument, I counter with two words: "motion sickness".
What I wouldn't be surprised to see with robo-cars is people giving up car ownership en masse, and switching to Uber, Lyft, and who know how many competitors might spring up for them. Especially for commuting: if you work in a city downtown, parking can be a real problem, with with robo-Uber, you won't have that problem. It could very well be more cost-effective just to take robo-Uber to work (and they might even have some kind of car-pooling option to save money too), rather than to pay a car payment and insurance for your own personal car, plus the hefty parking expenses downtown, plus of course the hassle of finding a parking space if there aren't enough.
you make assertion about policy in the future clinging to your past and present. If automated driving proves significantly safer than human at the wheel then there is no reason to have licensed driver, only licensed system that is superior to human driver. Seems clear to me that is the likely and desirable future. And just think if cars could ad-hoc couple up like electric trains to reduce overall fuel consumption and wear per unit (reduced air resistance, reduced load on each motor)
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.
Or the cost of autonomous vehicles. It's not like they are going to be given away for free. The average household income in the US is around $45,000. How many of these households will be able to afford one?
As I understand it, Google's studies of the topic are showing that having a human driver on hand will generally not help and will probably make the outcome worse. I think I read they found it takes about 1 second for a human driver to take over and be in effective control in the event they decide there is a problem that the computer can't handle. At typical car speeds, that 1 second is way too long.
And that's with Google test drivers who have been carefully briefed and assessed.
I think Google's tentative conclusion is that semi-auto (with assumption of driver responsibility and take-over) is bad, full auto is better.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?