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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
On the flip side if we didn't eliminate 1 million people from the *future* driving pool by killing or maiming them with human driven cars, couldn't we say that by the impact of their collective future driving trips, autonomous cars (by sparing lives) will cause more emissions in the future?
Think of it kind of like why we have a hunting season for deer. Since humans have eliminated many of the predators at the top of the food chain, if we don't cull the herd, the deer often face a future of starvation (e.g., they use more resources than the environment can support).
Although we could potentially limit driving more humanly by say a lottery for people that are allowed to drive rather than simply off-ing a million folks (then again, in most states there is a lottery for deer hunting licenses, so maybe it's not totally different). They already do something like a lottery in many congested cities like Mexico City (odd-even), Beijing (mod 5), and New Delhi (even-odd).
- Atrophy of driving skills, i would compare this with people causing accidents because of distractions, lack of ability or just tiredness. will have to wait and see but i think the offset maybe towards self driving cars.
-Jobs; that is a good one... no idea what will happen, i am assuming until the autonomous sex dolls are released there maybe last resort job available... (horrible)
-Privacy; well if you own the car you can probably tell it to bugger off, otherwise plug in your VR device and ignore the screens.
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.
See Jevons Paradox.
Truth. Vox dot com is a garbage media source. They specialize in these "hot takes" that always end up to be shallow Freakonomics horseshit. "Gee, some studies suggest smoking may actually be good for you!" or "Why do so many successful people drink water?"
I'm not saying it's because Vox is made up of a bunch of 20-something journo students who couldn't find jobs anywhere else, or that it's because Ezra Klein was one of the founders. It might be something else.
Vox likes to set up their stories as "explainer cardstacks" (yes, this is a term of art). It means basically great big graphics with no indication of data sources and video. And they wrap it all up in ugly typography and web design that makes it one of the least pleasurable spots on the Internet. Don't believe me? See for yourself. But wait: it's also one of those sites that if you happen to use adblock or a script blocker, just turns to a long, ugly list of links, looking like something circa 1993.
I hate Vox. It's Forbes, except run by a bunch of 20-somethings with associates degrees in art & design.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.