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.
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...
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
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).
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.