Slashdot Mirror


All Fossil-Fuel Vehicles Will Vanish In 8 Years, Says Stanford Study (financialpost.com)

Stanford University economist Tony Seba forecasts in his new report that petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will no longer be sold anywhere in the world within the next eight years. As a result, the transportation market will transition and switch entirely to electrification, "leading to a collapse of oil prices and the demise of the petroleum industry as we have known it for a century," reports Financial Post. From the report: Seba's premise is that people will stop driving altogether. They will switch en masse to self-drive electric vehicles (EVs) that are ten times cheaper to run than fossil-based cars, with a near-zero marginal cost of fuel and an expected lifespan of 1 million miles. Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership. The rest will adapt to vehicles on demand. It will become harder to find a petrol station, spares, or anybody to fix the 2,000 moving parts that bedevil the internal combustion engine. Dealers will disappear by 2024. Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond. There will be a "mass stranding of existing vehicles." The value of second-hard cars will plunge. You will have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle. It is a twin "death spiral" for big oil and big autos, with ugly implications for some big companies on the London Stock Exchange unless they adapt in time. The long-term price of crude will fall to $25 a barrel. Most forms of shale and deep-water drilling will no longer be viable. Assets will be stranded. Scotland will forfeit any North Sea bonanza. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela will be in trouble.

682 of 1,058 comments (clear)

  1. No. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stanford University economist Tony Seba forecasts in his new report that petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will no longer be sold anywhere in the world within the next eight years.

    Itâ(TM)s a stretch to say this for passenger autos, and maybe even busses that already run on alternative fuels. I donâ(TM)t see this in 8 to 10 years for heavy equipment and trucks. As well, there are many more things than cars, buses, trucks, planes, and heavy equipment that run on fossil fuels, oil producers will have business for a long time to come.

    They will switch en masse to self-drive electric vehicles (EVs) that are ten times cheaper to run than fossil-based cars, with a near-zero marginal cost of fuel and an expected lifespan of 1 million miles. Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership. The rest will adapt to vehicles on demand. It will become harder to find a petrol station, spares, or anybody to fix the 2,000 moving parts that bedevil the internal combustion engine. Dealers will disappear by 2024. Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond. There will be a "mass stranding of existing vehicles.

    This is going to happen within 8 years? It will still be a dream in 8 years, closer, but still a dream⦠Pie in the sky from egg-headed Chardonnay swilling Stanford quiche eaters.
    Also from the actual article:

    The long-term price of crude will fall to US$25 a barrel.

    No.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:No. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We all know this is insane. BeauHD's playing a game to see how many /.'ers will spend time tying to refute a preposterous article.

      cf. https://xkcd.com/386/

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:No. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      wishful fucking thinking.
      Also willing to wager that among people outside of the hipster crowd, those who fetishize technology, or people unfortunate to live in traffic infested ratholes like the bay area they'll have to pry steering wheels out of cold, dead hands.

    3. Re: No. by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Someone got into the medical lab's LSD stash

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re: No. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I mean the author...

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:No. by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's pie in the sky dreaming you mean, not a stretch. I'd be astonished if 50% of the passenger cars in the developed world were electric in 8 years, let alone the globe. And that doesn't even touch commercial vehicles, motorcycles, trains, etc all of which will be much lower in electric share.

    6. Re:No. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      No.

      Thanks for your opinion. You really backed it up with some great information for us to have a discussion around. I'm betting (with my money in the stock market) that exactly what he described will happen within a decade.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    7. Re:No. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Enjoy your plush accomodations unter the bridge.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re: No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lol, I'm from Seattle too, and Seattle's as left-leaning a city as there is...everything you claim is actually democrats or independents. Was is the republicans that drilled a tunnel under the viaduct, or setup the $$$ lite rail...didn't think so...the prices are high because you ned more income to pay the taxes for all that stuff.

    9. Re:No. by aphelion_rock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wishful thinking, I would like to see a self driving car launch a boat at a boat ramp, tow a trailer, self driving tip truck, crane or any other special purpose vehicle.
      electric vehicles will happen, so will self driving cars, I can't see a sudden cutoff date.

    10. Re:No. by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would go as far to say that in 8 years ICE vehicles will still outsell non-ICE vehicles.

    11. Re:No. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      . I donÃ(TM)t see this in 8 to 10 years for heavy equipment and trucks. As well, there are many more things than cars, buses, trucks, planes, and heavy equipment that run on fossil fuels, oil producers will have business for a long time to come.

      Right if the bulk of auto did shift to electric it would still represent a collapse in the demand, and a collapse in the price.

      Of course if such a price collapse actually started it would change the economics in favor of owning a gas powered vehicle. Meanwhile the price of electricity is likely to go up, as the massive vehicle energy consumption shifts to the grid.

      Predicting the future is hard; who knew.

      This is going to happen within 8 years? It will still be a dream in 8 years

      Yeah... i don't really see it either. I'll be impressed if electrics dominate new car sales in 8 years. I just can't see it being a complete transition that quickly.

      They will switch en masse to self-drive electric vehicles (EVs) that are ten times cheaper to run than fossil-based cars, with a near-zero marginal cost of fuel and an expected lifespan of 1 million miles.

      There is nothing about electrics that will get them up to 1 million miles.

      The reason TDIs "only" get to 300k and 400k before giving up is not the engines. Hell if the car is in great shape otherwise, you just rebuild the engine and keep going... but the car usually isn't in great shape by that point ... the typical TDI with 400k kms on it is pretty dilapidated -- the seats are finished, the interior has rips and stains, the glovebox is broken, the exterior is covered in scuffs and dents and chips, the trunk release is broken, the struts for the hatch are gone, maybe the sunroof or powerlocks are gone, the suspension is due for replacement -- again... and it just becomes more sensible to replace the car than to fix it with everything else that is wrong.

      Theoretical long lived electrics are going to have exactly the same issue. Even if the engine can go to a million, who is going to spend the money to replace the suspension and brakes when the car is otherwise dilapidated and the whole car isn't worth the cost of the new shocks and pads and rotors and wheel bearings and cv-joints....the TDI engine is already outlasting the rest of the car.

    12. Re:No. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Caterpillar did a study about 10 years ago on hybrid electric vs hybrid hydraulic for excavators IIRC, and at that point came to the conclusion that electric was not viable (yet). But, they did look into it and come to a conclusion "back then." The outcome will likely change in the future, although I doubt 2,500 HP off-road equipment will transition to pure electric for a while.

      At roughly 500 HP, semi trailers are not a big hurdle to go electric; it really just comes down to the economics when it comes to long-range applications.

      So, for new cars being sold... I would say there is a chance if the self-driving gains sufficient traction. Used and existing cars would logically have an economic life of at least 8 years beyond when level-5 automation becomes viable, as it will take several years for new cars to be built to replace them.

      You will likely get to a point where oil prices are very low, but gas/diesel prices gain substantial margin in order for stations to remain viable; in economic terms it makes sense that in 15 years there could be as few gas/diesel stations as there are natural gas filling stations today. But, it isn't really about EVs as much as it is about the level of self-driving autonomy.

    13. Re:No. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Well, using your example, why the hell would your self-driving car launch the boat and not your (or the marina's) self-driving boat trailer? Launching a boat is a really stupid process the way it is done today, taking unnecessary time without plenty of extra hands.

      Self-driving dump trucks, excavators, graders, loaders, and harvesters exist for off-road use today.

    14. Re:No. by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that the average car buyer won't really want a fully electric car for another 5 years, when Tesla finally gets some real competition in the electric car space. Personally, I wouldn't buy one until they have a reasonable (Under $30,000) price tag, decent passenger room, AND a 250+ mile range on a charge.

      Lower income car buyers won't be able to afford a practical electric car (Read: Not a Nissan Leaf) until the used car lots are full of cars like I mentioned above. That puts majority electric car ownership at least a decade out.

    15. Re:No. by MouseR · · Score: 1

      An electric car is surprisingly relaxing in dense traffic.

    16. Re:No. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " I'm only 47, but I already vomit nearly every day and have constant diarrhea."

      You seriously need to cut back on watching Rachel Maddow.

    17. Re:No. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Because a person's boat isn't going to BE on the marina's boat trailer? It is going to be on the trailer it can be stored on for the winter? Or will there be an automated crane to move the automated boat onto the automated boat trailer?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    18. Re:No. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The top end vehicle price for most Americans is currently $19K. That's pretty much the magic point. Maybe if you factor in gas savings they will be able to afford a bit more but not much.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    19. Re:No. by fnj · · Score: 2

      Utter nonsense. 300-400,000 km is NOTHING. The body may have salt corrosion if it's in the rust belt, but otherwise there is no reason for dilapidation unless the owner is a pig. My 1999 TDI has well over 300,000 km. The upholstery is fine, the interior is not torn or stained, the glovebox, sunroof, locks, and trunk release all work fine. The struts for the hatch and the hood are like new. Never touched a CV joint. Brakes and suspension have been (minimally) maintained and are fine.

      The engine and transmission run like brand new and have never been touched outside of timing belts, fluid changes, and minor maintenance.

    20. Re:No. by pipingguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Journalism is dead. It's pretty much now all speculation, opinion via "expert" talking heads, rumor-mongering, agenda-advancing, "awareness-raising", etc.

    21. Re: No. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Umm, you are apparently unaware that Bezos is a Democrat.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    22. Re:No. by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      That may be but many still need to drive outside of the city or otherwise drive far beyond the current daily limits of electric vehicles. Until that is resolved I don't foresee electric vehicles replacing gas/diesel vehicles. That said I do expect more hybrids to become common.

    23. Re:No. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      We all know this is insane. BeauHD's playing a game to see how many /.'ers will spend time tying to refute a preposterous article.

      cf. https://xkcd.com/386/

      We're all going to be dead in 3 years, so the article is kinda right.

      For the wrong reason tho'

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    24. Re:No. by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Not sure what is wrong with your trailer but all the ones I have used have the ability to switch which vehicle is towing it. You lift this latch and then disconnect it from this metal ball on the back of the towing vehicle. Maybe this is advanced technology you have not seen yet?

    25. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see a lot of people confidently asserting opinions here without actually giving arguments refuting much of anything in the source article. So let's do some basic cost calculations. Let's say that your electric car has a capacity of 85kWh. That capacity with the very heavy Tesla Model S will give you an approximate EPA range of 426km (265 miles). If your electricity cost was $0.15/kWh, that means the cost to charge your car fully from empty would be $0.15/kWh x 85kWh = $12.75. Since you would seldom fully empty your car battery fully, you would typically charge less than this, and it is likely the EPA range does not bring the battery to full empty. Even so, I will assume the price of driving the range of 426km would still be $12.75 (charged from the charger in your garage...fully charged when you get up). This gives an electric cost of $12.75/426km = $0.0299/km.

      Now let us consider a gasoline car. I'll assume an optimistic 10L/100km. That would mean that driving 426km would use 426/100 x 10 = 42.6L of gasoline. Gasoline costs $1.32/L where I live, but let's give it a cheaper price of $1.11/L. This would give a cost for driving 426km of 42.6L x $1.11/L = $47.29. The cost per km would be $47.29/426km = $0.111/km. In other words gasoline costs $0.111/$0.0299 = 3.7 x more or 370% more than electric per km! Electric cars are simpler. The battery technology is constantly improving. There are Tesla electric cars that have driven 200000 miles with no battery replacement (the car linked to here did have its battery replaced at 200000 miles, but it actually had most of its range, and it is likely Tesla wanted to examine the battery). Recent improvements in battery technology promise batteries that will last the life of the car. The announcement referred to here was in reference to an increased voltage battery chemistry that showed 92% capacity remaining after 1200 charge cycles. If your car has a range of 230 miles per charge cycle, than that would allow the car 230 miles x 1200 = 276000 miles and still have 92% battery capacity! For most of us, that would be longer than the lifetime of a fossil fuel car.

      The cost of the cells is already dropping precipitously. The trend shown over the last few years is going to continue. There is no such trend in gasoline cars. Costs are for fossil fuel cars are going up. Electric cars will appear at lower and lower points in the market, first in the used market, and later in the new car market. In the end, electric cars will be the only economical choice. It is simple physics and economics. You can deny it all you want, but in the end, physics will win. Steam won over horse transportation because it was cheaper and better. Gasoline won over steam power because it was cheaper and better. Electric will win over gasoline because it is cheaper and better.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    26. Re:No. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well you said 'auto driving trailer' which implies all one piece. That said, I have never been to a marina where they have a vehicle you can borrow to use to launch your boat. I can't see a marina lending their members a self driving vehicle capable of launching a boat.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    27. Re:No. by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Not all of us. A lot of West Coast asses will be grass once Crazy Don vs. Crazy Jong gets going, but North Korea will be glowing long before they produce anything that can reach the rest of the U.S.

    28. Re:No. by fizzer06 · · Score: 5, Funny
      I guess refuting this preposterous article is a fool's errand. But I've been sent on many a fool's errand.

      I once made the mistake of asking why and was told it's because I'm the right man for the job,

    29. Re:No. by ganv · · Score: 2

      Self-driving will come...probably more slowly than this article proposes. But self-driving electric cars don't make oil prices collapse. If they keep oil prices low, that will allow a lot more Chinese and Indian buyers to buy their first gasoline car. And while it is easy to see how self-driving electric cars can replace $35k cars for commuting in US and Europe when oil is $70 per barrel, it is harder to see the economics working for electric cars replacing $12k first cars for families in Asia when oil is $30 per barrel.

    30. Re:No. by methano · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Venezuela will be in trouble"

      That's really going out on a limb.

    31. Re:No. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      The top end vehicle price for most Americans is currently $19K. That's pretty much the magic point. Maybe if you factor in gas savings they will be able to afford a bit more but not much.

      Though in my neck of the woods, there are people driving around in huge 60K+ Pickups, and they certainly aren't making much more than the low 20K's per year. Dunno how they are doing it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re:No. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      I agree with your statements, but the premise is really that NEW ICE cars will not be produced/sold in x years. There will be a second hand market in the US and Europe for another few years for sure, and then it will spread to developing countries-- but will it make sense to produce new (ICE) cars if there is a glut of used cars?

    33. Re:No. by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      People buy things they can't afford all the time. it's called massive debt.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    34. Re:No. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Marina boat racks exist, and there are ways to load your boat onto a rack. My point is simply that there are easy enough ways to address the problem where people don't want to tow their boat with their own car or taxi. A self-driving boat transporter isn't that much of a stretch.

    35. Re:No. by John+Bodin · · Score: 2

      Where I live its considered Rural, though it can be argued we are a suburb of a major city. (roughly 100 miles away). Here there are about as many apartments as their is houses, and with each apartment complex is a full parking lot of cars. Who is supposed to pay to install chargers for each of these cars the renters, the apartment owners, do you expect government to pay for it therefor back on both with increases in taxes. Until the support system is there for everyone to have an electric vehicle why would suddenly everyone stop using what they have now?

      --
      John
    36. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope nope nope.

      If you really think North Korea is going to launch a ICBM from North Korea to hit the US, you're delusional. What North Korea is going to end up doing is targeting infrastructure that will cause a cascade of damage. Launching a nuke 10 miles from the coast via a submarine and having it detonate in the atmosphere will nuke all electronics with an EMP on the continent if it detonates at the right distance. If you think nuclear power plants are hardened against an EMP, well that would be a bad assumption. There are also hydro electric dams that could be mechanically "stuck" without their control rooms. So not only does the power go out, but any ability to save the cities downstream from flooding or dam collapse is also eliminated.

    37. Re:No. by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The physics is not there yet, but 5 or 10 or 15 years in the future we might well be there. Batteries are improving but the manufacturing cost of the batteries themselves still make the cost of electricity to charge them a round off error. So your numbers are incomplete and misleading, the cost of the batteries hidden by choosing a luxury vehicle as the data point.

    38. Re: No. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I think the article is saying for sale, I'm still sceptical though.

      They're not a good fit for a lot of people.

      I'd be shocked if 50% of the population lives in a place where an overnight charged is even possible to install (for the car owner).

      That means long charging in a network of charging stations I don't see being dense enough by then.

      Long as in 4x the time it takes to fill a tank.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    39. Re:No. by west · · Score: 1

      nope, nope, nope.

      Kim fires all his nukes at *China*. China, losing Beijing and most of its government, then launches its hundreds of ICBMs at Russia and the US to ensure they do not rule after China's demise. Russia (and maybe the US) then launch their thousands of ICBMs at *everybody*.

      "World War IV will be fought with stones and spears."

    40. Re:No. by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      I peed a little after reading this.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    41. Re: No. by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NO car available for retail purchase TODAY is capable of autonomous driving. Not even Tesla officially claims their autopilot can safely deal with anything besides lanekeeping & collision-avoidance... and even then, can only safely run at full speed on limited-access divided highways that aren't construction zones, or at low speed in bumper-to-bumper gridlock on city streets. They'll *allow* you to use autopilot under more experimental conditions, but it's not a feature they officially advertise (because they could take it away at any time with a pushed software update).

      As for "cars will be stranded in place, and owners will have to pay for disposal" -- 8 years from now -- the author is frankly nuts. The only way that could happen is if the government banned gas-fueled vehicles. Republicans would never vote for such a law at any time in the conceivable future, and I'd guess that probably 95% of DEMOCRATS would hold their noses & vote Republican if it were the only way to avoid having their most (or second-most) expensive asset rendered worthless by Democrats... which is why the Democrats wouldn't do it, either.

      The author also egregiously underestimates the impact of a car's sunk cost. Even if gas soared to $20/gallon & electricity were free, it STILL wouldn't be economically worthwhile for people who've spent $30k-$60k or more for a car to just dump it... even MORESO if resale values tanked.

      Not to mention, the free tax ride electric car owners currently enjoy won't last forever. I give 20 years, max, until at least 80% of states abolish gas taxes & replace them with some alternative that electric car owners can't sidestep (like tax meters on charging stations).

    42. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you point out exactly which of my numbers you think is wrong. Why don't you make a quantitative counter-argument. Otherwise I will assume that you are only pretending to have a counter-argument by trying to sound confident.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    43. Re:No. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      People buy things they can't afford all the time. it's called massive debt.

      Yeah - I suspect that they are working a 10 year car loan, and making it bigger every time they trade for a new one. Amazing, my parents paid off their mortgage in ten years, and they had domething worth something at the end. These tools are just going further into debt, and end up with very little.

      And then the reason that so many are not prepared for life after work becomes very clear. Otherwise it is beyond my comprehension.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    44. Re:No. by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This would give a cost for driving 426km of 42.6L x $1.11/L = $47.29. The cost per km would be $47.29/426km = $0.111/km. In other words gasoline costs $0.111/$0.0299 = 3.7 x more or 370% more than electric per km!

      I don't know where you live, but where I live, its about 70cents or so for the gas, and another 40 cents per liter in taxes. Doing the math at 10L / 100 means $4 in taxes per 100km... or 4 cents taxes per km.

      That's more in TAXES per km than your electric vehicle costs in electricity right now. If you think the government is going to let that revenue disappear your nuts... so for a realistic comparison take your 0.0299 cents/km... and add 4 cents taxes to it. Because that's probably how its going to go.

      Suddenly, the electric ... is still better but its 7 cents vs 11 cents, which is a LOT less dramatic.

      Costs are for fossil fuel cars are going up.

      A large drop in demand, say due to millions of people turning to electrics, could turn that around though. Potentially squeezing that 7 cents to 11 cents even tighter.

      Electric will win over gasoline because it is cheaper and better.

      I think so too, i just don't think it's going to happen nearly as quickly as 8 years.

      I know tons of people who park on the street. Just drive through suburbia at night. How are they going to charge at night? My inlaws house... they couldn't get permitting to add a telsa fast charging port, they'd need a new electrical box, inspections, new wiring...big project. Millions of houses like that.

      It will happen, but it'll take a while.

    45. Re: No. by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      The top end for the poorest 51% of Americans might be $19k, but the cars bought by the other 49% are *WAY* more expensive in real life. SUVs *start* in the mid-20s, and quickly soar to 40k or more by the time you add the usual soccer-mom options. Ditto for pickup trucks. You'd be hard-pressed to even buy a new Hyundai Elantra (or stripped-down Ford F-150) with A/C, automatic transmission, and the amenities most middle-class Americans would view as non-negotiable requirements for less than $25k after adding the usual fees, taxes, and everything else. New cars are EXPENSIVE. Poor Americans compensate by keeping them longer or buying used. If Tata (an Indian carmaker) opened dealers in the US and sold acceptable new cars for $15,000, they'd *literally* need tasers & cattle prods to beat back parents of high school students. My bro did the math, and unhesitatingly threw down about $21k to buy his 16 year old daughter a Hyundai Accent in lieu of allowing her anywhere *near* his BMW or her mom's Honda Odyssey. By his reckoning, it was a cheap investment to protect two VERY expensive assets.

    46. Re: No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who needs an automated car when you have a boat on an automated boat trailer? All cars in the future will be boats.

    47. Re:No. by Zemran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am happy that a Tesla has managed 200,000 miles but you are missing a major part of the equation. Tesla cars cost stupid money and you could buy more than 200,000 miles worth of petrol with with the money you save by buying a petrol car. Tesla are leaking money at a ridiculous rate and could easily go bankrupt. That is without getting into the part about how and where does the average person recharge a car. The whole dream is based on everyone parking in a garage. Most people live in flats. This guy has obviously never travelled if he thinks that people in Manila will buy electric cars. Plug on in in the street and your charging cable will not be there in the morning. BTW, petrol did not win over steam, it won over electric. Before the model T most cars were electric. I do agree that electric will return but I do not agree with your maths or that it will happen in 8 years.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    48. Re: No. by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      Gas station sites are REALLY expensive to redevelop for different uses due to their substantial decontamination costs. Most gas stations are plastic-lined pools of petrochemical stew underneath the pumps & pavement. That's why gas stations usually get replaced by another gas station. And if it's an old gas station that closed & was abandoned 30 years ago (by virtue of being in an inner city, or some rural small town with an Interstate 4 miles away where all the gas stations are NOW), all bets are off... with the exception of PRIME sites in places like New York, San Francisco, or downtown Miami, most of those old gas station sites would cost more to clean up than they're actually WORTH as vacant lots.

      I remember seeing a real estate ad for an old, long-closed gas station north of downtown Miami during the hottest part of the real estate bubble. It was listed for $200,000. Next door was a smaller property listed for $3 MILLION. There's now a new skyscraper under construction there, but it took almost 15 years for land values in that area to finally become high enough for investors to gamble on potentially *unlimited* environmental cleanup costs. The only suburban sites with comparable cleanup costs are dry cleaners (the old ones that did the cleaning on-site, not the new ones in strip malls that are just dropoff & pickup sites for some distant regional facility).

    49. Re:No. by Zemran · · Score: 1

      You will end up with a group of companies installing their systems and you will have to pay them. Then when you travel you have to find a charging point that is provided by the same group as it will be too expensive to use a different group's charging point. In the UK they have several groups and each group charges about 10 UKP each month membership and a fee for the recharge. If you are stuck in a different town you have to pay a much higher fee to recharge with a different group. It is not economically viable to use an electric car for more than local (charged at home) journeys. Electric cars are great as long as it is not your main car and you have a garage to charge it in.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    50. Re:No. by Zemran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He did but you are refusing to take look at TCO and choosing to cherry pick your data. The cost of good batteries makes them more expensive than petrol cars. If you work with TCO, electric cars are more expensive than petrol but Tesla are staggeringly more expensive than petrol. That is without taking the charging problems etc. into account. The problems will not be resolved in 8 years and denying their existence only makes it harder for the electric car industry.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    51. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Well, our gas prices are $1.31/L or so, which is somewhat expensive. However our electricity rates here lower than I mentioned. We pay about $0.086/kWh for the first tier, and $0.12/kWh for the second tier. This is a comparatively low rate, which is why I didn't quote it. However, it makes the relative cost savings for electricity even more pronounced than I mentioned. Admittedly not everyone's electrical savings will be so pronounced. However, I think that the costs per km for electricity will be cheaper than gasoline for everyone.

      As for charging, if you have a house with a garage, it is a relatively minor task to get a dryer plug installed in the garage. With that, you can always have a charged car (and pre-heated) when you leave in the morning. Condominiums are a problem, but over time it will be a huge asset to have car charging installed in your parking garage. New condos will increasingly come with charging facilities. Governments could help with building codes, but I think the market will eventually pull us in the direction of more residential charging.

      This is pretty speculative, but let's imagine that Tesla does achieve full self-driving. Let's assume that it is proven to be far safer than human drivers. Let's assume that regulations allow the cars to drive around without a human. If that becomes a reality, then what is to stop you from allowing your car to travel by itself to a charging station and charging itself? If that became possible, then you could realistically own an electric car, even if you didn't have charging facilities in your condo. I still think though that the best solution would be to have charging both where you live, and where you work. Luckily, building new charging facilities is not very expensive, as the electrical grid is already ubiquitous.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    52. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Gas cars can also be tracked. The trend is for all cars to be increasingly computerized.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    53. Re:No. by jezwel · · Score: 1
      It's great that electrical cars are much cheaper to run than an ICE powered car, however without charging stations they are just a much larger paper weight.

      I just checked https://myelectriccar.com.au/c... and found that the majority of charging stations near me are in car dealerships. There's one in a hotel about 15 mins away, and 4 bays in a humongous shopping centre on the way to work - I'm sure availability there will be slim to none. (Currently there is only 28 available charging stations in my entire 2M+ city)

      That means installing charging stations in our apartment complex car bays. I wonder how much that will cost, and how long our body corporate will argue about the installation, and then there's the question about installing into a heritage listed building? Are we even allowed to do it?

      No, we'd have to be using Uber autodrive cars to go down this path in the timeframe listed. Much more likely than being able to replace all our gasoline based infrastructure.

    54. Re:No. by HockeyPuck · · Score: 2

      A Tesla still costs $70k USD, while I can get a nice 4cyl 35+ MPG car for under $20k. Even less than that if it's used, and it will still get 35+ MPG.

    55. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Well, the price of the Tesla Model 3 starts at $35000, which puts it in the price range of a BMW 3 series. That is the market they are initially going for. Over time, as more electric cars are manufactured, they will enter the used market. That will lead to lower prices for the rest of us. Also, if these cars actually become self-driving, and if regulations adapt to this, you may be able to send your car to a charger by itself. I'll believe that when I see it, but I've learned from experience not to discount Elon Musk's promises. Most of what he promises does actually come true, although the time scales are sometimes somewhat longer than initially stated.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    56. Re: No. by bestweasel · · Score: 2

      My 1999 TDi was still in good shape at 270,000 km but oh! the pollution. It was obvious that what was coming out of the exhaust wasn't what VW claimed.

    57. Re:No. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The assumption that fossil fuel vehicles may disappear may be almost right, but not entirely. A lot is going on in the vehicle industry to try to migrate to fuels based on recycled stuff.

      So we may still have internal combustion engines but the fuel may come from renewables rather from fossil fuel.

      And we will see more and more hybrid vehicles out there as well.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    58. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Most of the charging infrastructure has already been installed. It's called "the electrical grid". In your house, or even in your condo, all you need is a dryer plug (NEMA 14–50) to charge your car overnight. The charger is on the order of $500. When building new condos, the cost of installing plugs for some of the parking spots will not be prohibitive.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    59. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      The new Tesla Model 3 will start at $35000. It is initially aimed at buyers of BMW 3-Series cars.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    60. Re: No. by jaygridley · · Score: 1

      Flawed definition.

    61. Re:No. by gumpish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the fuck browser are you using that's inserting fucking "smart" apostrophes?

      I need to know for my blacklist.

    62. Re:No. by vivian · · Score: 1

      Sounds about as accurate as most forecasts by economists.

    63. Re: No. by Sique · · Score: 1

      Socialist urban planners wanted everybody to move to urban areas so they could live out their utopia dreams, but old school greed walked in with them. Welcome to reality.

      I don't know where the socialist urban planners come in. In no single country it's cheap to live in the city compared with rural areas. Cities were attractive living places compared to the rural areas in the Middle Ages. They were it when the Industrial Revolution started. And they are now. No socialist urban planners necessary. All they do is migitate the problem a little.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    64. Re:No. by Tranzistors · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Journalism is dead.

      BEGIN RANT; What is it with you people and declaring things dead? BSD has been dying for decades and you still haven't got the clue. God has been dead for a freaking century. Right now “X is dead” should be read as “X has suffered a bit, maybe”.END RANT;

      It's pretty much now all speculation, opinion via "expert" talking heads, rumor-mongering, agenda-advancing, "awareness-raising", etc.

      Did you snowflakes grew up in a loving, trusting households where everyone was perfectly honest and really well informed about all the topics they talked about? I'm sorry to inform you, but people have made shit up for quite a while. The Financial Post article doesn't even claim that the author is right, just reports on what the author says, and it is clearly a speculation. If you want an expert panel discussion, there are plenty of those. If you find that even those are speculative, I'm sorry, but all discussions about future are speculations.

    65. Re:No. by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      It is easy to believe that fossil-fuel vehicles will not be produced in foreseeable future, but to claim they will vanish in 8 years is an extraordinary claim. The sheer production capacity that would replace all the cars in the world (or even just USA) is just not there. If after 8 years there are no fossil-fuel vehicles produced it would take another 20 to 30 years to phase out vast majority of existing cars.

    66. Re:No. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      How can any revenue disappear someone's nuts?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    67. Re:No. by heson · · Score: 1

      You are basing your calculations on heavily taxed fuel and not so heavily taxed electricity. Countries will do bancrupt unless they cover their losses if fuel tax income goes down, I have a suspicion on how they will solve that problem.

    68. Re:No. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Commercial vehicles are the /most/ likely to go all electric. China is on track for 95%+ of new busses being electric by 2020, and is already at over 50%. As self-driving tech comes in, this will only accelerate.

      From a commercial point of view it makes financial sense. What you lose in having to spend time charging is more than made up for by lower maintenance and fuel costs. Typically time is not the limiting factor anyway, and in Europe where safety limits on time spent driving are enforced periodic breaks are mandatory anyway.

      Businesses simply won't want to buy ICE vehicles when EV is both cheaper (TCO) and has some other advantages like being able to operate inside a warehouse without gassing the employees and not needing to keep large amounts of flammable liquid on-site.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    69. Re:No. by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Right, and electric lighting sure didn't make it far because no real estate owner wanted to spend the money wiring their houses...

      When you have trouble renting your stuff out because people keep looking at you funny when you say there is not charging option in the parking lot, it's not gonna take long to install charging stations.

      Especially when you have pretty centralized and large car parking, the cost can be more easily spread over the apartments/houses. Then you raise rent a fraction.

      It has always worked that way and it will keep on working that way for quite some time.

      Why are we even discussing this?

    70. Re:No. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It won't be practical to tax electricity in the same way as fossil fuels. Electricity needs to be cheap for people to maintain a good lifestyle at home and for businesses to operate. It's not easy to detect when a car is plugged in vs. a kettle.

      I agree, 8 years is optimistic, but then again we area already seeing massive adoption in some commercial spaces and in some EU countries.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    71. Re:No. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I agree more than a possibility but if the ICE vehicles drop drastically in numbers, they'll probably have to go up in price due to not being able to make savings from mass production which could then accelerate the sales of EVs as the prices will equalise .

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    72. Re:No. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of people confidently asserting opinions here without actually giving arguments refuting much of anything in the source article.

      It is what post-truth is all about - saying stuff while sounding and looking confident is trying to replace careful observation, in-depth understanding, painstaking calculation and conscientious communication. All those are so difficult and demanding any way, and so often leads to conclusions you don't want, so must be discouraged; just look at how critical thinking has lead people to question the wisdom of just polluting with abandon and conduct meaningless wars in other countries.

      I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it isn't hard to see how certain people with power would see their advantage in having the population in general mistrusting science. It isn't because evolution is "against God", but people with an understanding of science and scientific method tend to think critically: they ask uncomfortable questions and may inspire people to make demands that would take something away from those in power.

    73. Re:No. by dcarmi · · Score: 1

      In Europe diesels will disappear. Cities will begin to either ban or increase charges to run such vehicles. The UK are already proposing a diesel scrappage scheme. Sales of new diesel cars are down by 30%.Sales of AFV (Alternative Fuel Vehicles) are up by almost 50% according to the UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

      In London the T-Tax (Toxin Tax), which is charged each time you take an older more polluting diesel into town. This will extend to cover pretty much every diesel car in 2019. The T-Tax begins in October, this year. Cities like Bristol have banned introduction of any new diesel taxis and are considering their own T-Tax.T-Tax schemes are proposed by many other cities, including Paris and Madrid and their proposals to ban are more explicit, than London's.

      As the owner of a diesel vehicle, purchased a couple of years ago, I already regret that decision. When they start hitting me in my pocket with higher taxes for travel and fuel, then the decision to keep the vehicle becomes ever harder. Besides, if I did purchase an electric or hybrid vehicle to travel round the city, which is most of my usage, I can always handle longer distance travel by hiring a petrol vehicle.

    74. Re:No. by Ramze · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree that the time frame is impractical, but the logic is sound. I'd say 10 to 15 years would be a more realistic time frame.

      Remember that in 2007, the first iPhone was released & now, pretty much everyone is on some sort of multi-touch smartphone. It revolutionized the cell phone industry in only a few short years, and 10 years later, very few people have the old style flip phones or Nokias.

      The key for the change will be infrastructure drying up. Gas stations don't make much money off of gas -- and instead on their convenience items with high mark-ups... especially cigarettes, sodas, snacks, and lottery tickets. If enough people switch to electric vehicles, gas stations will lose regular business & have to change their business models or close. Stations near interstates may switch to electric charging only. Many city gas stations might close because the electric cars wouldn't drive far enough to need a recharge while in town, and the city taxes for the lot wouldn't make the stations a good use of the land -- they might convert to fast food restaurants instead. (We already see this happening in big cities anyway -- mostly b/c of high rent and/or taxes or from offers to sell to more profitable industries). Once gas stations become scarce, people will worry about the range of their gas vehicles and finding stations to fuel up like we do now for electric vehicles. Mechanics will start to go out of business as fewer people need oil changes, tune-ups, and part replacements.

      As an American, it seems far fetched, but in Europe, the electric car industry is well on its way to replacing fossil fuel burners. The UK is Tesla's biggest market & Norway isn't far behind. All major car manufacturers are developing electric vehicles & some nations have plans already to phase out oil burning cars entirely within only a few years.

      Once the cost per unit gets low enough for the average new car consumer (like with the Tesla Model 3), and the total cost of ownership makes economic sense (many say it already is), then you reach a tipping point for conversion. 8 years is a long time in the tech industry, but not very long compared to the average life of a vehicle, so I'm inclined to think 10 to 15 years is a more reasonable number. The average person buys a new car every 2-5 years (I know... it's insane!) But, most will buy a new car within 10 to 15 years, so I think that's how long the switch will take as it'll be a very obvious choice.

      As for big rigs, all manner of land based vehicles can easily be switched to electric. Electric vehicles are capable of much higher torque. They just need an adequate transmission in some cases where direct drive doesn't cut it. Planes will likely keep on using jet fuel for the foreseeable future, but land based travel will definitely go electric sooner or later. There's a great case for a domino effect that will throw oil based vehicles into a death spiral and push electric into the limelight within at least the next few decades if not sooner.

    75. Re:No. by houghi · · Score: 1

      Nice if the cost would be the only thing that people looked at. They don't. When people heard about the fact that their VW consumed more diesel than told, the sellers here in Belgium where not really worried.

      They said :"Yes, people ask about it, but in reality they are ,ore interested in the sunroof."

      The thing that is holding it back is not so much the price. That is only one part of it.L What I see is that electric cars will be self-driven cars where fuel will be for people who would like to drive.
      And then people will slowly go from one to the other because of a shift in the general mindset.

      The reason money is not the things is easy to verify: Look outside.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    76. Re:No. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      To be fair though - the article's premise is on-demand self-driving cars. Which makes any issues with charging, battery cost etc. entirely dissapear since you're not buying the car. You're just renting it for a brief period. Sure somebody has to pay that investment - but that person gets to fold it into a bulk-purchase as part of the initial capital-outlay for a profit-making business. Your argument then is like if somebody had said "Nobody will ever ride the train because it's way too expensive to lay the tracks" - yet trains were a major part of transport infrastructure for over a century, because the people riding the train weren't the ones who had lay the tracks, and none of them had to cover more than a infinitesimally tiny fraction of the cost of those tracks.
      A cost you can spread over a very large customer base becomes insignificant to any particular one of them - and doesn't prevent the service from being more valuable.

      And charge times just isn't a factor since the renting company needs a large fleet anyway - you only need about a 10% extra capacity to ensure you always have a car with charge when the next customer requests one.

      If self-driving car services do develop as expected, it's entirely possible that a car will lose all atraction very soon. As it stands a car is not an asset - it's a depreciating liability that involves a constant cost. Nobody buys a car because it's valuable to them (although a lot of people THINK they do) it's not possible since a car is NOT valuable to anybody - it is a net negative expense. We make that expense for the same reason we spend money on food- because we don't have any choice in the matter.
      The moment there is a better choice, it will take extreme stubborness and mathematical stupidity to keep making the bad one.
      Of course there are no shortage of stubborn idiots in the world -but they can only keep an industry going for so long. Unlike, say, homeopathy the ICE industry isn't selling something fairly cheap (and cheaper than the competitors whose product has actual value) - and, much like homeopathy, at that point they are selling nothing but a placebo. An illusion of freedom and control which, like the illusion of medicine, may make you feel better but isn't actually worth it - since you can get the EXACT same feeling for a fraction of the cost by playing need for speed.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    77. Re:No. by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Well I assume professional castrators charge money for their services ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    78. Re:No. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The taxes are on gasoline. Not on km driven. The incentive is to safe gasoline.
      So why should the government increase/put taxes on EVs when it simply can increase the taxes on gasoline until most/all cars are converted?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    79. Re: No. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Ironically - literally the only time ever that a 'socialist urban planner' seriously tried to enforce a particular migration pattern it was in the opposite direction to what he claimed. The only one that seriously tried was Pol Pot. The K'mer Rouge did force a migration: they were forcing people OUT of the cities on the premise that everybody HAS to be a farmer.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    80. Re:No. by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      While thats true, there is also caveat: Even something like Tesla only have 5 hours of driving range. Thats actually decent enough to get sales, but thats still 5 hours. And 5 hours is a lot, and it actually enough to get penetration in the consumer marked, and it did that.
      If fossil fuels is to vanish in 8 years, you need electric vehicles for 16-20 hour ranges, to penetrate the last part of the marked that needs such range. Cross country truck driving is such a thing, even if it only exists due limited infrastructure(trains, ports, last mile). The same is true for roadtrips, and electrical needs to push a lot further if its to squeeze gasoline or diesel to rent only.

      I agree that as more and more reasonable solutions is rolled out, with realistic real world performance, electrical vehicles will penetrate more and more of the marked.

    81. Re:No. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Lets face it Science Journalism was stillborn.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    82. Re:No. by umberleigh · · Score: 1

      the acronym for our currency in the UK is GBP (Great British Pounds), rather than UKP, just FYI.

    83. Re:No. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Once they stop being sold 10 years tops for the vast majority of fossil-fuel vehicles being scrapped.

      Look at it this way, when I am out and about, if I actually look at cars and where I live (the UK) you can tell the age of a car from the registration plate the vast majority of cars are less than 10 years old. Push it out to 15 years and it must be about 1% of cars on the road.

      So ten years after EV go mainstream there are hardly any fossil fuel cars left, which means that the garages selling the fuel will all be going out of business hand over fist, which will mean that people will be getting rid of their fossil fuel cars sooner than they would have because filling up has now become a headache with so few filling stations left open. In fact I expect these network effects to start kicking in sooner and hasten the end of fossil fuel vehicles.

      However you need a vehicle with at least a 500 mile range that can be charged up overnight from empty to full. Basically that is a car that can make any reasonable journey within a days driving.

      In the meantime give that 97% of the value of a barrel of oil comes from the 3% that is not burnt for fuel (aka the petrochemical industry) the oil industry will be around for a very long time.

    84. Re:No. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      At roughly 500 HP, semi trailers are not a big hurdle to go electric; it really just comes down to the economics when it comes to long-range applications.

      I suspect torque is a key requirement rather than raw horsepower and the electric motors can certainly meet that need.

      It's the battery technology. Even if you line the base of the trailer with batteries to give you multi-thousand mile range, is that commercially viable (and just how long do you need to park up to charge!)

    85. Re:No. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my two seater roadster that I do not drive economically averages 5.8l/100km. If I drove more slowly I'd get more and if I bought a car with half the power I'd get much much more.

      Or I could buy a bigger car with faster acceleration and better fuel economy by switching to a hybrid. Tax incentives on that too, and the electric motor would handle the commute without needing to use petrol.

      Pure electric? Just not on the radar yet. There just aren't any out there that would do 426km. Unless you want to spend £136k on a Tesla and drive it at golf buggy speeds. Sure.

    86. Re:No. by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      I need to drive far beyond Tesla limits (which are going to be much increased over the next few years) just once or twice a year. I think adding a few extra breaks won't be that much of a hassle. I once worked in Germany and drove there. Having a car drive the distance and in return, I have to stop 10 minutes longer on the single break, doesn't sound like much of a penalty. In fact, it sounds like a trade-off I'd love to be able to make.

      This discussion has been done to death here on slashdot and it boils down to: there are a few use-cases where EV is clumsy or currently not going to work. But for loads of people in densely populated areas, the benefits massively outweigh the penalties.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    87. Re:No. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Except...time is money.

      For all your "factual" analysis, you seem to have missed the KEY objection today to electrics: time to charge. (Instead, you focused solely on their key advantage, how...coincidental.)

      A Tesla today takes an hour to fill to 80%. An hour.
      I drive 50 miles each way to work. Commonly, then, I visit customers around the city during the day, easily another 100mi. And then on Fridays, I might have to fetch a kid from college 150 miles away.

      I don't have multiple hours per day to sit around waiting for my car to charge, to say nothing of professional truck drivers for whom every hour sitting is directly hurting their income.

      If they solve the charge time issue, and the electric premium costs I'll be the first in line to buy one, but for now (and barring a surprising tech breakthrough) electric vehicles will remain a boutique toy for the idle rich or pious eco-nuts.

      --
      -Styopa
    88. Re:No. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Taxi firms love the Nissan Leaf. They are rational actors, they only care about TCO and profit. The Leaf is cheap enough that the savings in fuel and maintenance over its lifespan produce a much lower TCO than even the most efficient petrol/diesel cars.

      The Renault Zoe isn't bad either, and even cheaper than the Leaf.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    89. Re:No. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Probably copy/pasted from Microsoft Word.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    90. Re:No. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Yep, this guy is so high on crack, I don't even know how he'll respond to the idea that some people drive 600-1000 miles in a day and don't want to swap self driving cars 4 times because they run out of range and it'll take half a day to recharge them. Can't even fathom where you are going to find these self driving electric cars in rural areas... I can barely find a radio station and that's ancient technology!

      Nope, carbon based fuels aren't going to be dead for at least 50 years I'd wager... It's just too good of an energy transportation to walk away from.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    91. Re:No. by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      I actually look at cars and where I live (the UK) you can tell the age of a car from the registration plate the vast majority of cars are less than 10 years old.

      Where I (Latvia), the average age of light cars in technical order was 12,5 years (stats from 2012). Today it might be around 10 years. And globally Latvia is a rather well of country. While it is true that buying a 20 y/o car is not cost effective due to maintenance costs and fuel efficiency, it can still be sold due to poverty trap — if you don't have money (or affordable credit) to expensive car that is affordable in the long run, you'll have to buy one that is cheap up front and pay more for maintenance.

    92. Re:No. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Let's assume that most electric cars will have at least partially autonomous systems in 8 years (say 80%) whereas only something like 10% of ICE cars will have partial autonomous systems. EVEN STILL I would wager that autonomous ICE cars will outsell autonomous electric ones...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    93. Re:No. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      300,000 km isn't even a 5th of the way to 1 million miles. There is no way a car can go a million miles without a severe overhaul of components. Sure the body is probably still fine, but no motor, bearings, lubrication, or any wear part will last that long.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    94. Re:No. by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      Fully autonomous semi-trucks will arrive well before electric ones. The amount of batteries you'd need to 1) haul that much weight and 2) last for the long haul trips that most of these trucks make would severely reduce the cargo capacity both volumetrically and more importantly by weight.

      Let's assume a low number of 200 gallons of fuel for a semi truck. Diesel is roughly 7lbs/gallon so around 1400 lbs of fuel. Current estimates are that average semi-trucks get around 6.5 MPG, so a range of 1300 mi per fill up. Let's just simplify this to a mile per pound of fuel. This is to haul a maximum of 80,000 lbs of vehicle and cargo. So 80,000 lb(vehicle)-mi/lb(fuel).

      What do electric cars currently get? The Model S is one of the newer ones (the X doesn't have full specs yet). It has a generous range of 300 miles, has a weight of around 5000 lbs, and the battery weighs about 1200 lbs of that. So that's 5000*300/1200 or 1,250 lb(vehicle)-mi/lb(battery).

      So diesel is around 64x more weight efficient for hauling stuff than batteries at this point. How much would a Tesla battery have to weigh to transport 80,000 lbs 1300 miles? Around 30,000 lbs. Throw in the actual motor you'd have to put in it and all the tires, wheels, driver, cabin, wires, brakes etc, and only half the weight of the vehicle cargo...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    95. Re: No. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      even MORESO if oil prices tanked.

      FTFY

    96. Re: No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Transport is roughly 65% of petroleum demand, and diesel is the marginal product driving profits even for US refineries. (That is a recent change from gasoline.)

      Electrification of heavy ground transport is going to kill the oil majors. They're already borrowing to pay their dividends. Once the bankers realize petroleum market growth has stopped (hasn't yet, but it's on the near horizon - 2020 to 2025-isj), new capitalfor oil companies is going to become very expensive...

    97. Re:No. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      "The electrical grid" can in no way handle the load of millions of cars charging overnight with no additional investment. That's not even figuring in the new power plants that would have to be constructed...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    98. Re:No. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      This is the most concise takedown of a clickbait submission I've seen. Bravo.

    99. Re:No. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Electric car production is not even close to being able to make that many electric cars. Battery production is nowhere near sufficient. Self driving cars are still being developed. An 8 year prediction has no basis in reality, probably closer to 30 for the switch.

    100. Re:No. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Now let us consider a gasoline car. I'll assume an optimistic 10L/100km.

      That's actually pretty bad for a modern car, most Euro and Japanese cars easily do under 7.5L/100 KM. Thats only about 35MPG, some ICE's do 60 MPG and we haven't even gotten to hybrids yet.

      However the cost of having your Tesla towed because it ran out of battery 100 miles from home is about &pound:500. So it tends to even out. Plus you don't have to add WAT after the Tesla symbol.

      Plus there's commercial vehicles, not just lorries and vans but anyone who's job requires travelling. Sorry, but ICE's are going to be with us for a while longer. In fact, the more popular EV's get, the more they are going to get taxed to make up for a shortfall in fuel tax revenue (which is used to build the roads) which will stunt their growth.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    101. Re:No. by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      I may have been insufficiently clear, but the idea was sketched out. You need to actually look at the total cost of normal passenger cars of various types, where the costs of the batteries are not hidden under the massive luxury premium or some other kind of subsidy.

      Furthermore, I think that people are shortchanging the real competitor to pure electric passenger cars in the foreseeable future, sitting right under their nose: hybrids.

      Hybrid cars are a superb technology that gain most of the advantages of batteries (regenerative breaking, power for short accelerations) and the most of the advantages of gasoline (extremely high energy density per weight for high range, already existing infrastructure). Such is not going to be easily pushed aside, until the numbers really favor pure electric. As the battery technology improves, the hybrids improve, too, even if not quite on the same curve. It will take a major leap in battery technology to make electric vehicles clearly superior for typical customers in the mainstream market (or many, many years of incremental improvements).

      Will we get there? Probably. At least for passenger cars. Claims about 8 years in the future are complete balderdash IMNSHO.

      In terms of non-passenger cars, there is still too much starry-eyed dreaming about electric vehicles that overlook the very real reasons fossil fuel engines are so successful. Electric vehicles will nibble at these markets over time, but there is never going a sudden shift, especially once all electric passenger vehicles are successful enough to put downward pressure on fossil fuel prices. We are not going to see lithium ion batteries power any 18 wheeler hauling ten tons of cargo through hilly countryside in my lifetime. If those big rigs go the way of the dinosaur, it will be because of a reinvention of our national transport infrastructure that is not necessarily going to be specifically tied to all electric vehicle technology. Such reinventions can happen, but it is silly to predict as much until you have seen the 21st or 22nd century equivalent of the "iron horse" actually built.

    102. Re:No. by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

      Though in my neck of the woods, there are people driving around in huge 60K+ Pickups, and they certainly aren't making much more than the low 20K's per year. Dunno how they are doing it.

      It's not just you. The number of people becoming "car poor" is certainly on the rise. Longer term loans with higher interest rates but lower monthly payments, it's a booming sector. The need for gap insurance is also increasing, that's where my company is making some money. As the saying goes, it can't go on forever.

      As for the article itself I believe it. Only if you multiply their figure by a factor of 5, then yeah I'll accept that. As for the original 8 years estimate? That's a sensationalist marketing ploy to garner more attention to their study. Look how successful it is :).

    103. Re:No. by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      They need to tax what actually does damage to the roads, heavy trucks. Cars do such an insignificant amount of damage to roads its barely measurable. I know this because I read it on the internet.

    104. Re:No. by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      All sports cars cost stupid money (including the ones running on fossil fuel).

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    105. Re:No. by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

      That capacity with the very heavy Tesla Model S will give you an approximate EPA range of 426km (265 miles). If your electricity cost was $0.15/kWh, that means the cost to charge your car fully from empty would be $0.15/kWh x 85kWh = $12.75. Since you would seldom fully empty your car battery fully, you would typically charge less than this, and it is likely the EPA range does not bring the battery to full empty. Even so, I will assume the price of driving the range of 426km would still be $12.75 (charged from the charger in your garage...fully charged when you get up).

      Thanks for the arithmetic work but this may not work out as nicely everywhere. For me in Western New York in the US, it's $0.22/kWh for the electric supply. They then also charge a little more than double for "delivery" per kWh. It becomes about $0.47/kWh. They also add in a flat fee on each monthly bill but let's leave that out because I pay it regardless of the amount I use. Then, with my winter weather in this area, battery efficiency is cut in half which not only raises costs but also cuts my range in half as well. Also factor in the increased upfront cost of an EV vehicle and the fact that you lose some battery capacity each year. Last I checked it was estimated about 2% which also compounds each year. Don't get me wrong, I'll be first in line when the math works out in my favor but we're not there yet. I drive a hybrid today but I didn't buy one until the math worked into my favor. As for EV, have to wait for the numbers to improve in my favor. Like others have already said, if they get the cost of the a vehicle 20K $US that will also work wonders on vehicle demand. Would also be nice if they could fix the sharp drop in battery efficiency in below-freezing temperatures with better tech in the future.

    106. Re:No. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Once again, an Elite head-in-the-clouds completely disconnected economist makes an economic prediction that will not come true.

      The rich will do this. The used market- which we still have 50 year old cars in the pipeline- will continue to have internal combustion engines for the next 30 years.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    107. Re:No. by Megane · · Score: 2

      I previously had a small SUV that I took from about 29K to about 230K miles. At that point, really the only thing still working was the engine. The A/C used old Freon and had been too leaky to even bother to repair, the door latch to the driver side door had broken and I had to enter on the passenger side, the driver side window mounts had broken and the window fell into the door just before I got a new SUV. And the paint had long flaked off (crappy '90s GM paint job) I don't remember the condition of the driver seat.

      My current SUV is now at 230K miles, the engine is not the original and leaks oil, the driver side seat is a mess, but about 3-4 years ago I had the A/C repaired and it might have been recharged once since then.

      So basically, after about 200,000 miles, the interior and body of a typical passenger vehicle are likely to start falling apart. You can only open and close a door so many times before it starts to wear out. Commercial vehicles may get more miles, but they are built to last longer.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    108. Re:No. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Paradoxically (perhaps), developing countries are often the first to embrace new technologies because they don't have the inertia of existing industry to content with. For example, many dirt poor countries have excellent cellular coverage. In many cases, this is the only access to phone or internet that citizens have. If self driving cars cut transportation costs dramatically relative to car ownership, then I would expect them to flourish in poorer economies.

    109. Re:No. by fgouget · · Score: 1

      That's more in TAXES per km than your electric vehicle costs in electricity right now. If you think the government is going to let that revenue disappear your nuts... so for a realistic comparison take your 0.0299 cents/km... and add 4 cents taxes to it. Because that's probably how its going to go.

      Unless they do the obvious and just increase the income tax which has the advantage of being a progressive tax.

      Costs are for fossil fuel cars are going up.

      My in-laws house... they couldn't get permitting to add a Tesla fast charging port, they'd need a new electrical box, inspections, new wiring...big project. Millions of houses like that.

      Or they could simply charge their Tesla with a regular 220V electrical plug. Not fast but sufficient unless they drive 200 miles every day.

    110. Re:No. by fgouget · · Score: 1

      Now let us consider a gasoline car. I'll assume an optimistic 10L/100km.

      That's absolutely not optimistic. That's very pessimistic. Already 8L/100km would be pessimistic (or reflect 100% in-city driving) and I'd expect something like 6.5 to 7L/100km to be more typical, even on highways at 65mph.

    111. Re: No. by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "For a group that doesn't believe in evolution they sure live by Darwinian beliefs."

      or maybe

      'For a group that doesn't believe in evolution they sure try to force Darwinian beliefs on others'

    112. Re: No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Half apartment complexes and you folks consider it "rural"? LOL. If you can't ride a horse to your neighbor's without someone staring, it ain't rural.

    113. Re:No. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Here's my argument why the author is nuts.

      There are a lot of old cars on the road today because old cars are cheaper. The car I drive to work is 16 years old. Would it cost less to operate an electric vehicle? Sure it would. But I'd have to buy one, and the cost of buying an EV is around 3 times the cost of buying gas for the car I have now.

      Personally, I like the idea of electric vehicles and I want one someday, but the notion that all fossil fuel vehicles will be gone in 8 years is really pretty ridiculous.

    114. Re: No. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The top end for the poorest 51% of Americans might be $19k, but the cars bought by the other 49% are *WAY* more expensive in real life. SUVs *start* in the mid-20s, and quickly soar to 40k or more by the time you add the usual soccer-mom options.

      Very true. That 19K figure, although I have no reason to question it's veracity, doesn't account for the many more vehicles that are much pricier. There simply aren't that many cars at that price point.

      Poor Americans compensate by keeping them longer or buying used.

      Not just poor. I buy 1 year, off - lease vehicles at a big savings, and keep them as long as they don't turn into a maintenance pain in the ass. Of course, its almost always cheaper to fix, but since I travel a lot, reliability is a big factor.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    115. Re: No. by winse · · Score: 1

      As for "cars will be stranded in place, and owners will have to pay for disposal" -- 8 years from now -- the author is frankly nuts. The only way that could happen is if the government banned gas-fueled vehicles. Republicans would never vote for such a law at any time in the conceivable future, and I'd guess that probably 95% of DEMOCRATS would hold their noses & vote Republican if it were the only way to avoid having their most (or second-most) expensive asset rendered worthless by Democrats... which is why the Democrats wouldn't do it, either.

      Agreed....No one will ever need to PAY for disposal. The raw materials that make up a vehicle have intrinsic value that will always have some demand. Metal recyclers will pay you the going rate just for the steel and they'll take the rest of the vehicle and deal with it. Even if no one used the old time delayed solar (petroleum) technology anymore, metal is always going to be somewhat valuable. If people start giving away old junk cars for free I would gladly take them all!

      --
      this sig is deprecated
    116. Re:No. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Well, using your example, why the hell would your self-driving car launch the boat and not your (or the marina's) self-driving boat trailer?

      And how exactly are you going to get your boat from your house to the boat lauch in the first place??

      You also DO know that not all boat launches have a marina facility around them, right?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    117. Re:No. by fgouget · · Score: 1

      Tesla cars cost stupid money and you could buy more than 200,000 miles worth of petrol with with the money you save by buying a petrol car.

      BMWs and Mercedes cost stupid money and you could buy more than 200,000 miles worth of petrol with with the money you save by buying almost any other car. And yet people still by BMWs and Mercedes. And more to the point the Tesla Model 3 will be much cheaper than the existing options and more in line, price-wise, with the throngs of Volkswagens in the streets.

      The whole dream is based on everyone parking in a garage. Most people live in flats.

      Countries, like France, made having a charging station in the building's parking lot a right : the landlord cannot refuse to install one if a tenant requests it. For that the tenant must properly notify the owner, provide details of the planned construction work, and then finance said construction work. So the issue of flats is moot... in reasonable countries.

      Plug on in in the street and your charging cable will not be there in the morning.

      Many cities, like Paris, have had electric car-sharing for years and yet the charging cables are still there. Or was that comment only for Manila too? I think the point of the article is can existing car manufacturers survive with Manilla as their sole market? If not, and the rest of the market shrinks significantly due to self-driving cars (electric or not), they may still get into trouble.

      BTW, petrol did not win over steam, it won over electric. Before the model T most cars were electric.

      The state of the art in batteries has changed quite a lot since then, though not quiet enough yet.

      I do agree that electric will return but I do not agree with your maths or that it will happen in 8 years.

      And there I have to agree with you. 8 years seems awfully short for such a change.

    118. Re:No. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's not just you. The number of people becoming "car poor" is certainly on the rise. Longer term loans with higher interest rates but lower monthly payments, it's a booming sector.

      Ugh. I simply don't get it. We need to implement money handling and financial health classes (as well as re-introduce Civics classes - but that's a different story) in school. Immediate gratification coupled with financial ignorance or even stupidity will cause these people to dig a hole for themselves that will take years to get out of - if ever.

      The need for gap insurance is also increasing, that's where my company is making some money. As the saying goes, it can't go on forever.

      I had to look up gap insurance. Holy crap! Wonder what these folk are going to do when they hit retirement age, because they aren't going to have any money to live on.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    119. Re:No. by vandamme · · Score: 2

      Ten winters in central NY. That's it. Mileage is immaterial.

    120. Re:No. by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Overall, I'd agree with you. But it will be really interesting to see different market segments. think about the city car, ubiquitous mid-sized family sedan or yuppie SUV. Those segments could easily become completely dominated by EVs and quickly become mostly self-driving. That will make it incredibly difficult to buy one of those cars that is _not_ EV.

      No way that rural users, people that actually use their pickups for work or tow, people that drive significant distances, or other groups that have non-generic uses switch in this timeframe. I personally need to have a large, long-range vehicle often enough that I can't use the EV, but my family has two cars, so one will be EV and one will not. The disparity between city and non-city users will come to a head, because of the interactions between them will be initially messy. So, you could have a rule in NYC, DC, Boston, San Francisco that prohibits human driven vehicles, or non-specially tagged vehicles over a certain weight.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    121. Re:No. by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Most people live in flats.

      Really? Not in my country. According to this, 70% of Americans live in single-family homes and 80% want to. In the UK, 65% own their homes and according to this article "in countries such as Britain, Croatia and Norway, more than 80 percent of people live in houses."

      If you are going to make up "facts" as you go along you shouldn't be so blatant, that one was easily refutable.

      --

      Enigma

    122. Re:No. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I note that all those in favor live where they don't drive much, mostly Europe, where they have no idea the distances typical in the US (think of our states as your countries and you'll be close, at least for your larger countries -- IIRC Germany is roughly equivalent to Texas. Also, our current average price of petrol is around 50 cents per liter.) Probably a third of Los Angeles area workers commute close to a full charge worth every day; does that put it in perspective?

      And I got to wondering about cold weather -- the northern tier can have a month of -40 temps -- and found this:

      https://www.technologyreview.c...

      I suspect that's optimistic. During northern winters, you'd have to heat the batteries 24 hours a day. That's not going to go over well in areas where the cost of electricity has recently skyrocketed (frex, Ontario, where thanks to being "greened", an electric bill that was $100 two years ago is now $700).

      As to replacing trucks... long-haul drivers need to do what, a minimum of 500 miles a day? that's two charging periods. You're going to fit this into a 24 hour day... how??

      At any rate, TFA comes from Stanford, arguably the farthest-left STEM university in America. Consider that under their desired 'egalitarian' regime, we'd each be rationed the same amount of electricity, and if your profession requires more, tough. Electricity is ill-suited for a black market, which my cynical little voice opines might be the real motivator under such a system.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    123. Re:No. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You didn't really follow through with those numbers. Sure, the fuel for an electric car is cheaper currently, although you've neglected losses and inefficiencies charging and holding charge. Also, electricity is more expensive some places, and gas would get cheaper if there was a mass switch to electric vehicles. But suppose we get really good at making cheap electricity, which looks probable given advances in solar and gas doesn't completely tank.

      The article makes a lot of really grandiose claims, including that fuel costs for an EV are essentially nil (they're not, as you demonstrate) and that maintenance costs for an EV are nil and EVs will last much longer than a gasoline car. My car has never had any engine-related maintenance except for oil changes, but it has had lots of suspension work, brakes, etc. EVs need those too. I also have never had a car die due to engine problems: they were all due to rust and increasing non-engine maintenance costs.

      People are certainly going to start buying EVs more and more, and that might get greatly accelerated when self driving cars are the norm because insurance costs are likely to be much lower, and most of the operating cost of a vehicle is insurance. I still don't see the massive and sudden shift the article predicts though, because it is predicated on EVs being basically free to run and lasting nearly forever.

    124. Re:No. by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Well, using your example, why the hell would your self-driving car launch the boat and not your (or the marina's) self-driving boat trailer? Launching a boat is a really stupid process the way it is done today, taking unnecessary time without plenty of extra hands.

      Self-driving dump trucks, excavators, graders, loaders, and harvesters exist for off-road use today.

      80% or more of boats are not launched from a marina. The vast majority are launched from local boat ramps or, in the case of our family camp, from a dirt road on to a beach. So, no, anyone who needs to tow a boat will need at least a manual option on their self-driving cars/SUVs.

    125. Re:No. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The replacement time of vehicles is quite a bit less than 20 to 30 years. Some people hang onto them a lot longer than that, but a 20 year old car is verging on an antique.

      The average age right now in the US is around 11 years. The article speculates that the combination of the switch to EVs and self driving, which will probably come with massive insurance savings, will encourage people to switch faster.

    126. Re:No. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      You're right! Electric semi-trucks will cruise across the country, electric excavators will dig foundations for new buildings and electric tractors will plow the fields. Electric tankers will haul $25/barrel oil across the sea and electric airlines will fill the sky. All in 8 years! And anyone who claims otherwise is a filthy Trump supporter!

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    127. Re:No. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Untwist panties and have a great day!

    128. Re:No. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      It's more like science worship.

    129. Re: No. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      That's why besides the marina and boats you'll have cargo ships still running on mazut because the only electric alternative to that is nuclear reactors, that's why farming machinery will run on diesel because you need 12h of continuous runtime and you just can't take hourly recharging breaks every hour, that's why all 4x4s will retain gasoline engines because you won't be able to recharge them on a weekly trip into the mountains, that's why half the trains will keep running on fossil fuel, because electrification of all low-priority lines would be simply too expensive... You're getting so many exceptions to the rule the rule itself becomes a minority.

      Yeah, common passenger cars in major part will switch to self-driving electric, and city transport will likely become in major part hybrid. But imagining all semi-trucks will switch to electric engines in 8 years is a pipe dream, and the "All vehicles" is total bullshit if you include ships and airplanes.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    130. Re:No. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      ...or a blue-collar worker driving heavy machinery. For most of that stuff electric power simply doesn't have nearly enough energy density. And a lot of work is done far from the cities - come on, tell me how is the excavator supposed to dig 500 miles of a trench for a new fibre across the Rocky Mountains, with nearest recharging stations 30 miles away on the average?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    131. Re:No. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      It won't be practical to tax electricity in the same way as fossil fuels

      Which is why i predict they'll go to an odometer tax. And charge you per km on a sliding scale based on vehicle weight or number of axles or something.

    132. Re: No. by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Most people won't do any of those things once in their life. The summary talks about passenger vehicles owned by individuals. (The headline says something else, but that's Slashdot editing)

    133. Re:No. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      And 95% of the world lives in the US.

      Yeah, I totally see Cuba, Mongolia or Pakistan replacing all their fossil fuel vehicles with electric in 8 years.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    134. Re:No. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      In the USA the average for road taxes levied on gas sales is just under $0.50 per gallon. Fuel economy for cars and light trucks in 2012 averaged just over 23 miles per gallon. Granted there are lots of much older vehicles on the road that will bring the efficiency numbers down but I think the tax situation, at least in the US, should be pretty manageable if those taxes are shifted to a mileage based collection.

      I think the reason the 8 year projection is unrealistic is that even the 13 years some other article prophesied a while back was unrealistic. That is that people simply don't replace their vehicles frequently enough for this to happen. It'd take more than 13 years to replace every car on the road today with electrics even if every manufacturer converted 100% of their production as of the beginning of 2017.

      This article seems to address this in part by saying that new legislation would outlaw ICE vehicles. That would require unbelievable numbers of politicians committing political suicide, because passing such laws would effectively destroy a large percentage of their constituents wealth.

      I think we're looking at 20 years minimum before electric vehicles reach anything like a majority in cars on the road. And frankly that's being optimistic. EV's are already good enough for 90% of the population and it simply comes down to cost and availability at this point. As people continue to buy EV's they'll eventually win through attrition as ICE's age out of the market more rapidly through just wear and tear as well as losing resale value more rapidly.

    135. Re:No. by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Well - I don't see it happening in just 8 years. But oil right now is hovering at about $50 per barrel. So fuel will remain fairly cheap.
      A couple things happened - first vehicles got a bit more fuel efficient. That reduced demand. Then the market in China heated up but even they are using fuel efficiency. So internal combustion will be with us I'd say another 20 to 30 years.

    136. Re:No. by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Right on. The brain drain in North Korea is slowly killing the regime.

    137. Re:No. by mrvan · · Score: 1

      Actually my marina in the Netherlands use sa very simple electric "cart" to launch boats. They use to use a big tractor, but that was more expensive and error prone as you can see what you're doing as well. Now, the operator has a simple "remote control" with two buttons (forward / backward) connected to an electric engine on a chain from an anchor point.

      These things will not become self driving because it would be pointless, no two boats are the same and you want to stand there to watch anyway, boats are just really darn expensive compared to the 15-30 minutes of labour required to launch one...

    138. Re:No. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      And I have a friend who services GSM control towers. He drives far beyond Tesla limits every day and I don't think his employer would be happy for him taking recharge breaks during billable time - or him being happy about these breaks being unpaid.

      You are not everyone. Yes, many cars used by casual drivers will be replaced by electric. But all? All VEHICLES? Any projects for electric cargo ships out there please? Drop that kool-aid.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    139. Re:No. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe, although odometers can be tampered with relatively easily... Maybe a yearly road tax based on vehicle type and weight, or knowing the UK government some kind of surveillance system like number plate recognition so you get charged extra when using major roads.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    140. Re:No. by wikdwarlock · · Score: 1

      If the price for electricity storage for cars was instantly ZERO, there is still no way that anything close to the "predictions" (really breathless hyperbole meant to secure additional research grants and headlines) from this study could be true. My guess is that, just to move around the new machines, material, and retrofitting equipment necessary for such an abrupt transition to all electric vehicles would require 8 years of using ICE vehicles in the first place. What happens to gasoline pumps that need to be removed? What about all the inventory of car parts at thousands of retail outlets in the US alone? Just physically moving all that stuff to some landfills (likely using ICE dumptrucks and earth movers) in the desert would take a huge, dedicated fleet of vehicles. Consider the momentum of the ICE system in our world. There is scarcely anything in that system that could disappear in 8 years, let alone the whole kit and caboodle.

      --

      "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    141. Re:No. by indros13 · · Score: 1
      Many utilities offer discounted charging rates for off-peak times. This rate of 6.7 per kilowatt-hour, from Dakota Electric in MN, is actually one of the highest. https://www.dakotaelectric.com... So your gas fuel costs about 7 times more per mile, not 3.7. Compare that over a 5 or 10 year vehicle life and it's thousands of dollars.

      Also, there are likely maintenance savings. Check out the schedule maintenance booklets from Nissan for the Versa compared to the Leaf. There's no oil to change, oil filters, air filters, spark plugs. https://owners.nissanusa.com/c... https://owners.nissanusa.com/c...

      It's true that an EV needs a new battery eventually but at 12,000 miles per year, an EV battery is expected to still have 70% of its original capacity. Even if you need a new battery in 10 years, prices are coming down so quickly that it's likely to be closer to $3000 than the original $10,000. Far less than the fuel cost savings in that time period.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    142. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Charging overnight is when demand is normally low. One just needs to run the power plants longer. In the long run, solar energy with battery storage will have to pick up some of the slack. Cars charging during the day could be charged in part by solar generated electricity. The cars themselves could become a primary means of energy storage.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    143. Re:No. by Albanach · · Score: 1

      I would like to see a self-driving car parking itself along narrow country roads with soft berms, and not get stuck eventually.

      The self driving car is probably much better than a human driver at carefully engaging the 'gas' allowing it to slowly drive away. Of course, there'd be little to no need for it to park on the grass. Unload the car then tell it to drive itself off to a better parking location.

    144. Re:No. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      There is very little relationship between "the oil price" (which is actually about a very specific, rather high grade of crude) and how much you pay for gasoline at the pump. The per-barrel price may double, yet the pump price barely changes. It's the processing, distribution and local taxes that determine the price.

    145. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Is your car moving 24 hours a day? If not, why not charge it where it is parked, be it at home in the garage, or at work in the parking lot. The lack of "5 minute charging" is completely irrelevant for people who charge their cars in their home garage. You get up in the morning and your car is charged. Just like your phone.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    146. Re:No. by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Gasoline costs $1.32/L where I live, but let's give it a cheaper price of $1.11/L.

      That's over $4 a US Gallon; prices around me are closer to $2.20. So in the US your estimates would be closer to 2x cost for gas vs electric.

      You should also take into consideration that the price you're paying for gas is mostly tax, and that as electric cars take over your government is unlikely to just give up that revenue. There will be some replacement taxation going on which I expect will reduce your value proposition somewhat.

      I do agree that the battery costs are dropping so fast that it seems inevitable that electric will be the sensible option real soon now, but you can't extrapolate from highly taxed gas to lightly taxed kwh and assume that those will remain constant.

    147. Re:No. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Gasoline won over steam power because it was cheaper and better. Electric will win over gasoline because it is cheaper and better.

      Interestingly, in between steam and gasoline was electric. It didn't last long, gasoline took over quickly, some 150 years ago cars were electric.

      One of the main obstacles must have been the batteries.

    148. Re: No. by Gription · · Score: 1

      "Clang clang wang clunka clunk ..."
      Yep! They are going to sneak all silent like through our sonar net!

    149. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Very few things change that quickly.

      I remember very clearly reading a printed pamphlet in 1993 describing the invention of hypertext and the NCSA Mosaic web browser. There was no World Wide Web before that. There was just Gopher and other file browsing protocols. The idea of clicking a word in a document to get to another document blew my mind. Now I have fibre optic internet to my condo and I can buy most anything I want from my phone. The technological world can change VERY quickly.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    150. Re:No. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      But Netcraft confirms it.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    151. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Hydrocarbons are a dense way to store energy that is quickly and easily transferred with negligible losses.

      LOL Except for the 80% loss in energy when burning the fuel!!!

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    152. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Install a charger in your garage. A dryer plug will provide enough energy to charge to full overnight. When you get up in the morning, your car is charged.

      Barring that, imagine your work parking lot has a charger. Plug your car in when you get to work, and it is charged when you leave. No trips to the gas station necessary.

      If you are traveling, you can use the Superchargers. 20 minutes to 50% and 40 minutes to 80%. That is enough time for a nice coffee/bathroom break on a long trip.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    153. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      literally isn't enough electricity production on earth to do this.

      Solar energy is practically unlimited. If you add battery storage, then it becomes a truly practical energy source. And car batteries count as battery storage.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    154. Re:No. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      For an autonomous semi, would stopping time really be a problem? Perishables might be an issue, but driving for 2 hours and charging for one isn't necessarily the end of the world. Likewise, for an autonomous semi... there isn't necessarily an advantage in not switching cabs every few hours if you need speed. Making a 1-2MWh battery isn't rocket science, but you likely hit diminishing returns pretty quickly. Flow batteries might be another option, where you just replace electrolyte.

    155. Re:No. by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      You don't need the energy density of petrol, since electric motors are 90% efficient or more (that is why electric cars beat gas cars on raw acceleration). If you would have bothered to read my links, you would have seen that batteries are likely to last the life of the car. Troll.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    156. Re:No. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      We all know this is insane. BeauHD's playing a game to see how many /.'ers will spend time tying to refute a preposterous article.

      cf. https://xkcd.com/386/

      Well, he certainly got a ton of comments and attention on this submission. Maybe that was his point, like the "one weird trick to lose weight that doctors don't want you to know" clickbait that has started to infest my local newspaper's online site of late.

    157. Re:No. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Not all of us. A lot of West Coast asses will be grass once Crazy Don vs. Crazy Jong gets going, but North Korea will be glowing long before they produce anything that can reach the rest of the U.S.

      Then why would the West Coast asses be grass?

    158. Re: No. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else notice how in the US, every four or five years a big scary media and political blitz about North Korea occurs in which they are biggest threat etc etc..

      Because North Korea likes to make apocalyptic threats and they actually do have nuclear weapons.
      They've learned that this sort of cage rattling has historically gotten them a lot of concessions, and it drums up national pride to stand up to the rest of the world. Then you also have other countries who help them (China) because they like that someone else is a thorn in the side of the Americans.

    159. Re:No. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ah, I was thinking electric but human operated. Autonomous does change the dynamics somewhat, yes - the 'enough batteries in the back to drive from Alaska to Costa Rica' option suddenly becomes very viable, as you just coincide the day spent charging with valet/vehicle health check/washing activities and you're not paying a driver to sit idle through that period.

      It's still higher utilisation due to the lack of rest periods during the driving.

    160. Re: No. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Photo-voltaic roof handles some of the cases of can't install a charger, but not all.

      I'm very skeptical of 5 minute charge anytime soon.

      I'm not electric car skeptical though, I think most of the arguments against are over pessimistic, but I think arguments for are very suburban middle and upper middle class focused.

      A LOT of people cannot install chargers at home, which makes electric far less convenient than petrol, even if today's best charging tech was deployed at every petrol station in the country.

      Electric cars need 3x the range of petrol cars, or charging speeds need to triple before they can replace petrol cars for condo living, apartment living, or street parking people, and that's assuming instant infrastructure build out.

      It won't be until that infrastructure exists for a few years (and the skeptics start to get on board) that petrol cars will fall under 50% new car sales is my prediction, and considering it doesn't exist yet, 8 years seems crazy.

      I think only range and price will be addressed by 8 years from now (mid $20ks, unsubsidized 300 mile range), there's still how to make them useful to the huge percentage of the population that doesn't own where they park.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    161. Re:No. by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      That may be but many still need to drive outside of the city or otherwise drive far beyond the current daily limits of electric vehicles. Until that is resolved I don't foresee electric vehicles replacing gas/diesel vehicles. That said I do expect more hybrids to become common.

      Regarding your comment about the the daily limits of EVs specifically, [setting all other factors aside] for a typical two-car household, even short-ranged (100 mile) EVs can work really well if the drivers in the household can swap cars when one or another needs the longer range of a gas vehicle. For single-car households one car should fulfill all needs and EVs aren't quite there yet... EV tech might be ready in 8-10 years, but I'm very skeptical people will move to EVs as quickly as the author in the article predicts.

      I agree that hybrids and plug-in hybrids will be more common....particularly for single-car households who need the versatility. My only problem with hybrids is they still have the long-term cost of maintaining a gas engine. A big advantage of EVs over gas is the long-term maintenance of the systems is much lower. In my opinion, a hybrid car is similar to the old combo DVD/VCR players where the versatility is great until one of the systems breaks, and you lose both.

    162. Re:No. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Journalism is dead.

      BEGIN RANT; What is it with you people and declaring things dead? BSD has been dying for decades and you still haven't got the clue. God has been dead for a freaking century. Right now “X is dead” should be read as “X has suffered a bit, maybe”.END RANT;

      At least in Internet parlance, 'dead' doesn't mean "completely, 100% eradicated," it means "has shrunk to much to remain relevant, even if it's technically still around.

    163. Re:No. by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      This would give a cost for driving 426km of 42.6L x $1.11/L = $47.29. The cost per km would be $47.29/426km = $0.111/km. In other words gasoline costs $0.111/$0.0299 = 3.7 x more or 370% more than electric per km!

      I don't know where you live, but where I live, its about 70cents or so for the gas, and another 40 cents per liter in taxes. Doing the math at 10L / 100 means $4 in taxes per 100km... or 4 cents taxes per km.

      That's more in TAXES per km than your electric vehicle costs in electricity right now. If you think the government is going to let that revenue disappear your nuts... so for a realistic comparison take your 0.0299 cents/km... and add 4 cents taxes to it. Because that's probably how its going to go.

      Suddenly, the electric ... is still better but its 7 cents vs 11 cents, which is a LOT less dramatic.

      So to use a real-life example - the State of Georgia in the US expects to collect $60 USD per vehicle per year in the Gas Taxes. However, the legislature passed a $200 per vehicle per year tax on EV's over a year ago to make up for the $60 loss - a 3.1 fold increase - thus instead of adding 4 cents, as 12.4 cents - 15.4 cents vs 11 cents - and EV is *more expensive*.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    164. Re:No. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Utter nonsense. 300-400,000 km is NOTHING. The body may have salt corrosion if it's in the rust belt, but otherwise there is no reason for dilapidation unless the owner is a pig. My 1999 TDI has well over 300,000 km. The upholstery is fine, the interior is not torn or stained, the glovebox, sunroof, locks, and trunk release all work fine. The struts for the hatch and the hood are like new. Never touched a CV joint. Brakes and suspension have been (minimally) maintained and are fine.

      The engine and transmission run like brand new and have never been touched outside of timing belts, fluid changes, and minor maintenance.

      How do you store the car? Around where I live, few people have garages, and I've never had (or wanted) a car cover, so my cars will be exposed to the elements without cover for 24/365. That much exposure to sunlight and temperature changes tends to wreck the interior a lot faster than if your car is in a garage.

    165. Re:No. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      There is no charging in my work lot. Maybe there will be in 8 years, but until then, nope.

      I don't currently have a place to charge at home. I could have one put in, but most houses in my area don't have off-street parking.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    166. Re:No. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      If self-driving car services do develop as expected,

      Expected by who? Current SDCs perform only marginally better than those from over 20 years ago while using 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more computing power.

      When you throw 100x to 1000x more resources at a problem over a 20 year period and only get a 1.5% improvement it is safe to say that the problem is harder than it looks.

      I see no indications that there is relative progress being made on the SDC front.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    167. Re:No. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      It won't be practical to tax electricity in the same way as fossil fuels. Electricity needs to be cheap for people to maintain a good lifestyle at home and for businesses to operate. It's not easy to detect when a car is plugged in vs. a kettle.

      I agree, 8 years is optimistic, but then again we area already seeing massive adoption in some commercial spaces and in some EU countries.

      I suggest you look up the word "massive". Significant? Certainly. Large? No, not really. Massive? You must be high.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    168. Re:No. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Install a charger in your garage. A dryer plug will provide enough energy to charge to full overnight. When you get up in the morning, your car is charged.

      Barring that, imagine your work parking lot has a charger. Plug your car in when you get to work, and it is charged when you leave. No trips to the gas station necessary.

      If you are traveling, you can use the Superchargers. 20 minutes to 50% and 40 minutes to 80%. That is enough time for a nice coffee/bathroom break on a long trip.

      Garage? What is this "garage"? My neighborhood is full of 100 y/o houses that don't even have driveways.

      As for work, imagination won't charge my car. Maybe they'll actually get chargers in 8 years, but given their track record, I wouldn't bet on that in 80.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    169. Re:No. by redmid17 · · Score: 1

      Notice how he said miles, not kilometers. Tacking on another 150K+ kilometers is going to have a deleterious effect.

    170. Re:No. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Journalism is dead. It's pretty much now all speculation, opinion via "expert" talking heads, rumor-mongering, agenda-advancing, "awareness-raising", etc.

      No, I think he's right.

      The very first self-driving car will start a mass shift in transportation. As soon as people figure out they can sleep or use Facebook on the daily commute then most of driving will be dead. If that car is electric, then... adios internal combustion engine. Only petrol heads will own one.

      Petrol heads aren't safe either, electric cars can have massive torque and power.

      --
      No sig today...
    171. Re:No. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I have never been to a marina where they have a vehicle you can borrow to use to launch your boat. I can't see a marina lending their members a self driving vehicle capable of launching a boat.

      I'm beginning to see a pattern here: You're a person with no imagination whatsoever.

      --
      No sig today...
    172. Re:No. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      That may be but many still need to drive outside of the city or otherwise drive far beyond the current daily limits of electric vehicles.

      Rental?

      --
      No sig today...
    173. Re:No. by citylivin · · Score: 1

      I would say you got extremely lucky, drive mostly highway or both. And clearly you dont have experience with a bunch of different cars, otherwise you would know that by 300k plenty of stuff fails, even if its well taken care of. My car just rolled over 200k (about the same age) and both cv shafts failed around 160, power steering hoses failed around 150k (known issue on this model), valve cover gasket, previous owner did calipers at like 90k, and the trunk latch from water ingress. And im sure there are a few more things. Locks go out when people try and steal the car. Mirrors are replaced when people hit me when im parked. and the windsheild has a few rock chips in it. I agree that none are major issues though, so it really depends what you mean. Its more "something" than "nothing". I also live on the west coast so no salt corrosion that would kill any car at around the 10 year mark in the east. Luckily the stock exhaust is stainless steel so it has aged well, but the flexpipe was replaced 10k km ago. The engine also eats oil, about 1L every 2 months. And thats as expected according to the dealership at this age. Parts wear down and tolerances aren't what they used to be.

      Im honestly surprised you haven't had to replace even one sensor on a VW of that age. VW is famous for poor electronics. The turbo should fail at some point too with oil leaking into it.

      And obviously if your interior is "fine" you dont have kids.

      Everyones experience of cars is different. Saying 300k is NOTHING is a bit hyperbolic though. Most cars i have had will not have all factory components after that amount of time. They are beaters exactly as much as the money that is spent on them. Don't fix problems, it becomes a beater. Do cheap hacks, use cheap parts, it becomes a beater. Nothing wrong with that, its extremely hard to actually kill a car if you are willing to replace parts on it. Some manufacturers put really shitty transmissions in their cars though, the escape comes to mind. And i think my transmission doesnt sound the best right now either. Manuals fare better for sure.

      In short, there is so much variation in cars, the environmental factors, and how people take care of them to invalidate your claim that people shouldn't have dilapidation at 300k. People are mostly not car people and dont give a fuck about maintenance until something goes *pop*. So your calculation should 100% account for people being "The Average Person" and then it all falls apart.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    174. Re: No. by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      but most of the people who use horses for day to day living are doing so for religious reasons

    175. Re:No. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Yes because imagination is all it takes to solve problems. Oh, I just made a transporter device!

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    176. Re:No. by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is debating that eventually that electric and self driving will take over the market, it's just a matter of when. I think that electric will happen first, in part because of potential liability issues with self driving.

    177. Re:No. by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      You think a factor of 3.7 in cost per unit distance is compelling? You're out of your mind. Here in the US there's so little market for that degree of savings that companies don't even bother selling highly efficient vehicles.

      Even in some unicorn-and-fairy near-future world where electric vehicles are dominant, at 3.7x base cost ICEs would be well-suited to serve as middle-class Veblen goods, just as big SUVs and higher trim lines are now.

    178. Re:No. by baerd · · Score: 1
      I like this quote from the article.

      This is the futuristic forecast by Stanford University economist Tony Seba. His report, with the deceptively bland title Rethinking Transportation 2020-2030, has gone viral in green circles and is causing spasms of anxiety in the established industries.

      No it isn't, this report is being ignored because it is ridiculously optimistic. This is the reason that AI isn't taken seriously by anyone that knows anything about it, it is always 10 years away no matter how many people tell you AI and robots are going to replace 50% of the workforce within 5 years. All futuristic predictions of this sort are intended to get a reaction, and never come true. All they do is damage the credibility of futurists. To me they don't have any to start with.

      --
      I wish I had a lawn.
    179. Re:No. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Sure, when the EV technology is good enough and when gasoline becomes harder to come by I will consider replacing the gasoline engine in my car with an electric motor (I could also use the gasoline engine to generate the electricity to charge my now-electric car).

    180. Re:No. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Gap insurance is relatively cheap, and will save your butt if your car isnt worth what you own on it and it gets totaled.

      Even cheaper to pay cash for the car.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    181. Re:No. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I guess that would be fine in the areas around the refineries, but not so much further away or in other countries (that import gasoline).

    182. Re:No. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that the average car buyer won't really want a fully electric car for another 5 years, when Tesla finally gets some real competition in the electric car space

      Tesla has real competition, in that the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S sold about the same number of units in 2016. They're not directly competing against each other though, that'll happen more in a year when the Model 3 goes against the Leaf.

    183. Re:No. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Amazing, my parents paid off their mortgage in ten years, and they had domething worth something at the end

      Do-Meth-ing? Now I know how your parents afforded their 10-year mortgate, Mister White.

    184. Re: No. by ThePawArmy · · Score: 1

      You gave enough of a damn to reply, you really do care.

    185. Re:No. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      How are they going to charge at night? My inlaws house... they couldn't get permitting to add a telsa fast charging port, they'd need a new electrical box, inspections, new wiring...

      Wait, why would they need a "fast charger?" Are you talking about the "charge from 0 to full in half an hour" ports? Those are super expensive and horribly overkill for home users. But a simpler 11 or 22kW is not terribly expensive, nor was permitting. Most homes can handle the electrical load, older ones with a lower ampage would need a new circuit, but it's not THAT expensive, and since they'll need it sooner or later, it'll happen. But yeah, the 8-year figure is laughably unrealistic. More like 30+ years.

    186. Re:No. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      You can look at this from a different angle (km prices from your example):
      Driving 1000km using an electric car costs $29.9
      Driving 1000km using a gasoline car costs $111

      Electric car saves $81.1/1000km. Electric car costs $30k (I already have a gasoline car). I would have to drive 370370km to get even. That would take me a long time (I do not drive that much).

      Maintenance costs may be a different matter as my current car sometimes requires patching rust holes, but then I would think that in 370000km the new car would also require maintenance and it may be more expensive. I still think that if I had $30k, I could use some of it to restore my car (you know, replace the upholstery, repaint the car etc, but this is optional) and spend the rest on fuel (as needed, while keeping the rest of the money in a savings account etc) and be better off. This is in addition to the fact that I do not really like the modern computerized cars where you may not even be able to replace the tires or a lightbulb without needing to go to the "authorized service" and paying a lot.

      Recent improvements in battery technology promise batteries that will last the life of the car.

      What is the "life of the car"? My current car is 35 years old (and still does not need an engine overhaul btw), will the electric car battery last 35 (or more) years?

    187. Re: No. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Considering I've lived here for over forty years and haven't met another real leftist, no. Too many people here think that single family housing isn't morally wrong. It is. That is destroying the environment.

      Single-family housing isn't morally wrong -- forcing people to be packed together like rats is morally wrong. Having eight children is morally wrong. High-density living and high populations are the problems, not the solutions.

    188. Re:No. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      In their case, they couldn't even add an additional 220 (e.g. a 'dryer' or 'stove' circuit to their box, without replacing the box.

      And in general the cost of adding a new circuit really depends on the layout of the home, the location of the electrical box vs the garage etc. In my home the electrical box is in the garage... so that's a win. :) but in there's it was completely other end and everything was finished, so to do it properly was going to be several thousands.

    189. Re:No. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      If self-driving car services do develop as expected, it's entirely possible that a car will lose all atraction very soon.

      I really doubt it. I know that I would not want to replace my car with what is essentially a taxi service. Here's why:
      1. I like to own something, instead of paying for a service. I own my car.
      2. I like to customize the car, for example, install a better sound system (than stock), use a tape deck instead of a CD player etc.
      3. My car is parked right here, I do not need to call and wait for it (especially during peak usage times).
      4. I like to carry things in my car that I may need (like an air compressor, a flashlight or a set of sockets). I would have to take them to the "taxi" and then remember not to leave them there. I can now just leave them in the trunk etc.
      5. Sometimes the stuff in #3 may be too heavy or inconvenient to carry manually along with some other cargo. so I would have to go multiple times to the car to empty it out.
      6. My car may be clean or not, that depends on me. I may get an autonomous taxi full of vomit or garbage (it's autonomous, there is no driver to take the car to be cleaned after driving a very drunk or sick passenger to his destination).
      7. I dislike paying money, especially the micropayments. I need to pay money for fuel and maintenance of my car (but then I can do some of the maintenance myself and save money), but I would dislike paying each time I use the car and especially paying different amounts based on the cargo I carry, the time I keep it parked (if the parking lot is free) etc.

      TLDR: I currently have my own car instead of using taxi all the time not just because taxi costs more. Even if taxi cost was the same as using my own car, I would still mostly use my own car.

    190. Re:No. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      From the testing done with nuclear blasts done in the upper atmosphere, it appears the fears of EMP blast destroying electronics are much more overblown than we have been told. Almost nothing happened when they tested it. Something like a few street lights going out was all that occurred.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    191. Re:No. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Near my house there is a boat ramp into the river that is only at a small park with grass and trees. There is no marina, there are no people, there are no vehicles there. There are also no gates or access control. So you now have to close all that off so you can put in a bunch of equipment so you can launch your ski boat, or even worse, your row boat! I think the boat ramp would disappear before all that happened. [sarchasm]Nice to see that in the future we can expect even more useful things to be taken away because technology is not quite as good as doing it the old fashioned way. [/sarchasm]

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    192. Re: No. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And then we get the automated boat which goes poking around the lake and deploying fishing lines while you stay at home.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    193. Re: No. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Plus really long extension cords so you can plug your can in when it is parked in street parking several blocks away. They also seem to have forgotten about all the used vehicles out there. Does everybody in the world (even just everybody in the US) buy a brand new car every few years?

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    194. Re:No. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if most new vehicles sold in 2025 were electric, but nowhere near all. Hydrocarbons are really good at storing energy compactly and allowing it to be transferred really fast.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    195. Re:No. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You can get other interesting figures from Wikipedia, such as the energy density of gasoline being 34.2 MJ/l, while the best battery they list (lithium, non-rechargeable) comes in at 4.32. It's 46.4 to 1.8 by weight. With a dedicated megawatt, it would take half an hour to supply the equivalent of a quick stop at a gas station, and I can't run a megawatt through my house circuitry.

      In other words, if you need to have long range, the size and weight of the batteries are going to be prohibitive. 254mi is way more than you'd need for around the town, but if you're driving cross-country you'll find yourself having to take fairly long breaks fairly frequently. My car's range is about 400mi and I can completely recharge the energy reserves in a few minutes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    196. Re:No. by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you said except for the part about the prices of ICE cars coming down. This would be likely in the very beginning of the process, but would soon choke itself out.

      Cars from modern factories have huge fixed costs behind them. They are only affordable because there are so many sold and those fixed costs get split up among all of those cars. When fewer cars are made/sold, each car has to account for more of the fixed costs. With a sizable and long-term decrease in demand, the car manufacturers run out of room in their pricing and start to lose money. If they can't get their costs down (which I don't think they could do), the curve hockey-sticks and bang, they're screwed.

      This is aggravated by the same process happening in all of the complimentary and support industries. Gas stations, oil change stores, even to some extent used parts stores start to struggle and consolidation begins. Each of these services is now harder to find, which makes car ownership look even less attractive, which is another gut-shot to the automaker's demand. I think THIS is the problem, especially the gas stations.

    197. Re:No. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Amazing, my parents paid off their mortgage in ten years, and they had domething worth something at the end

      Do-Meth-ing? Now I know how your parents afforded their 10-year mortgate, Mister White.

      We were the prototype for Breaking Bad. 8^)

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    198. Re: No. by ai4px · · Score: 1

      I remember an inexpensive car hitting the US streets in 1986... the Yugo. They sold very well for 2 years and collapsed when people found out just how "reliable" a car you could get for $2000 new. A buddy of mine broke his windshield when flipping the passenger seat forward.

    199. Re: No. by John+Bodin · · Score: 1

      I take a left off my road I pass 3 maybe 4 apartment complex's (one is on both sides of the road though some say they not connected). I take a right and I almost immediately start passing acres of farms and orchards and in about 15 minutes I am in fox hunt country, is that rural enough for you?

      --
      John
    200. Re: No. by Sique · · Score: 1

      This is an effect called the "urban agglomeration". The immediate region around the (legal) city limits is often preferred to the actual inner city as the population density is lower and the recreational opportunities are better. The inhabitants of the urban agglomeration still have an urban lifestyle and enjoy many of the advantages of living close to the urban center.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    201. Re:No. by mcswell · · Score: 1

      We have to wait eight years for that?

    202. Re:No. by mcswell · · Score: 1

      And to your point: commercial vehicles (I'm thinking semis, not sure about others) probably do long hauls. The driver opens the door every few hundred miles (or is it longer?) to fuel up, or load/unload cargo. Whereas I open the door every 10 miles on the average, because that's how long my commute is.

      Another thing that seems to wear out to some extent is the driver's window, assuming you open it in mild weather. (I do, I guess some people just turn on the AC.) The driver's window on my Prius started rattling at about 100k miles; pushing the 'up' button would push it up and stop the rattle for a few seconds, but then it would start again. I'm guessing slop in the gears after being used a lot. And really that's true of any moving part in the car; if it's used, eventually it's going to wear out. Granted, cars last a lot longer now than they did in the 50s or even the 70s, but they don't last forever.

      And the dents.

    203. Re:No. by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      You need to also be factoring in the ability of the current power grid to withstand the vastly increased demand and the changes in the cost of electricity that will be involved, as well as overall logistics. I think the assumption by the study is probably not taking these issues into account--especially since it seems to involve interesting assumptions about the global availability of electricity (perhaps those involved in the study could use a nice tour of less-developed countries?) and the logistical problems caused by NIMBYism when it comes to building, maintaining, and doing the vital improvements to the power grid.

      Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the problem is that this prediction is for the near future and global. We can make a pretty good guess how much electricity will be getting generated at best in a decade, if nothing else because any power plant that's going to be running by 2027 is already in the planning stages.

      I'd not be surprised if we can make a reasonably accurate guess about the maximum potential capacity in 2037, given how long it can take simply to get power plants built in places with severe NIMBYism, and let's not forget that there's parts of the world where it is highly impractical to have a power grid...

      Really, I'd place my bets on straight-up fuel cells winning, at least globally, for that last reason.

    204. Re: No. by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      In Florida, Yugos were never common. The tacked-on air conditioner wasn't very good & added about $1,500 to the price (neutralizing most of its perceived low cost). The Toyota MR2 & Nissan Pulsar were only slightly more expensive, and infinitely more popular among kids at my high school (source: I was in high school & shopping for my first car at the time. I think I *might* have seen three Yugos 'in the wild', ever. )

    205. Re:No. by skapunker21 · · Score: 1

      Because the plural of anecdote is data.

    206. Re:No. by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      You're a weird little troll. SV and Seattle are dominated by Blue types. Your lib overlords just want your vote. However, they like to pander, so why don't you reinvent yourself as a trans-gendered person of a convenient ethnicity? That could help you get into a govt job or at least nice gigs as a "political actor" during a "peaceful protest". You can show up to conservative town halls and pretend to be a constituent! How about Antija, they're a fun bunch. Black masks, weapons and fire starting tools are fun accessories.

      Okay, next. Who's fault is it that you didn't pay attention in school? Picked a crappy major? Partied while the other kids were doing homework? Did drugs while the others exercised? Went to jail for stealing stuff with your cool friends. Every crap event in your wasted life has one thing in common: YOU! I know the libs have convinced every failed culture in the world that they are victims of the productive members of society, but that is a lie and they use it to keep you right where you are with their enabling policies and lies.

      I had a stint of hard time and even welfare. I had to enter the job force without a degree and worth REALLY hard to make it while still working to complete a degree. I'm not wealthy now, but I'm glad I'm not dependent on the govt through clean living, hard work and studying. So, if you aren't useful enough to survive in some maggot pile of a city, try moving away -- or even better -- developing yourself instead of being a pathetic whiner.

      P.S. We are all somewhat sorry that Obama lied to you during his 8 year bling trip. Even the Nobel committee wishes they could get that award back. he accomplished nothing but a bit of pandering. Now, we're having to endure the pain of another path -- why, oh why did they have to run the only person on the planet that actually could lose to Trump, FFS! Was Charles Manson too busy to run this year?

    207. Re:No. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      What orifice did you pull that number from? $19k? Maybe in rural Oklahoma, but not in any big city or suburb.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    208. Re: No. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Reading comments like yours, I'm tempted to invest in kool-aid stocks. You alone must be drinking enough to raise their quarterly reports.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    209. Re:No. by terjeber · · Score: 1
      nuke all electronics with an EMP

      Too expensive. Too dangerous. Also, the NSA already has thousands of developers writing code that will take down all US infrastructure and they are eager to share with Good Ol' Kim.

    210. Re:No. by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      So 1300 miles range? But do they typically need to drive 23 hours straight at 56 mph??? I'm thinking not.

      The thing is battery technology is such that fast recharging to 80% takes just over half an hour. Provided the trucks stop every few hours (and there's laws for any given driver) it seems to be far less of an issue.

      For those more extreme ranges, if you really need 1300 mile range, hybrid electrics are much more efficient and less massive, and with a better torque curve, than straight diesel.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    211. Re:No. by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      Now let us consider a gasoline car. I'll assume an optimistic 10L/100km. That would mean that driving 426km would use 426/100 x 10 = 42.6L of gasoline. Gasoline costs $1.32/L where I live, but let's give it a cheaper price of $1.11/L. This would give a cost for driving 426km of 42.6L x $1.11/L = $47.29. The cost per km would be $47.29/426km = $0.111/km.

      Given that there are 3.78 liters per gallon, you really pay $4.99 per gallon for gas? The national average is about $2.40 / gallon ($0.63 / liter), so your figures are way off.

    212. Re:No. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It was an article on slashdot a couple months ago.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    213. Re: No. by John+Bodin · · Score: 1

      Then the right turn is definitely Rural population of a CDP 2 miles from home is 190

      --
      John
    214. Re:No. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I will consider using the gasoline engine to generate electricity, and use that electricity to power an electric boiler that powers a steam engine that will power big fan blades that will blow air on a sail :)

    215. Re: No. by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      China helps them because they don't want to lose face and admit they sent untold amounts of men to die in the fifties to defend an essentially crazy country, and they want a buffer to a US friendly country, South Korea, to prevent US influence from being right on their border.

    216. Re:No. by ananamouse · · Score: 1

      >dream⦠Pie in the sky from egg-headed Chardonnay swilling Stanford quiche eaters.
      Chablis and brie, you philistine brute.

    217. Re:No. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Yes, trucks will be on the road for 23 hours straight. Autonomous trucks on the highway will be here before they ever go electric.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    218. Re: No. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      "Throttle control" - it is, as Fletch said, all ballbearings nowadays...

    219. Re: No. by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Bwahahahahaha! My work installed a whopping TWO electric charging stations. You know who uses them? The President and Vice-President. Do you think ANYONE who works there will buy an electric car knowing they'll be taking the two head honchos' parking spot?

    220. Re:No. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The physics is not there yet, but 5 or 10 or 15 years in the future we might well be there. Batteries are improving but the manufacturing cost of the batteries themselves still make the cost of electricity to charge them a round off error.

      Costs for the battery pack is now down to about $145 per kwh. That puts the cost of the Tesla 85 kwh battery pack at about $12,350. At the calculate saving of 0.0811 cents per km, it would take 151,972 km to break even. Even if there were no other advantages to electric vehicles, the battery would still pay for itself and return a profit within the lifetime of the vehicle.

      I don't really get why you're focusing on the cost of the battery though when the cost of the vehicle as a whole is the important factor. Electric vehicles are simpler, have fewer components, and are cheaper. The high cost of the battery pack is offset by the cheaper cost of the engine (motor) and the complete removal of a complex transmission. It's also offset by lower lifetime maintenance costs (brakes/rotors last longer with regenerative braking, no oil changes, no drive belt, water pump, starter, or alternator to replace, etc).

      There's no doubt that the lifetime cost to own and operate an EV would be far lower than the lifetime cost of an ICE vehicle, if it weren't for the fact that EVs have thusfar cost significantly more upfront. However their price has already dropped and is continuing to go down.

    221. Re:No. by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      You left out the part where the hundreds of Chinese ICBM launches only result in 14 actual deliveries of nuclear detonations outside Chinese territory, and only 8 of those were "on target," in areas of any significance. The US and Russia wisely abstain from nuclear escalation: targeting the remaining Chinese launch capabilities and nuking their one submarine.

      In reprisal for starting this whole mess, the North Korean military is dismantled and administrative control of the country is transferred to Seoul.

  2. Venezuela will be in trouble by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    c'mon man. pay attention.

    1. Re:Venezuela will be in trouble by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      If what they are in now isn't trouble I'd hate to see what it is.

  3. Not in Africa and all of Asia by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership."

    But In Europe, the average age of new car buyers is already over 50, has been climbing for years.

    Young people are no longer fascinated by the iron cages stuck in traffic.

    1. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank God you young'uns don't drive to work since there isn't any, anymore, work that is...

    2. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Spacelord · · Score: 4, Informative

      > But In Europe, the average age of new car buyers is already over 50, has been climbing for years.

      Yet the volume of car traffic also keeps climbing year after year, eclipsing all other modes of transportation.

      I hardly know anyone in my direct environment who doesn't have a car. Those without cars are typically city dwellers with an island mentality. The city is their island where they live and work and they hardly ever leave it. A place that's 40 minutes outside of town by car, is considered "far away" by them and they find it hard to grasp the immediate freedom that a car affords you.

    3. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have no car and live in my island city.

      I also have a zipcar card, which grants me access to one of the three zipcars parked on the ground floor of my building's parking garage

      It's a snap to hop downstairs and take a car for the weekend to go skiing or out to Yosemite. Sure, it's expensive, but a fraction of the cost of car payment + insurance + parking + maintenance + depreciation. Here in SF it's close to $700-1000 a month for car ownership. I use zip vans more often than zip cars for moving around things actually. Other alternatives are renting at an airport for $30-50 a day which is basically free compared to the number above.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Anything short of having a vehicle waiting in your driveway just the way you left it (ie with your carseats, glasses, kleenex, music, etc) is not 'freedom', it's oppression. They will probably be tracking where you go on top of it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by quonset · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you have a hard time grasping the freedom of not being tied down by the financial responsibility of owning your own car.

      It sounds like you have a hard time grasping the freedom of not being tied down by the time responsibility of having to wait for someone, or something, to go do what you want.

      Unlike those you sneer at, they don't have to wait for a cab or bus or train. They don't stand around wasting time waiting for someone else. They're already on their way and enjoying themselves. They go where they want, when they want, completely independent of anyone else's schedule on how to get where they want to go.

      Further, considering the extra costs of living in a city, they far out weigh the "financial responsibility of owning your own car". When combined with the enormous amount of waiting to get somewhere, the cost of not having a car outstrips that of having one.

    6. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by vlad30 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Owning a car has nothing to do with a place that 40 minutes outside of a city by car. You just rent one or use one of the soon-to-be-fleets of autonomous cars (or take a bus or a train). It sounds like you have a hard time grasping the freedom of not being tied down by the financial responsibility of owning your own car.

      You haven't considered what happens when you have kids where I live it is illegal now to let them walk to school unescorted under a certain age and they need to be in car seats until 7 years of age. lets see how many autonomous vehicles you will need for school drop off and pick up. with the appropriate child restraint seats. or the worker is he going to unload his vehicle every time he gets home just so it could do its next pick up. Only 2 examples I could keep going. This guy needs to get out of his ivory tower and see how people actually live

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    7. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      You're lucky your zipcar club doesn't have anyone who shits on the seats yet.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I have twins. No WAY would we have installed two car seats EVERY TIME. Wasn't going to happen.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Spacelord · · Score: 1

      Intentionally shackling themselves to a place.

    10. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Spacelord · · Score: 1

      What if you were looking for a job, and the job you'd like to apply for is located 40 minutes away by car, but 2 hours or more by public transport, if it is reachable that way at all? A very common occurrence by the way.

      I'll tell you what happens: you won't apply for that job and limit yourself to your little city island inside the action radius public transport allows you, and someone who does own a car will get that job.

      As for fully autonomous cars, they are just pie in the sky at this moment and I wouldn't be so sure that they will be cheaper to rent than it is to own a car.

    11. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by DogDude · · Score: 1

      I would think that fold-away car seats wouldn't be too far in the future.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    12. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by DogDude · · Score: 1

      In a decade or so, there won't be a wait. You a button on your phone, and a car from the fleet you choose will probably be there in seconds.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    13. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by xevioso · · Score: 1

      What? I too live in SF, and I would never live here without a car. It costs me about 150$/mo, which includes gas.
      It's a snap for me to take a trip to Napa, across the bay to a party, down south to a festival or a camping site, and so on. MUNI here is getting better, and I bike to work and all over town, but to actually have the freedom I enjoy in the bay area, a car is necessary.

    14. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      High density housing along rapid transit corridors.

      Enjoy your little world, sardines.

    15. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've never had to deal with kids in car seats. To start with there are at least 3 different types of car seats in about 5 different sizes and positions. Then each car seat also has multiple strap positions for different size children. You are an example of an idiot who thinks "What's wrong with those parents" when they've never had kids.

    16. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well, wait until those young people have twins or triplets. Installing multiple car seats every ride isn't going to be an option for most people.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    17. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Yes just like taxi cabs are today, I'm sure. And equally as clean.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    18. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The fact is, all these no car ownership ideas are asking for the kind of future world where people have to pay for the privilege of moving about and are restricted to certain zones if they can't afford it. Not to mention having every movement tracked.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    19. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You are using all sorts of words that don't make any sense... driveway? I live in the 'burbs now, but I had two kids in NYC and we did just fine using zipcars and Hertz. We had a cool car seat that converted into a stroller (it was also great at the airport), and the infant seats are really easy to just belt in. Freedom is having every store deliver to your doorman!

      I know you are skeptical because I thought we were nuts for having kids in NYC, but it was actually really a cool place to have very small children. We moved before they got too big, so I can't say how older kids fare. It was pretty safe, but I'm not sure I'd let my 7 and 10 year old wander around like I do in the 'burbs.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      High density housing is for losers.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'm not in the US and safety regulations don't allow convertible car seats like that. All of ours are fairly big and bulky. This leads me to believe your convertible ones were less save than they could have been in the event of an accident.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    22. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're lucky your zipcar club doesn't have anyone who shits on the seats yet.

      First rule of Zipcar club is that anyone who shits on the seats gets kicked out of Zipcar club.

      Really, it's not like public transit. The zipcar people know who had access to the car last, and the zipcar members know they know that, so antisocial behavior is pretty rare.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    23. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by DogDude · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make a lick of sense. What do taxicabs today have to do with fleets of autonomous cars in the near future?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    24. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      you'd like to apply for is located 40 minutes away by car, but 2 hours or more by public transport,

      What? So you get a zipcar for the interview and if you get the job move to a different apartment. Is our life so cushy that this scenario qualifies as a real problem?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your $30-50/day "basically free" sounds ridiculously overpriced, and that $700-1000/mo is some kind of fantasy. I just did the math right now and the total cost of ownership for all vehicles I've ever owned over the 15 years I've been driving, including fuel, purchase price, insurance, and maintenance costs, amounts to about $8/day, under $250/mo, TCO.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    26. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by matbury6017 · · Score: 1

      "Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership." -- So no change in the USA & Canada for the foreseeable future then :P

    27. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I fear car sharing because no convenience comes for free. You are inviting a world where corporations track every movement and possibly even charge premiums to each certain areas.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    28. Re: Not in Africa and all of Asia by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      $35,000 car over 60 months is $600 a month, plus $100 a month in insurance, plus $400 a month for parking. That's totally normal in San Francisco. Even if you buy used you're looking at $200 a month payment. He's talking specifically about urban island effect, that is the cost of living on that "island". I'm glad to hear you have a paid off used car and live where there's ample free parking

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    29. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by DatbeDank · · Score: 2

      That doesn't make a lick of sense. What do taxicabs today have to do with fleets of autonomous cars in the near future?

      One is driven by a smelly man who is eating kebab and had someone vomit in it the night before hastily cleaned up by some minimum wage cleaner. The other is driven by no one and had someone vomit in it the night before which was hastily cleaned up by some minimum wage cleaner.

      The common denominator between both being that fellows humans are gross and I don't want to share my vehicle with gross people. It's why I work hard to own a car and not have to sit on public transit.

      There's a reason why you would probably feel more comfortable licking your car steering wheel than licking the hand bar on a subway or bus. Public transit is uniformally disgusting both in Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

      It will be marginally better than cattle class transit and knowing we won't have to sit in a car with a big greasy dude eating kebab means the future will be just ever so slightly brighter.

    30. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      That's probably going to happen to individually owned vehicles anyway. For example, insurance companies could very well make it really expensive to get auto insurance without you allowing them to track your every move with an app they install into your car. Governments may extend the concept of electronic tolls beyond freeways and impose them everywhere. Car manufacturers seem to already be gearing up to collect your movement data as well.

    31. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well where I am, auto insurance is a public corporation and they don't do stuff like that. Private insurance is crazy because yeah, anything can happen.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    32. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by IcyWolfy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well in the future described, you have to take into account all the implications of the initial assumption.

      As the cost of electric vehicles goes down, as per the article, consumers, most of whom live in their island; will choose to switch to purchasing these more cost-effective vehicles.

      80% of Business activity is within the effective range of a electric car.

      This will spur the reduction of Gasoline car.

      In addition, as the US matures into the "walkable" city concept, LA moving forward with it's LA 2050 project; cars will become second class citizens. Taking note of the rejuvenation caused by the removal of I-480, other cities 2040 and 2050 plans include removal of interstates, and replacing with centralize transportation hubs of busses, trains, and light-rail; in addition to making neighbourhoods a full mix of residential and commercial properties to ensure that vehicle need is reduced.

      To spur this along, various plans have included to give priority access to on-demand cars; transit in numerous cities have switched to a last-mile system, or dynamic routing of busses based on destinations (think Uber-Pool). This is to relieve the former problem of fixed-route transit not meeting needs.

      LA is building dedicated Bus and taxi lanes that are fully isolated (separate on and off ramps) from non-shared traffic.

      Renting is going to become cheaper, like in the rest of the world, where higher density cities basically lower the housing and rental costs as supply increases. And -hopefully- the US-Gov't will step in and remove the Mortgage Interest subsidy that costs the gov't billions, funneling it directly to the Banks. That again will start pushing the trend to lower cost rentals and remove the incentive for home-ownership (which most young people don't particularly desire).

      In your example, if you lived 40min away by car, you would probably move. As that's a huge distance; and if that time is caused by congestion, fixed-rail would yield a better commute.

      The better option, would be to move.

      And this is just one possible out of an infinite number of states that can be obtained in your scenario.

      We had to do 30 year modelling, given "Assume that Car ownership drops to 12% (as in Singapore) over the next 10 years. Assume that this number is reached by increasing registration tax on ownership; follow the Singapore trend-lines where the registration cost of a vehicle is 110% of the market value, a registration winning bid (they are auctioned) at $35,000USD. "
      For your case of "You apply for a job 80 miles away" We would need to write up over 40-50 pages to get the answer. Every leading cause and effect from the initial state need to be addressed; with each effect being the source causes to new effects (reactions, problems, mitigations, behaviour changes, policy changes, etc).

      Your conclusion is naive and simplistic.

    33. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by DavidRawling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK you are close to your job now. But your partner has had to move 40 minutes further away from theirs. How do they get to work and home again? But you'll be OK because you're the only person in the world, right?

    34. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, it is so safe that when Consumer Reports accidentally doubled the test-crash speed in their car seat test, it was the only one (maybe two?) that still managed to pass. It was the "Sin N Stroll" - not sure if it is an option outside the US. It was a really, really shitty stroller - but handy as hell when traveling.

      But if you are in Europe, I believe you do have superior car-seat standards - especially when it comes to side-impacts.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    35. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You are right, but in this case it was a car seat called the "Sit N Stroll" that had retractible wheels.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      FWIW renting at the airport is probably the most expensive place to rent a car, there are local car rental stations around that are cheaper.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    37. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize that your pretend person was married or otherwise attached.

      Since you invented that scenario in your head, why can't you also imagine a scenario where a city dweller has an easier time getting to an interview than someone who lives in the burbs and has to drive in to the city center or park-n-ride at a commuter rail station?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    38. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      With the exception of the car seat stand, my auto is pretty much empty sitting there wasting space in my parking space at the moment.

      It stands to reason that these fleets will have car seats built-in to back seats. That's an obvious direction to go as some vehicles already have them and will be SO much more convenient.

      I have bad vision, with both near-sightedness and presbyopia, and carry no glasses with me. My daily wear contacts with presbyopia correction are awesome. Though I live in Florida, I've never used sunglasses because the bright light coming into my more dilated pupils from the sides kills my eyes.

      Kleenex? Take allergy meds.

      Music? You mean it isn't on your phone? What century are you writing from?

      And, by the way, they are tracking you right now. Give it up.

    39. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Enterprise is about $55 a day if you rent out of their lot here in the Tenderloin blocks outside of downtown SF, $45 a day if you rent out of SFO (san francisco international) and $35 a day in Oakland International or San Jose. On the flip side if you are in Dallas yes it's almost $25 a day to rent from the Ross Ave garage in Downtown, but if you rent at DFW airport it's closer to $50 a day. A lot of people take the DART in to downtown Dallas now and rent in downtown rather than pay airport prices.
       
      Zipcar is between $85 and 115 a day but you only need to walk a block to get to your car in most cases and you get to pick exactly which car you want to drive. I think I'm registered with Getaround too but I've never actually used them, although I see them in all the same garages.
       
      In reality, I use my girlfriend's car, or a coworker's car if I can (once every other month or so) the only time we've rented a car was to go to Tahoe for the weekend. Public transport in the bay isn't super great but it will generally deliver you within walking distance (or barring that, a $5 uber) of your final destination.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    40. Re: Not in Africa and all of Asia by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      You have a point about parking, but good-quality used cars can be had for WAY cheaper than that, and so can insurance. Every car I've ever owned over 15 years add up to about a third of that $35k figure (and it could have been much lower too if I hadn't been a broke-ass stupid kid for part of that time making poor choices about what to buy, when to repair, and how to drive), and since the current car should last me at least another 5-10 years, that "monthly payment" equivalent keeps getting more and more diluted over time. Buying newer cars with loans is for suckers. Wait a few months (if you don't have the savings) and put a couple of those "payments" into a $3,000ish car that will last you another 5-10 years at least.

      And sure you can insure yourself against yourself too, and pay tons of money obligately every month to avoid the possibility of paying a fraction of that to cover yourself making a stupid mistake. Or you can get the minimum legally required insurance and pay a quarter of the figure you quoted, pocket the difference, don't drive stupidly, and if you do fuck yourself up, pay for it out of the piles of cash you saved on insurance.

      Big loans and hefty insurance are scams, and you can live way more cheaply without them, and cover the "services" they provide by yourself with the difference that you save.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    41. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by AJWM · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure that they will be cheaper to rent than it is to own a car.

      Of course they won't be. Somebody has to own that car (ie, the car rental company) and they're going to want to make a profit on their investment. Per mile, it will always cost more to rent than to own.

      Now, an individual might -- by restricting the amount that they drive -- not pay as much out of pocket for that car, because they're sharing the miles with other renters. And for some people that might make sense. But generally not for folks who don't live in extensive densely populated conurbations (aka, "targets", for those who remember the Cold War).

      --
      -- Alastair
    42. Re: Not in Africa and all of Asia by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Before I moved out here, I always bought my cars, typically 20 years old, with 100,000 to 140,000 miles on them, and then drove them until the wheels fell off. For $3,400 or less. Usually averaging $2,200. And then paid $60 a month. I am totally down with spending $0 a month on transportation. Used to do it all the time. Most expensive car I ever bought was a 1998 5 series BMW for $3,600. Drove it until the wheels fell off. It was glorious. Never paid more than liability insurance. As most people should do.
       
      You can totally do this in San Francisco. There is a guy who owns the handicap spot in my building on the third floor, some shitty 1993 Toyota Corolla. Probably bought it in cash twenty years ago, has paid more in parking than it's worth for ten years now. People need reliable transport, need to get to work, don't know what's what about mechanical whosits (I do, I buy used) and are afraid, most people won't buy a car more than 10 years old. Congrats, you totally do own a car thats used and have a low total cost of ownership.
       
      That said, when you're making a full adult salary in SF (120K+) you can afford both an apartment and a nice car, which is approx. $0, so those people do. And then they pay off the car, and all is good. But in the mean time, they're paying that car down. So that's the reality of the situation. There's a lot of BMW dealerships in California for a reason. Not that I endorse buying fancy german cars, but people get good jobs and they want to prove to their family that hey maybe they're doing ok, so they buy the BMW. Whatever. That's pretty normal. For here, at least.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    43. Re: Not in Africa and all of Asia by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I just ride a bicycle though. I use my car money for other projects instead.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    44. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by pr100 · · Score: 1

      By "new car buyers" do you mean "new (car buyers)" or "(new car) buyers"?

    45. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Young people are no longer fascinated by the iron cages stuck in traffic.

      Young people can't afford them. New cars are expensive.

    46. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      I live in the middle europe. Most young people here have a car. It's just not 'buying a new car' because they either buy a used one, or they lease. Btw. Statistics about 'Europe' as a whole are pretty stupid, because the differences between all the european countries are huge.

    47. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Correct statistic but wrong conclusion. Young people are struggling to afford expensive items thanks to the fuckery they got dealt by the greatest generation ever.

    48. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      This is what I have right now. Don't really see it as a problem. Even though using public transportation takes a lot of time, I don't have to endure the daily rush hour wars and don't have to look for a parking spot. I spend that time reading books. I used to cycle to work and back for a few years and it was actually faster than public transport but due to an unrelated injury I can't anymore, which is too bad, because I really miss it (at least the parts where I didn't have to share the road with cars).

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    49. Re: Not in Africa and all of Asia by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      My last car (just scrapped when the fuel pump went) cost me £5000 second hand and lasted me 12 years. Even if we assume 10 years, that's £500 per year + slightly less than that in insurance. So even including maintenance and repairs that doesn't come out at more than £100 per month. My latest car cost me just north of £1500 and will easily last 3 years - so similar costs. These aren't crappy cars either - just not new.

      Parking I can't help you with, but I just don't drive anywhere that's going to rip me off for parking. If I'm going into the city centre I'll just use public transport. When I worked in the city centre I took the train to work. A car does give you a lot of freedom though - you can go where you want when you want.

      I don't have a beef with people that don't want to own cars - I can't wait for self driving so I don't have to bother :). But they also don't have to cost a fortune.

    50. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      ...where I live it is illegal now to let them walk to school unescorted under a certain age and they need to be in car seats until 7 years of age.

      Couldn't you walk them to school? After all, if they were going to walk themselves, wouldn't it be possible for you to talk there as well?

      Anyway, just out of interest - what is the age limit (genuinely just interested).

    51. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by houghi · · Score: 1

      I had a car and sold it. I now have Cambio.be. I live in a city and work in another city. I have not cut down in the places I go. I just save a shitload of money (around 200EUR per month in my case). So I understand the imediate freedom a car can give you and I have that.
      OK, it needs sometimes a little bit of planning, but that gives me 2.400EUR per year, no hasle of maintenance of the car and what not.

      The thing is sharing cars will not reduce traffic. It will reduce the need for parkings.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    52. Re: Not in Africa and all of Asia by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The reason to get good quality insurance is not the risk of fucking YOURSELF up - if that was all, nowhere would insurance be legally required.
      The reason is in case you drive into some rich asshole's porsche-powered limo and suddenly face a debt of two-thousand times your annual salary which you're children will still be paying off decades after you die.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    53. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > "Sin N Stroll"

      Is that like a more relaxed version of the pump-and-dump ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    54. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So instead they wait 2 hours stuck in traffic.

      Seriously. I am in the fortunate position of having a rare and extremely sought after skillset - and my number one demand in job negotiations over my last 4 jobs was: if you expect me to work standard office hours I demand an extra 25% salary over your offer. If you allow me to avoid rush hour - I don't need that.
      Why because working standard office hours means I have an hour commute each way - so to be at the office for 8 hours I have to be away from my family for 10 - and I demand recompense for that time.
      So far, they've all agreed that flexible working hours was the smarter option.

      But- most people are not in the kind of position I am in - most people do not, when jobhunting, have 4 to 5 offers in their mailbox after 2 weeks and the capacity to twist arms before accepting one.

      Most people have to suffer that 25% loss in personal time with no recompense. And if you aren't factoring that into your calculations then your calculations are bullshit. At least if somebody else is driving you can do something during that time - read a good book, watch a movie etc. etc.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    55. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by houghi · · Score: 1

      $85 to $115 per day for Zipcar? Here is what I pay at Cambio.be

      I get my public transport paid by my employee. I walk if I can where I live as parking is a nightmare anyway. The car I take is mostly for doing shopping once a week and for further trips about once a month. Saves me around 200EUR per month compared to owning a car.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    56. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by bogeuh · · Score: 1

      ha, you have it backwards
      city = island with everything on it
      house on the prairie = island with nothing around and no other option than drive your car to another island

      and city people without their own car is not by choice, it's a lack of money, for some things you simply need a car (like once a week)

      but yes, they must be stupid for not doing what you do

    57. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You can have car seats for kids in Europe that can be also strapped into a stroller.
      Not sure if you would call that "convertible". The chassis you have in the trunk, ofc.
      There are even strollers like that, that can be attached to a bicycle.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    58. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I don't think he has a hard time grasping ...
      And you are simply nitpicking about nonsense.

      Some people are like this other are like that.

      You enjoy having your car, fine for you.
      He and I enjoy not needing to care and pay for one.

      Further, considering the extra costs of living in a city, they far out weigh the "financial responsibility of owning your own car"
      In your country? Not in mine. Owning a car costs me about two extra monthly rents, probably more. To lazy to check exactly. And this is owning only, the car has not moved a single yard for that costs.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    59. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Public transit is uniformally disgusting both in Europe, Asia, and the Americas.
      If you think that, you have a mental problem.

      It's why I work hard to own a car and not have to sit on public transit.
      Good for us ...
      I for my part can not stand people with mental problems. I have the strong believe they infect the people around them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    60. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Young people are no longer fascinated by the iron cages stuck in traffic.

      Please, young people can't afford them. Only those with some accumulated wealth, i.e., old people, can slap down five figures for a device that drags your ass from point to point. And, if you live in a city, you don't need one. It's a much different situation outside of major cities, where car-sharing isn't going to work so well.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    61. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You haven't considered what happens when you have kids where I live it is illegal now to let them walk to school unescorted under a certain age
      Why are people writing _idiotic_ comments like this?
      Obviously he has no kids. Or has no such idiotic law.

      What do you care what is "better for him"? What has that to do with "what is better for you"?

      Nothing ... waste of time to argue with someone who has a complete different lifestyle.

      I will never buy a car again ... in Europe I use trains. And if I get "traveling independent" again I buy a motorbike again.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    62. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      For example, insurance companies could very well make it really expensive to get auto insurance without you allowing them to track your every move with an app they install into your car.
      In Europe? Har Har Har Har.
      And for what purpose anyway?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    63. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Ok but my whole premise of this conversation was as a parent of twins and not wanting to install two carseats. So how safe is the double version of this convertable stroller? Or do they not make one, which makes this path of conversation irreverent?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    64. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Per mile, it will always cost more to rent than to own.
      No it won't.

      It depends greatly on the amount of miles you drive per year. I used to drive about 3000 miles, yes three thousand, not thirty thousand. That means owning a car costed me roughly 1$ per mile. If I rent it when I need it, one of the most expensive offers is $300. If I'm in a car sharing company/pool it is $100.

      Car sharing and other renting systems make money because the have the car much better utilized. A car from such a pool probably makes 30,000 miles or 50,000 miles a year. So the cost per mile, for the renter and for the company is extremely low.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    65. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The self driving car model is going to fit right into the taxi driving model we have today... what is not completely clear about this? It seems people have some romantic view about what self driving cars will be like that requires companies to suddenly not care about maximizing profits and for people to suddenly care about the condition of property that isn't theirs.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    66. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      You have to take into the context of the "study". It was performed at a California University. While this may apply in a heavily populated area like SFO or LAX, NYC or even Tokyo, etc., people outside major metropolitan area will NEVER have this happen unless forced upon them. You think I would wait for a vehicle that would take 30-60 min to get from the city to come out to the property with no passengers and then make that same trip back with me in it, then take another one back out and a fourth and final trip back into the city empty again? Not just no but HELL NO is that ever going to be an economically viable solution.

      But we should thank them for the warning of a pending economical collapse of multiple world wide industries in order to achieve this utopian society in such a short time.

    67. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That depends on message resolution, or the meta object protocol.

      However regardless, you put your parenthesizes wrong. I took the liberty to fix it for you:

      (new (car buyers)) or ((new car) buyers)?

      Actually I think you want to send the message "new" then perhaps we better write it like:
      ((car buyers) new) or ((car new) buyers)?

      And removing the misleading "or" we could write:
      ((car new) ((car-buyers) new))

      Hope that helped you with your confusion.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    68. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Cederic · · Score: 1

      My total car ownership cost is $900/year just on insurance, brake pads and tyres.

      Financially owning a car is far from the optimal choice. I own mine for other reasons.

    69. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      LOL, uncle! OK, for the 0.4% of births that result in twins, this might not be optimal. I never shopped for double strollers. For the 99.6% non-twin city dwellers in need of the occasional car ride, it's a solution to your "freedom" complaint.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    70. Re: Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Congrats! You are one of the few people who live beyond the scope of this discussion. Feel free to ignore it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    71. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by houghi · · Score: 1

      That says more about you than about people using the zipcar.
      Sharing of products is a very common thing. The form of payment might differ, but people share goods all the time.
      That is how e.g. hotels and car rental companies make a living.

      And if you do not play by the rules, you are not allowed to play at all.

      I do car sharing and the cars are better maintained and cleaner than any car I ever owned. (Mine where more messy than dirty)

      I know of one person that was banned from abusing the car he had gotten. No more car for him. He also doesn't have enough money to buy one, so he basically fucked himself.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    72. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by mjwx · · Score: 1

      "Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership."

      But In Europe, the average age of new car buyers is already over 50, has been climbing for years.

      Citation?

      Young people are still getting cars, despite the insurance market treating them as a cash cow here in the UK. Most people are leasing new cars instead of buying them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    73. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Yeah so screw the minority right..

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    74. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by sh00z · · Score: 1

      You need to reconsider. My total car ownership cost, less fuel, is $900 per year per vehicle which guarantees all other transport expenses combine to a grand total of $0 USD.

      Nothing else comes close. You don't need a new car. Leases are a way to maximize profits i.e. costs more. Even the concept of renting a car for more than $10 per day is absurd. Be a responsible adult that can take care of themselves.

      It may be inexpensive to *keep* a car you already own, but I can't imagine that comprehensive insurance is less than $750 a year, and while things like batteries, brakes and tires do not have to be replaced *every* year, they do wear out and are expensive. If you've reduced the insurance on your primary driver to liability only, I feel sorry for the wake-up call you've got coming when something bad happens (like being hit by an uninsured motorist).

    75. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Why? To check if you're driving too much, too fast, making dickhead moves, or hanging out at to too many taverns.

    76. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      More drama! Yes, "people with twins" is a historically disadvantaged group worthy of protection. Are "people with 13 children" also a "minority"? Sometimes life has a way of taking away certain options. If arranging for car seats for your twins is so hard, then maybe city life isn't for you. I knew people with twins that did just fine in Manhattan (and that means no car), so there's that. A common trope in Manhattan is that after about 2 there is not study demonstrating that front-facing car seats do any good at all. I don't know if this is true, but we all used it to justify stuffing our kids into cabs.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    77. Re: Not in Africa and all of Asia by tibit · · Score: 1

      As a rule, I buy decent 6 year old used cars for $6-$7.5k total, including travel to the place where I pick up the car, and the return drive, and the state tax. We've got 5 cars over 16 years so far that way, and most middle class people wouldn't need anything more than that. $36k is like 5 cars...

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    78. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Young people are no longer fascinated by the iron cages stuck in traffic.

      Young people are too low on income in Europe these days to afford a new car. The elders are typically much wealthier.

    79. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      My point was, there are many situations where vehicles need to be set up a certain way. Maybe a person has trouble walking and they keep their electric scooter in there. We can pretend the common ownership solution will work and the market will solve the edge cases somehow, but more often than not the market turns its back on all but the least common denominator. This is why I am wary when anyone suggests a massive shift to a certain industry. The only way it can work is with massive government regulation to ensure the minority is taken care of, but regulation isn't working too well on the Ubers and the Air BnBs and everyone complains when they get regulated, so I don't know what the answer is.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    80. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by plague911 · · Score: 1

      You don't think they can track your personal car? You do realize they have camera's that read license plates in a large number of intersections? I laugh at your naivety and belief that you avoid being tracked wherever you go.

    81. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by sp0tter · · Score: 1

      You still wait in traffic like the rest of us. You still have to find a parking spot when you arrive. You still have to get from your parking spot to where you are going. You still have to get back to your parking spot so you can sit in more traffic

      --
      you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy
    82. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by randomlygeneratename · · Score: 1

      Some context: $30-$50 a day isn't so bad if you don't use the car that often. That is the assumption. I lived in SF for a year a while back, and this is accurate. If you had to have the car every day for a month at that rate, it would be quite expensive, but on average I'd use it only 3-4 days. The idea being you only use the car for leisure and a few more difficult errands. The bigger idea is that city dwellers can still enjoy the freedoms of a car, by sacrificing ownership, but it's quite often worth it... you don't have to worry about parking and maintenance.

    83. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Spacelord · · Score: 1

      So now you have escalated the simple problem of "changing jobs" to "changing jobs and moving your entire life over to someplace else". What if you like where you live? What if housing is inferior or prohibitively more expensive near the new workplace? What if the new job is in an office park or industrial zone outside of town in an area where it's impractical not to own a car (with regards to access to shops etc.)?

      You also have to factor in the cost of moving, and if you're a home owner, the cost of closing your mortgage early (yes, banks charge you for that), the hassle of selling your house first plus the stress of having to find a suitable new place in short order.

      And all this, just because you can't bridge that 40 minute commute without a car.

    84. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      We can pretend the common ownership solution will work and the market will solve the edge cases somehow

      No, we don't need to pretend at all - we just need to not get hung up on perfection being the enemy of improvement. It is often very cost-effective to use the best option everyone except the edge cases, and then carve out exceptions as they come along.

      Take public transit as it exists today - most cities will have wheelchair access on buses and maybe even some trains, but anything beyond that and you are not using the normal bus. Instead, they contract out a small fleet of specialized buses or cabs equipped to handle the more severely handicapped.

      So yeah, you might have to pay more than everyone else to maintain your own car - just like you do today. And so will anyone with a special need. You'll still benefit from the traffic reductions and your twins will grow out of car seats before you blink. I know people hate Uber, but that's because they treat the drivers like shit - and they are actively trying to get rid of the drivers. AirBnB's main problem is racial discrimination, and hopefully they'll figure out a way to address that - but at the end of the day it's not AirBnB doing the discriminating, and the expectation that a real estate company can significantly address a huge social problem is a bit unfair.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    85. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Young people are no longer fascinated by the iron cages stuck in traffic.

      No, but taking a drive in the country is something else entirely. I rather enjoy my iron cage with the windows rolled down, the wind in my hair, a long walk on the beach and a cool drink in my hand.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    86. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      No, AirBnB's main problem is that they are treating residential areas like hotels which is bad for the residents around them. So in that case we have made life better for a select few and worse for many more. Uber is just bad all around. Not only to they treat their drivers like shit but they don't conform to safety regulations. I see very little in the way of improvement with any form of technological advance.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    87. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "changing jobs and moving your entire life over to someplace else"

      Right, this is why young people today are living in apartments close to where they work - so it isn't so dramatic to move. I'm definitely not a millennial, but I did the same thing until my wife made me buy a house.

      And all this, just because you can't bridge that 40 minute commute without a car.

      Yes, this particular imaginary scenario is pretty dire for our hero. Can I propose an even more likely imaginary scenario? Mr. GenX has a family of 4 and they live in Happyville, a suburb of Happy City. In no traffic, it's a simple 40-minute commute. Mr. GenX has an opportunity in Happy City, but decides against it because his daily commute would be to rough. Meanwhile, Mr. Millennial lives in Happy City and can walk or ride the bus to this same opportunity.

      I guess it all depends on what you think is more likely - a missed job opportunity in the medium-density suburbs or a missed job opportunity in the high-density city. It probably depends largely on what you do. I know someone who just had to uproot their entire family to split the distance between Manhattan (where her new job is) and Philly (where the husband has his business). Commuting into Manhattan by car is not a realistic option, so they bought a new house near the NJT commuter train. Life sucks sometimes, people make hard choices - let's not pooh-pooh an idea just because it won't fit one specific imaginary scenario.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    88. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      So I have sympathy for people in residential areas who deal with renters - but I kind of have a part of my brain that thinks that our system of landlord-dominated cities is probably not the best way to do things. With that said, it should be pretty easy to crack down on - just search for local listings on AirBnB. If I'm bothered by my neighbor running their place as a hotel, I'll take it up with the township. I have a neighbor that did just that when someone was renting a local property on AirBnB and using it to host big parties. If your locality is not taking action, that's not really a problem with AirBnB.

      Uber the company seems to be run by a guy with serious personality problems, but the concept is sound - frankly, taxi services have no one to blame but themselves for not making a smartphone app and putting some money into computerized dispatch years ago. And taxi companies have been treating drivers like shit for decades. If Uber went out of business today, we'd still have Lyft and whatever other options spring up to replace it. Uber drivers would need to spend all of about 2 hours to become Lyft drivers. And again, once cars are driving themselves the whole operation becomes one of almost pure logistics and the driver

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    89. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize localities had the jurisdiction to ban AirBnB. If that is actually happening then fine. What I have heard is that the AirBnB renters get a slap on the wrist and there are new renters in there the very next weekend. Taxis have made their bed somewhat, but a lot of their cost is there because cities need them to work a certain way for cities to function. There cannot be too many taxis on the road, they need to have certain safety considerations met, they should have a certain amount of accessibility for physically handicapped, etc. If Uber appeared to care about the aspects that make a transportation system work for society as a whole then no problem, but it appears they would rather ignore these things and complain about how inconvenient it all is for them.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    90. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      I pretty much used Zipcar until I came the realization I was spending a total car payment per month on it.

    91. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      A place that's 40 minutes outside of town by car, is considered "far away" by them and they find it hard to grasp the immediate freedom that a car affords you.

      That's what taxis are for. Seriously. I don't have a car, and for those faraway places that are out of reach of public transit you just take a taxi. Much cheaper than maintaining your own car.

    92. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      That's the one thing about Zipcar that I love. I've driven BMW's, Volkswagens, Toyota, Nissan, Honda all the makes.

    93. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Uber doesn't always play by the rules and they will probably suffer in the long-term for that. But we do need to be thankful that they showed us how much better taxis could be. Sometimes regulations drift from protection of the populace to protection of the status quo - and if nothing else, Uber broke the status quo.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    94. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      As a point of comparison I budget $340 for gas, $280 for maintenance/replacement, and $61 for insurance every month. That's for two cars but I live in a fly over state and rarely have to pay for parking. I'm smart so I don't borrow money to buy a car. If I include the purchase price of the cars over the time I've owned them right now that has cost me $563. This number does decrease over time but not by much.

      The total cost of ownership for my 2007 Honda Accord (180,000 miles) and 2000 Toyota 4Runner (190,000 miles) is currently $964 per month. A zip car may seem expensive, but I'm pretty frugal. Owning a car isn't going to be much cheaper then this considering how far my wife and I commute.

    95. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

      Public transit is uniformally disgusting both in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. If you think that, you have a mental problem.

      It's why I work hard to own a car and not have to sit on public transit. Good for us ... I for my part can not stand people with mental problems. I have the strong believe they infect the people around them.

      Trust me, not having to sit next to a peter pan on my commute is worth working an extra few hours a week. Remember: If riding the bus and subway each day to work isn't enough encouragement to change your lot in life then nothing is.

    96. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by orgelspieler · · Score: 1
      Remember, the GP said they live in SF area. Many people there pay rent for their parking space. Sometimes over $200/mo, according to Google. Gas prices are higher there, and you spend a lot of time just stuck in traffic burning fuel and cash. $75/wk in gas isn't unheard of, even for a small car, if your commute sucks. We're up to $500/mo already. I have no idea what insurance premiums are like in SF, but I'll bet they're expensive like everything else. Google says California averages $162/mo!! Holy crap. You're up to $662 before fees, maintenance and depreciation. Depreciation is a big one. You must have already depreciated your car if you have a TCO below $300/mo. Assume about $600/yr in maintenance and fees, and you're up to $1012/mo. I really didn't make any outrageous assumptions either.

      For me, I have no depreciation, my commute is short, my car is cheap to maintain (normally), and there's no such thing as parking rent. My TCO is about $200/mo. People like you and me tend to forget that other parts of the world don't have it as easy.

    97. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      WTF? Why is it illegal to let them walk to school unescorted? What state is that? What's the logic? Safety? Our school buses don't even have seat belts. And kindergartners walk to school all the time. This is one thing the right-wing nut jobs have correct. Pussification is real.

    98. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      I live in California myself, in the area around another of the most expensive cities in the country, Santa Barbara. We don't have the parking insanity that SF has here, thank god, but all the rest of it should be comparable between here and there. Maybe the commute times and distances add to gas costs like you say, too.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    99. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Really? Everyone except you reports a cost around $700/month for a typical car. How are your expenses so much lower than this? Perhaps you miscalculated something?

    100. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Best guess is most people are buying cars far more expensive than they need to be because they want the latest shiny toy or are afraid of some meaningless social stigma from driving a car that's not seen as cool enough.

      [actually reads those links]

      Yep, every single one starts off talking about making car payments and paying off loans before going on to tack on the rest of the stuff. If you're borrowing tens of thousands of dollars at interest on a depreciating asset when you could get the same utility out of an alternative that only costs the equivalent of a few months of such payments in cash, well, there's your problem right there. (And then you're probably over-insuring to protect that precarious "investment", adding even more cost on top of that).

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    101. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If riding the bus and subway each day to work isn't enough encouragement to change your lot in life then nothing is.
      No idea what you mean.
      The only thing better than riding a bus or a subway is living in walking distance to youe job or woring in a home office.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    102. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And how would that be relevant?
      You have no clue about insurances I guess.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    103. Re: Not in Africa and all of Asia by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Were you planning to give away your $35K car after six years? You could buy new every six years (I don't), but in that case the trade-in or resale price on your used car will still be considerable.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    104. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Let's use a real scenario if you prefer. I work in the western suburbs, my wife considerably to the east. My workplace doesn't get good bus service. My wife's does, but that would make her commute about twice as long. We also don't live in an apartment, and selling one house and buying another is pretty expensive.

      No matter what we did, given our workplaces (and we both have very good reasons not to leave where we work), we'd need at least one car.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    105. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      We have two cars for the time reason as well. But I can and have Uber/Lyfted myself to work and my wife can and has bused it. This scenario where if I worked in the city and wouldn't use Uber to go to a job interview is bizarre and contrived, and just because there are people like me and you doesn't mean that there aren't also a lot of people that this scheme works for.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    106. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      You don't think that risky driving behaviors are relevant to insurance risk?

      You don't think that insurers would like to know which customers are more likely to be involved in accidents?

      I think you're the one who has no idea how insurance works.

      Maybe you think that drivers with multiple DWIs on their record pay the same rates as everyone else.

    107. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Me needing a car with child restraints at my house, on days that aren't Saturday and Sunday, at 8am for a journey to school, and then outside the school at 3.30pm for a journey home, is pretty damn predictable. Big Data loves predictable.

    108. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Your perception will change, eventually, after the fines add up and the accumulated points on your licence will free you from bothering about that.

      Just wait until your health/life insurance payments go up by a factor of 10 as the insurance companies get enough data to compare the risk of injury or death in a self-driven car vs in an autonomous car.

    109. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Insurances in Europe have a flat rate for every one. Over years of no accidents you get put into lower brakets.
      If you have accidents you might get put into a higher risk braket.
      No one is spying on you. Hint: it is illegal!

      Maybe you think that drivers with multiple DWIs on their record pay the same rates as everyone else.
      No idea why you think I would know what a DWI is ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    110. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Yep, and the rent is so cheap in places like New York too. NOT!!! I don't know what that dude above was talking about where city rent prices go down?

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    111. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Arrested for Driving While Intoxicated. This tends to have an impact on insurance rates.

      And I don't know why you think I care what insurance companies in Europe do.

    112. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I'm not in the US and safety regulations don't allow convertible car seats like that. All of ours are fairly big and bulky. This leads me to believe your convertible ones were less save than they could have been in the event of an accident.

      I would be suprised if there were huge differences in safety between the various designs. The vast majority of protection comes from keeping the body flying around - the difference between seatbelts and child-seats is remarkably small:

      http://freakonomics.com/2005/0...

      With that said, even a 1% difference in crash outcomes can seem like a huge deal, even if we are talking about a rare event.

    113. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by Spacelord · · Score: 1

      So as I said, you have to become a city dweller on your little city island. Fine if you want to live that way, but I don't. I like my freedom to move around and the freedom to live in a place where I enjoy living, thank you very much.

      Seriously, the reality of it is this:

      Imagine a map where my house is the center. I can draw a circle of approximately 75km radius around my house, and all the places inside the circle can be reached by me within more or less an hour, which I consider my maximum commute time. There are 8 major cities, and several smaller ones within that circle.

      Now if I had to rely on other transportation methods than my car, that radius would suddenly narrow down to around 15km (the furthest I would want to go by bike everyday) and well inside that 75km radius, an array of blips of places that are reachable by public transport including just 2 major cities.

      Another thing you haven't considered is: what about your social and family life? If you place your job at the center of your life and your answer is to pack up and leave to wherever that is, then chances are you wouldn't be able to see friends and family members very often anymore. In my personal case: my parents are getting a bit older, and I enjoy spending time with them while they're still around so I like to visit them once or twice a week. If I moved to where my job is, and had to rely only on public transport, that simply wouldn't be feasible anymore. Visiting them would become a "travelling event" that would require careful planning and forethought instead of "sure, be there in 30 minutes!". The same deal with spontaneously meeting friends or spontaneous trips to wherever. Right now it's 2 in the morning where I live. If I want, I can be having breakfast in Paris before the sun rises.

    114. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      you have to become a city dweller on your little city island.

      I don't understand the logic of your comment. First, in regards to commuting - for one thing, a car is not that large of a range extender. For day-to-day commutes, you are still on an island - just one that is defined by traffic congestion and proximity to highways rather than a public transit network. Perhaps it is different in Europe, but in many major US cities it is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to use your car to commute in to the city center from the suburbs.

      If you aren't talking about commuting, then you would need to willfully ignore rental cars (including car sharing). I don't know if you have something like Zipcar, but you just use the app on your phone to find an available car and take it - I can't believe that is such a burdensome amount of planning. When we lived in NYC, we would "spontaneously" take the Zipcar to see friends in New Jersey, or to hit the Target, or whatever. In addition, it was parked in a garage a lot closer than where we would be able to afford to keep a car.

      Finally, it sounds like you are a lot more encumbered than you seem to think. You feel stuck where you are because of your ties to friends and family. In contrast, a single city dweller in a rented apartment is pretty free to move wherever opportunity arises. Which one of you is stuck on an "island"? I'm not judging your choices - whatever makes you happy. Like I said, I'm now married, have kids, I'm suburban, and we have 2 cars. But you are writing off a whole idea based on your own narrow experience.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    115. Re:Not in Africa and all of Asia by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That has no effect on rates in Europe.

      The driver is a "black box" from the point of view of the insurance company.

      Unless he is not guilty or partly guilty in a car accident his rates wont change.

      And I don't know why you think I care what insurance companies in Europe do.
      Because no one cares what insurance companies in the US do ... the planet has 7 billion people and you are only 400,000,000.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. clean by bugs2squash · · Score: 5, Funny

    These morons at Stanford haven't factored in the imminent executive order mandating coal-fired SUVs.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:clean by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, where I live, the electric vehicles are all coal-fired.

  5. real title for this "stanford not in real world" by sittingnut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if /. still had the kind of editors that once made it great, it would not be posting such an article uncritically.
     

  6. BWAHAHAHAHA! by Chas · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh wait! He's serious?

    *Explodes in unending laughter.*

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      What's hilarious is that there is actually a really nice autonomous vehicle lab at Stanford (CARS). I've been to it and talked to the director there. They're nowhere, nowhere near ready for prime time, and this guy has dealerships vanishing by 2024.

    2. Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

      No the professor didn't claim that, some moron journalist fucked it up and then the submitter exaggerated it. The professor is likely responsible for the intelligent parts of the story like all new car sales will be electric in 8 years. He likely has the numbers to back it up. Also the price of oil will collapse and it will strand the assets of oil extraction companies, but not in 8 years. It will take a bit longer since most cars last 9 years (Ontario, Canada where we have winter and salt that destroys cars). The journalist then probably added the "pay for disposal of cars since he is to poor to own a car and doesn't know they are made of metal". The submitter pulled the title out of his ass.

    3. Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! by Evil+Kerek · · Score: 1

      Pretty much how I reacted. That's just...stupid. It's really beyond time for tenor to stop and the government to stop giving any kind of support to these dumbass colleges.

    4. Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      If tenor stops, what will we do with our vehicles?

    5. Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! by Evil+Kerek · · Score: 1

      ARGHHHHH Knew that didn't look right when I typed it. NICE!

    6. Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >The problem with the statement that they're "nowhere near ready for prime time" is that it's demonstrably wrong unless you define "ready for prime time" to mean something other than "already on the public streets, driving themselves in traffic" because that's the actual current state of self-driving cars.

      Beta testing isn't the same as release.

      They're driving on streets at extremely low speeds, and stopping entirely when they get confused.

      >So, that almost makes me curious as to what it's supposed to mean.

      As I said, I visited the CARS center at Stanford last semester. They're doing lots of interesting things, but they're still at an early stage in the engineering cycle. They've found that, for example, when you have a fully autonomous vehicle the driver gets distracted and is much more likely to cause an accident in case he has to take over in an emergency. So they're trying to solve that problem with eye tracking systems and alerts and such.

  7. Safe by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >"Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond"

    And those of us who ENJOY driving, especially motorcycles (which can likely never be self-driving) are royally screwed. But hey, I suppose a super-safe and boring life is so much more meaningful than a a free and enjoyable one with some risk....

    Oh, make sure to ban bicycles and pedestrians too. Then start banning skateboards, roller skates/blades, horseback riding, skydiving, mounting climbing, target shooting, football, skiing, dogs, game consoles, whatever. Life is just not safe, you know.

    1. Re:Safe by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we'll let you drive on the self-driving car test tracks, complete with the random obstacles the self-driving cars are supposed to face, like a schoolbus full of orphaned future cancer-curing researchers magically appearing 3 feet in front of you, while a whole fleet of grannies just happen to wander out into the other lane from an alternate plane of existence.

      Actually, it's highly likely that there'll be places you can "go for a leisurely drive". I'm looking forward to that because it certainly beats the fuck out of the status quo where i'm stuck behind an asshole "going for a leisurely drive" at 10 miles under the speed limit because they've got fuck all to do with their time.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Safe by Imrik · · Score: 1

      In my experience, people out for a leisurely drive are more likely to be going 10 over than 10 under. It's the people that don't enjoy driving that get so freaked out that they can't do the speed limit.

    3. Re:Safe by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      motorcycles (which can likely never be self-driving)

      BMW, Honda, and Yamaha have already built them. The future is here, and it looks boring as hell.

    4. Re:Safe by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"BMW, Honda, and Yamaha have already built them. The future is here, and it looks boring as hell."

      Not really, they have developed self-balancing motorcycle prototypes and low-speed, unmanned following concepts. That is not the same as a "self-driving motorcycle" which would have to fight the driver's positioning and weight while driving at high-speed. I don't doubt it will eventually come, but I suppose I should have reworded what I said- that really isn't motorcycling driving and I can't imagine it would be any fun at all (which means your last sentence certainly would be true).

    5. Re:Safe by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      How about we just do what we do with everything else; allow people their freedom and penalize them if they hurt someone with it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Safe by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"I don't care if you hurt yourself, but drivers regularly hurt other innocent people. If self-driving cars really work out his well, then yes, you will not be allowed to put other at risk for your own driving pleasure."

      So you don't think a bicyclist suddenly pulling out in front of a self-driving car couldn't hurt someone else; causing it to veer out of the lane or malfunction in a way that could hit someone else or cause harm to the occupant? Or a target shooter harming someone else by accident? Or a dog biting someone? I think many of my examples are perfectly valid even about hurting "innocent" people. My point is that it is impossible to make the world perfectly safe, and by doing so, it sucks all the fun and enjoyment out of it.... even if your goal is only to try and absolutely protect people from each other.

      Motorcycles[/clylists] actually cause very few accidents. And the people that get hurt are overwhelmingly the motorcyclists themselves. Cars drivers probably hurt motorcyclists 1,000+ times more than motorcyclists harm car drivers. If human-operated motorcycles remain on the roads with mostly or totally self-driving cars, it should probably be just fine. But I can see where things like this lead.

    7. Re:Safe by swillden · · Score: 1

      And those of us who ENJOY driving, especially motorcycles (which can likely never be self-driving) are royally screwed.

      I expect there will be a vast expansion in motorsports, and even probably roads set aside for sporting use, including nice windy mountain mountain roads through beautiful scenery. Driving for sport/pleasure won't go away, just driving for transportation.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Safe by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There are a vast number of people here that think camera plus a computer automatically means an infallible device. I mean it can think faster than a human so it has to be able to do everything right? Even be safe in situations where a pedestrian pops out just in front and someone has to get injured.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Safe by bidule · · Score: 1

      Roujin Z is the only safe way to travel.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    10. Re:Safe by xbytor · · Score: 1

      At least we will still have Sarcastaball...

    11. Re:Safe by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Informative

      But hey, I suppose a super-safe and boring life is so much more meaningful than a a free and enjoyable one with some risk....

      The problem is that the risk isn't just to YOU, the driver, out enjoying the freedom of a recreational drive. The risk is to pedestrians, passengers of other, self-driving, cars, bicyclists, and anyone else on the road. If self-driving cars are practical and the only reason for driving a car yourself is for pleasure, is it reasonable to expect all those other people to put their lives at risk so you can enjoy that pleasure?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    12. Re:Safe by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Almost every day the guy/gal in front of me entering the highway merges doing about 45. This despite the longest merge lane you've ever seen and the highway averaging about 65. 50% of the time they are either texting or chatting on the phone. When I manage to be the first in line at the red light, it's like winning pole position for all the joy it brings me.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Safe by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You cite horseback riding, that's a good example.
      Horseback riding has lost almost all its practical value, and even when it is allowed, we don't see many horses on the road. It doesn't mean those who enjoy riding are screwed. They just do it in specially designed places.
      If self driving cars become the norm, people who enjoy driving will end up in places more adapted to their hobby, like race tracks.

    14. Re:Safe by quantaman · · Score: 1

      >"Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond"

      And those of us who ENJOY driving, especially motorcycles (which can likely never be self-driving) are royally screwed. But hey, I suppose a super-safe and boring life is so much more meaningful than a a free and enjoyable one with some risk....

      Oh, make sure to ban bicycles and pedestrians too. Then start banning skateboards, roller skates/blades, horseback riding, skydiving, mounting climbing, target shooting, football, skiing, dogs, game consoles, whatever. Life is just not safe, you know.

      Feel free to take whatever risks you like.

      Just don't hit me with your hurling metal chunk of death machine.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    15. Re:Safe by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it will be banned I think it will just fall out of favor.

      I mean sure you could drive yourself but why bother?

      Motorcyclists have much more to fear from human driven cars than self driving cars.

      Hey self driving cars might even stop for motorcyclists wouldn't that be nice?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    16. Re:Safe by geekmux · · Score: 1

      >"Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond"

      And those of us who ENJOY driving, especially motorcycles (which can likely never be self-driving) are royally screwed. But hey, I suppose a super-safe and boring life is so much more meaningful than a a free and enjoyable one with some risk....

      If humans could learn to put down their booze, their pills, and their fucking cell phones, people might actually be able to enjoy a meaningful life without being maimed or killed by an idiot behind the wheel.

      Slap-on-the-wrist punishments sure as shit aren't helping either.

      Oh, make sure to ban bicycles and pedestrians too. Then start banning skateboards, roller skates/blades, horseback riding, skydiving, mounting climbing, target shooting, football, skiing, dogs, game consoles, whatever. Life is just not safe, you know.

      You're likely going to be free to engage in whatever unsafe activity you want to. Just be prepared to pay much more for your insurance premiums. All of them. I mean, think of all the starving lawyers...

    17. Re:Safe by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >I don't think it will be banned I think it will just fall out of favor.

      Perhaps... or insurance will make it unaffordable, which is kinda the same thing.

      >I mean sure you could drive yourself but why bother?

      You are obviously not a motorcyclist or you wouldn't say such a thing :)

      > Motorcyclists have much more to fear from human driven cars than self driving cars.

      That is very true.

      >Hey self driving cars might even stop for motorcyclists wouldn't that be nice?

      There would be great advantages for human-driven motorcyclists in a world where most or all of the cars are computer-driven.

    18. Re:Safe by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >Driving is unsafe to *others* as opposed to skydiving or skiing.

      And my other examples that DO involve being a danger to others?

      > And I won't even ask where you were going with game consoles.

      They pose serious RSI danger and can develop anti-social behavior and sometimes addiction.

      >You'd better hope dumbasses are not going to be banned.

      Then I wouldn't be able to enjoy reading such comments?

    19. Re:Safe by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And those of us who ENJOY driving

      Who the hell enjoys driving inside a city. Go into the country, go on a race track, go up a mountain. But I guess there are some people who get hard on having their wives tie them up and whip them till they bleed, so I suppose the joyous wonders of being stuck at lights, cut off by arseholes, and generally not moving while inhaling idling fumes from stationary vehicles appeals to some.

      Those of us who enjoy driving (myself included) don't enjoy what they are proposing to ban.

    20. Re:Safe by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You do realise that the speed limit is the upper limit, not the lower limit?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    21. Re:Safe by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Since we explain everything here with a car analogy, let me explain cars to him with a sex analogy.

      When you only think about the personal pleasure of driving (for you - I and many other people hate every second we have to spend doing it) - you're thinking like somebody masturbating. It only affects yourself, the risk of injuring yourself is minimal and while I some people may judge you and think it's a sad way to get your pleasure - we have no cause to actually try and stop you doing it.

      But driving is not, at all, like masturbation. Driving is like having sex -there are other people involved, there are risks to all of them - and unless all the people involved consented you aren't allowed to do it. Among the many reasons for that - is the fact that you aren't allowed to subject OTHER people to risks they didn't consent to. And driving isn't just having sex - it's a fucking orgy involving hundreds or even thousands of other people.

      We have every right to institute things to minimize the risks involved - hence we have traffic signals, laws of the road, speed limits and licensing requirements.
      If the possibility comes to almost entirely eradicate that risk by removing fallible human judgement from the equation - we as the other thousand participants have every right to demand that. Just like the participants in a thousand-man orgy would have every right to demand you wear a condom and no amount of you saying it wil reduce your personal pleasure would justify not wearing one if the other people involved demand it.

       

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    22. Re:Safe by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Infallible ? No.
      Less fallible than human drivers ? Guaranteed.

      Because that's an incredibly low bar. Human drivers are shit. You don't even have to make a GOOD self driving car to be better than humans - and the standards being chased are so far beyond human ability its not even a comparison.

      You could probably MATCH human capacity at driving with a 100-line python script written by a first-year literature student on the very first computer he has ever touched.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    23. Re:Safe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Countries like France or Italy will never ban "motor cycles".
      However they might demand that they become electric.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Safe by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder where you live. Because in ten years of driving I have never gone a day without seeing at least 3 accidents, and I doubt I've gone a week without seeing at least one where it was absolutely obvious that nobody inside the vehicle could possibly have survived.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    25. Re:Safe by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I live in Canada. Maybe we have better drivers. I look at our roads though and there are no lines, there are still gravel roads in our city, treacherous driving in the winter with ice and snow and front end loaders and graters everywhere. Still I see an accident in the winter maybe once a month, and I don't see automated driving being able to handle it any time soon.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    26. Re:Safe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Even be safe in situations where a pedestrian pops out just in front and someone has to get injured.
      Actually pedestrians don't pop up in front just like that. Secondly situations were a pedestrian might "occur from somewhere" can be anticipated. Humans are often to distracted to anticipate that and slow down "just in case", or they can not be bothered to "slow down just in case".
      And one thing is certain: if a pedestrian "pops up" in front of a car, the self driving car will have the faster reaction and break faster.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re:Safe by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised. Canada's reputation for politeness is quite well deserved, and one of the number one things that make driving safer is doing it politely. But sadly, most of the world is not like Canada in this respect - and technology tends to be a LOT easier to change than people.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    28. Re:Safe by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So say a cyclist rides out from behind a bus or other large solid object, if it needs to stop so quickly that it will injure the driver or stop less quickly and injure the pedestrian (or cyclist) then which will it choose? Well we get to know the policy that the automated car uses before we trust it with our family members?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    29. Re:Safe by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Not really. People are easier to change, that is what government is for. The problem in America seems to be that Americans don't want government interfering in your lives. Here we don't mind if the government creates regulations for us because we realize it protects us from the people who are inconsiderate assholes and it is harder for people to regress to that state.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    30. Re:Safe by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well the contradiction to your first sentence is right there in the second sentence.

      Technology on the other hand - as long as you are within the laws of physics - that just takes a determined engineer.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    31. Re:Safe by houghi · · Score: 1

      (which can likely never be self-driving)

      You are wrong

      And in many places skateboarding, roller skates/blades, horseback riding and the rest are not allowed in great parts of the city.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    32. Re:Safe by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      You do realise that the speed limit is the upper limit, not the lower limit?

      Not in my area.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    33. Re:Safe by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well, dislike of the government is another American thing.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    34. Re:Safe by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      If self-driving cars are practical and the only reason for driving a car yourself is for pleasure, is it reasonable to expect all those other people to put their lives at risk so you can enjoy that pleasure?

      Mixed horse and car traffic is risky as shit, but we still allow riders and buggies on the road.

    35. Re:Safe by mjwx · · Score: 1

      >"Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond"

      And those of us who ENJOY driving, especially motorcycles (which can likely never be self-driving) are royally screwed. But hey, I suppose a super-safe and boring life is so much more meaningful than a a free and enjoyable one with some risk....

      That will never happen. We haven't even banned horses and they've been replaced for nearly 100 years in many countries.

      Manual control of vehicles will face a massive backlash if banned because many people will perceive autonomous cars as driving slower than they do because they follow the road rules.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    36. Re:Safe by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      It is reasonable, yes. It is also reasonable as a driver to expect cyclists and pedestrians to not act like the roads aren't full of huge moving pieces of iron.

      Risk management is a team effort. If we ban drivers we might as well ban everyone from the roads entirely unless they're inside an autonomous vehicle.

      What do you think is going to happen when kids catch on that if they jump in front of an auto-vehicle, that that vehicle swerves in another direction into a wall? I'll let you think about that. Have fun figuring out who's accountable for every incident too, humans are crafty little fuckers. Especially the children.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    37. Re:Safe by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      There have been fatalities in Texas with horses and riders being struck by large vehicles. In some jurisdictions horses aren't allowed on any roads, in others they have the right of way everywhere but highways. Seems to me they should be allowed anywhere a bicycle is.

    38. Re:Safe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why people come up with such idiotic scenarios I can not comprehend.
      The car will stop. What else would it do?
      How you think the driver of the car could be injured is beyond me.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    39. Re:Safe by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If a pedestrian pops out in front of me, I'm going to hit him. At least with my current vehicle the car will be able to hit the brakes faster than I can.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    40. Re:Safe by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If a car stops suddenly enough, the seatbelt can still cause serious bruising. The airbag can go off which can do the same.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    41. Re:Safe by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"However they might demand that they become electric."

      Fine with me! As long as they don't require it until they are at least as powerful as a 1400cc and with a 240 mile range :)

      Although it would make more sense to ban NEW sales, rather than ban everything outright.

    42. Re:Safe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That will be for new sales of course.
      ICE cars are taxed badly, so you have incentive to change.
      I guess the power is right now not a problem, range still might be, though.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    43. Re:Safe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I doubt you can get bruises from the seat belt during an emergency break. And most definitely no "serious ones". The air back should never trigger, unless you hit something.

      There are not many cars with serious breaking power, only a Porsche comes to mind.

      Anyway, would you not rather trade in some bruises for saving the person in front of you?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    44. Re:Safe by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Yes I think due to the pool of insured drivers decreasing the cost of insurance will go up.

      I was referring to cars.
      People drive motorcycles for the experience or for the lower cost so I think it's unlikely we will see a self driving motorcycle I just don't think there is a market for it even if you made one.

      I think alternate transportation like motorcycles bicycles and whatever else will become much more popular as insurance rises on cars and safety of alternate modes of transportation improves as a result of fewer human driven cars.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    45. Re:Safe by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Of course they will be slower they are intended to get you from point A to point B alive.

      Although if they get the car to car communication done right they should end up being faster than human drivers could safely be.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    46. Re:Safe by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Second hand smoke directly affects the health of other people.
      Smoking? Aside from the ever increasing taxes and more places you aren't allowed to smoke not much is being done about it. Smoking is currently falling out of favor to vaping due to lower cost, better variety, lower health risks and fewer restrictions on usage by location.
      As to cigarette smokers the world is their ashtray as shown by the large number of cigarette butts found everywhere.

      Cars? We aren't even close to having issues with this except where emission standards are concerned.

      Alcohol? We've been over this prohibition was a spectacular failure I don't think anyone wants to try that again we are still slowly overturning alcohol bans county by county today.
      In a couple years we will even be able to buy full strength beer and wine at walmart here thanks to the passage of SQ792.

      Healthy diet? What you mean that BS that they keep trying to push for the school lunches? There is not really much of a push to restrict what is to be sold as food there are however some states doing things like a soda tax to try to get people to cut down on the sweets some. but I don't see anyone trying to force healthy diets partly because that's actually a fairly difficult subject.

      Remember how wrong the food pyramid turned out to be?
      Someone would have to define what would actually considered a healthy diet and then in 10 years they would have to redo it because of how many people died following their lobbyist written healthy diet.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    47. Re:Safe by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, power is easy to manage with electricity. Range is always the issue (well, and weight). Weight and size is really a problem for motorcycles- so a powerful-enough motorcycle with reasonable range will likely have to wait for a major battery breakthrough that can double to quadruple density for the same weight/volume.

      Overtaxing is almost the same as banning, so that wouldn't be good either. The best way is to offer compelling alternatives and just give it time. It is not like [modern] motorcycles use much fuel or contribute much to pollution (mine has EFI, O2 sensor, CAT).

    48. Re:Safe by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There are actually some quite nice electric motor bikes meanwhile.
      Unfortunately quite expensive: http://charged.io/best-electri...

      None has a "travel range" only "fun ranges", good enough to commute to work or use it a day or two in a city without recharging, but e.g. not suitable to travel 500km.

      http://charged.io/best-electri...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Someone check what he's invested in by bferrell · · Score: 2

    I've seen this before. It's a variant of pump and dump... Except there is no dump.

    When I see these, there is a presumption that the populace will simply abandon billions they have invested, collectively, in rolling stock.

    Not gonna happen

    1. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by dargaud · · Score: 1

      It happened in photography. All amateurs and pros in the early 2000 were all like "digital photography sucks. Quality sucks. It's more expensive than film. Etc... I'm not changing." Then after a certain number of early adopters and above all a certain threshold of quality/price, the change happened in the space of 2 years. Brand new film cameras that had a lifetime of well over a decade and previous high resale value suddenly dropped to near zero. In the meantime there were new digital models every 6 months so they had no resale values whatsoever. After a decade the market finally stabilized and now oldish digital cameras do have some resale value, similar to film cameras 2 decades ago, but film cameras are completely gone, I don't think there's a single model still being manufactured (the pricey Nikon F6 was the last one for a long time). So, yes, it can and it certainly will happen overnight.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      There is a big difference between $3000 (moderate DSLR) and $30000 (base electric vehicle). Your analogy also falls a bit flat in that there are lots of other bits of the transportation infracstructure that work off of petroleum rather than electrons. In eight years your aren't going to see electric based container ships, 18 wheelers and aircraft.

      Will electric make deep inroads into consumer driving? Sure. Eventually. Will automated driving replace meatbags? Probably. Eventually.

      Not in a decade. Maybe 20 or 30 years but not in a decade.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Not many people spend $20K plus on a film camera, nor are cameras critical to personal freedom as personal vehicles are.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Not a bad analogy but you are leaving out an important point. There is a HUGE a difference between:

      * the Canon Digital Rebel jump starting the market selling @ $1,000 and other "prosumer" digital cameras continuing to get cheaper and cheaper and racing towards bottom-of-the-barrel
      * autonomous vehicles pricing. New cars have never had cut as drastically as digital cameras and that isn't going anytime soon.

      Will autonomous vehicles be eventually realized? Yes, but not for another decade or two.

    5. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by dargaud · · Score: 2

      You are correct that electric vehicles and automated driving are two different beasts and transitions to them won't necessarily happen at the same time. But to continue my analogy, there was a large infrastructure of photo shops, selling you film, processing your rolls, making your prints, etc, that almost entirely disappeared. Seen the disappearance of the current gas station in a short time would not be so surprising. It depends if they can transform into electric stations or if you'll be able to find charging cable everywhere (parking lots, on residential streets, etc). Once people figure out that they can fill up for 1$ instead of 1000$ and that they can sleep or watch porn on their commute instead of driving, the Rubicon will have been passed.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    6. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Yes because car companies will suddenly stop wanting to make as much profit as they do today.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by glenebob · · Score: 1

      I believe this is about right. I have likened it to flat panel monitors. One day they were two expensive and not quite good enough, and a few months later you couldn't buy a CRT if you had to.

      I suspect "over night" for passenger cars will be more in the five to ten year range, but I absolutely do believe that once the transition starts in earnest, it will be very quick. Just like monitors and digital cameras, they will reach the good enough, cheap enough point, and the ICE car will die. When the price and range issues diminish enough, the mountain of benefits will be quickly overwhelming.

    8. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by glenebob · · Score: 1

      There's no reason electric cars can't/won't be just as profitable as ICE cars are now. The battery is the only part on the expensive side. Most of an electric car is the same as an ICE car, and the drive-train is (or will be shortly) much cheaper to design and manufacture.

    9. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between $3000 (moderate DSLR) and $30000 (base electric vehicle).

      Sure there is - my 1970s AE-1 still works as well today as it did 40 years ago. Sure it's had repairs to the auto exposure circuit and the film feed, but it's exactly as useful today as it was in the 70s. The same is not true of a 40-year-old car without major restorations, probably at least twice by now.

      My point is, for the vast majority of us, cars are worthless after about 10 years or so - so the idea that I'll be resistant to change is not going to come from my attachment to my depreciating investment. My camera, on the other hand, is now a paperweight, despite functioning perfectly.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So you're willing to bet the industry will survive based on nothing more plausible than the entire population committing the sunk-cost fallacy ?

      I don't think that's a smart bet myself.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    11. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Cars are in no way critical to personal freedom.
      Unless you stupidly imagine that nobody had any personal freedom until the 1920s (before which only a tiny number of people ever saw a car let alone drove one).

      Cars didn't even increase personal freedom. No. Not even a little.

      All it offered was an illusion of more freedom and the only thing they are critical for is maintaining that illusion.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Sure, because before cars people owned horses. But what is new is being beholden to private corporations to drive us around. This is what will limit our personal freesoms. Not the lack of cars, but complete inability to obtain a form of transportation ourselves. In fact, from what I see public transportation is threatened as well so we will be basically be paying a tax to a company to get to work every day.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Actually - most people did not own horses - certainly not in the cities. There was an entire industry of livery stables where people rented them on demand and a massive taxi industry using horse-drawn carriages as well.

      A horse was expensive to keep, required a stable, somewhere to feed it and significant care: the vast majority of people could not afford one.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure what you say isn't true. At one time New York had 200,000 horses, that's lots of personal ownership. Farmers had horses. At the beginning of the great depression people used horses because they were cheaper than cars. At any rate, corporations are far worse for the economy then they were back then if you want to go that way. They suck far more money out of local economies without giving back then they ever have.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    15. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I looked it up. There was between 100-thousand and 200-thousand horses in New York in 1900, nobody knows the exact number but let's use the upper-estimate (your value).
      New York population in 1900: 3.4 million.

      So at the height of New York horse ownership, if every horse had been private owned- only one in every 17 people would have owned a horse, and of course a lot of those horses were not owned by one private individual, more often one person own many horses, so far fewer than every 17th person could possibly have owned one.
      And of course that's generously using the upper estimate - the real number would be even lower.

      Now what you say about corporations is true - and a valid concern, but there are ways to around that which don't require sacrificing the benefits. Like a regulatory environment which would benefit smaller businesses serving your region over large nation-wide corporations or franchises (there are other ways for those who hate regulations - it's just one example).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    16. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by bferrell · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet against a rich mans fantasy that all the poor people will walk away from what they have in favor of spending money they don't have to replace what they do have.

    17. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Photo shops disappeared largely without replacement. I can order a digital camera from Amazon and take pictures and look at them without dealing with any brick-and-mortar store. Gas stations will require large-scale replacement. There will have to be more chargers than gas pumps, since it takes a lot longer to pump electrons. The electrical grid will need changes to support all the car charging. It will still happen sometime, but it's going to be a lot slower than the vanishing of film.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:Someone check what he's invested in by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      In eight years your aren't going to see electric based container ships, 18 wheelers and aircraft.

      Tesla released a teaser photo of their all-electric semi tractor April 30th, 2017. They've already built prototypes. Elon Musk reports driving one himself, and commented about how lively it is when not pulling a trailer. The full unveil is expected some time this fall. I expect it to be substantially expensive, but I doubt it will be spectacularly so. Tesla couldn't hope to sell them if it was. And Elon specifically stated that it is designed to compete directly with existing semi tractors in both hauling capacity and range. I, much like other people, don't see how this could be, but they've built something, so apparently they know something we don't. We will know more this fall.

  9. Slashdot Feature Request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What Slashdot needs is a feature where articles that make predictions like this, can be saved off in some special place. Then, when the date for these predictions comes due, we can all reflect back on how truly inspired these predictions were. Or more likely, laugh at them. Something similar to the "This day on Slashdot" section on the right hand side of the main page.

    1. Re:Slashdot Feature Request by zlives · · Score: 1

      why wait, laugh now.

  10. Next year by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

    all cars will have holes in the sides.

    --
    slashdot: A failed experiment.
    1. Re:Next year by Joosy · · Score: 1

      Reminded me of the Volkswagen ad from 1974: 1949 Auto Show

      --
      I'm sick and tired of these hip, "ironic" sigs. This is an actual, honest-to-goodness no-nonsense sig!
  11. Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Will there even be enough charging stations for people to travel all lengths of highway in North America with EVs? Assuming they're willing to stop that long to charge every 400 miles. Do we think this will be a solved problem for semi-trailers in that time?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Won't the ICE vehicles being bought today last at least 8 years?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Charging stations? by tomxor · · Score: 1

      statistically it's not a problem because 90% of all driving is very short distances and 99% of a car's life is spent in the driveway or in a carpark (aka charging station). long trips are the exception, (i'm not saying that 90% of people don't do it at all) but it's worth considering the immense conveniences and long term economy of an electric for that initial inconvenience as charging and storage tech evolve.

    3. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I don't care how convienent or cheap it is. If I buy a vehicle, I buy it with all uses in mind. If a vehicle is going to be limited to short trips then I can't spend money on it, period.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Charging stations? by zlives · · Score: 1

      i guess their point (fallible) is that no one will be "buying" cars just renting use... because renting is cheaper. i mean that's why no one owns homes any more.

    5. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      IF I wanted to rent a car I would rest a car right now and save on all that wear and tear in my current car! The fact is, my kids make a mess and I would never have them in a rental for a long period of time. Much more comfortable in my own car.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Charging stations? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      For long-distance driving, you have the "peleton" approach, where you could easily have a a truck providing power to re-charge a series vehicle traveling together on the highway. Truck charges for x hours and discharges for ~30 minutes along a designated corridor. Not an especially difficult problem if all the cars are EVs, even if it is just a range extender. Very few people drive more than 600 miles in a day non-stop.

    7. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Sounds fairly far fetched. how is the truck going to be in the right place to service everyone on the highway going from random point A to random point B? Also, how long will the charge stop be compared to a gasoline fill? Will the hotels all have an EV charger in every spot or once getting to my destination will I need to fight the other travelers for the three chargers available? I'm not saying it's not doable, but there are certainly be many problems to be solved.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Charging stations? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      No amount of charging stations can fix the *rate* they can charge: a Tesla supercharger fills a battery at 120 kW, while an everyday gas pump fills a gas tank at ~20 MW.

    9. Re:Charging stations? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      no one owns homes anymore because the cost of housing has skyrocketed while incomes have stagnated so nobody can buy a home anymore. instead they rent cheaper smaller units of housing that simply aren't available to purchase. (most of my adult life I could only afford to rent a bedroom in someone else's house. you can't buy just a bedroom in a house. now I live in a mobile home on rented land. you can't buy just a plot of land that size to park a mobile home on.) someone owns that rented-out housing, and they are making a profit off of everyone else in doing so, or else they wouldn't be in the business of it.

      if renting was actually cheaper overall than owning, then nobody would want to be a landlord -- landlords have to pay the cost of ownership, and get paid the cost of rent, so if the latter is less than the former there's no business to be had there. so they would sell off their rental housing en masse, which would increase supply and decrease price of available housing to purchase until a new equilibrium was met.

      renting is necessarily more expensive than owning. it cannot be otherwise.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    10. Re:Charging stations? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Stanford is located in Palo Alto. Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the country where it actually is cheaper to rent than buy

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    11. Re:Charging stations? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Pick a given Interstate, designate 30-mile stretches every 60/90 miles where a charging truck runs every 15 minutes. Predict if car wants/needs charge at a given location, make a "reservation," and adjust speed to meet with the peleton for a sufficient period to provide adequate charge until the next peleton.

      The whole premise though is that the cars are self-driving. If you are going to sleep 8 hours, the self-driving cars can "fight with each other" for the chargers, and they don't necessarily need to be at the hotel.

    12. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So you're assuming there is data and/or phone service to book a reservation with?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re:Charging stations? by shilly · · Score: 1

      It's just a different model. No matter how fast a filling station is, it's never as quick or convenient as plugging your car in each evening and waking up to it being fully charged in the morning. That model of charging works for many millions of people with driveways (but not everyone, of course) and would be the default mode of recharging for 90%+ of journeys (certainly the case for me with my little Renault Zoe, except the ratio is even higher -- I've used public charging stations twice in 18months).

    14. Re:Charging stations? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Will there even be enough charging stations for people to travel all lengths of highway in North America with EVs?

      Yes.

      There was a time when there were no gas stations. Long distance travel was done via railroad. Then cars became popular, and we built enough gas stations to cover the country.

      Same with charging stations. There are not enough yet, but supply will meet demand.

    15. Re: Charging stations? by shilly · · Score: 1

      *You* call *me* retarded and yet you pick the edge case of having an *800 mile journey* to try to refute what I was saying, while specifically ignoring that I accounted for the edge case of longer journeys in the answer you responded to.

      To spell it out for you, 85% of miles travelled by road in the US are for journeys of 100 miles or less. For obvious arithmetical reasons, the % of trips that journeys of 100 miles or less will be even higher. Well, I say obvious, but you're the kind of dumbfuck who will probably struggle to follow that kind of arithmetical reasoning.

      Of trips above 100 miles, the average (arithmetical mean) distance travelled is 300 miles. A Tesla could pretty much do that as a round trip. I could do that in my Zoe as a single charge at my destination. If it was an overnight trip, then guess what, dumbfuck? I wouldn't have had to use a public charging station even on that longer trip.

      Unsurprisingly, trips of 800 miles are pretty rare, with more than half of travellers who do such journeys switching to air travel.

      Stupid fucking fuckwit, aren't you?

    16. Re:Charging stations? by tomxor · · Score: 1

      This... renting is fucking expensive, which is ironic because only people who can't afford a mortgage rent. It's almost as if the system were designed to enrich the rich and drain the poor, but that's for the economists to explain.

    17. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But it won't happen in the next 8 years, not everywhere in north america (meaning northern Canada as well).

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    18. Re:Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So you're a moron. Most people aren't - at least not as much as you. The reality is- when there are few enough morons left who think like you, you will be forced to adapt because nobody will be able to make a profit catering to your moron-niche market.

      You've just committed the ultimate in dumb-ass reasoning: you've extrapolated from a sample size of one to the market at large. That always works out so very well.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re:Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      We'll just ignore that a home is an appreciating asset and a car is a depreciating asset and pretend that doesn't entirely invalidate ever using them as a comparison to each other in any reasoning whatsoever.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    20. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'm a moron because I want to drive my own vehicle on a long trip rather than play by some company's rules for the vehicle I use? Bend over why don't you.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    21. Re:Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      No, you're a moron because you assume that your personal desire apply to so many other people that there will always be a viable market in selling to you. You're also a moron because you said - and I quote - that you 'consider all possible uses' when buying a vehicle - that's just dumb.

      If I can save 80% of the cost on 90% of the use - I would be a moron TOO if I didn't consider alternative ways of dealing with the other 10% of use-cases, rather than forgoing that 80% saving.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    22. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Then the market will have failed me. Having to rent a vehicle every weekend just to pop up north to the place I like to relax, or to go camping, would be pretty ridiculous. Renting a vehicle is a hassle and would pretty much make that kind of recreation unworkable. Renting is always more expensive and less convenient than owning.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    23. Re:Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You may very well find it's cheaper then to buy a car just for THOSE trips and not use it for commutes. The reduced travel would make the car much cheaper to drive, much cheaper to maintain too (long distance driving is far less damaging to a car than the stop-and-go travel of city driving) - and since you no longer care about the commute you can buy a more specialized vehicle, selecting features you are likely to want and abandoning others that would be crucial in the city but doesn't much matter for your long-distance trips. Perhaps off-road capabilities rather than heated seats. In fact, with the money you save on the commute - you could probably afford a much nicer car for those once-a-week trips.

      One-size-fits-all is rarely the most sensible economic decision. It only works when the various use-cases are close enough together that the benefits of specialized technology do not outweigh the cost of buying specialized devices. A fridge/freezer actually costs MORE than a fridge AND a freezer in the long run since a large chest freezer lets you buy in bulk - and that will save you the price difference very quickly.

      Right now, you are almost certainly correct that a separate leisure vehicle would add so much cost, and so little value as to be a waste of money. Your mistake is assuming that a massive reduction in commuting cost would not greatly alter that outcome.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    24. Re:Charging stations? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In Germany we are experimenting with "electrified highways".
      That means trucks can put up gear to connect to a power line, just like an electric railway.
      We have a test track in construction around the airport in Frankfurt, not very long, only around 15km.

      Considering the improvements in wireless charging, I could imagine chargers build directly into the highways for passing cars to pick up extra energy.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It's not so much about the cost as it is about dealing with companies. When I buy a vehicle I deal with one company once and I'm done for 10 years. If I rent every weekend I must go back to that company again and again, sift though different plans and packages, and be constantly worried about damage that I do to it. Maybe you like shopping and trying to find that 'best deal' but I loathe it. We can quibble about what is cheaper, and I seriously doubt it would be, since there are two family members that need to travel to an office every day; but I can't see the convenience and stress factor changing and that is worth a lot of money to me.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    26. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Besides, I don't know what rental companies you use, but every one I use seems to provide 'little car' 'medium car' 'big car'. There are no tailored solutions.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    27. Re:Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      To me - just being able to do something more fun than driving to work (watching a movie, reading a book) would be so great a reduction in stress that it would take truly terrible company to somehow be worse than that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    28. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with renting cars for vacations?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    29. Re:Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I didn't ever actually suggest that. I suggested renting for commute and buying for vacation.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    30. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Why would you buy a vehicle that you only use 2% of the time? That sounds horribly inefficient to me.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    31. Re: Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I would say the same about basing your vehicle purchase on only 2% of the time. But if you cannot come up with a better way to do the 2% an 80% saving on the cost of the other 98% is enough to do that and still save money

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    32. Re: Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      How do you figure renting two cars every day would ever be cheaper than purchasing?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    33. Re: Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I don't - we were discussing self-driving car-on-demand services, not rentals as you're thinking of them.

      A car-on-demand service would work more like Uber, and to be viable has to be a lot cheaper. Cheaper than the cost of driving your own car in city conditins in fact (which, is by far the most expensive kind of driving there is - city stop/go driving uses more fuel and does more damage than any other kind of driving).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    34. Re: Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It's not going to be cheaper though. It's going to be like a taxi. Why does everyone keep saying it will be cheaper? Sure there is no driver to pay, but the technology is more expensive, there is a higher barrier to entry, and there are less companies in the game. Uber isn't getting into the self driving business so they can charge a few bucks a ride like some Rickshaw service. They're getting into the game so they can charge what taxis are charging now.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    35. Re: Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Initially, perhaps, but ultimately technology costs have a habit of dropping like a stone - and the whole business model is built around low-cost, that won't last long. And it won't be long before comodified versions of the technology are available - and you start seeing smaller-scale operations springing up like mushrooms.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    36. Re: Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      IF that were the case then ICE automobiles would be $5000 each by now.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    37. Re: Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      ICE automobiles reached their lowest possible price point ages ago - digital tech play by different rules. We're nowhere near the lowest possible price point on either EVs or self-driving tech yet.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    38. Re: Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I think you read too many happy sci fi novels. You're dreaming. These are still cars, they will retail like cars.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    39. Re: Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that's what they said about the Horse and Buggy.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    40. Re: Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well, wake me up when a Tesla Model S costs $2000.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    41. Re:Charging stations? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Truck drivers have their mandatory breaks. I don't think they're even allowed to do 400 miles non stop. Just use each and every of those 15-20 minute stops to top up the batteries.

    42. Re:Charging stations? by zlives · · Score: 1

      aha, a valid point. as a counter point i would give you a personal example. I have a 12 year old car that i paid off in 4. so for the last 8 years been just used based costs. the renting of vehicles in the future would have to be cheaper than maintaining the paid off car. the value is depreciating in the market, but for me the use value is ever the same.

      its the same (short term) issue with buying vs renting housing. take Palo Alto for example ( as some one pointed out above) its cheaper to rent than to buy... today maybe but in 3 years the rent is going to go way up... and the trend will continue.

      but then again i am a bad example as i own multiple homes and cars. so my bias maybe showing.

    43. Re:Charging stations? by zlives · · Score: 1

      but so worth buying as investment and then hiking the rent to make money. for a landlord, they paid the value on date X and mortgage based on that... the rent is nased on todays value... so long term it pays to invest.

    44. Re:Charging stations? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But is the technology there for them to get the same horsepower without sacrificing storage space? Or will half the trailer have to be filled with batteries.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    45. Re:Charging stations? by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Not soon. Several times a year I drive across half the country (Eastern time zone into Mountain). Much of that is on rural roads where you're likely to see more animals than other vehicles on the road, and you can go fifty miles between human-built structures. No one is putting a charging station there any time soon.

      Yes, it's likely that eventually there will be charging stations in most of the little towns that now have gas stations. But recharging time versus refueling time will still be a huge impediment to this sort of travel.

      I don't expect to ever own a fully-electric vehicle. I would be hugely surprised if it becomes impractical in my lifetime to use an ICE vehicle. And if it does, I'll put a fucking generator and big propane tanks in the back of an EV pickup, and have myself a propane-electric vehicle. Screw giant battery packs and recharge stations.

      Of course, I still have a hard-wired landline phone, too. Because it continues to function in prolonged power outages, after the cell tower batteries are drained. How long have experts been predicting the demise of POTS?

    46. Re:Charging stations? by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      For long-distance driving, you have the "peleton" approach, where you could easily have a a truck providing power to re-charge a series vehicle traveling together on the highway.

      Yes, that's exactly what I want to do - travel down the highway coupled to a truck for half an hour. Of course the existing roads are utterly unsuited to this anyway, and most of my long-distance driving is on roads where I rarely encounter any other vehicles traveling in my direction.

      Very few people drive more than 600 miles in a day non-stop.

      And for those of us who do, or who drive long distances in rural areas, this is still a non-starter.

    47. Re: Charging stations? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      ICE automobiles reached their lowest possible price point ages ago - digital tech play by different rules.

      Ahh ... "This Time It's Different". WTF, are you literally 14?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    48. Re: Charging stations? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Not this time, this tech. It's been playing by different rules for over 70 years now - I think the SAFE bet is that it will keep doing so.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    49. Re:Charging stations? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The horsepower is the easy part (that's electric's strength). Maximum torque at low rpm. It's range you're looking for, and with cars getting good ranges with little more battery pack than their gas counterpart's gas tank, that's pretty promising for trucks.

    50. Re:Charging stations? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      They don't have to happen in the next 8 years.

      Again with gas stations, people still used railroads for long-distance travel for a very long time after cars became popular for everything but long-distance travel.

      Not that many people do long road trips that frequently.

    51. Re:Charging stations? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      If you bought in the past maybe. But today the interest portion of your mortgage is more than the rent. You can pay the rent with the interest portion and invest the principal portion and that principal will grow more than your house will ever appreciate.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    52. Re:Charging stations? by zlives · · Score: 1

      depends on the location of your property, SF will probably appreciate faster then the money. also you are assuming you have the principle on hand... if you do you are still ahead long term.

    53. Re:Charging stations? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      SF is ridiculously overpriced. And there is pressure building to change the zoning laws to allow building up. Most jobs can be done remotely and social media is replacing serendipitous meetings so the benefits of living in the same city as rich VCs is going away. Given these factors what makes you think SF real estate will not stagnate?

      BTW I am not assuming that I have the principal upfront . Say my Mortgage is 4500 - 1000 of which is going towards principal and 3500 towards interest. I can pay rent with 3500 and with the 1000 left over everymonth invest in a safe stock. Over 30 years I will have more at the end . Plus I would have the freedom to move anytime for better job offers without worrying about selling a house. Long term real estate has appreciated at 8% so has stock markets. Yes sometimes real estate goes up by 100% but then sometimes so does stock markets.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  12. Riiiiiiiight by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    G'on, tell me another one

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Riiiiiiiight by zlives · · Score: 1

      the car industry will continue its downfall and in another 8 years will completely vanish. because teleportation will become the ONLY way to travel.

  13. This, from Stanford? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stanford University economist Tony Seba forecasts in his new report that petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will no longer be sold anywhere in the world within the next eight years.

    ...and I thought Stanford was, like, where smart people go? I mean, I'm all for EV's and all, but nothing short of an invasion of space aliens or global thermonuclear war is gonna sink fossil fuels in 8 years. Did he stick that in a footnote somewhere?
    Hell, I'd like to see what other fascinating reports Mr. Seba has published, like when when the giraffe's are going to eat our brains, or that all people will walk around around without pants by 2021, devastating the Levi Strauss Company.
    I would also like to experience the "inspiration" for this fascinating report. I expect it's green and sticky and comes from a "dispensary" in return for a "prescription" you get from a "doctor" for your "anxiety".
    I love California, I really do.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    1. Re:This, from Stanford? by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Stanford University economist Tony Seba forecasts in his new report that petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will no longer be sold anywhere in the world within the next eight years.

      ...and I thought Stanford was, like, where smart people go? I mean, I'm all for EV's and all, but nothing short of an invasion of space aliens or global thermonuclear war is gonna sink fossil fuels in 8 years. Did he stick that in a footnote somewhere?
      Hell, I'd like to see what other fascinating reports Mr. Seba has published, like when when the giraffe's are going to eat our brains, or that all people will walk around around without pants by 2021, devastating the Levi Strauss Company.
      I would also like to experience the "inspiration" for this fascinating report. I expect it's green and sticky and comes from a "dispensary" in return for a "prescription" you get from a "doctor" for your "anxiety".
      I love California, I really do.

      8 years is unlikely, but not completely improbable.

      The thing to remember about global warming is it's real, it's serious, and sooner or later we'll deal with it because we'll simply have no choice. This guy is just arguing sooner.

      Right now the major international holdouts are the political right in the US, followed by a few semi-autocratic fossil fuel based regimes (Middle East and Russia). Europe and China are already starting to take global warming seriously even with US inaction.

      If something flips the US right you suddenly have a political consensus in the worlds biggest holdout, you're going to see a major international shift very quickly.

      And once a big carbon tax is on the horizon then no consumer in their right mind is going to buy a new gas fuelled car, and no automotive company in their right mind is going to build one.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:This, from Stanford? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Do you actually believe that even if auto makers stopped selling gas powered cars tomorrow, they wouldn't continue to be absolutely everywhere for another 50 years as the filter through the "pre-owned" markets and finally find their way to the junk yard?

      The author of the article never claimed that they wouldn't still be on the road in eight years, just that you couldn't buy a new one -- which is also somewhat questionable, but not completely impossible. And once you can't buy a new one, the old ones will disappear quickly, because the infrastructure needed to support them will disappear pretty quickly, and that even without a big carbon tax. Reduce the number of ICEVs on the road by 10% and you will see the number of gas stations decline by at least that much (not to be replaced by an equivalent number of charging stations; most EV charging is done at home). The number of automobile repair shops will fall similarly. Not quite as much because EVs also need some maintenance (though much less than ICEVs). It will rapidly become less and less convenient and more and more expensive to own an ICEV.

      And that analysis ignores the effects of self-driving cars. As soon as fleets of self-driving cars get deployed in an area, many people will decide that they no longer need to own a vehicle at all, which will very rapidly deplete the existing inventory. This will hugely exacerbate the effects described in the previous paragraph, because it will cause the number of ICEVs to drop much faster than merely cutting off the inflow of new vehicles. That in turn will cause more gas stations and garages to close up. And many of the newly-purchased EVs will be fleet vehicles, which will have their own fleet maintenance depots, hitting garages even harder.

      And *that* analysis ignores the effect of legislation banning manually-driven cars. If that happens, it will almost certainly not be cost-effective to retrofit self-driving capability into existing vehicles, and the number of old ICEVs in operation will implode to basically zero. Of course, we'll have to get to a critical mass of self-driving cars on the road before that step will be feasible, but once that tipping point is reached, boom.

      So, no, they will NOT continue to be absolutely everywhere for 50 years. And they won't even fill traditional auto junkyards, where they're harvested for parts. They'll just get crushed and recycled. Eight years is a bit optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on your perspective), but it is going to happen, and it is going to happen much faster than you expect.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:This, from Stanford? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      You don't need a prescription to get weed in California or many other states these days.

      And here in Oregon, you can even grow your own recreationally (up to 4 plants at any given time per household). I just recently had my first harvest. It was totally unexpected though. I had 3 plants down in the basement grow room that I had given up for dead a year ago. Just a week or so ago, I went down there to see about setting up the lamps for the next couple I had growing in the kitchen. And lo and behold, those dead plants had budded and cured over the past year. Granted, I was only able to salvage 1/10 of an ounce. But despite how puny that sounds, it was still significant volumewise, and it is perfectly good stuff, which I have named Necro.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    4. Re:This, from Stanford? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      The thing to remember about global warming is it's real

      I stopped reading right there. Take your delusionary propaganda and stuff it.

      What I have been pondering lately on this topic is, "Is it possible that the reason the climate is warming up may be due to the possibility that we are still coming out of the most recent ice age? After all, surely an ice age isn't one of those things where one day a large percentage of the world is covered by glaciers, and then all of a sudden, POP!!! Ice age is over and the planet is a temperate to tropical paradise. It would seem that the ending of an ice age is something that would take thousands, and perhaps a couple 10 thousands of years to actually complete."

      Just something I have been idly pondering while enjoying my rum and weed before watching some South Park or Family Guy. :)

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    5. Re:This, from Stanford? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Actually, the "ice age" ended about 20k - 16k years ago, depending on which part of the planet you lived.
      So, no, we are not having global warming because we are coming out of an "ice age".

      and then all of a sudden, POP!!!
      Actually we had two mass extinction events when the last "ice age" ended, when planet wide the sea level rose about 10m - 20m over night. Caused by volcanos below the ice shield in north america.
      Those are probably the background about the "flood myths" we have in every culture on the planet that survived those floods.

      It would seem that the ending of an ice age is something that would take thousands, and perhaps a couple 10 thousands of years to actually complete.
      This is indeed the case, however that process finished about 10k years ago.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:This, from Stanford? by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      ... all people will walk around around without pants by 2021...

      Is that your 2020 presidential campaign slogan? You've got my vote.

    7. Re:This, from Stanford? by fgouget · · Score: 1

      ...and I thought Stanford was, like, where smart people go? I mean, I'm all for EV's and all, but nothing short of an invasion of space aliens or global thermonuclear war is gonna sink fossil fuels in 8 years.

      I don't think he's really saying that demand for oil with go down to 0 in 8 years. But if the demand drops by 25% and there is no prospect for it to rebound due to the growing fleet of electric cars, then investment will stop, prices will fall, and existing investments that counted on high prices to break even will tank. That can be enough to sink some (but not all) of the players.

      The 2008 financial crisis did not bankrupt all or even a majority of the banks. Also not everyone sold everything off (i.e. the demand did not drop to zero). Yet the disruption was pretty global and severe. In the same way the demand for oil does not have to drop to zero to cause a new far-ranging worldwide crisis.

      That said 8 years seems awfully short for the advent of fully autonomous self-driving cars (which seems to be one of his predicates), and their taking a significant enough market share to really have an impact. Also I'm not convinced the switch to electric cars (another of his predicates) will really take off without significant improvements in the battery technology and the timeline for those can hardly be predicted. The counter-argument is that pooled self-driving cars could render the need for better batteries moot: for long-haul trips just switch cars at every rest-stop, a bit like one would change horses with carriages of old.

    8. Re:This, from Stanford? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Electric vehicles make good commuting vehicles now, but it's going to take a lot of development of batteries to make them much more. Carbon taxes are unlikely to make ICEVs unaffordable, although they'll shift the market heavily towards smaller and more economical models. Unless absolutely banned, there will be new ICE cars sold for the next decade or two, and heavier vehicles will be slower to change. The infrastructure will go away slower than the vehicles, although not by much.

      Self-driving cars will be popular if they don't cost much more than manually driven cars, but at least in the US that's not going to affect car ownership by much for a long time. A private car has advantages that a fleet car doesn't, such as a customized and predictable environment. My car is where I am. I don't have to summon it. Given the nature of rush hour, there won't be that great a savings in numbers of cars required. There will be a movement toward not owning a car, but it will be pretty slow for commuters.

      Legislation that will ban the use of a large numbers of low-end cars will be bitterly opposed, as it would have a tremendous impact on the working poor. It will follow the general acceptance of self-driving cars rather than drive it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:This, from Stanford? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Let's see, my daily drive consists of hairpin turns and long(miles long) steep inclines and declines. My engine average RPM is ~4000(+/-500), due to the long steep inclines, and long steep declines. Yes, your engine RPMs will be high going down hill, when you rely on your engine and transmission for braking power. I'd have to replace my brakes every other month if I didn't.

      I'm one of those freaks who actually does the speed limit. I'm never in a hurry to get nowhere. I just don't see the point of exceeding the speed limit. It's nerve wrecking having to worry about patrol offices and it's just plain unsafe to exceed the limit. I always find it hilarious, seeing someone in a hurry, to get nowhere, speed past me, only to be right next to them, at the same light, minutes later. I digress though.

      I drive an average, well maintained Jeep, not some monster truck or underpowered economy car. Gas, sadly costs me ~150 a week. Unless you flat-landers are willing to fit the bill for a recharging station every 1/8 mile. I don't see how an electric vehicle is feasible or even practical, in my neck of the woods.

      It doesn't mean zero gas-powered cars will be sold, just that they'll be a niche market, and probably a lot more expensive and annoying as a result.

      If the transition does happen soon I hope the electrics are up to snuff, otherwise you will be stuck with an increasingly expensive and hard-to-maintain technology.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  14. New cars != new drivers by tomxor · · Score: 1

    "Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership."

    But In Europe, the average age of new car buyers is already over 50, has been climbing for years.

    Young people are no longer fascinated by the iron cages stuck in traffic.

    Yong people or even middle age people don't buy new cars, I don't what you do in USA but almost everyone buys second hand cars here - it's just too expensive to buy new.

    1. Re: New cars != new drivers by Entrope · · Score: 1

      The average new subcompact car sold in the US costs somewhere under $18,000. That's a lot for people making minimum wage, but not too much for a lot of working class families.

    2. Re: New cars != new drivers by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Recently there was an article on slashdot indicating most American families could not afford more than $19,000 for a car so you are already pretty close to the top end.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:New cars != new drivers by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Yong people or even middle age people don't buy new cars, I don't what you do in USA but almost everyone buys second hand cars here - it's just too expensive to buy new.

      Exactly. There are a lot of used fully functional cars out there. Decades worth. Those new ones that statistically the older folks can most afford to buy keep adding to the pool daily.

      It will be a long time before electrics are a significant part of that pool.

    4. Re: New cars != new drivers by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Most means more than 50% say 51%. So 51% cannot afford 19000. So definitely 49% can and if you move the line to 18000 more than 50% can afford it so now the statement becomes "Most people in the US can afford a car at the average price of a car". Most doesn't really mean much.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    5. Re: New cars != new drivers by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm definitely on the higher end of the wage range, and we buy used. I don't fault people who buy new if it makes them happy, but for us it feels like throwing money away. We only commute 5-10 miles, so our cars tend to age-out rather than wear out.

      And to be honest, I actually like the fleet vehicles that make up most late-model used cars. They tend to have cloth interiors and simple stereo systems without all the nav and stuff that is obsolete before you drive off the lot. They also tend not to have the nicey-nices and extras that sell cars at the dealership, but reduce the reliability of the car. Leather smells, looks, and wears great, but it's cold in the winter and hot in the summer - even with seat heaters.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:New cars != new drivers by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yup, the average car age in the US is approaching 12 years. I don't know if the distribution is normal (I assume there is a huge falloff...), but that implies gasoline demand staying pretty high at least until 2017+12. Even if you believe this 8 year number, that's 2017+12+8 before it really goes off the cliff.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re: New cars != new drivers by Entrope · · Score: 1

      One's money definitely goes further with a used car.

      I mentioned a particular price point because there are several factors that distinguish European and American buying habits: personal income, the nominal cost of a new car, and relative costs of cars and other goods (say a new car in the US costs 200 times as much as a week's grocery run; what is the number for Europe?).

      Adjusted for "Purchasing Power Parity", which tries to combine personal income with the costs of a broad basket of goods, GDP per capita is higher in the US than most European countries. Nominal prices excluding tax seem to be roughly similar, but VAT is much higher than US sales tax.

      I was curious how much of a difference Europeans think those factors account for buying mostly used cars.

    8. Re: New cars != new drivers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      GDP is higher, but GDP is a meaningless number. I guess it is mostly higher because of the super rich in the US. E.g. it is quite difficult to find a "basket of goods" to calculate "Purchasing Power Parity".
      E.g. companies like McDonalds are actively setting their prices to what they think is the "purchasing power" in the target market. Then "economic scientists" take that number to calculate in reverse the "purchasing power" ... that makes no sense.
      Thousands of things can not be compared anyway, cost free schools, health care, gasoline taxes or taxes on CO2, local available food, percentage of house owners, costs for local public transit etc. p.p.

      Want to compare a typical german mid range income worker with a Thai, e.g.? Thai are bottom line richer. But their GDP per capita is probably only 1/20th. But you can not really compare buying power. Example: 1 bottle of beer in Germany is close to $1 in a shop (depending on brand, I prefer Jever, others are cheaper). A similar bottle, actually a bit bigger as it is a pint, in Thailand: also about $1 in a shop (slightly cheaper, but close enough, I prefer Chang).

      So, now get the same beer, same size, or in some cases "same bottle" in a restaurant. In Germany you pay about $4, in Thailand $1.70 - $2.00.

      So: how do you work that into your "purchasing power parity"? Considering what a Thai earns per month, he has to pay lots of money per bottle. Considering that his restaurant prices are much much lower in comparison to german restaurant prices ... how does that work out?

      Considering that probably 50% of the americans live pretty close to the poverty line (or below) I find arguments around GDP per capita and "Purchasing Power Parity" completely absurd.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re: New cars != new drivers by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Mr. O's here, what youâ(TM)ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      I mean, really. How sold we take your claim that Thais are "richer" than Germans because a bottle of beer costs about $1 in stores in both countries, but the average Thai has to work a lot longer to earn that dollar?

    10. Re: New cars != new drivers by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      If making minimum wage, the 'new' in the equation needs to be new as in a new 'used' car.

    11. Re: New cars != new drivers by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I prefer the term "new-to-me" car, personally.

    12. Re: New cars != new drivers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The bottle of beer was an example.
      Because it was an easy one.

      I live partly in Thailand. Bottom line they are richer than a German. You seem to mix up my buying power of my euros in Thailand with being 'rich'. I can live in Thailand a year with one month work in Germany. However a simple lady selling food from a motor cycle in Thailand has a higher standard of living than a random average German, or other European or for that matter US citizen.

      Most own a house, most own land. In Germany the majourity is lifing in rented flats. In Thailand everyone has a health insurance, unlike USA ... well, Obama worked on it, no idea how the status is, though.

      What you considered ranting is bejond me.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re: New cars != new drivers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of vehicles that cost more than $20K new. If most American families can't afford those cars, who's driving them?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re: New cars != new drivers by Swampash · · Score: 1

      I'm in my forties and even to me 18K seems like a ridiculous amount of money to spend on a car of any sort, let alone a self-driving petrol-powered depreciationmobile. That's money I could use elsewhere in so many other productive ways.

  15. Yeah, no by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    My car will be fine in 8 years. Not only that, it will be paid off (it's paid off now, I paid cash for it). Maybe in 20 years, but most insurance guys give me a better than 50/50 chance of being dead by then so it won't matter to me.

  16. I'll believe it when COPS stop buying petrol cars by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    cops and firefighters. When they are forced to use all-electric police cars and fire trucks, I will believe it.

    Typically these two institutions get a pass on everything, like whenever California passes a new gun law banning this or that, cops get a free pass and they can still carry whatever they want.

  17. Um...8 Years? Seriously Wrong! by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Not going to happen in the USA, no way, no how. This "researcher" is an idiot.

    There is too much oil out there, especially in North America. Then, once we get though all that, there is a couple million boat loads of Natural Gas what will make a great motor fuel. It's going to take more than 8 years to burn all that, or make it economically viable to do anything else. Until it's cheaper to do something else, it's not going to happen. Surely they teach this stuff at Stanford... Right?

    Oh, you think electricity will be cheaper???? So, until Fusion becomes the thing, I don't see how that happens... There isn't that much sunshine or places to build windmills..

    I don't know what these people are smoking, but it's got to be some good stuff growing over there at Stanford's economics department...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. not a stanford economist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Good lord, people. The guy is a "lecturer" in Stanford's continuing studies program. He's an adjunct in a nobody program. This paper is an embarrassment.

    Protip - when identifying someone as an "economist" at a university they should be a researcher in the economics department. Duh.......

  19. Not totally out to lunch by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Not totally out to lunch, but his timeline is too short and his prediction of the extent to which we'll shift to automation is too extreme. Most cars sold today are still ICE, and the time that people keep a vehicle on the road has gotten longer. People expect to drive these vehicles 10 years. He's discounting the political will of people 10 years from now who don't want their vehicles legislated off the road. These people will be disproportionately low-income, because they tend to drive older vehicles. Manual control won't totally disappear. Often neglected in these predictions are motorcycle riders. Even if a self-driving bike is built, there's no point in that. The "rolling thunder" crowd tends to be older, and there are a lot of vets in it. These people VOTE. They'll have something to say about it. His predictions are *technically* possible, but not politically possible.

    Self-driving will have to coexist with manual driving, and the insurance companies will have something to say about it. There might even be an effect where poor drivers are encouraged or mandated to chose self-driving vehicles, such as drunk drivers. Manual control might become the domain of the more expert drivers with excellent records who garner lower insurance rates, or wealthy and/or enthusiasts who are willing to pay higher rates; but it's not likely to go away.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  20. In other news by chuckugly · · Score: 1

    In other news, study proves that city boy in Stanford has never lived any place where people are poor and/or rural.

    1. Re:In other news by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Why? If electrical cars are cheaper to purchase and operate, wouldn't poor people be more likely to buy a new electrical car than a new gas car? He's not saying that all gas cars will go away, just that electric cars will be so much cheaper and better that the large majority of people will want to buy electric cars.

      And wouldn't you? Electric cars drive fine. If an equivalent electric car became $5K cheaper than the gas version, I think just about everybody would opt to save the $5K.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:In other news by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      wouldn't poor people be more likely to buy a new electrical car than a new gas car

      I have highlighted your problem.

    3. Re:In other news by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Most poor people that I know who buy cars do it on stupid loan terms... like 7 years, 10% APR for a used car.

      If you say $300 car payment, $100/month for insurance, and driving 500 miles/month with a budget of $100/month for repairs, and $0.05 /mile in gas, you come to a cost per mile of $1.05... about what it currently costs for an Uber. Pretty soon, it makes sense to get a ride rather than drive yourself.

      If you believe the author's statements of 1 million-mile life and assume a car cost of $100k, the capital cost per mile is $0.10. Add a nickle for electricity and triple it to cover maintenance and profit, and it could be hard to compete.

      The only real variables are how long it would take for autonomous electric cars to be produced in adequate quantities to satisfy all needs. I think at 10x utilization factor, you are looking closer to 15 years from now best-case.

    4. Re:In other news by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Most poor people that I know who buy cars do it on stupid loan terms... like 7 years, 10% APR for a used car. If you say $300 car payment, $100/month for insurance, and driving 500 miles/month with a budget of $100/month for repairs, and $0.05 /mile in gas, you come to a cost per mile of $1.05... about what it currently costs for an Uber.

      Try getting an Uber to go to Christmas Valley, OR and get back to me on that. There are countless places like this that will never be served by Uber in the next decade. As for the loan example, I guess I know smarter poor people than you do. The poor people I know buy very cheap used cars for cash or near cash and drive and maintain them carefully.

    5. Re:In other news by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you people doing to cars that requires a $1200 a year repair budget...?

      My wife is a GP Doctor, she uses her Landrover for home visits and does about 40,000 miles a year. The Landrover is 13 years old - we spend less than £400 on that car per year, with services, MOT and upkeep, and insurance is £250 a year including business use.

      Thats about $900 at current exchange rates...

      So what the hell are you people doing to your cars?!

  21. Consider the gas stations by DevilM · · Score: 2

    Gas stations are very low margin businesses. In fact, they pretty much only make money on store items; not gas. EV owners don't go to gas stations, so as more EV owners avoid the gas station, more gas stations go out of business. As more gas stations go out of business, it becomes increasingly inconvenient to have a gas-powered car improving the value of an EV. This is just one vicious cycle on top of the already compelling economics of EVs.

    This is going to happen so much faster than we think.

    1. Re:Consider the gas stations by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      EV owners don't go to gas stations, so as more EV owners avoid the gas station, more gas stations go out of business.

      Or change their business model. With less competition, gas prices will go higher and there will be a profit on selling gas.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Consider the gas stations by will_die · · Score: 1

      If gas stations had to count on gas purchasers to purchase store items then automated pumps would not be everywhere.
      Most people with cars do not have an easy way to charge a battery, once as it becomes to expensive stores and business that currently offer free battery charging will drop them or definitely not provide enough plugs for the number of cars that will need them. This means that people will need some place to charge so gas station will just change.

    3. Re:Consider the gas stations by DevilM · · Score: 1

      I've had an EV for 5 years and it has been that long since I went to a gas station.

    4. Re:Consider the gas stations by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      So gas stations start making a 5% margin on the gasoline they sell. Suddenly they are not just viable, but a business that people strive to own and operate.

      And motorists pay 5% more for gasoline.

      Wow. That's gonna mean big changes.

    5. Re:Consider the gas stations by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It's entirely likely this is coming. In 8 years not a chance. Maybe in 20, maybe. Electric cars are just starting to make themselves felt but battery tech is still not where it needs to be. Right now electric vehicles make up less than 1 percent of personal vehicles in the US.

    6. Re:Consider the gas stations by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I agree, the timeline and the dire consequences are the stupidity, the prediction that non-ICE vehicles are the future is pretty safe at this point.

    7. Re:Consider the gas stations by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I live in the UK, Norwich to be exact.

      Take a look at it on Google Maps.

      Pay especially close attention to the type of housing - most of it is Victorian era terraced, with on street parking. No allocated parking, and often you find you cant park on the street you live on due to the number of homes with more than one car.

      Most of these homes won't be able to charge an EV. There simply isnt the ability. Until that changes, EV will still be a niche thing here - and the only way that will change is when charging comes down to a 5 minute stop somewhere at a charger spot, similar to a petrol station currently...

    8. Re:Consider the gas stations by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Do you believe gas station business owners (or convenience stores to be proper, as the "gas" will likely be phased out from the "station" sooner than later) won't just have charging stations installed? The whole point for them is to bring customers into the store so they buy stuff.

      This is why you often see contests like "Fill a ballot to win 60" TV with $20 spent on fuel!" They're not trying to sell more fuel, they're trying to get people to go into the store rather than pay at the pump, for example.

      Not that I'm thinking on this subject, the pumps will probably stay there anyways, and be sized down considerably (probably down to 1-2 pumps) when they are required by law to change their fuel tanks. The charging stations will then take up the new extra room, at which point EVs will be all over the place.

      Where they do stand to lose however is in supporting both, because the cost of installation is on them.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    9. Re:Consider the gas stations by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Gas stations count on gas purchasers. That's how they make the bulk of their income. The automated pumps that you see "everywhere" are what you call competition. Someone did it, people who preferred the convenience of it went to that store, and others noticed, so they integrated. It's simple stuff really...

      Do the convenience stores in question lose out because of it? Yes. Although I'm sure some stations bump up their fuel price a bit to offset. No two stores around here seem to have the same price, it'll vary by at least 2-3 cents around town, with a couple extremes of course.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    10. Re:Consider the gas stations by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I actually look forward to it. Gas engines need to go for personal vehicles. They create smog and other problems. I'd love to have a reasonably priced electric vehicle that I could drive on one charge the same 340 miles I travel on a tank of gas now. The best I've seen at a decent price is the Chevy Bolt which is under 40K. That's still a lot to pay for such a tiny, cramped vehicle. If it was 20K I'd buy one now but I hate paying double price for a car just to save maybe $4,000 in fuel over 5 years. If I wanted to be miserable while driving I could get a Kia Soul for 16K.

    11. Re:Consider the gas stations by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      For me 340 miles is inadequate, but yeah once electric can match or surpass the performance of my ICE vehicle for similar or lower TCO I'm in.

    12. Re:Consider the gas stations by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It's really all about the batteries. When they get cheap enough that'll be the beginning of the end.

    13. Re:Consider the gas stations by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      They have to be cheap, light, able to take a charge very quickly, and have high energy density. Still a few issues to be solved. Bonus points if they're not made of materials that are horribly toxic.

    14. Re:Consider the gas stations by foghelmut · · Score: 1

      Install quickcharge stations alongside the gas pumps. Problem solved.

    15. Re:Consider the gas stations by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I believe it's going to happen but I'm doubtful about if I'll still be here when it happens.

    16. Re:Consider the gas stations by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Things can move fast, but I don't see it happening, being fully adopted, putting ICE out of business AND causing oil businesses to collapse in 8 years.

  22. Obviously true. by jhoger · · Score: 1

    Obviously true, since everyone will feed their old gas guzzler into their Mr. Matter Transmogrifier and convert it into a flying humanoid robot that will carry them from destination to destination.

  23. Ahh the dreamers. by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I drive a 47 year old car and will keep driving it till it breaks. . . then I will fix it and keep driving it until I wreck it. . . then I will fix it and keep driving it until I am no longer capable. . . then I will be dead. . . then my kids have a turn at it.

    All this I will do because: A. I like my car, B. Shut up and get off my lawn Standford!

    P.S. I guess they have never thought what slobs people are and how disgusting a shared car will be, the thought makes me cringe.

    1. Re:Ahh the dreamers. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Give Stanford a break. This isn't a 'report' from Stanford. It's some guy who is a part time teacher at Stanford but doesn't even have tenure at a community college.

    2. Re:Ahh the dreamers. by gsslay · · Score: 1

      From TFA;

      "Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership. The rest will adapt to vehicles on demand."

      This safely accounts for you and your car. Naturally there will still be people who drive cars as a hobby. Just like there are still people who still drive steam trains.

      While I can comfortably get on board with the main thrust of this report; i.e. burning fossil fuel to move vehicles is on the way out, I do think this guy is living in a dream if he thinks this is all going to happen in eight short years. And the eventual results of it all are likely to be radical and not what anyone predicts.

  24. Doesn't Know What He's Talking About by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    You will have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle.

    A car contains more than a ton of steel. Even if personally owned cars are all banned, people will still pay your for them just for the scrap metal they contain.

    1. Re:Doesn't Know What He's Talking About by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      You're assuming money or commerce will still be allowed in the star trek fantasy land this guy thinks he's living in. Also: we'll all be be speaking Esperanto.

  25. Bullshit: Consider Montana by Theovon · · Score: 1

    I live in BFE upstate new york. I can’t go anywhere without a car. We are lucky enough to have the only Target within 60 miles, and we have to drive over 100 miles to get to any kind of decent mall. A friend of mine lives in Montana, which is a huge state that has a whopping million people. There are other states out there that have even lower total populations or population per square mile.

    People who live in big cities like LA or NYC or many places in Europe are spoiled by the fact that they have good public transport and a large part of the population doesn’t HAVE to own a car.

    Now, this article is ostensible about petrolium-fueled cars being replaced by electric ones. Well, when you can drive 2000 miles on a single charge, and recharge within maybe 30 minutes (try to imagine how much current you’d have to draw for that!), then maybe this kind of transition will happen. But there will still be a large spread out population that gets royally screwed by this, and there are enough western states in the US that will face this problem that their votes and voices in Congress will create some serious challenges to legislation in this area.

  26. And then ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... "leading to a collapse of oil prices and the demise of the petroleum industry as we have known it for a century," ...

    ... the Middle East be bunches of fun.

    As "Slater" said on Archer, Season 6, Episode 8, "The Kanes":

    'Cause if you think the Middle East is messed up now, just wait until nobody needs their oil.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:And then ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      With no demand for mideast oil, they'll no longer be able to fund their war against everyone who doesn't pray 5 time a day.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:And then ... by Megane · · Score: 1

      We're seeing that effect already in Venezuela, thanks to the price bubble a few years back funding shale and fracking development in the US. I don't think the Mideast will end up quite as bad (monarchy vs the typical Central/South American charismatic egotistic leaders), but that's what happens when your economy coasts on oil profits too long and too hard. The Saudis are at least smart enough to see it coming and slow things down.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  27. Is that a lack of interest by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    or just plain Austerity driving those numbers? I don't think the working class ever recovered from the 2008 economic crash.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  28. Time for that Red Barchetta by mpercy · · Score: 2

    A brilliant red Barchetta, from a better, vanished time. Fire up the willing engine, responding with a roar! Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime

    Short story the song was based on...The story, "A Nice Morning Drive," by Richard S. Foster, first appeared in the November 1973 issue of Road and Track.

    http://oppositelock.kinja.com/...

    A dozen years ago things had begun changing. First there were a few modest safety and emission improvements required on new cars; gradually these became more comprehensive. The governmental requirements reached an adequate level, but they didn't stop; they continued and became more and more stringent. Now there were very few of the older models left, through natural deterioration and... other reasons.

    The safety crusade had been well done at first. The few harebrained schemes were quickly ruled out and a sense of rationality developed. But in the late Seventies, with no major wars, cancer cured and social welfare straightened out. the politicians needed a new cause and once again they turned toward the automobile. The regulations concerning safety became tougher. Cars became larger, heavier, less efficient. They consumed gasoline so voraciously that the United States had had to become a major ally with the Arabian countries. The new cars were hard to stop or maneuver quickly. but they would save your life (usually) in a 50-mph crash. With 200 million cars on the road, however, few people ever drove that fast anymore.

    Despite the extent of the safety program, it was essentially a good idea. But unforeseen complications had arisen. People became accustomed to cars which went undamaged in 10-mph collisions. They gave even less thought than before to the possibility of being injured in a crash. As a result, they tended to worry less about clearances and rights-of-way, so that the accident rate went up a steady six percent every year. But the damages and injuries actually decreased, so the government was happy, the insurance industry was happy and most of the car owners were happy. Most of the car owners, the owners of the non-MSV cars, were kept busy dodging the less careful MSV drivers, and the result of this mismatch left very few of the older cars in existence. If they weren't crushed between two 6000-pound sleds on the highway they were quietly priced into the junkyard by the insurance peddlers. And worst of all, they became targets...

    It hadn't taken long for the less responsible element among drivers to discover that their new MSVs could inflict great damage on an older car and go unscathed themselves. As a result some drivers would go looking for the older cars in secluded areas, bounce them off the road or into a bridge abutment, and then speed off undamaged, relieved of whatever frustrations caused this kind of behavior. Police seldom patrolled these out-of-the-way places, their attentions being required more urgently elsewhere, and so it became a great sport for some drivers.

    1. Re:Time for that Red Barchetta by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Wow, the story basically predicts SUVs.

    2. Re:Time for that Red Barchetta by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      But in the late Seventies, with no major wars, cancer cured and social welfare straightened out. the politicians needed a new cause and once again they turned toward the automobile.

      Wow. And I thought the author of TFA was smoking crack...

    3. Re:Time for that Red Barchetta by toddestan · · Score: 1

      About the only thing it gets wrong is just how fragile modern cars are. Sure, they may be safer, but even the most minor collision will cause significant (if only cosmetic) damage. It's gotten even worse the past few years. 15 years ago, you still at least had a flimsy plastic bumper that offered a small amount of protection. That's basically gone now, if you hit anything at all you'll smash that insanely expensive light cluster, or crush that gigantic oversized grill which seems to be in style now.

  29. Death spiral and can't keep my car. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    There will be a "mass stranding of existing vehicles." The value of second-hard cars will plunge. You will have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle. It is a twin "death spiral" for big oil and big autos, ...

    Damn you Obamacare. :-)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Death spiral and can't keep my car. by kenh · · Score: 1

      There will be a "mass stranding of existing vehicles." The value of second-hard cars will plunge. You will have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle. It is a twin "death spiral" for big oil and big autos, ...

      How will current car owners handle the effective elimination of one of their greatest assets, their automobile? They typically owe thousands of dollars on them, and once rendered value-less, will lead to massive disruptions in the financial lives of countless millions of working-class, living paycheck-to-paycheck, people, not to mention the banks that hold the paper on those now worthless vehicles, and the retirees whose pensions are tied into the stock price of those car manufacturers, oil companies, etc?

      --
      Ken
  30. The first Matrix by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    "The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime; a triumph equaled only by its monumental failure." The Architect to Neo

    --
    [($)]
  31. They will pry mine out of my cold dead hands by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    Oooops, sorry. Wrong forum.

  32. Re:Um...8 Years? Seriously Wrong! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Do you think we will see level-5 self-driving gasoline cars? The automation is what will drive the trend, not specifically the electric portion.

  33. Re:8 years, huh? by glenebob · · Score: 1

    I think at best somewhere near 50% of new passenger car sales will be pure electric in eight years.

  34. This is proof that economics is not a hard science by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    I think all of Seba's predictions could come to pass, but it's going to take more like a generation, rather than 8 years. First of all, road-ready self drive vehicles will have to be able to coexist with human drivers until the "manual drivers" are all off the road. This is a much harder problem than operating in an all self drive world.

    It will also take time to build out the electric vehicle infrastructure and retire the massive gasoline/diesel distribution network. There will be a transitional period in which self drive cars are hybrids, rather than pure electrics.

    Finally, a world of self drive will be a world in which cars will be much more up-front expensive than today, and therefore will be all owned by fleets and operated like Uber or Lyft. This will lead to replacing all that parking at places where people live, work, eat and shop with warehouse storage at places where it proves easiest to stage vehicles to end users. This will free up all that end-user parking for more construction in place of the old parking lots. Just by itself, resculpturing urban areas will take longer than 8 years.

  35. Re:Those who can, do, etc by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

    In ten years, most cars will not be electric. Not even most new cars will be electric (most cars purchased today will still be on the road in 2026). You know why? Stockpiling molecules is orders of magnitude better, cheaper, and faster than stockpiling electrons. That's not an opinion, that's both an empirical and theoretically grounded fact. By 2026, many new cars will have self-driving features, and I'll buy into the idea that by 2036, we'll be building or upgrading roads to accomodate self-driving vehicles. But autonomy isn't for free, and you won't be able to use them everywhere, just like aircraft are restricted to operating in certain places at certain times.

  36. Re:Completely Wrong by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Just a few facts here.
    Most plastics are made from natural gas, not oil.
    Pharmaceuticals? You mean those little pills? I'm sure they are going to support global oil production ;)

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  37. Finally someone "important" said it by locater16 · · Score: 1

    Well, fucking duh. The primary cost of a taxi/uber is the driver. Once you don't have to pay them the cost of just calling a car to you, and using it only when you need it, is a tiny fraction of the cost of buying and owning your own car. Look outside, right now. What do you see? Odds are, cars. Parked cars, just sitting there, being used by no one. There's no logical way you can look at that and think to yourself "this is cost effective, this is efficient". So you'll have to think of some illogical way that the world will remain static forever, you know, like how there's no way these stupid "smart" phone things will ever take over, people will still primarily use a big computer because, they want a big screen right?

    And the disappearance of gas is even more transparent. Electricity is source agnostic, has a distribution grid larger than anything else imaginable, and currently costs, as the article states, about a tenth per mile travelled that gas does. Unless oil is about to get down to $5 a barrel you can kiss it goodbye in terms of gas. Oh and electric engines are cheaper to build, easier to maintain, and last longer than gas ones. But don't argue with me, argue with every major car company on the planet. They're all spending hundreds of millions to build electric cars over the next 8 years, save Toyota, who's pumping hundreds of millions into hydrogen instead cause "everyone else is wrong" but not in the way you want to argue.

    The article just states the same thing engineers and researchers realized years ago, it's hardly surprising. That is unless you're someone on slashdot standing atop stupid hill yelling about how you know so much more about the industry than everyone on the planet that actually runs it.

    1. Re:Finally someone "important" said it by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Considering that Toyota is the worlds biggest seller of Hybrid and EV cars, I really wonder abut your "hydrogen" statement.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Finally someone "important" said it by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Look outside, right now. What do you see? Odds are, cars. Parked cars, just sitting there, being used by no one. There's no logical way you can look at that and think to yourself "this is cost effective, this is efficient".

      Wanna bet? I can, quite easily. Individual private transportation is time efficient. All those resources are being invested in steel and rubber and plastics, and yes, gasoline, in order to claw back time. The current system of roads and automobiles enables the most time efficient transportation humanity has ever known. You can go where you want when you want door to door more rapidly and with more cargo than ever before possible, over both short and long distances. This even applies to cities suffering severe gridlock. All of those drivers are going somewhere. Somewhere probably farther than their great-grandparents would ever travel in their lives.

      Electrification is probably inevitable. The demise of private ownership of individual transportation is anything but. It has enormous value, and people tend to cling to enormous value.

    3. Re:Finally someone "important" said it by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      The primary cost of a taxi/uber is the driver. Once you don't have to pay them the cost of just calling a car to you, and using it only when you need it, is a tiny fraction of the cost of buying and owning your own car.

      If this was true, then Zip cars would be cheaper than owning your own car. If you use one every single day to commute I don't think it pans out to being cheaper, even though you are not paying for a driver in those cars.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  38. Charging's not the problem you think it is by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not arguing about the time frame - seems optimistic to me - but:

    Where are all these electric vehicles going to CHARGE?

    Many of these vehicles will be able to adequately charge at home, at night, when the grid is considerably unloaded as compared to the day - it's a perfectly reasonable scenario. Most of us rest at night. Most of those vehicles won't be going on long trips on any given day, and so most of them won't even need that much of a charge. You'll see charging stations where you're used to seeing parking meters in cities and towns, too.

    The idea that there's insufficient infrastructure to handle a fleet composed of mostly electric vehicles is almost entirely wrong. And for the high-charge, long-haul requirements, those waystations can be built the same way: pick up energy at night, hand it out 24/7. Most of this is just engineering.

    The real problem right now is batteries, or energy storage in the car. Expensive, short-lived, toxic, heavy, and simply not enough of them. When and if that's solved, EVs will come into their own. Not before. Right now they are a wealthy person's toy. 30 grand for what amounts to a VW bug, only with less Hitler.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Charging's not the problem you think it is by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There are many areas where the generating capacity is already marginal. The whole US changing to electric vehicles is going to require a lot of new capacity.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Charging's not the problem you think it is by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      There are many areas where the generating capacity is already marginal.

      Actually, there are very few areas where whatever capacity there is, isn't considerably more available at night. Because almost everyone is asleep, it's cooler, A/C loads are down, and not much else is going on. And of course, there is plenty of solar waiting to be tapped, etc. once they work out a way to store it half-decently. Sure, it won't be perfect. But you know what? The nearest city in my state is 290 miles away, and the three gas stations are arranged along that trip at 70 miles, 210 miles, and 230 miles respectively -- then finally in the city there's plenty. Underserved areas are nothing new. It won't stop the process. Where new capacity needs to appear, it will. Eventually. Even if my area doesn't get enough power in the right places right away, most everywhere else will. But you know what? While they have to truck fuel to us, we have a huge dam 20 miles from here with a couple huge hydro generators. So I might do better than one might think. The trick is that 290 mile drive... need a vehicle that can do that with the heat or AC running, lights on, etc. Nothing like that on the radar. Yet.

      Perhaps we can even stop wasting so much power blotting out the night sky with all those damned streetlights. Who knows? Perhaps the nation's kids will be generally able to see the stars again. It's a nice thought, anyway.

      Also, just as sort of a postscript, lighting, even fairly high powered lighting, is transitioning to a considerably less greedy tech, LEDs. Power consumption of a converted light source is way down. Things like that, applied nationally, will also have positive effects on available power, even if the paranoid keep the streetlights on forever.

      Don't worry. Power's not going to be the showstopper. Unless we can get around it somehow, it'll be storage that bites us all in the posterior. Because right now batteries, in a word, suck.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Charging's not the problem you think it is by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:Charging's not the problem you think it is by number17 · · Score: 1

      Sounds great for those with garages, but what about the hundreds of thousands that park on the street in cities? You can't exactly have large charging cables crossing the sidewalk every 20 feet.

      Toronto electric car owner stuck trying to charge car on the street

    5. Re:Charging's not the problem you think it is by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm blocked from the sites I'd need here at work, but I saw an ad for a 30-amp charger, and another claiming 240V. That is 7200 watts. Over an eight-hour night, that's the equivalent of about 6 liters of gasoline. Even if we figure that electricity is four times as efficient as gasoline, that's a lot smaller than my gas tank. If we're to charge for longer trips, we'll need upgraded power to houses.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  39. report here by beckett · · Score: 1

    link to actual report mentioned in news article: "Rethinking Transportation 2020-2030 The Disruption of Transportation and the Collapse of the Internal-Combustion Vehicle and Oil Industries"

    https://static1.squarespace.co...

  40. Waiter! by irrational_design · · Score: 1

    I'd like some of what he is smoking please!

  41. aeroplanes by surd1618 · · Score: 1

    This article is obviously ridiculous. But, just to flog a dead horse, even when everything else is electrified, jets are still going to run on jet fuel for a long, long time.

  42. My plan thus far by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

    My plan thus far.
    1. Believe crazy man's story
    2. Sell car now to prepare for obvious and unavoidable future
    3. Purge all stocks from companies with business model based on fossil fuel
    4. Buy as much Tesla stock as possible
    5. Sit back and wait for the profits to start streaming in

    1. Re:My plan thus far by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      That plan? Feels bad, man.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    2. Re:My plan thus far by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think I'm better off ignoring this prediction, although that is how I missed out on bitcoin...

  43. Oh, there's plenty of DUMP ... by waspleg · · Score: 1

    This is pure click bait... Reminds me of "Premise Beach" skits from The Kids in the Hall. If these people are being serious, that must be one hell of an echo chamber.

  44. STANFORD GEINIUS. GENIEUS. ER GENIENIUS. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    You are clearly being stupid. In 8 years, we will all share ubers that are self-driving boats. There are two SF startups that were just created for this very purpose just as I typed this. You just don't understand how the Technologies!

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:STANFORD GEINIUS. GENIEUS. ER GENIENIUS. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      You forgot to post the Kickstarter links.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:STANFORD GEINIUS. GENIEUS. ER GENIENIUS. by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      And meanwhile, they've over-regulated EV tech so much in the big cities that its basically impossible to procure a usable vehicle. Arbitrary power limits, etc that were signed off on by everyone EXCEPT competent engineers or technicians. The stuff available in the US market is absolute trash because of big-city regulation. Can't climb even a moderate hill with most of these things. Someone needs to tell Lib-Bob politician that wattage != speed. Misguided, overbearing, nanny-state morons are regulating things they can't begin to understand with their only skills being lying and teeth whitening.

  45. Bet? by swilkers808 · · Score: 1

    I would be willing to wager with this person that this prediction is incorrect.

  46. Electricity generation by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    All EV will require a huge boost in electricity production. How will we do it? Since the easiest and fastest way to increase capacity is to burn coal, oil or gas, perhaps oil will not vanish that fast.

    Scotland will forfeit any North Sea bonanza. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela will be in trouble.

    Russia has a more diversified economy than the others and may be able to handle the change. Venezuela is already in trouble.

    1. Re:Electricity generation by LesserWeevil · · Score: 1

      Top 10 oil producing countries updated 2016 1 Russia 10,250,000 2 Saudi Arabia (OPEC) 10,050,000 3 United States 8,744,000 4 Iraq (OPEC) 4,836,000 5 People's Republic of China 3,938,000 6 Iran (OPEC) 3,920,000 7 Canada 3,893,000 8 United Arab Emirates (OPEC) 3,188,000 9 Kuwait (OPEC) 3,000,000 10 Brazil 2,624,000

  47. The professor said no such thing by FeelGood314 · · Score: 2

    No the professor didn't claim that all Fossil Fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years, some moron journalist fucked it up and misinterpreted it and then the submitter exaggerated it. The professor is likely responsible for the intelligent parts of the story like all new car sales will be electric in 8 years. He likely has the numbers to back it up. Also the price of oil will collapse and it will strand the assets of oil extraction companies, but not in 8 years. It will take a bit longer since most cars last 9 years (at least here in Ontario, Canada where we have winter and salt that destroys cars). The journalist then probably added the "pay for disposal of cars" since he is to poor to own a car and doesn't know they are made of metal. The submitter pulled the title out of his ass.

    1. Re:The professor said no such thing by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      What professor are you talking about? Seba is a lecturer. And barely that - someone above said he was an adjunct, but from his self-promotion website it looks like he's just taught some workshops in Stanford's Continuing Ed program.

      I'm closer to a fucking professor than he is - I've at least taught full-semester credit courses in actual degree programs.

      Oh, and he's a "serial entrepreneur". Can't forget that.

      I know, I know - research is hard.

  48. Re:8 years, huh? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    Do you think it will be gradual like that? I would think that electric would completely take over as soon as it is economically feasible.

    But maybe you are right, people will cling to what they know for less rational reasons, or fleet vehicles will still be gasoline until there is a charging infrastructure that your typical Hertz customer can use. There probably is more inertia than I realize.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  49. Re:Cars on Demand? No, Housing on Demand. by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a plan!

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  50. I knew it! by Gabest · · Score: 1

    Universities teach useless knowledge.

  51. Re:weak tipping point argument by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    It's currently cheaper to run my plug-in hybrid on gasoline than on electricity.

    And for tens millions of people, with above average marginal electricity rates (the cost of the last KWH they buy), that is going to remain true. The idea that electric cars are going to be ten times cheaper to run is ludicrous. It would not be true even if the car or the electricity were free (but make them both free, and now you're talking...).

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  52. Re:Um...8 Years? Seriously Wrong! by glenebob · · Score: 1

    Why do people say this? ICEV's can be automated just fine. The one real difference that made that not true (hydraulic steering assist) is now gone.

    The fact is EV's have all sorts of benefits that have nothing at all to do with automation, and that's why they will take over.

  53. Re:Um...8 Years? Seriously Wrong! by glenebob · · Score: 1

    In many places, electricity IS cheaper (than gasoline/diesel). Even solar electricity is cheaper, and it's getting cheaper every month.

  54. Re:8 years, huh? by glenebob · · Score: 1

    I think it will be very quick. As I posted elsewhere, it will be quick like flat panel displays and digital cameras, but not AS quick, due to the much higher price tags involved.

  55. Must be fun.... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    ...living in the utopia bubble.

    These analysts sometimes needs to wake the fuck up and look past their fancy apartment windows or their well groomed and trimmed lawns.

    Let me guess his other guesses... does he also think that in 10 or 20 years time no one will drive cars anymore, they'll be all automated and interconnected and some such bullshit? Yeah... that's not all that different from drawings of the 60s imagining the future of the year 2000 or, you know, Jetsons. More current comparison, it's the same shit as Solar FREAKIN' Roadways.

    We have huge portions of the world that are still using horses as means of transportation, firewood heated ovens, and whatnot - not by choice, but because technology never reached them. It's not like struggling economies will easibly be able to switch from one fuel category to another magically as if that required zero effort, time and money.

    And if we're talking about fuel which some entire countries economies are heavily dependant on, it's more likely that whatever is left of humanity after multiple wars that happens due to oil dependancy fallout, we'll actually all be back on horses or on foot, those who are left.

    Can you even imagine all the countries that are heavily dependant on oil suffering an economic fallout and ending up like the current war torn refugee producing countries that we have right now? It'd be catastrophic.

    I support going green as much as anyone else who's worried about how much pollution is going into the ecosystem plus climate change, but realistically speaking, don't think the fossil fuel industry will take drastic changes without a fight. Our dependancy got to the point of entire economies supporting some extremely horrible stuff in exchange for oil, and the consequences of that will echo for centuries.

    Dang, we're not even close to a road to being ready for the energy scalability problem.
    I dunno if people or this guy realizes this, but electric cars right now don't account for even 1% of new car sales in even the most modern countries. It's a fraction of a percentage, which is a start, but it can basically be seen as novelty.

    Once sales starts ramping up, then things start getting exponentially complicated. The energy you use to charge cars with has to come from somewhere, and the national electric grid for most countries are not prepared to replace oil in even minor scales... most of them already have their hands full with how things are progressing now with oil based vehicles being prevalent, they can't be expected to upgrade in any short to mid timeframe.

    We already need more than a decade for battery technology and other technological barriers to progress and get implemented.

    We will need slow and steady growth to avoid multiple types of problems. If we even get there, that is.

    The idea of the majority of people switching to public transportation is great on paper, but it's been around since ancient times, and there are multiple obstacles that each can take decades of development to overcome for most countries in the world, and there needs to be focus on those alone for it to happen. Stuff like public security, optimization of city infrastructures, cultural shifts, welfare and work relatioship reforms... I'm talking the tip of the iceberg only here.

    You can look at this on another way. Mass production of cars came around a century ago, and an exponential number of paradigms were created on top of it. Cities were built and grew around the idea, cultures were formed on top of it, how we work, get entertainment, do everyday stuff, how security works, and a whooole bunch of other things were built assuming we have access to cars. It's an unfanthomable ammoung of things to unwrap. So it's no surprise how paradigms like those are not simple to change.

    Short of an alien race coming down to Earth, enslaving all of us, killing half of Earth's population and then mandating everything we do essencially changing life how we know it, the fossil fueled vehicles paradigm will not vanish or fundamentally change in 8 years. Oh, and you know what also won't happen in 8 years... or ever? That Hyperloop crap. Mark my words.

  56. First things first. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Before we jump to the self driving cars how about delivering on the damn flying cars that were only a decade away all the way back to the 60s? One pipe dream at a time.

  57. Out of Touch by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    "All Fossil-Fuel Vehicles Will Vanish In 8 Years, Says Stanford Study" ... "will no longer be sold anywhere in the world within the next eight years"

    These statements are not the same thing. Even if the second one were true and all sales of fossil-fuel vehicles stopped in eight years there would still be tens of millions of those types of vehicles around for many decades. One of my farm trucks is a 1986/1968 (body is the newer year, engine and transmission is the older year) and it's still going strong. It does it's job. With nominal maintenance it will last 50 to 100 years more.

    The new non-fossil-fuel vehicles are going to initially cost a lot more than a used fossil-fuel vehicle so a lot of people are not going to be able to afford the new vehicles for another decade beyond, more more, even if the new ones are cheaper to run.

    "people will stop driving altogether"

    Another faulty assumption and highly urban centric. A lot of us live out in the rural areas where there is no public transportation, no Uber, no other form of transport other than our personal vehicles.

    More over, many people, especially businesses and very especially small business such as our farm, have specialized vehicles such as our delivery van, livestock hauling, farm trucks, etc. We're not going to stop driving these any decade soon.

    The biggest problem with this ivory tower thinker is he lives so high up in the urban stratosphere that he can't see the nitty gritty reality.

    I look forward to self-driving electric vehicles but they're not going to be here for a long time and certainly are not going to replace all fossil-fuel vehicles for decades beyond that.

  58. This will be interesting by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    It's going to take more than fuel savings to phase out the fossil fuel car, otherwise it would have happened already. Fortunately, a fleet of self-driving on-demand robo-cars offers a number of additional cost savings:

    1. Insurance. The cost may never fully go away, but automated driving software should start to outperform humans in a few years.
    2. Parking. Robo cars never have to pay for overpriced urban parking. They can be parked and recharged in the outer suburbs, or in some cases, out of state. They can drive around while waiting to be summoned by a passenger.
    3. Property tax. The robo cars will be registered in a state that does not charge property tax on motor vehicles.
    4. Driver. You get the benefit of a chauffeur without paying a human to do the work.

    Bear in mind, there are many special interests that make a lot of money from the status quo. For one thing, government is heavily invested in mass transit, traffic cams, speeding tickets, etc. Traditional cabs and private cars might be the first things to go, but nobody is going to bother with a bus or train when it's easier to summon a robo car and have it take you directly to your destination.

  59. Well.... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    Their survey/prediction is a bit optimistic, but something like this will probably happen here eventually.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  60. Heading to Canada to hide the red barchetta by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Heading to Canada to hide the red barchetta :-)

  61. Bullshit by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    1) People drive motorcycles for fun, not for any other reason.

    2) People buy muscle cars for fun, not for any other reason.

    3) The same people that buy sports/ cars and motorcycles will continue to buy them and prevent the legal changes this idiot thinks will happen.

    Cities, yes, they may outlaw human driven vehicles. But not suburban and rural areas. And states like TEXAS may use state laws to prevent cities from outlawing human driven vehicles.

    But more importantly, while robot cars are more likely to be electric, that is not a requirement. Don't confuse the two. There will be human driven electric cars like the Tesla sports car, and there will be robot driven gasoline powered cars.

    Cops will almost certainly end up with robot driven gasoline cars, to give them the edge to catch criminals

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Bullshit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      1) People drive motorcycles for fun, not for any other reason.
      Or for traveling.
      Or for going to work.

      I guess you never lived at a place where driving a bike is the norm and driving a car is only the third choice after public transport.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  62. Stanford.. by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

    Stanford... where the acceptance bar is set at 100 hashtags. Fake news.

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  63. Nostalgia? No... People are just too nasty. by choovanski · · Score: 1

    I will gladly pay for the "luxury" of owning my own car simply to avoid playing Let's Scan For Vomit/Urine/Feces/Cum/Spit every single time that I enter a vehicle.

  64. Re:first world problems by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Prius? i will not touch with long stick. no infrastructure here.

    Sorry, sir, but your countryside lacks exposure - the Prius is a hybrid, and generates its own electrification from a gasoline internal combustion engine. It needs no additional infrastructure.

    But those generate far too much hazardous smug. Do you really want to be subject to frequent smug alerts?

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  65. Re:This is proof that economics is not a hard scie by perpenso · · Score: 1

    This is proof that economics is not a hard science

    It is quite dismal isn't it? :-)

  66. Not anywhere by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    Eight years is a blink of an eye in terms of car history. It takes that long just to design a new model and bring it to market. All the major car companies have been struggling for a couple of decades to get electric cars right. Only Tesla has come close, and even their cars are limited to commuting because of their limited range. Maybe in eight decades we will have abandoned fossil fuel cars, but even that is not a foregone conclusion.

  67. ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    ..the article is stupid. the author is stupid.

    who the fuck is going to pay for the upfront battery costs of running 12h stints in the middle of the winter in a poor country?

    look, maybe in some 1 or 2 counties in california - but not in the world. that guy needs to get out more and check out the world.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  68. Taxes! by mykey2k · · Score: 1

    What everyone seems to be forgetting is TAXES.... yes, fuel tax that go to pay for those roads these cars will be travelling upon.

    Even though they're EV, doesn't mean they float over the road. They'll be doing the same wear and tear that your normal petrol car is doing, just quieter.

    We're already hearing governments complaining that improved fuel economies are leading to decreased fuel taxes...and that they want to tax based upon mileage.

    Anyway, likely I'll keep my petrol cars only of my usage patterns. Yes, I'm an outlier, deal with it.

    1. Re:Taxes! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In Germany we pay taxes for owning a car, which are supposed to be spent on the infrastructure.
      Fuel taxes are only a easy income for the state.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  69. Several problems by Zemran · · Score: 1

    Tesla is a wonderful car that is extremely expensive and being sold at a loss. The company is likely to crash and burn. Even if they raise the price by 20% and start to turn a profit, they will remain a niche product for the rich. It is still cheaper to drive a petrol car when you consider TCO. Cheaper alternatives are arriving but even VW do not expect to have a full range until within 8 years. In most of the world you cannot recharge an electric vehicle away from your home and that is not going to change. Even in the UK you will have to go out of your way looking for a recharge point that works with your card. There is also the point that not everyone has somewhere to charge at home. If you live in an apartment and leave your car plugged in the local kids will unplug it. That is private cars. Commercial vehicles have a whole raft of new problems. Private cars normally only do a few miles each day and it may be viable for a second car but for a commercial vehicle we do not have a viable alternative on the market yet. Electricity does not have the range and requires stopping to recharge. Fast recharges shorten battery life and therefore reliability. Hydrogen is great but people fear it and it is not available. This is not going to happen in 8 years but it will happen. I hope that there will be a time in the future when we have hydrogen/electric hybrids that can do the day to day on electric and do the extended journeys using hydrogen but that is a distant dream. Current technology cannot replace petrol yet.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  70. We can't get off Windows XP. by shumacher · · Score: 1

    ~$150 USD will buy a Windows 10 laptop that would, in most measures other than pure storage capacity, outperform a wide swath of machines shipped with XP. ~$60 USD will get you a cheap Windows 10 tablet.

    Still, we can't get people off of Windows XP.

    I've owned an EV. They're great. I just don't think there's any chance that people will swap out equipment on the sort of time scale described here.

  71. Does the grid have capacity? by harl · · Score: 1

    Does the power grid have enough surplus capacity to handle all cars being switched over?

    --
    I find being offended by me offensive.
  72. I made a note ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... in my calendar. May 16, 2025, I'm going to sit on the porch with my shotgun and catch any sunofabitch who tries to steal my cars.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  73. Tipping Point coming maybe not in 8 years by onkelonkel · · Score: 2

    I think that if we accept the notion that electric cars are going to get better and cheaper in the future, then sooner or later, maybe not in 8 tears, but maybe in 10 or 15 there will not be many ICE new cars sold. I commute 25 miles each way to work. Most any new electric can do that. That would cover about 90% of my driving. Also, I have a cottage about 250 miles away. Still a bit of a stretch but I think a Chev Bolt could just about do it. Up the range to 300 miles and it would get me to the cottage in the summer and the ski hill in the winter. That would cover 99% of my trips. The odd time I want to take a driving vacation I would rent a gas car. Hell, we did that last year, rented a mustang convertible for 10 days and drove to California and back.
     
    People always look at "now", and seem oddly blind to tomorrow. When digital cameras first showed up, I read somebody who said that digital would never replace film because cameras would have to be over 10 Mp to match the resolution of 35mm film. At the time a digital camera cost $1500 and had a resolution of 640x480 (about 0.3 Mp). Thing is, the digital cameras were roughly doubling in pixel count every year even at that time. Same thing with LCD monitors; The CAD guys at work all had $3000 21" Sonys and they were sure they would never replace them with LCDs. Now they all have 28" 4K displays, and I don't think you can actually buy a glass monitor any more.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Tipping Point coming maybe not in 8 years by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I certainly won't say "never", but I do know what I need to switch to electric. For me, a 200 mile range is the minimum. I don't drive that every day, but I drive over half that on some weekend days. And if it says it has 200 mile range, that means with new batteries, in perfect weather, on ground as flat as Kansas.

      Unless I can get that, in a car that's at least close to what I pay for a gas car, it's not even an option.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  74. Oh of course! by helpfulcorn · · Score: 1

    And not only will there be no fossil fuel cars on the road -- I mean how many cars older than 8 years do you really ever see -- but also they'll be flying cars! Because that's another dumb ass incessant claim that resurfaces every couple of years.

  75. And within 12 years... by doom · · Score: 1

    Breathless green-booster headlines will dominate a full 68.9% of all internet traffic, and 44.2% of all boring newspaper editorials will consist of musing about why no one seems to be taking the green-booster stories quite so seriously any more-- strange, considering they haven't turned out to be completely baseless fantasies more than about 66% of the time (an accuracy rate better than reportage on other news subjects by more than a factor of two!). This would be the leading subject for sententious discussion, except that it's edged out by musing about how it is we let Miami disappear under water, and how it is possible Ivanka Trump got elected president.

  76. mileage based tax is not that easy and more toll r by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    mileage based tax is not that easy and more toll roads are not that easy to flip from free ones.

  77. Tech changes, costs remain the same! by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

    the cost to charge your car fully from empty would be $0.15/kWh x 85kWh = $12.75

    That is like saying oil is $50/barrel and a barrel of oil is 42 gallons, so petrol should be $1.20/gallon.

    Who will pay for all the charging stations that will have to be built? What about replacing the EV's batteries every 1000 charges? What about the additional power generation needed? Tax?

    If you treble that cost you are closer to the real mark. And when you do, your EV is getting close to the cost of a petrol vehicle to operate. That is a cost which we know the population and industry is willing to pay already, so it is not unreasonable that they/we will continue to pay it.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Tech changes, costs remain the same! by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Building charging stations is much less expensive than say building a fuel station.

    2. Re:Tech changes, costs remain the same! by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Who will pay for all the charging stations that will have to be built?

      I already pay for generation when I pay $0.15 per kWh. Maybe the rates will go up a bit, but not that much. As for charging stations, the best solution is to install a dryer plug in your garage...cost will be fairly low for most people. The charging box for a Tesla is on the order of $500.

      Who will pay for all the charging stations that will have to be built? What about replacing the EV's batteries every 1000 charges?

      You did notice that I said the tested battery capacity was 92% after 1200 cycles? If your range was 200 miles per charge (which is lower than the actual number), then your 1000 charges would allow you to drive 200000 miles. How many of us actually keep a car that long? The battery will last as long as the car. It seems to me that you are writing to confuse casual readers, rather than understanding reality.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  78. Anybody doing grid load calculations ? by what+about · · Score: 1

    If we move from gasoline powered cars to electric then for most part the grid will take up the load.
    This is basically since charging is likely to be at night and it takes time to also build a solar roof.

    So, anybody has done a decent study of the added load and distribution of load over the day resulting from a shift to electric cars ?

    I do not see trucks moving to electric, the fuel tank si tiny on a truck if compared to the sustained power that the engine is producing.

    1. Re:Anybody doing grid load calculations ? by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

      The grid is designed to handle the peak load. In the southern USA this on a hot summer day in the mid afternoon. There is a second peak in most places when people return home from work and also some places in Europe and Quebec have peaks caused by people heating with electricity. With variable electric pricing the cars will not be charging at these times. With luck people will charge at night when the cost of electricity will be closer to 0.02/kwh. (Millions of people charging at night will push this up, maybe double it) The point is though the grid won't need any upgrade at all. Charging your car all night for your average daily commute the next day will be less of a draw than the day time peak.

  79. No, Just No. by kenh · · Score: 1

    Stanford University economist Tony Seba forecasts in his new report that petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will no longer be sold anywhere in the world within the next eight years. As a result, the transportation market will transition and switch entirely to electrification, "leading to a collapse of oil prices and the demise of the petroleum industry as we have known it for a century,"

    First off, the secession of sales of "petrol or diesel cars, busses, or trucks" will not immediately eliminate those previously sold off the road - come on, think about it, cars, buses and trucks have useful lifetimes that stretch in to decades.

    Second, the market won't "transition and switch to electrification" - the infrastructure doesn't exist, and the required number of electric vehicles won't exist in any reasonable timeframe, let alone 8 years.

    Third, the only reason the electric vehicle market is as large as it is because of government research grants that subsidize the design of the vehicles, government tax incentives to subsidize the construction of battery and vehicle plants, government incentives to subsidize the purchase of the electric vehicles, and the lack of government taxes on electric vehicles that lowers operating costs (since electric vehicles don't contribute to the infrastructure they rely on - highways, bridges, roadways, etc.)... These government programs do not scale to the entire transportation market - the government can't afford to pay thousands of dollars for EVERY vehicle sold and continue to maintain our transportation infrastructure without tax revenue. The elimination of these subsidies render electric vehicles more expensive and less practical than fossil-fuel powered vehicles.

    --
    Ken
  80. Little late for April fools by lusid1 · · Score: 1

    April first comes once a year but the fools are here to stay.

  81. natural gas is cheaper than electricity in homes by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    Check this handy guide. It's across the board cheaper to use natural gas in homes for appliances than electricity. BTW, I trust that source as I used to work with the author in the nineties and have followed him ever since then.

  82. Red Barchetta by spinitch · · Score: 1

    B4 the motor law

  83. Re:This is proof that economics is not a hard scie by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    Seba's prediction is that new car sales of gasoline cars will be zero in 8 years. The click bait seeking journalist said fossil fuel cars will vanish. If the last fossil fuel car is sold in 7 years and the average car has a half life of 10 years* then there will still be enough fossil fuel cars on the road 17 years from now for gas stations to still be viable.

    *the 10 years is my best guess not for how long a car lasts but at what point it's average distance driven is halved. Only some cars fail to last 10 years and have a distance of zero but the rest see their use decreases.

  84. Not so far fetched. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    The only thing slowing this down is batteries and their raw materials. Experts expect ~150000 jobs to go away in the German IC supplier industry due to electric in the next decade or so. Thats high profile engineering and manufacturing we're talking about.

    A modern German IC engine has 200+ moving parts, not counting transfer,clutch and gearbox. An e-motor in a tesla has 18 moving parts and is basically directly attached to the axle.

    Conclusion: Raw materials for batteries aside, this study isn't to far off imho. What will happen in the next 20 years will totally baffle most people and will cough up a mix of Snow Crash and The Diamond Age.

    Don't be too quick in calling this study stupid is my strong advice.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  85. Re: average age of _new_ car buyer in Germany. by Moskit · · Score: 1

    > But In Europe, the average age of new car buyers is already over 50, has been climbing for years.

    The widely discussed study is for Germany, not EU and not Europe.

    It also only takes into account buyers of _new_ cars (paying full price). Young people tend to buy used cars - they are much cheaper.

  86. Re:Yes. by Suomi-Poika · · Score: 1

    This entire situation looks very familiar to us Finns who experienced the downfall of Nokia. Remember that company? It is still there and making good business, however they have no position in the top end smartphone business. Less than 10 years ago they were number one, globally. That is the rate of the change we experience today.

    Some of the /. readers interpret this article "Old Automakers Will Die", just like Nokia "died" from the smartphone business. That is not going to happen. All automakers will gradually offer more and more Hybrid and full E.V.s, at some point there is going to be range+price parity between combustion engine models and electric models, then they will start phasing out combustion engine models. Their business is building and selling cars, "car" itself doesn't mean that they *must* build cars with the same power source year after year. People will vote with their wallets, it will be that simple.

  87. Range and refuel time problems by Squeak · · Score: 1

    My current vehicle has a range of about 650 miles before I consider it time to refuel, and refilling the tank takes about two minutes. Battery technology is improving, and it might reach equivalence in eight years, but I am not optimistic.

    --
    This sig is a figment of your imagination.
  88. Dream on... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    Next 8 years? don't count on it. In the end yes, but that'll take a decade or 2 at minimum. Also the current tech is still in it's infancy and not yet ripe for complete replacement of regular engines. Within 8 years moste NEW vehicles that will be sold will be electric, but let's not forget there are a gazillion cars still on the road, and a lot of people just don't have the money to buy a new car, and will buy a used car, which will still in most cases be a regular car as elecric used ones are still pretty expensive.
    And it's still easier to fix a regular car than an electric car, especially with the advances 3D printing is making which makes it easier to just print the parts needed.

    So, in the end, yes the petrol car will go the way of the dodo, but not within 8 years.

    Now if only they made a nice looking SUV (and no, Tesla's model X is NOT a nice looking SUV).

  89. If you want to kill yourself ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    ... please rent a few laps on the race-track like any other respectable engine-nut.

    Please leave the regular roads to us normal people, so we can actually go on with our lives without having to fear being killed by some idiot.
    Mind you, I'm not implying that _you're_ an idiot, I'm just telling the truth and making a reasonable demand. Seeing the way idiots drive on the Autobahn or through our cities has me praying for Google/Tesla/Mecredes-Benz/Whoever to finally get this self-driving-car show on the road. Like, literally. And this is Germany, where getting a divers licence costs north of 1500 Euros and equivalates to something like getting a PhD in Abstract Algebra, Training to become a Fighter Pilot or something of the sorts somewhere else.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  90. For values of "world"... by YuppieScum · · Score: 1

    ...that don't include anywhere with a marginal (or non-existent power grid) like most of Africa or India outside the major cities.

    Or anywhere people can't afford 30K for a new car every few years (as the batteries degrade), but can afford a couple of hundred quid for a junker to keep themselves mobile.

    Or anywhere you have to park on-street rather than in a garage - like most UK cities. Ever had you car "keyed" or the radio antenna snapped off by some local yokel with a few drinks in him? How about waking up to find you car unplugged or, better yet, the cable cut and sold for scrap?

    Or how about the conversation "Sorry, dear, we can't visit your parents tonight, otherwise the car won't have enough charge to get me to work in the morning..." (actually, that might be an up-side.)

    Or anywhere someone might want or need to drive for 300 miles without an hour-long stop to recharge the car?

    Or anywhere you might need to carry extra fuel in the boot (trunk) just in case?

    Or anywhere the ambient temperature might compromise the battery chemistry?

    Realistically, the "world" in this case reduces to a subset of wealthy suburbanites in developed nations.

    The reason that the internal combustion engine supplanted horse and steam was "convenience". Even in the pre-Model T Ford days, it was quicker to start a car than to saddle a horse or light the fire and build up a head of steam.

    The convenience was present even without the infrastructure we have now of proper roads and fuelling stations, and unless EVs can match that convenience, they'll continue to be a niche player.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
  91. Re:Bullshit: Consider Montana by LowTechSwede · · Score: 1

    Only 4% of the World population live in US, only 37% of US citizens live outside cities.So no, we don't need to consider Montana.

  92. Visionary? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    I know what this guy's after. He wants to be seen as a visionary and not the whacko that he is. He'll say - see, I predicted this way back in 2017. Aren't I so smart!

    No, you're not that smart. You're also not a visionary. You're just like everyone else.

  93. Narrow field of study... by BadTuna · · Score: 1

    I’m the transportation coordinator for a bridge girder manufacturer. Girders 150’ long and 140k are routine. I am currently doing the two months ground work to move two girders at 225’ long overall and 325k gross. I am not aware of anything even remotely close to being able to deal with those numbers for even a half a mile let alone 500+. This might happen in 100 years, certainly not 8.

    --
    Your sig here!
  94. GOOD by circularWaffle · · Score: 1

    I hope it really does happen!

  95. Fantasy, especially outside of the first world by fluffynuts · · Score: 1

    I can see this being something a person in the first world might imagine could happen within 8 years, if everyone hopped on board. But in developing countries? Even "second-world" ones like my own, South Africa?

    Not a chance. Simply buying an EV for personal use here is both risky (because of the lack of charging infrastructure coupled with shorter ranges and many people needing longer ranges) and expensive (the Nissan Leaf, for example, costs about three times more than a similar small petrol vehicle) -- if you can even buy one (the aforementioned Leaf was (and probably still is) only a vehicle available on specific request, not in showrooms anywhere, mainly because the company doesn't want backlash from a consumer base that they feel will be confused and dismayed by the lack of infrastructure).

    This vision *might* be something to aspire to within 3-4 decades in Africa. Even then, fossil fuels will still be used by people with functioning vehicles for as long as the fuel can be bought. The author also completely glosses over "petrol heads" (ie enthusiasts) as well as low-consumption fossil-fuel based vehicles (like motorbikes) -- again often the domain of hobbyists although staple transport for many.

  96. Yeah right by BubbaJonBoy · · Score: 1

    I gave up on the eggheads after their fail on flying cars.

  97. What is this clown smoking? by persicom · · Score: 1

    And can I get some?

  98. Access to charging by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    It's no big deal to do. Here, we have plug-ins pretty much everywhere we park for more than a few minutes (and even in some of those places.) The reason is because we have to plug in our car's electric heaters for our oil pans and batteries in the winter months, or odds are the cars won't be able to start after a day at work, or sitting overnight or for more than a few hours anywhere. Businesses inevitably have plug-ins all across their employee parking lots, the hospital lot is fully populated with them, etc.

    In cities and towns, I suspect that instead of parking meters, you'll just see a bunch of charging posts. You'll probably still have to put quarters in them. Or dollars. Don't think of it as an inconvenience to do: think of it as a new way to get money out of people parking. Then all of a sudden the rise of the appropriate infrastructure becomes obvious and inevitable. Nothing gets infrastructure built like the lure of income.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  99. Re:Safe and not Free by crafoo · · Score: 1

    Yes. Everyone in the United States willingly accepts an amount of risk so that all of us may remain free. This is reasonable, moral, and correct. Those not willing to live free can GTFO.

  100. The bank says no... by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    At the rate I'm going, my car won't be paid off in 8 years so this prediction must be driving bankers who make auto loans crazy.

  101. I said this twenty five years ago by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    I said this twenty five years ago, when I was 12. I said it because it was predicted back then too.

    It's been twenty five years, and I've learned something.

    Socient doesn't move that fast.

    Sorry.

  102. Gas Price by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    If electric cars get a significant market share (25%+) wouldn't we end up with a gasoline glut that would drive the price down to almost nothing? I can't find any postings here that take that into consideration.

    I would still take an electric car over an ICE car for myself but it is hard to believe that 100% market share is possible.

  103. Re:Um...8 Years? Seriously Wrong! by Megane · · Score: 1

    But do you know why electricity is cheaper? Because "in many places", gasoline/diesel is taxed well over 100%. In Texas right now, gasoline has been averaging around $2.00/gal if you average it over the past year or so. Taxes are probably around 40-50cents/gal of that price, and station profits are around 5-10 cents/gal. In Europe, prices are over a dollar a liter, with approx. 4 liters to the gallon. So what costs about $2/gal to refine and deliver (adding a bit because Texas is on the low end of costs) costs $4-$6 (or even more) at the pump.

    Some of those taxes go to road maintenance, and without them, that money has to come from somewhere else. Look forward to EV mileage taxes in a few years once they become a more than insignificant part of what's on the road.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  104. Big Oil and Auto Manufacturers will do just fine by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    Even if electric cars take off as the author states Big Oil and Auto Manufacturers will do just fine.

    Big Oil is not in the drilling business. They are in the refining business. They will do just fine. Auto Manufacturers will not do as well as Big Oil but there will still be a tremendous need for their goods and services. Tons of new vehicles will need to be built. And at the same time tons of new businesses will pop-up transporting people from here to there and they will need vehicles of different sizes and configurations.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  105. Urban bias by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Spoken like so many people who live in an urban area. Completely out of touch with the rest of American and the world. Not everybody lives in an urban area where a car isn't as essential to daily life. These same people often push the notion that nobody should live anywhere but jammed into a city living in 400 square feet. By the same token, Silicon Valley is out of touch with the rest of America. Not everybody has gigabit internet access wherever they live. Not everybody has cellular internet access. They need to quit building products that make these assumptions.

  106. Re:Um...8 Years? Seriously Wrong! by bobbied · · Score: 1

    The total cost of ownership of EV's is NOT on par with gasoline.... Yet... And I don't think this will change soon enough to make us all give up our fossil fueled conveyances within 8 years.

    The up front cost of purchasing the EV is considerably higher and last time I looked at it the cost recovery time exceeded the expected life of the vehicle's major component (the batteries). Now last time I looked gasoline was $3+ / Gal. Now, with gasoline about $2 / Gal the cost benefit is going to be even worse, unless the EV prices have fallen by 30% or so, and I don't believe that's happened.

    Not to mention that it's a false statement that EV's don't burn fossil fuels.... Actually they do... They burn Coal and Natural Gas to produce electricity to charge that EV don't they?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  107. Re:mileage based tax is not that easy and more tol by tsqr · · Score: 1

    mileage based tax is not that easy and more toll roads are not that easy to flip from free ones.

    You don't need mileage based taxes or toll roads. Just do what California's doing: add a hefty electric car surcharge to the annual vehicle registration.

  108. Re:mileage based tax is not that easy and more tol by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    If a significant proportion of cars were electric somebody would have to figure out how to tax them. The roads to drive the things on cost money.

  109. Re:Bullshit: Consider Montana by nerdbert · · Score: 1

    And ... you fail in your understanding of the US and how it is organized. In order to form the US, the states had to agree to a configuration that gave the smallest states a forum (the Senate) in which they had equal power to the largest states. It was done to prevent the large population states such as slave-owning Virginia from overpowering states such as New Hampshire. They also a forum which was almost population based (the House) and set them to balancing each other.

    So that 37% of US citizens has outsized influence on how the US makes many decisions -- witness that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but failed to become President based on her unpopularity in smaller states who disliked her proposed policies. Those rural and small population state voters will have an overly loud voice in determining how quickly electric cars will be adopted in the US, and will thus have a very formidable impact on how quickly the world turns to electric cars since the US is the largest market.

    The Founders of the US were pretty sensitive to making sure that minority opinions weren't run over roughshod and that strong consensus was required for making policy -- they even had a filibuster in the House at the beginning.

  110. Re:mileage based tax is not that easy and more tol by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    On the contrary I think a mileage based road tax that also takes into account the weight of the vehicle would be the simplest method for handling road taxes. Most states require you to renew your registration every year, simply add an odometer reading to this process. The mileage difference from the previous year is then used to calculate the road tax you owe and it's simply added to the cost of your registration renewal. If the cost of the renewal would be high offer the option of paying it off in monthly installments or something instead of one big lump. For most people though this cost would probably stay relatively low, given the average driver in the USA is probably paying $1 or less per day in road taxes. The only problems I can see with this kind of scheme is that people might try to cheat the odometer reading somehow, but that is an issue that has been around for a long time and is unlikely to change in a big way.

  111. NO. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    In 2025, if I were to drive a vehicle as old as the one i drive now, it would be a 2012 model.

    I might upgrade to a 2016. But I won't be driving a 2025 model. Buying new cars is a losing proposition for most drivers.

    Now, if car ownership in the U.S. becomes the exception, well, maybe. But I'm not yet ready to subscribe to the premise that on-demand vehicle sharing is going to win that fast. And we have several massive trends converging - alternative fuels/energy sources, self-driving, multi-mode travel. Not all of these will succeed within the same time frame.

    Ownership will be the last to change.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  112. One minor oversight by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    To my knowledge, they have yet to solve the abysmal battery performance in cold climate problem.

    It doesn't matter if all the other factors are jaw-dropping amazing. Until you fix this issue, your typical ICE vehicle will continue to dominate in any area where the aforementioned problem still exists.

    I would also expect the power companies to gouge the shit out of their customers once ( and if ) folks ever start migrating to EV.

  113. Two points by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Children do not inherit debt from parents. The parent's estate, if there is one, will be liable for it after they die.

    As for liability insurance, it covers up to a certain amount. The amount legally required by the state may not be enough to cover a really bad accident involving multiple people or a really expensive car. The owner of the car is responsible for the difference. Many policies cover more than the legal minimum.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  114. I still think "no" .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    All of your statistics about electric vehicle range and cost to recharge vs. cost of gasoline may be perfectly valid and accurate. But 8 years is a short time to expect the end of an entire industry that's currently still thriving.

    For starters? You've already got some issues developing when it comes to people trying to find suitable places to recharge an electric car. Tesla, who initially promised they'd place "superchargers" all over major highway routes that you'd get free access to changed that business model. Now, you have to pay extra to purchase permission to use them with a given Tesla. AND, people are starting to report long waits in line for available charging stations.

    Gas stations, by contrast, are *everywhere*, and you can fill a tank in a matter of only a few minutes.

    If you saw a sweeping change in less than a decade to most people driving electric cars? You'd need to have charging station coverage similar to the number of gas pumps available -- and I just don't see that happening that quickly at all. The push with electric cars, right now, is to convince most people that they're best used by recharging them overnight at home each night. That's fine for a daily commute but isn't the solution for road trips or someone who does a lot of driving as a courier or cab service.

    Additionally, let's talk about the cost to redesign a vehicle. Manufacturers tend to keep a vehicle pretty much the same for at least a 5 year span ... and sometimes as long as 10 years at a time. (I just bought a Nissan 370Z and it's been the same car since 2009, other than minor changes and tweaks.) That's because a total redesign is a VERY costly proposition. I don't see any of them being too eager to just stop building gasoline engines and converting everything to electric. Market demand will ultimately dictate what happens ... but the logical expectation here is a much more gradual transition. Perhaps you'll see several electric car offerings for each of the major car makers, but initially, only the ones they think lend themselves best to a retrofit? Marketing will probably try to convince people that gasoline powered vehicles are the smarter choice for some scenarios, in the meantime. (EG. They could claim that minivans are best kept gasoline powered because the batteries required to move them are just too heavy, or take up room that allows things like "stow and go seating" today.)

  115. Did I get transported elsewhere? by Miser · · Score: 1

    What is this, slashdot or reddit's r/futureology?

    Give me a break. You can have my diesel cars when you pay me for them or pry them out of my cold, dead hands. Preferably pay me for them. :)

  116. I use ethanol by laranjatomate · · Score: 1

    My Fiat Palio Weekend is ethanol powered. We have this technology in Brasil for almost 40 years, since the release of Fiat 147 in 1978. #proud I am also awaiting for some motoparts in order to convert my Suzuki GS500E to ethanol too.

  117. You'll Peel My Cold Dead Fingers Off ... by littlewink · · Score: 1

    the steering wheel of my 1998 Ford Ranger long after that.

  118. Hey professor, ask for a refund by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    On that degree you got from Stanford! If you really think, the global vehicle world, will switch to battery/electric/rubber band powered vehicles in EIGHT YEARS, you are not only crazy, but should be locked up in a mental ward. The petroleum industry will not "collapse". For one thing, even if "fossil fuel" vehicles disappeared, where would you get plastics, pharmaceuticals (medicine)? Yep, a lot of life saving medicine, comes from the petro-chemical industry! Love these egghead "theorist" that have never held a job, outside the academic world. Book smart, common sense STUPID!

  119. 90% of the time we are right 20% of the time by bchickens · · Score: 1

    And in other news, reports indicate fossil fuel cars will be around for the next 100 years.... anyone can perform a study and come up with this dribble. In fact 90% of the time we are right 20% of the time. I love the 8 years comment, these people need to wake up and look outside at how many people are never going to let go of there gas chugging cars, let alone in 8 years. Ha!

    --
    ~Bchickens
  120. ROTFL! by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Riiight. And all those millenials, drowning in tuition debt, and the 43%? 46%? of Americans with no college are *all* going to rush out and buy a new car?

    Everybody didn't even do it in the fifties; the ones who did bought a new car every two years. Any car you see on the road that's more than 3 years old, the owner is *not* going to go out and buy a new car; most of use buy *used* cars.

    And, btw, how many people are driving hybrids? Less than half? Less than a quarter? And EVs are going to take all that over in under 10 years?

  121. Three things by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    1. The vast majority of new cars in 2025 will be all electric or electric-biodiesel. This is true. Licenses and parking will become harder to find and more expensive for fossil fuel vehicles. You literally won't be able to drive fossil fuel cars into most major cities, except if you want to pay a toll on average of $10 and a surcharge on parking.

    2. Many older cars will continue to operate, because old people and afficionados will do that.

    3. Most younger people have already stopped buying non-electric cars, in fact Seattle is one of the top fast growing cities with decreasing car ownership. Only old people buy cars.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  122. Re:Bullshit: Consider Montana by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    How does your "need to own a car" clash with cars becoming electric and self-driving? That's a plus for you, less time wasted driving from A to B as you can spend your time doing something more useful.

    The range is also such a non-issue. There are few if any places in the world where you would need that much range (maybe the Australian outback). Drive that 100 miles to the mall and back, twice in a row, and you're still not out of power with modern batteries. Now if you're actually going shopping at that mall your car is sitting idle - sucking up fresh electricity, of course. Why wait until your battery is nearly empty before refueling?

  123. Re:8 years, huh? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I'm not too worried about the electric grid - it will need to keep up or people will drive the politicians out with pitchforks and torches. Americans don't handle things like rolling brownouts/blackouts with dignity.

    Track cars will always need special gas, just like they do now. I think you are right that they aren't going electric.

    My guess is that electric car adoption will initially be in multi-car households. At my house, an electric would be ideal for my wife's 5-mile commute into town or my 10 mile trip down the road while we hold on to the family truckster for long trips. Even if the electric goes out or some other calamity strikes, we'd still have the gasoline vehicle. Although honestly, the gas pumps all run on electric and the last time we had a major power outage (hurricane) there was a black market on gasoline as people were traveling to neighboring states to fill containers and sell them locally. The local stations either weren't getting deliveries or didn't have power.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  124. Re:Bullshit: Consider Montana by LowTechSwede · · Score: 1

    In terms of legislation, you are correct. I am in fact decently aware of how US is organized. The main issue here though is not legislation, it's purchasing patterns. In 2016, US was indeed the second largest market for cars in the world by number of vehicles sold, outpaced by China and closely followed by the EU/EFTA region. However, US car market grows at 4% per year, EU by 7% and China by 13% over the last 4 years. If that trend holds, the Chinese car market will be more than twice as big as the US in 8 years. At the same time, rural population percentage in US will drop further due to continued urbanization. http://www.best-selling-cars.c... I would further argue that new car sales happen more in densely populated high income areas and used cars go to low income rural areas to a greater extent. The Montanas of the world will have an ample supply of second hand clunkers for a long time. Based on gas price versus electricity price, the break-even point for electric cars come much sooner in EU (EU 4.5-7 $/gallon) and China (3.6$/gallon) than in US (2.6$/gallon) http://www.globalpetrolprices.... All of this will lead to that there is going to be a huge push towards electric cars over the coming years, which in turn will lead to efficiencies of scale and lower prices. I do believe that the interviewee of the original article is too optimistic on time, but I expect electric cars will beat gas cars on TCO over the life of the car in Europe already 2018 or latest 2019. I may have overstated the percentage of US citizens living in rural areas, most of the references I see has the number around 20%, not 37.

  125. Most comments aren't addressing the real premise by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    The author isn't saying that electric cars will replace internal combustion cars as something that most people own. His actual claim is that private car ownership will mostly go away, with autonomous electric cars being the technology that makes that possible. A very different premise, and one that deserves analysis.

    First up is the question of whether autonomous car technology will be ready quickly enough for his time frame. To meet the 2024 time point, autonomous cars have to be ready for mass production by 2020 at the latest and receive regulatory approval to be sold and driven autonomously. I think that's an overly optimistic date, especially for the legal part of the equation; that technology will come but I think it will take a bit longer than he believes

    It will take quite a few years to replace the entire installed base of vehicles. Currently there are about 250 million small vehicles (cars, SUVs, pickup trucks) registered in the US and 17.5 million sold each year. At those rates it would take about 12 years to replace them all. Moving toward shared autonomous cars will reduce the total number needed, but it's still likely to take more than four years to make enough of them.

    Another big question: will people be willing to forgo car ownership and do most of their travelling by using services such as Uber and/or public transit? (Uber itself won't necessarily be one of the important players or even survive, but if not somebody else will rise up to replace them.) In cities I think the case is strong; the economics of car ownership are unappealing, driving and parking are challenging and costly, and a ride in an autonomous vehicle has the potential to be much less expensive than taxis or the existing Uber because of eliminating labor costs for the drivers.

    But outside the city things get murkier. Maintaining a viable car sharing service requires a high density of use, which means dense population. As you leave the city and go into the suburbs that density disappears, and the viability of a shared infrastructure of autonomous cars drops. A further problem is the fact that the places where people live and the places where they work are well separated, so the pattern of use doesn't suit the model; people will want to take their cars to their workplace, where they will sit unused or underused for most of the day until the workers are ready to return home. Meanwhile, there are few cars left in the bedroom communities for the people who are still there and want rides.

    Eventually you reach rural areas, and I don't see the shared vehicle model taking hold there any time soon. There simply aren't enough people living there, and the distances people routinely travel are a barrier for electric cars.

    A final question is whether people are ready for the psychological shift of giving up car ownership. I suspect that for many people, the answer is no. They see their cars as personal space, much like their homes are, and won't want to give that up. The extent to which that is true is also likely to correlate with where they live. Many people who live in the city are already using public transit and are comfortable with travelling in vehicles that they do now own or control, but people who have moved out of cities do not. I have talked to people who find the idea of using public transit horrifying for that reason, and they also choose to drive many hundreds of miles on long trips rather than using a bus or train because of their preference for private travel. (Flying has become its own horror show and I can understand people wanting to avoid that.)

    There is also likely to be some resistance to autonomous vehicles themselves, aside from the question of ownership. Some people who value independence and private travel will not be prepared to let a machine drive for them because it involves giving up control; the fact that the autonomous car is likely to be safer won't sway them. Eventually some jurisdictions may move toward banning human driving for safety reasons and that will set off a firestorm of controversy.

  126. No more Saudis.... by Jerrry · · Score: 1

    Just think, if this actually comes to pass we can finally tell the Saudis to go fuck themselves.

  127. Gas for generators by katorga · · Score: 1

    Some places in the world will require petrol for the generators to charge their electric LandCruiser 70's and Hilux's.

  128. Wheels on the bus... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware the short bus stopped at Stanford.

  129. wot a comment by tailgunner_050 · · Score: 1

    Imma gonna just kept my car runnin for 9 years juss to prove this moron wrong.

  130. Without any information... by cvtan · · Score: 1

    I'm 99% sure this is 99% wrong.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  131. Re:Bullshit: Consider Montana by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

    getting 2,000 miles per tank would almost be the polar opposite of a gas guzzler.

  132. Wow! by overblod · · Score: 1

    Now we know best cannabis in the world can be found in Stanford, CA and second best in Toronto, Canada!!!

  133. What about -30C or -40C for two weeks on end by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    In Canada's north we have the subject mentioned temperatures. Batteries freeze at around -20C.

    No, the author is too too optimistic. However, as a second car, he may be right. The second car is used as one should use a bicycle. (short trips to grocers, etc)

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  134. Coal Powered Car! by jazzdude00021 · · Score: 1

    [sarcasm] Excellent! I've always wanted a coal powered car! Especially one where I can burn the coal in someone else's back yard instead of all over my town. I'm also excited to see all the new hazardous waste sites created by the battery manufacturing processes. This will certainly save the (children, environment, planet, whales, etc.)! [/sarcasm]

  135. Re:No. (Journalism is dead) by terjeber · · Score: 1

    Journalism is dead

    Journalism was stillborn. Just as Thomas Jefferson or Mark Twain*. Since a journalist has to write something that sells, he's going to write to reach that goal, if the best story also promotes some kind of truth, that was just a bonus.

    *If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.

  136. They'll take my gas gussler away when by B1700 · · Score: 1

    they pry my cold dead hands from the steering wheel!!!

  137. Re:mileage based tax is not that easy and more tol by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    If it would truly be a problem it already is a problem. There is nothing stopping anyone in those cities from always buying their gas on the cheaper side of the state/county line already. I'm not trying to claim that it is a perfect system but it should be just as good as what we've got now.

  138. I remember this article! by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    And then we store all our nuclear waste on the dark side of the moon, but it explodes, sending the moon veering off into space. Oh, wait, that happened in 1999. Nevermind.

  139. Re:Dreams of a dot-com bubble professor... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    I know this isn't the norm, but here in northern VA, we're already starting to see parking spaces with chargers. We have about four of them in my company's parking garage, and I've seen a few at places like outside a movie theater in Ashburn. Yes, I too believe this guy is full of shit on the timeframe, but my guess is about double his.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  140. Re: mileage based tax is not that easy and more to by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    The places that would REALLY throw fits if other states tried to claim 100% of tax revenues based upon registration address are states like Ohio that have lots of truck traffic passing THROUGH, and cities straddling the Mississippi or Ohio rivers (ex: Cincinnati. Many of its nicest & most desirable suburbs are on the Kentucky side, but nearly everyone WORKS on the Ohio side).

    As a compromise, they might tolerate having non-commercial vehicles taxed by registration address & annual miles driven, but require GPS-tracked accounting for commercial vehicles (including taxis, fleets, and rental cars). This would put most of the annual revenue in the "right" place, but avoid the Orwellian implications of doing it to VOTERS. They wouldn't even have to mandate GPS... if large corporations were required to accurately document miles-driven-per-tax-district, their Compliance dep't. would demand GPS as a cost-saving automation.

    US state borders are largely transparent to individuals, but quite real to businesses. There's nothing to stop someone from suburban L.A. from buying a non-CARB-compliant lawnmower at a Home Depot in Las Vegas & using it at home, but Home Depot *itself* wouldn't *dare* to sell non-CARB-compliant lawnmowers in California stores.

  141. Re:No. (Journalism is dead) by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but I think it's deader than it was before.

  142. Re: mileage based tax is not that easy and more to by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    Most of that heavy commercial traffic is probably on the interstate system. So we could probably just turn the interstates into toll roads for them by collecting an appropriate fee when they stop at the weigh stations. That way you can avoid having to monitor and maintain GPS devices in every truck on the road.

    Another method might be using all those automated license plate reading cameras we hear about periodically. Those are unlikely to go away any time soon, and the data they produce is going somewhere. I don't see why it couldn't be leveraged for road tax purposes. Although the fact that you could probably do such a thing might generate enough public ire to get them removed.