Someday hopefully but that day is years in the future. Until then we'll have to do things similar to how we do them now.
No. Clearly those with EVs will chose the minority of hotels that do have chargers. And that's what will propel others to have chargers. Normal market forces, exactly as panned out with wi-fi, TVS and en-suite bathrooms before them.
It won't take that long because the entry level charger for the family motel/hotel is cheap. It's an unmetered external power socket with a locked cover. It's a slow charge, but because it's overnight that doesn't matter. That's happening already in my country. And chains of hotels have energy companies and the likes of Tesla willing to do deals and pay all or part of the cost of proper public charging stations.
Doesn't work if they live in an apartment or someplace like Manhattan.
In Manhattan, you've got a parking problem even if you're in an ICE car. Parking garages likewise are going to increasingly have EV chargers.
I never said anything about paved. But if the roads not navigable by the Google Streetmaps cars, then you probably don't want an autonomous car going down their either.
And unplowed snow is a challenge for people, never mind computers. Consider the accident rate when people are driving in snow. It must be, what, a thousand times the normal rate?
If you're away at a hotel, then they'll have chargers. It you're away staying at someone's home then it'll charge overnight from a domestic power socket.
(OK not all hotels have chargers yet. But they will soon enough, just as they all have wifi, because they'll lose trade without it.)
Well, they DO get a lot of press... but sales?... That is a rounding error, not the "coming replacement of ICE cars".
And you flip-flopped AGAIN. Yesterday you were banging on about how there too many EVs, so people had to unplug each other from public charing points.
The truth is, EVs will go through the normal technology curve that any replacement technology does. For example there were a few years when flat screen TVs were rare and expensive. And people like you were asking what the point was. And then, all of a sudden, no-one had a CRT TV any more. Blink and you missed the tipping point.
Google has already street mapped most places in the developed world multiple times. Autonomous car maps need a LIDAR scan at the same time. How long to you imagine that's going to take before all the US roads are done? Bet it's done before their car is otherwise ready for market.
The infrastructure and population density simply doesn't exist for car rentals to be economically viable and self-driving cars will not change that fact.
I don't know where you live. But anywhere that's populated enough for a taxi service is populated enough for an autonomous taxi service. And because of the lack of a need to pay for drivers, plus the central planning of an Uber type system, many places that can't support a taxi service may be able to support autonomous taxis too.
It may not be right for you. It least now. But it may be for others.
Perhaps what you really want is a "taxi," which as a trained, professional driver, who knowingly accepts that responsibility (and control) for himself.
Ha ha ha. Amongst the worst drivers on the road are Taxi drivers.
You're saying some guess better than others. And you have faith that the better guessers are rewarded. Which again is a long way from your stupid concept that employee tax replaces tax that a corporation avoids paying.
Love most certainly does have a price. As does the lack of love. Just because you can't assign it a specific number doesn't make it priceless.
The Beatles understood something you don't. You're just confirming that you don't understand the difference between value and price. If it's priceless, that literally means you can't assign it a specific number.
Putting prices on things sure coincides with the improvement of the world and the lives of people.
Somethings get better, some things get worse. You certainly can't attribute the majority of the getting better things to putting a price on everything possible. Quite the contrary.
To a corporation, an employee is an asset like any other.
The world is not really like your concept of it.
Let's say a particular job generates $100000 in revenue a year. Subtracting, say, $20000 for profit and risk, that means that the company is willing to incur about $80000 in costs for that employee.
Even within the capitalist mindset that's mistaken. That only defines the top end of what an employee with perfect knowledge of cause and effect would pay. The actual pay will be the smallest amount that gives them confidence they won't lose a worthwhile employee. Itself altered by complexities like the wider job market and pay scales. Nor does it describe what board members are willing to pay themselves. Which is the maximum they think they can get away with, regardless of what, if it were possible to calculate, was the revenue they add.
Your model isn't even adequate for a computer SIM game. Let alone a description of the real world.
And even your model doesn't suggest that tax avoided by corporations is instead paid by it's employees. That's just mindless drivel.
Price is simply the mathematical expression of value.
Bullshit. For example love is valuable, but it has no price. True neo-liberalism only understands prostitution.
That this isn't clear to you just indicates that you are just another of the people who've been taken in by capitalism. You don't improve the world and the lives of people by trying to price everything. Whether you can see that or not.
That *is* the point. In order to encourage desirable behaviour by drivers, some get privileges. The car pool lane is a classic example. They get an extra lane so they can travel faster, because they are sharing a car with others.
Long term, chargers will be a standard feature of pretty much all parking spots. Charge if you need the electricity, don't if you don't. But that would be pointless right now as there aren't enough EVs yet. In the meantime, having reserved parking spaces that ICE cars can't use is one of the intended privileges of EVs. Along with lower taxes, or the ability to use in congestion charge areas without paying a fee.
Where there are not enough charging spots for the people that want to charge, then it makes sense to restrict to those that are actually charging. But where there are plenty of chargers, that's not necessary, and EV users are fine to park there.
Prius isn't a plug in EV, and those older batteries don't hold a charge the way they once did, and vehicles twice their age are still driving with the original engine, so you frankly have no data to back up that statement.
You are the one who made the statement. You claimed "The batteries will not in fact last as long as the gas engine will in a normal car." Now you are saying there is no data to back it up. Which is it? Huh?
Prius has been around for 18 years. There are cars that are still running after 36 years. But you're talking 1979 there. They are the exceptions. They haven't been driven daily for that time. Or if they have then they've had their engines reconditioned and rebuilt or replaced at least once.
18 years is longer than the average lifespan of an ICE car. So whilst there's plenty more data needed, we can start to see that Prius batteries can last the lifetime of an average ICE car. How long the exceptional Prius batteries last we've yet to see.
And if they do need replacing, they are a hell of a lot easier to replace than an ICE engine..
You keep thinking that... It is greener than throwing them out, but it isn't green.
Recycling and reconditioning are indeed green activities. They are green industries.You are confusing the act of mining the raw materials to make original batteries, with the action of extracting materials out of batteries that are being thrown away. The former isn't green. The latter is.
(Of course the former as part of the entire lifespan of an EV vs the lifespan of an ICE car can mean it's greener than the alternative.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Millions of Top Gear fans oppose paying the BBC license fee.
(And they have done so since long before Clarkson punched a producer and was sacked.)
Someday hopefully but that day is years in the future. Until then we'll have to do things similar to how we do them now.
No. Clearly those with EVs will chose the minority of hotels that do have chargers. And that's what will propel others to have chargers. Normal market forces, exactly as panned out with wi-fi, TVS and en-suite bathrooms before them.
It won't take that long because the entry level charger for the family motel/hotel is cheap. It's an unmetered external power socket with a locked cover. It's a slow charge, but because it's overnight that doesn't matter. That's happening already in my country. And chains of hotels have energy companies and the likes of Tesla willing to do deals and pay all or part of the cost of proper public charging stations.
Doesn't work if they live in an apartment or someplace like Manhattan.
In Manhattan, you've got a parking problem even if you're in an ICE car. Parking garages likewise are going to increasingly have EV chargers.
I never said anything about paved. But if the roads not navigable by the Google Streetmaps cars, then you probably don't want an autonomous car going down their either.
And unplowed snow is a challenge for people, never mind computers. Consider the accident rate when people are driving in snow. It must be, what, a thousand times the normal rate?
Indeed, why can't you. That's the point, it's subjective.
If you're away at a hotel, then they'll have chargers. It you're away staying at someone's home then it'll charge overnight from a domestic power socket.
(OK not all hotels have chargers yet. But they will soon enough, just as they all have wifi, because they'll lose trade without it.)
Ridiculous. Virtually no one drives a car anything approaching 700 miles in a day. YAGNI.
Eventually they may have those for the niche of people that drive 10 hours without a break. But to say that's needed for general adoption is moronic.
Well, they DO get a lot of press... but sales? ...
That is a rounding error, not the "coming replacement of ICE cars".
And you flip-flopped AGAIN. Yesterday you were banging on about how there too many EVs, so people had to unplug each other from public charing points.
The truth is, EVs will go through the normal technology curve that any replacement technology does. For example there were a few years when flat screen TVs were rare and expensive. And people like you were asking what the point was. And then, all of a sudden, no-one had a CRT TV any more. Blink and you missed the tipping point.
Sure. They don't have an NRA encouraging them; telling them that they need guns to defend themselves from other criminals and the police.
Or did you think the NRA propaganda only encouraged good guys to own guns.
You missed the point. They already are categorised. And someone else already decided how to group them.
Google has already street mapped most places in the developed world multiple times. Autonomous car maps need a LIDAR scan at the same time. How long to you imagine that's going to take before all the US roads are done? Bet it's done before their car is otherwise ready for market.
You're not the only person in the world. Clearly other people have different needs from you because Taxi's clearly exist.
Who didn't think it through again?
The infrastructure and population density simply doesn't exist for car rentals to be economically viable and self-driving cars will not change that fact.
I don't know where you live. But anywhere that's populated enough for a taxi service is populated enough for an autonomous taxi service. And because of the lack of a need to pay for drivers, plus the central planning of an Uber type system, many places that can't support a taxi service may be able to support autonomous taxis too.
It may not be right for you. It least now. But it may be for others.
We're not there yet. But nowhere near? That's not true. There are already lots of test vehicles out on the road mixing with real traffic.
Yes, it's only in known well mapped areas. But in a few years everywhere will be known and well mapped.
Perhaps what you really want is a "taxi," which as a trained, professional driver, who knowingly accepts that responsibility (and control) for himself.
Ha ha ha. Amongst the worst drivers on the road are Taxi drivers.
You're saying some guess better than others. And you have faith that the better guessers are rewarded. Which again is a long way from your stupid concept that employee tax replaces tax that a corporation avoids paying.
Love most certainly does have a price. As does the lack of love. Just because you can't assign it a specific number doesn't make it priceless.
The Beatles understood something you don't. You're just confirming that you don't understand the difference between value and price. If it's priceless, that literally means you can't assign it a specific number.
Putting prices on things sure coincides with the improvement of the world and the lives of people.
Somethings get better, some things get worse. You certainly can't attribute the majority of the getting better things to putting a price on everything possible. Quite the contrary.
If the police were slower on the trigger I bet that 42% would quickly rise.
And yet in countries where the police are not routinely armed, police deaths from gunfire are much lower.
Beware of calling subjective categories a single cause". For example these could easily have been consolidated on the list, with a sum of 51.
Automobile accident: 27
Motorcycle accident: 4
Struck by vehicle: 5
Vehicle pursuit: 5
Vehicular assault: 10
Police officers are more likely to die from causes other than gunfire...
Coronary heart disease from all the donuts?
The only real losers in this have been the UK Tax Payers and the poor saps who posted his bail for him.
No one "posted his bail". This quaint wild-west tradition is not practiced in the UK. There's bail for some offences, but no bond or bondsmen.
Even if they are in the app-store doesn't mean they cost. Many or most are free downloads.
To a corporation, an employee is an asset like any other.
The world is not really like your concept of it.
Let's say a particular job generates $100000 in revenue a year. Subtracting, say, $20000 for profit and risk, that means that the company is willing to incur about $80000 in costs for that employee.
Even within the capitalist mindset that's mistaken. That only defines the top end of what an employee with perfect knowledge of cause and effect would pay. The actual pay will be the smallest amount that gives them confidence they won't lose a worthwhile employee. Itself altered by complexities like the wider job market and pay scales.
Nor does it describe what board members are willing to pay themselves. Which is the maximum they think they can get away with, regardless of what, if it were possible to calculate, was the revenue they add.
Your model isn't even adequate for a computer SIM game. Let alone a description of the real world.
And even your model doesn't suggest that tax avoided by corporations is instead paid by it's employees. That's just mindless drivel.
Price is simply the mathematical expression of value.
Bullshit. For example love is valuable, but it has no price. True neo-liberalism only understands prostitution.
That this isn't clear to you just indicates that you are just another of the people who've been taken in by capitalism. You don't improve the world and the lives of people by trying to price everything. Whether you can see that or not.
That *is* the point. In order to encourage desirable behaviour by drivers, some get privileges. The car pool lane is a classic example. They get an extra lane so they can travel faster, because they are sharing a car with others.
Long term, chargers will be a standard feature of pretty much all parking spots. Charge if you need the electricity, don't if you don't. But that would be pointless right now as there aren't enough EVs yet. In the meantime, having reserved parking spaces that ICE cars can't use is one of the intended privileges of EVs. Along with lower taxes, or the ability to use in congestion charge areas without paying a fee.
Where there are not enough charging spots for the people that want to charge, then it makes sense to restrict to those that are actually charging. But where there are plenty of chargers, that's not necessary, and EV users are fine to park there.
Prius isn't a plug in EV, and those older batteries don't hold a charge the way they once did, and vehicles twice their age are still driving with the original engine, so you frankly have no data to back up that statement.
You are the one who made the statement. You claimed "The batteries will not in fact last as long as the gas engine will in a normal car."
Now you are saying there is no data to back it up. Which is it? Huh?
Prius has been around for 18 years. There are cars that are still running after 36 years. But you're talking 1979 there. They are the exceptions. They haven't been driven daily for that time. Or if they have then they've had their engines reconditioned and rebuilt or replaced at least once.
18 years is longer than the average lifespan of an ICE car. So whilst there's plenty more data needed, we can start to see that Prius batteries can last the lifetime of an average ICE car. How long the exceptional Prius batteries last we've yet to see.
And if they do need replacing, they are a hell of a lot easier to replace than an ICE engine..
You keep thinking that... It is greener than throwing them out, but it isn't green.
Recycling and reconditioning are indeed green activities. They are green industries.You are confusing the act of mining the raw materials to make original batteries, with the action of extracting materials out of batteries that are being thrown away. The former isn't green. The latter is.
(Of course the former as part of the entire lifespan of an EV vs the lifespan of an ICE car can mean it's greener than the alternative.)