Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine • Hacker News Board

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#111

Post by Karrot_Kream » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:43 PM UTC

kjksf wrote: post #99

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don't understand this enthusiasm for autonomous cars. It seems like the HN-crowd seems to wax enthusiasm for solutions that don't yet exist, and absolutely reject alternatives (bikes, public transit) that already exist and work. With new solutions comes new problems, and I can see congestion being a big one. I guess it's not sexy to implement the tried-and-true, but it's a lot more sexy to dream.

The technology for autonomous cars does exist. Latest data from Waymo is that they can drive 5.000 miles on average before disengagement ( https://medium.com/waymo/accelerating-the-pace-of-learning-3... ). They are not ready to be widely deployed but are close, which is why we're talking about them. It's an exciting technology with great potential impact on the future and a lot of that impact is positive. As far as b…

> They are not ready to be widely deployed but are close, which is why we're talking about them. It's an exciting technology with great potential impact on the future and a lot of that impact is positive.

If you've ever implemented anything in your life, you should know that completely new solutions often come with unexpected failure modes. Very well thought out solutions often address all of these, but more often than not we have to address failure modes through iteration. Unfortunately, physical infrastructure isn't like software: iteration isn't nearly as cheap or fast.

> As far as public transit: autonomous cars will improve it. By my calculations, autonomous car will be cheaper, unsubsidized, than a $2.50 bus ride subsidized by the city from our taxes (SF has ~$1 billion budget to fund money-loosing bart, buses etc.).

And how will that scale? When SF's streets are filled grid-to-grid with vehicles that can only fit 5 people at once (and will probably only accept 4 due to customer sentiment), what will we do then? Also, care to share your calculations?

> And that's cars. Things will be even cheaper if we get buses to be autonomous. At which point it's likely bus service will be cheaper and provided by a commercial company (the only reason public transport is government owned is because it looses money, so it wouldn't exist as private company).

A bus driver is far from the main cost of a bus service. Many buses in SF/Berkeley are already electric or hybrid, so it's not even fuel anymore. Buses are expensive because they are large vehicles and because maintaining them is expensive. Autonomous driving tech won't make a bus cheaper to purchase or maintain.

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#112

Post by skybrian » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:46 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #102

bryanlarsen wrote: post #2

Anytime you make something cheaper, easier to use, more useful and/or more efficient you get an increase in usage. Autonomous electric cars are all 4, and will lead to a dramatic increase in the number of miles driven. Some of those miles we can imagine (for instance sending your car on a dead-head journey somewhere for somebody else to use it), but most of the increase will probably be from new usage models that we…

> Anytime you make something cheaper, easier to use, more useful and/or more efficient you get an increase in usage. This isn't inherently true. You only get an increase in usage if people want/need that usage but previously couldn't have it. (i.e, if there was already a shortage -- if we were severely undeserving the need previously, or a new undeserved need was discovered). If there is no shortage already and/or no…

Could you expand on "critical shortages up the chain?"

It seems like if slightly less-preferable alternatives are already being used, this would be enough to induce demand when the price drops a bit. Many car trips are optional; consider shopping and the ability to combine trips or order online, if you're motivated to do so. Also, there are many alternatives for entertainment, whether by going somewhere else or staying home. And people do take traffic into account when choosing when and where to drive.

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#113

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:47 PM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #109

bwanab wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congestion? I don't think you're taking into account the huge advantage that autonomous cars have with respect to coordination among themselves. Much, if not most, congestion is caused by human drivers attempting to accrue advantage to themselves through maneuvers that disadvantage everybody else on the road.

No most of congestion is caused by the spacial inefficiency of car based infrastructure. Cars are big and roads have fixed capacity. Autonomous cars will not significantly change this.

> Autonomous cars will not significantly change this.

Autonomous cars (if used exclusively) over time should decrease safe separation, increasing capacity, but there's a limit to the gains from that.

Some additional gains if they are networked at routing is optimized to utilize all available roads rather than just the usually-best route.

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#114

Post by skybrian » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:50 PM UTC

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #75

bryanlarsen wrote: post #2

Anytime you make something cheaper, easier to use, more useful and/or more efficient you get an increase in usage. Autonomous electric cars are all 4, and will lead to a dramatic increase in the number of miles driven. Some of those miles we can imagine (for instance sending your car on a dead-head journey somewhere for somebody else to use it), but most of the increase will probably be from new usage models that we…

Yeah I don't understand this enthusiasm for autonomous cars. It seems like the HN-crowd seems to wax enthusiasm for solutions that don't yet exist, and absolutely reject alternatives (bikes, public transit) that already exist and work. With new solutions comes new problems, and I can see congestion being a big one. I guess it's not sexy to implement the tried-and-true, but it's a lot more sexy to dream.

"Absolutely reject" seems a bit much. The same people can be enthusiasts for driverless cars and also take public transit and/or biking.

Also, it's easy to see how driverless cars could be used along with public transit or biking for different parts of a trip.

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#115

Post by Waterluvian » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:56 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #2

Anytime you make something cheaper, easier to use, more useful and/or more efficient you get an increase in usage. Autonomous electric cars are all 4, and will lead to a dramatic increase in the number of miles driven. Some of those miles we can imagine (for instance sending your car on a dead-head journey somewhere for somebody else to use it), but most of the increase will probably be from new usage models that we…

My amateur expectation is that if 100% of vehicles are autonomous, they can be FAR better drivers and you could get far more cars on the same roads with considerably less stopping and waiting.

The problem will be when fewer than 100% of vehicles are autonomous, then it will simply remain as awful as it is today.

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#116

Post by ghaff » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 7:01 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #102

bryanlarsen wrote: post #2

Anytime you make something cheaper, easier to use, more useful and/or more efficient you get an increase in usage. Autonomous electric cars are all 4, and will lead to a dramatic increase in the number of miles driven. Some of those miles we can imagine (for instance sending your car on a dead-head journey somewhere for somebody else to use it), but most of the increase will probably be from new usage models that we…

> Anytime you make something cheaper, easier to use, more useful and/or more efficient you get an increase in usage. This isn't inherently true. You only get an increase in usage if people want/need that usage but previously couldn't have it. (i.e, if there was already a shortage -- if we were severely undeserving the need previously, or a new undeserved need was discovered). If there is no shortage already and/or no…

That's certainly true but I have to believe that, for most people, effectively having a private driver at their beck and call would increase the amount of time they spend in a car.

You're right that it's not infinite; I don't want to spend 8 hours a day commuting just because someone else is doing the driving. But, speaking as someone who lives about an hour outside of the nearest large city, I would absolutely go in more for the evening--as well as take more weekend trips--if I didn't have to drive.

That's likely typical of a lot of people, albeit not everyone.

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#117

Post by Tiktaalik » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 7:06 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #113

Tiktaalik wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No most of congestion is caused by the spacial inefficiency of car based infrastructure. Cars are big and roads have fixed capacity. Autonomous cars will not significantly change this.

> Autonomous cars will not significantly change this. Autonomous cars (if used exclusively) over time should decrease safe separation, increasing capacity, but there's a limit to the gains from that. Some additional gains if they are networked at routing is optimized to utilize all available roads rather than just the usually-best route.

Right we all expect this sort of thing, but so far it's all theory and I haven't seen anyone seriously test and study the idea based on real world factors.

For example I doubt we'll see any benefits of decreased safe separation in cities where there are cyclists and pedestrians and other factors that are hard to predict.

My prediction would be that the efficiency gains will be marginal and will be dominated by other factors that affect congestion.

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#118

Post by agumonkey » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #115

bryanlarsen wrote: post #2

Anytime you make something cheaper, easier to use, more useful and/or more efficient you get an increase in usage. Autonomous electric cars are all 4, and will lead to a dramatic increase in the number of miles driven. Some of those miles we can imagine (for instance sending your car on a dead-head journey somewhere for somebody else to use it), but most of the increase will probably be from new usage models that we…

My amateur expectation is that if 100% of vehicles are autonomous, they can be FAR better drivers and you could get far more cars on the same roads with considerably less stopping and waiting. The problem will be when fewer than 100% of vehicles are autonomous, then it will simply remain as awful as it is today.

I wonder if road signs will evolve too. The other day a few red lights were put in blinking mode because of roadwork. While asking for way more attention, it also avoid many 50sec pauses.. I found it very very nice. With collaborating SDV you could get rid of many stuck intersections that creates bloat and useless consumption (even though EV can just cut power on stop ...)

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#119

Post by akira2501 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 7:11 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #26

comicjk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting rid of combustion in urban areas is one of the biggest public health wins available, on the same scale as famous past examples like banning leaded gasoline. The only reason we haven't already done it is lack of alternatives.

We have electric cars now, and we had plenty of ways to make public transport electric in the past without significantly reducing its flexibility - this makes me think it's not about lack of alternatives, but something else. My first suspicion is that fossil fuel transportation is still cheaper . Hopefully this will change soon.

> but something else.

The high cost of completely changing your fleet of vehicles, your driver and mechanics training and bringing in a whole new set of vendors and service professionals to tie it all together.

> My first suspicion is that fossil fuel transportation is still cheaper.

Yes, it's just about a lot more than the vehicles themselves.

Re: Electric cars: The death of the internal combustion engine

#120

Post by Someone » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 7:16 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #2

Anytime you make something cheaper, easier to use, more useful and/or more efficient you get an increase in usage. Autonomous electric cars are all 4, and will lead to a dramatic increase in the number of miles driven. Some of those miles we can imagine (for instance sending your car on a dead-head journey somewhere for somebody else to use it), but most of the increase will probably be from new usage models that we…

Predicting future human behavior is hard, but I disagree (under the assumption that self-driving cars will be as good as perfect)

Firstly, I disagree about your congestion claim. It is 'easy' to program self-driving cars to create road trains, where cars ride at speed with centimeters distance. That way, road capacity can easily quadruple. Traffic may slow down in rush hour, but traffic jams due to driver misjudgments could become a lot rarer, if not a thing from the past.

Traffic jams due to cars breaking down also might be avoidable. Cars could be programmed to push other cars out of the way, if one were to break down.

I also disagree with your claim the number of cars will go down. Reason? For many people, cars are too much of a status symbol. They also serve a bit as an extension to one's home (both psychologically and practically, for example to store a child's seat, umbrella, tennis rackets).

So why, if everybody able to afford a car today will still be able to afford one, would they do away with it?

Also, I don't see lots and lots of possibilities of decreasing the peak demand for cars. Many people still will want to go to work between 7 and 9 (all else being equal), and most cars will not be able to make two trips between suburbs and offices in a single rush hour (even without congestion, as I expect people to move further out of town in response, where gardens are larger and houses cheaper). Also, parents who can afford it will have third or fourth cars to drive their kids to school.