Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#251

Post by eyelidlessness » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:38 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #205

seanp2k2 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars cause pollution; they run on mostly coal or natural gas and have very toxic-to-mine, manufacture, and dispose-of batteries. They also emit just as much particulate emissions as normal cars: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-car-particulate-m... The way to "save the planet" is to not drive. Driving a 5000# vehicle around thinking you're doing good for the environment is just the marketing genius…

> have very toxic-to-mine, manufacture, and dispose-of batteries. This is absolutely false. Lithium is not toxic to mine at all. It isn't even "mined". http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/12/lithium-mining-vs-oil-sa... > Electric cars cause pollution They cause zero pollution when you have solar panels on your roof and the car is properly scrapped after you're done with it. > The way to "save the planet" is to not drive…

> They cause zero pollution when you have solar panels on your roof and the car is properly scrapped after you're done with it.

Unless you factor in manufacturing.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#252

Post by serge2k » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:40 AM UTC

gkya wrote: post #230

thucydides wrote: post #23

> "When used correctly, [partially autonomous driving] is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves" If you're an American, you're twice as likely to die with a steering wheel in your hands as you are to die at the hands of a murderer. Human-driven vehicle deaths cause grave second-order suffering for families and friends - and hurt the economy. A shift to technologies safer than human-driven ca…

I don't understand, why would you need self driving cars if you don't want to drive? Public transport is here, is cheaper and safer. Also it allows to multitask.

autonomous or not, taking the bus is still going to be a craptacular experience.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#253

Post by Animats » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:40 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #179

lallysingh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the matter of that laser scanner on some cars - usually costing more than the car...

Not anymore. Complete LIDAR units are already available for under $500[1]. There are other, cheaper sensors which aren't as good as full LIDAR but are available for under $100[2]. There are plenty of other options hitting the market soon too[3] [1] http://www.teraranger.com/products/teraranger-lidar/ [2] https://www.pulsedlight3d.com/ [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/12/0...

It's not quite here yet. I've been following this since the DARPA Grand Challenge, when we had to use a huge SICK LMS just to get a line scanner. There are now several affordable indoor line scanners. Outdoor sunlight-tolerant systems cost more. 3D scanners, which scan in multiple planes, are still expensive. There are some MEMS devices coming along. Flash LIDAR will probably win out in the end, once someone does the sensor IC development to get the price down from $100K.

Back in 2003, I dragged a VC down to see Advanced Scientific Concepts in Santa Barbara. They make the best flash LIDAR. But they were happy being a DoD and aerospace contractor, selling expensive one-offs. The Dragon spacecraft uses an ASC flash LIDAR to dock with the space station. DARPA buys their units. But their price point is around $100K. There's no inherent reason it has to be that expensive, but it takes custom sensor ICs made in small quantities. Last March, Continental AG (German tire/brake/auto parts company) bought the technology from ASC.[1] We'll have to see how that works out. This is the right technology if the price point can be brought down.

[1] http://www.spar3d.com/news/lidar/flash-lidar-company-acquire...

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#254

Post by ams6110 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:41 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #205

seanp2k2 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars cause pollution; they run on mostly coal or natural gas and have very toxic-to-mine, manufacture, and dispose-of batteries. They also emit just as much particulate emissions as normal cars: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-car-particulate-m... The way to "save the planet" is to not drive. Driving a 5000# vehicle around thinking you're doing good for the environment is just the marketing genius…

> have very toxic-to-mine, manufacture, and dispose-of batteries. This is absolutely false. Lithium is not toxic to mine at all. It isn't even "mined". http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/12/lithium-mining-vs-oil-sa... > Electric cars cause pollution They cause zero pollution when you have solar panels on your roof and the car is properly scrapped after you're done with it. > The way to "save the planet" is to not drive…

There's more than lithium in the batteries, and other components such as Cobalt or Arsenic are not exactly nontoxic. On balance however, lithium ion batteries are less toxic than alternatives.

Realistically, at present most EV owners will not charge their cars from solar panels but from the utility mains and that means coal-generated electricity in many if not most areas.

Car manufacturing involves a tremendous investment of energy to mine and produce steel, aluminum, rubber, plastics, and electronics. Recycling itself consumes more energy, and in many cases raw virgin product is cheaper than recycled.

Not driving is impractical. Driving less, when possible, is worth considering.

Right now if you need to buy a car, the most environmentally friendly choice is probably a used (no new manufacturing) fuel-efficient conventional car.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#255

Post by Animats » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:43 AM UTC

2bitencryption wrote: post #49

danhak wrote: post #11

I'm on board with most of this. The goals here are obviously ambitious by any standard, and would seem totally absurd if put forth by anyone who didn't happen to berth a private spacecraft with the ISS earlier this morning.

I've read a fair share of criticisms against Tesla, and many of them are founded on solid points. However, in the grand scheme of things, this really does seem like I am watching history unfold. I don't know if I've ever truly believed the "grand mission statement" of a company before so much as I do Tesla's. Mostly because, when it has come down to it, Musk has proved that he really means it. Silicon Valley has made…

Well, Microsoft's mission statement was once "A computer on every desk, running Microsoft software." Mission accomplished, 20 years ago.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#256

Post by sidcool » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:43 AM UTC

A digression from the mainstream discussion.

I woke up this morning feeling sullen (many factors involved). I didn't feel like going to work. I could hardly get out of bed. I just sat for a few minutes staring in the vacuumn. Something told me to check Hacker News (I am trying to avoid it in morning), and the top link was this. I went through it twice. It instilled hope and enthusiasm in me. I woke up in an instant and rushed to work to do great stuff.

Thanks for the article I am typing this at work, else would have wasted the day filled with self-loathing and despair. Hang in there guys, it gets better. Do Great Stuff.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#257

Post by mulcahey » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:46 AM UTC

sidcool wrote: post #256

A digression from the mainstream discussion. I woke up this morning feeling sullen (many factors involved). I didn't feel like going to work. I could hardly get out of bed. I just sat for a few minutes staring in the vacuumn. Something told me to check Hacker News (I am trying to avoid it in morning), and the top link was this. I went through it twice. It instilled hope and enthusiasm in me. I woke up in an instant a…

If you liked that go read Elon's biography or the WaitButWhy series!

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#258

Post by pfranz » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:46 AM UTC

pdq wrote: post #139

I still don't understand the SolarCity part. Tesla is atop the best rated electric cars, and has a good trajectory toward that product line future, with lots of innovation ahead. Successful companies like Apple focus on best-in-class products, so Tesla is smart to continue focusing their resources into those product lines. Meanwhile SolarCity has been burning cash on a consistent basis [1], and is sitting in a hyper…

I thought SolarCity's competitive advantage was solar leasing [1]. Which would mean they're sacrificing upfront profits for longer term gains and any dollar spent now would very likely mean profits in the future. I haven't paid enough attention to see how well that's going.

Oh, and I've heard Tesla described as "a battery company that makes cars." Solar is also tightly coupled with battery tech since without it they're a lot less useful. Maybe that's the synergy?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarCity#Solar_leasing

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#259

Post by joshmarlow » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:47 AM UTC

gkya wrote: post #230

thucydides wrote: post #23

> "When used correctly, [partially autonomous driving] is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves" If you're an American, you're twice as likely to die with a steering wheel in your hands as you are to die at the hands of a murderer. Human-driven vehicle deaths cause grave second-order suffering for families and friends - and hurt the economy. A shift to technologies safer than human-driven ca…

I don't understand, why would you need self driving cars if you don't want to drive? Public transport is here, is cheaper and safer. Also it allows to multitask.

Well.... public transportation requires infrastructure which is not always around. In the south-east USA, for instance, there are public buses here and there but they rarely go for more than a few miles, and there are no trains or subways to travel mid-distance or between cities.

So grey-hound or car rentals are your best bet unless you already own a car.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#260

Post by ams6110 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:48 AM UTC

kevan wrote: post #238

gozur88 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Without need for parking, commercial districts could get denser and denser, and people could have nice large homes far away for cheaper than ever. If people are living farther away from their jobs, you're likely to get more congestion, not less.

Theoretically autonomous cars will decrease congestion through better driving patterns and maybe coordinating with each other, meaning we could support a lot more traffic with the infrastructure we already have.

The operative word is "theoretically." It remains to be demonstrated that thousands of independent autonomous vehicles can really operate in congested areas more effectively than human drivers.

AFAIK none of the current autonomous control technology coordinates in any way with other vehicles or any kind of central control facility. Human drivers using Waze is probably the closest approximation of that to date.