Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 692 posts

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#531

Post by joebob42 »

rcxdude wrote: post #444
Mashimo wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EVs have a way higher initial CO2 footprint. The crossover depends on car and where you get the energy from. I think it's often around the 100 000 km mark where an EV gets the smaller footprint. But like I said, many variables factor in.

That seems like an overestimate. A quick search is showing up numbers more in the 15-20,000 km region, and that's comparing a large EV running off of a mostly fossil fuel grid against a much smaller ICE (i.e. quite a conservative estimate).

There's "Is an ev better than a new ice car" and "is an ev better than an ice car you already have".

I think we're discussing the latter, where the upfront cost of the ice doesn't count because you already have it.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#532

Post by ghaff »

nprateem wrote: post #513
trollbridge wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat analogous to letting your 16 year old drive. Quite a bit more stressful than just driving yourself.

Exactly. My car has adaptive cruise control. In slow traffic, if the car in front comes to a stop, it'll also stop. But what happens if it's turned off? I honestly don't know and don't have the balls to find out, because so far it just keeps getting closer to the car in front. So if I accidentally pause it then drive the same way I would with it enabled, I might(?) rear-end someone. It'd be the height of stupidity if…

When I bought my last car, I was sort of excited about adaptive cruise control and lane keeping. But maybe because most driving I do (which isn't a huge amount) is on pretty busy roads I've sort of avoided really using it.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#533

Post by Workaccount2 »

thfuran wrote: post #436
Shawnj2 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as your old cars are like Toyota corolla/camry’s and not like giant gas guzzling SUV’s or trucks keeping them on the road is better than buying a new EV IMO. I think the current EV gen is kind of doomed because of the fact the next EV gen is going to have massive QOL features the current one doesn’t and waiting for a more compelling car is worth doing IMO

>the next EV gen is going to have massive QOL features the current one doesn’t Like what?

Fast recharge and high capacity long life batteries.

Reliably getting 300-400 mile range (even in cold), getting 250 miles range in 10-15 minutes of fast charging, and seeing batteries comfortably make it to 150k miles with small degradation.

Unfortunately people seems to really care about edge cases (What if I have to unexpectedly drive 400 miles on a frozen January evening?), so until EVs can easily cover those bases, people are really trigger shy.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#534

Post by kenjackson »

infecto wrote: post #507
logifail wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the total carbon footprint of ICE vehicles quickly overtake that of the EVs after 15,000 miles (24,140 km) of driving Shouldn't we be comparing an old ICE which was already built years ago but is still operating vs building a new EV to replace it? The carbon footprint of building the ICE is almost irrelevant, it's just the ongoing damage it is doing. Compare that with footprint of building and operating the EV that…

That would be comparing apples to oranges, you want apples to apples. Everyone replaces their car at some point. If you are comparing a new EV, its best to compare its impact compared to a new ICE. We all know its probably best in most cases to keep any vehicle, even one that is inefficient, on the road for its useful life.

> We all know its probably best in most cases to keep any vehicle, even one that is inefficient, on the road for its useful life.

I didn’t know this until this thread. And I feel like I’ve heard people say things like they are going to improve the environment by ditching their current car for an EV, not because they’re planning on getting rid of their car anyways.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#535

Post by kenjackson »

nprateem wrote: post #513
trollbridge wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat analogous to letting your 16 year old drive. Quite a bit more stressful than just driving yourself.

Exactly. My car has adaptive cruise control. In slow traffic, if the car in front comes to a stop, it'll also stop. But what happens if it's turned off? I honestly don't know and don't have the balls to find out, because so far it just keeps getting closer to the car in front. So if I accidentally pause it then drive the same way I would with it enabled, I might(?) rear-end someone. It'd be the height of stupidity if…

Can’t you just look up if your car has this feature? My old car did. It was great. Probably saved me from an accident or two.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#536

Post by ZeroGravitas »

logifail wrote: post #475
throwaway2037 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess: Most of the CO2 emissions for making cars comes from the body of the car. It is basically identical between ICE and EV. I guess a modern car body is a combo of steel and aluminium. (Is that correct?)

(from 14 years ago, but still an interesting read) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...

Unfortunately that article is confused nonsense.

It suggests that making an ICE car is roughly equal to the running in terms of carbon.

In reality manufacturing is about 10%, disposal 5% and the other 85% from running it e.g. fuel and maintenance.

It then suggests that keeping an old car is better because if you keep the car for twice as long then the emissions are half per mile, but you don't scrap functional cars you sell them onto someone else. This causes a cascade with the oldest and most polluting cars being scrapped.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#537

Post by ZeroGravitas »

joebob42 wrote: post #531
rcxdude wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like an overestimate. A quick search is showing up numbers more in the 15-20,000 km region, and that's comparing a large EV running off of a mostly fossil fuel grid against a much smaller ICE (i.e. quite a conservative estimate).

There's "Is an ev better than a new ice car" and "is an ev better than an ice car you already have". I think we're discussing the latter, where the upfront cost of the ice doesn't count because you already have it.

The upfront is about 50% higher for an EV, so if you catch that 50% up in 1 year then you'd pay back an entire new EV in 3 years if you scrapped the old ICE one. (figures for simplicity depending upon grid and how much you drive it could be 6 months or 18 months).

But generally we don't scrap old ones.

If you instead sell the old one to someone who drives an ICE car that gets worse mpg then that's a further benefit.

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#539

Post by [deleted] »

bayindirh wrote: post #528
Workaccount2 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my understanding, super cruise only works on pre-approved roads/road sections, whereas FSD works just about anywhere. When I last checked my commute to work, the main highway I take becomes unsupported half way to work, despite it being the same bland typical highway layout. I really don't want to buy a Tesla, but from what I can tell, nobody has anything close to what FSD offers.

> nobody has anything close to what FSD offers. From what I read about it, you're absolutely right. Down to the point of unwanted veering towards road dividers and other vehicles.

[deleted]

Re: GM exits robotaxi market, will bring Cruise operations in house

#540

Post by ZeroGravitas »

calciphus wrote: post #486
barrkel wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will have to factor in the CO2 cost of electrical generation mix. The tradeoff will vary widely depending on where you live.

By that logic, also the CO2 footprint of manufacturing and transporting the fuel for an equivalent ICE vehicle, which is always conveniently left out of such calculations.

The actual scientist doing the calculations in proper LCAs do include this and production of the fuel is a notable chunk of the CO2 running cost of an ICE car (about 25%).

Relevant phrases are "well-to-tank" and "tank-to-wheel" which combine to give "well-to-wheel" numbers.

Post reply on HN