Ed Self-Driving Cars: Pros, Cons, and Predictions

[acbytesla]

This is less the case these days. Not too long ago, I was on a town panel that was considering our town as the land destination for a planned high voltage DC cable that was to be laid down the tectonic crease of Lake Champlain from Canada. Alas, the plan was nixed, not for its practicality, but it seems largely for reasons of politics, in favor of the usual high-voltage AC overhead line elsewhere in the state (Too bad, as our little town would have gotten a big rental landfall). But from what I heard, this scheme can be very practical indeed, with very little loss, in part because inductive loss is not such a factor, and it requires only a single positive conductor. This was not a very practical idea until recently, when efficient solid state devices are able to convert the power into useable AC, but it is doable right now.

I agree that at the momentary level, when battery technology was so poor, it made sense to work on improving the ICE engine. No doubt things would have been a little better if more engineering energy had been directed at electric development, just as they would have been better if they had been directed at better mass transit, but they weren't, and part of the reason is that many of the peripheral developments had not occurred. Solid state electronics help in all sorts of ways, especially in making it possible for various high voltages to be used that aren't convenient for a battery alone. But remember that before 1920, much of the technology of electric cars had been well developed. You could take a 1920 Owen Magnetic, and if you had a good enough battery and the electronics needed to output 24 volts, you could replace the engine-generator on it and you'd have an electric-driven car complete with regenerative braking. Improvements in motor design and efficiency no doubt would help too,
but it's mostly an issue of battery output.

It's all about the battery and will continue to be. Improve batteries or supercapacitors to 2000, wh per kg or 10 times what is is today and IC engines won't be anywhere

A liter of gasoline has hundreds of times the energy density of a lithium battery. But internal combustion engines are actually poor at converting that energy into usable power. 75 percent is wasted as heat. There is also the cost of transporting it from refineries to your local gas station. On the other hand, electric motors are very efficient at turning electricity into power and locomotion. The problem is the volume and mass of the batteries/electricity storage.

Look at trains. Almost every train running today turns the wheels with electric motors and that has been true since the 1940s. But most of them use diesel internal combustion engines to create the electricity. If there are no overhead wires or a third rail, those trains burn a big tank of diesel. Electric aviation won't be economical until batteries are improved. So ICE will live on.

 

[acbytesla]

imo there’s not a whole lot of gains to be made with ice efficiency. it’s old tech they’ve been working on for a very long time.

You're right. But marginal gains add up.

 

[bruto]

It may be that large gains are possible, but not economical. Some time in the 1980's I recall some hotshot auto racing guy experimenting with ceramic engines at Lime Rock. Popular Science had an article in 1982. My recollection is dim and I'm not currently in the mood to dig into the archives, having disposed of my huge piles of PS when I moved in 1986, but it appears that the promise of high efficiency through super-hot engines was never achieved at least cheaply and reliably enough to get to market.

 

[acbytesla]

It may be that large gains are possible, but not economical. Some time in the 1980's I recall some hotshot auto racing guy experimenting with ceramic engines at Lime Rock. Popular Science had an article in 1982. My recollection is dim and I'm not currently in the mood to dig into the archives, having disposed of my huge piles of PS when I moved in 1986, but it appears that the promise of high efficiency through super-hot engines was never achieved at least cheaply and reliably enough to get to market.

I don't expect large gains. Just incremental ones. But I also know that surprises happen with science and technology. There is little reason to expect something groundbreaking. But that doesn't mean continued research is without value. Maybe it is. But maybe not.

 

[dirtywick]

even the marginal gains become smaller and more difficult

 

[Dabop]

It's all about the battery and will continue to be. Improve batteries or supercapacitors to 2000, wh per kg or 10 times what is is today and IC engines won't be anywhere

A liter of gasoline has hundreds of times the energy density of a lithium battery. But internal combustion engines are actually poor at converting that energy into usable power. 75 percent is wasted as heat. There is also the cost of transporting it from refineries to your local gas station. On the other hand, electric motors are very efficient at turning electricity into power and locomotion. The problem is the volume and mass of the batteries/electricity storage.

Look at trains. Almost every train running today turns the wheels with electric motors and that has been true since the 1940s. But most of them use diesel internal combustion engines to create the electricity. If there are no overhead wires or a third rail, those trains burn a big tank of diesel. Electric aviation won't be economical until batteries are improved. So ICE will live on.

No-one is saying that EVERY ICE motor in the world will immediately and magically disappear, and not one will never ever be used again...

However it is already at the stage that almost ALL the general publics motoring needs could be met with EVs already...

Keep ICErs for those few limited cases where they make sense- and make them extremely unattractive for any use OUTSIDE those limited cases....

Which is where things like 'free parking with slow charging' for EVs in congested areas- but ICErs pay to park, 'clean air tax' on petrol and diesel vehicles, outright ban for 'private usage' of ICE vehicles in congested areas and the like, coupled with 'sales incentives' (like free first 3 years regos, no sales tax on EV purchases and the like will quickly push the private ICE car into the same category as the horse and buggy lol

These are things that are already underway in many countries ('some' countries would rather deny science - like the horse and buggy makers- they will struggle against history and eventually go broke if they do not adapt...)

Funnily enough- doing so would actually help make fuel cheaper for those 'must use' cases (some long distance transport etc) as the 'one person driving a 4 tonne land tank 30km to get a loaf of bread' current usage (taken to extremes in SOME countries- I think we all know who I am talking about) is driving up fuel prices for ALL users- including goods transport fuel costs, pushing the prices of everything up...

Most firstworld countries dont even need to really think about 'upgrades' to their electrical distribution systems even- another commonly trotted out trop from the antiEV brigade- and simply not even needed in most places- almost all countries have a 'daytime' industrial peak that has to be met- but at night consumption falls to extremely low values- this is where gridtie solar comes into play- you don't have to install massive (and expensive) generators to power the daytime loads, and your existing baseline generators are already 'running at a loss' overnight (anywhere that has 'offpeak overnght rates' already has a excess of baseload capacity)

In Australia for example- if we 'got rid' of the residential gridtie systems already in place- we would need to increase our generation capacity by another 20-30GW- an extremely expensive option indeed using conventional generating plants....
However without adding a single new generator- just using our existing overnight capacity (which is currently running well under its maximum efficiency area for fuel consumption) we could replace every single privately owned car in Australia with TWO EVs- and still not need to do anything- not a single upgrade, anywhere...
(EVs do NOT need 'fast charging' for home overnight recharging- a standard 7kw single phase charger can recharge an EV overnight with ease- the normal dail driving usage is usually over and done with in a couple of hours even lol...

Basically, many peoples COOKING has a higher current draw demand on the grid, and uses more electricity than a slow charging EV on overnight...

Couple renewables (solar and wind) with largescale storage (pumped hydro is the clear winner over batteries in this case- even in water restricted Australia lol) and it really is a clear cut winner in EV usage (even considering Australia's long distances, EVs are already at their current levels quite up for the job...)

 

[acbytesla]

even the marginal gains become smaller and more difficult

Are they? Granted, the last real upgrades to engines that led to significant increases in fuel efficiency is electronic fuel injection and turbocharger.

 

[GlennB]

Amusing story the other day, where a Waymo made an illegal u-turn. The cops pulled it over, but there was no driver to give the ticket to

 

[dirtywick]

Are they? Granted, the last real upgrades to engines that led to significant increases in fuel efficiency is electronic fuel injection and turbocharger.

of course. the low hanging fruit is all gone. just how things work, eventually something more efficient comes along.

just as well, finite fossil fuels and damage to the environment mean it’s a dead end anyway.

 

[Rolfe]

I think, as regards remote locations in the sun belt, that we'll see less and less drive to run cables in, and more self-sufficient systems using solar and wind and much improved battery storage without a connection to the wider grid. I'm not expecting it tomorrow, but given the potential for places like remote Australia to generate solar, I think it's only a matter of time.

I don't see any point in spending another dime on further marginal incremental "improvements" to ICE technology. Money down the drain.

 

[acbytesla]

No-one is saying that EVERY ICE motor in the world will immediately and magically disappear, and not one will never ever be used again...

However it is already at the stage that almost ALL the general publics motoring needs could be met with EVs already...

I'm not sure I would go that far. Majority, maybe.

Keep ICErs for those few limited cases where they make sense- and make them extremely unattractive for any use OUTSIDE those limited cases....

Seems as if better EVs will do that naturally.

Which is where things like 'free parking with slow charging' for EVs in congested areas- but ICErs pay to park, 'clean air tax' on petrol and diesel vehicles, outright ban for 'private usage' of ICE vehicles in congested areas and the like, coupled with 'sales incentives' (like free first 3 years regos, no sales tax on EV purchases and the like will quickly push the private ICE car into the same category as the horse and buggy lol

That's an interesting idea. But inevitably unpopular until market penetration increases.

These are things that are already underway in many countries ('some' countries would rather deny science - like the horse and buggy makers- they will struggle against history and eventually go broke if they do not adapt...)

I am not denying science. I do agree that EVs will dominate the market in due course.

Funnily enough- doing so would actually help make fuel cheaper for those 'must use' cases (some long distance transport etc) as the 'one person driving a 4 tonne land tank 30km to get a loaf of bread' current usage (taken to extremes in SOME countries- I think we all know who I am talking about) is driving up fuel prices for ALL users- including goods transport fuel costs, pushing the prices of everything up...

This is how I appeal to those opposing incentives to purchase EVs.

The adoption of EVs will reduce the demand for diesel and petrol. And that in turn will help keep fuel prices in check.

 

[novaphile]

This is all very interesting an all, but what does it have to do with self-driving cars?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Looking back at this thread I am astonished that we do not have self driving cars outside of a few well defined areas. If you had asked me ten years ago I would have said we would have fully autonomous vehicles by now, I hope that we are not in the fusion hell of always "ten years away".

What an odd statement! Unlike fusion, self driving cars are technically a solved problem now. The only thing holding them back is Ludditism.

Tesla's FSD (supervised) is currently approved for use in the whole of the US, Canada, China, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Australia, and New Zealand. Many Tesla owners have been letting their cars drive themselves for over a year now. FSD (supervised) was approved in Australia and New Zealand on Sept 17, just on 2 weeks ago. Since then it has been used on over 13,500 km of Australia’s roads, driving more than 1 million km in those two countries.

Your '10 years away' is like saying that after 50 years fission reactors are only present in a few well defined areas - which is technically true but doesn't mean the technology isn't well proven.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think, as regards remote locations in the sun belt, that we'll see less and less drive to run cables in, and more self-sufficient systems using solar and wind and much improved battery storage without a connection to the wider grid. I'm not expecting it tomorrow, but given the potential for places like remote Australia to generate solar, I think it's only a matter of time.

Yes, absolutely, but the problem is getting all of that self-sufficient infrastructure to these remote places in the first place. A lot of non-Australians vastly underestimate just how remote some of Australia is. When I said 14 hours to the nearest town, I meant it. In the UK, that's Land's End to John o'Groats. With nothing in between other than dirt and scrub. No towns, no infrastructure, no electricity, no water except the occasional stream or billabong, nothing. Yes, there are people who live that far from infrastructure.

I don't see any point in spending another dime on further marginal incremental "improvements" to ICE technology. Money down the drain.

ICE technology is undeniably useful. It has been implemented across culture in many different ways, and there will continue to be applications for the technology for a long time to come. Incremental improvements to the technology will absolutely pay off in the long run.

But yes, @novaphile has a point.

 

[acbytesla]

What an odd statement! Unlike fusion,
self driving cars are technically a solved problem now. The only thing holding them back is Ludditism.
Tesla's FSD (supervised) is currently approved for use in the whole of the US, Canada, China, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Australia, and New Zealand. Many Tesla owners have been letting their cars drive themselves for over a year now. FSD (supervised) was approved in Australia and New Zealand on Sept 17, just on 2 weeks ago. Since then it has been used on over 13,500 km of Australia’s roads, driving more than 1 million km in those two countries.

Your '10 years away' is like saying that after 50 years fission reactors are only present in a few well defined areas - which is technically true but doesn't mean the technology isn't well proven.

Darat exaggerates and then you do. Comparing the development of self driving to fusion is absurd. But so is your second and third sentence.

Supervised self driving is not the same thing as self driving. I am convinced that self driving will happen.. I wouldn't say that fusion will. I fact, Im highly skeptical that practical fusion energy will happen in my lifetime or many generations in the future. The technology to maintain a fusion reaction going 24/7 365 days a year for decades on earth seems like an impossible challenge.

But to say self driving is being held back by Ludditism is nonsense. We're definitely closing in on it. But close on this one is not good enough. Safety is paramount.

 

[Dabop]

Yes, absolutely, but the problem is getting all of that self-sufficient infrastructure to these remote places in the first place. A lot of non-Australians vastly underestimate just how remote some of Australia is. When I said 14 hours to the nearest town, I meant it. In the UK, that's Land's End to John o'Groats. With nothing in between other than dirt and scrub. No towns, no infrastructure, no electricity, no water except the occasional stream or billabong, nothing. Yes, there are people who live that far from infrastructure.

And EVs are already being used by people who are offgrid- in fact theres one already here (BYD charging off an offgrid house's panels less than 10km from my place) and when I get mine, that will be two 'offgrid' EVs

But for the TINY number of people who live 14 hours from the nearest neighbour- well ICE will continue to remain the best solution...
But how many people does that ACTUALLY amount to????

Not even enough to fill a small stadium- in ALL of Australia...

So far out in 'edge case' territory, you need long range fuel tanks in a Landcruiser to GET to that edge case lol

 

[arthwollipot]

But for the TINY number of people who live 14 hours from the nearest neighbour- well ICE will continue to remain the best solution...
But how many people does that ACTUALLY amount to????

Yes, exactly, but a small number is still not zero.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'm sorry, you are just wrong about this. Chance had very little to do with it. State of the art rechargeable battery technology for a hundred years has been heavy lead acid. We're talking 30kwh per KG. Not the 200 to 300 of a modern EV.
The improvements in battery chemistry didn't come about by chance. It also didn't improve because of a lack of interest. They had been trying to make a better battery for a century without much improvement.

Darat exaggerates and then you do. Comparing the development of self driving to fusion is absurd. But so is your second and third sentence.

Supervised self driving is not the same thing as self driving. I am convinced that self driving will happen.. I wouldn't say that fusion is. I fact, Im highly skeptical that practical fusion energy will happen in my lifetime or many generations in the future. The technology to maintain a fusion reaction going 24/7 365 days a year for decades on earth seems like an impossible challenge.

But to say self driving is being held back by Ludditism is nonsense. We're definitely closing in on it. But close on this one is not good enough. Safety is paramount.

Technology-wize it is the same. The Teslas being used as robotaxis in Austin are just normal production cars with software tweeked for robotaxi use. When FSD v14 is released (any day now) it should have the same performance. The only reason Tesla owners aren't using their vehicles as robotaxis is risk aversion - ie. Ludditism. Tesla must play by the rules or they will be shut down, just like early motor cars that had to have a man with a red flag walk in front of the vehicle.

Red flag traffic laws

In the United Kingdom, the law required self-propelled vehicles to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach... The Red Flag Act was repealed in 1896, by which time the internal combustion engine was well into its infancy.

In the United States, Vermont passed a similar Red Flag Law in 1894, only to repeal it two years later.

 

[Dabop]

Yes, exactly, but a small number is still not zero.

Amd nobody is saying that ICE be 'banned outright' (thats usually a antiEV extremist position lol) like all solutions there is never a 'single solution' that covers all bases, but choosing the best solution/s overall...
In the case of privately owned transport- EV can already cover almost all the populations current needs- and unless we stop the continued extravagant use of ICE, there simply wont be any available for ANY use in the not too distant future... (not to mention the damage its doing to the planet/climate)

 

[arthwollipot]

Amd nobody is saying that ICE be 'banned outright' (thats usually a antiEV extremist position lol)

@Rolfe is arguing that development of better and more efficient ICE engines should cease. I'm arguing that since there is still a use case for the foreseeable future, development should continue.