Thanks for those well-informed answers. Interesting...
Another thought:
Will fully autonomous vehicles provide no manual controls (steering wheel, accelerator, brake) for situations that require unique decision making? Example: after getting into an accident, each car has to retract from the situation and pull off to a safe space to let other cars pass. How to do this will vary 100% by situation, so it's hard to imagine that a computer would have enough situational awareness to do this automatically. In that situation, you'd want to grab the wheel yourself and quickly get out of danger.
Given today's computational capabilities I would have to say it is virtually impossible to build anAI and sensor suite that can manage every situation on the road. Let's face it it is very difficult even for humans to manage some road conditions. The question above about snow is perfectly valid, how will an automonous controller manage when their is virtually no contrast and all the usual clues to the road surface disappears.
In the end I don't see tech catching up to the point of being 100% capable of navigating anywhere any time soon. Eventually it will get there but that will require AI hardware integrated into the various chips making up a controller.
That would only increase with the increase in electricity needed for the cars...
What we actually need is a battery tech revolution. General Purpose Humanoid Robotics can never exist without batteries an order of magnitude better than the crap we use now.
What we need is compact nuclear reactors. In this case fusion reactions to minimize exposure to harmful radiation. All this talk about solar and other so called renewables just turns my Stomach over, we simply don't have the land mass to waste for such to ever be effective. Unless of course you want the entire land mass o the planet to look like hell.
Hi TS, thanks for the reply.
Yep, I agree that battery tech is an area that needs some real innovation. That will make all the difference towards mainstream adoption of e-cars.
Current battery technology sucks for automobiles. Almost everybody agrees with that. The problem is how do you store significantly more energy safely? Just about everything that people have come up with results in a storage system that is less safe or manageable than gasoline.
Not everyone can afford a $90k Tesla but they are the only ones producing an e-car with decent range right now. But if anyone can make a difference here, it is Apple. An e-car ties in super well with so many of Apple's philosophies.
The problem is Apple is tied to the same battery tech as everyone else. They might find a way to pack in more batteries but generally something has to give. It is the old problem of putting 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag.
Also I am aware my comments have an NZ perspective to them. Over 80% of our electricity is renewable, so e-cars would be great here. Unfortunately the current government only likes to talk about e-cars but does absolutely nothing to support them.
In the States, a large proportion of electricity is produced fossilly I believe.
Where I live a company just installed a massive solar array covering more land area than the building it supports. At best that array supplies less than one percent of the companies power needs. This is after extensive attacks on energy efficiency ( replacing lights with LED based lighting almost everywhere for example). Solar is basically a joke if you have concentrated energy usage.
Don't get me wrong I do think that homes and other building should be required to have integrated solar power collection. But I think it is delusional to think Solar will every reach 100% of an industrial nations energy needs. Again it is a question of do we really want to waste the required land mass and deal with all the problems these solar installations cause.
Current battery technology sucks for automobiles. Almost everybody agrees with that. The problem is how do you store significantly more energy safely? Just about everything that people have come up with results in a storage system that is less safe or manageable than gasoline.
The problem is Apple is tied to the same battery tech as everyone else. They might find a way to pack in more batteries but generally something has to give. It is the old problem of putting 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag.
Where I live a company just installed a massive solar array covering more land area than the building it supports. At best that array supplies less than one percent of the companies power needs. This is after extensive attacks on energy efficiency ( replacing lights with LED based lighting almost everywhere for example). Solar is basically a joke if you have concentrated energy usage.
Don't get me wrong I do think that homes and other building should be required to have integrated solar power collection. But I think it is delusional to think Solar will every reach 100% of an industrial nations energy needs. Again it is a question of do we really want to waste the required land mass and deal with all the problems these solar installations cause.
Hi Wizard,
Thanks for the reply.
We agree that battery technology needs a lot more work, however I am of the view that batteries are getting better all of the time and the more solar & battery arrays that are put up, the more research will go into them to make them hopefully exponentially better.
Tesla has found a way to use the large amount of batteries needed for an e-car to their advantage. The battery tray acts as a structural support for safety when it comes to impacts and also keeps the centre of gravity very low - making the car much nicer to drive by improving handling.
However, if they can get better range through better battery tech, that would be awesome for all of their customers.
We also agree that homes and other buildings should have integrated solar collection. All of that roof space I can see from my building doing nothing productive at all really grates on me. I also believe that solar will never be 100% of an industrial nations needs - nor should anyone expect to be taken seriously if they do. There are too many variables in terms of geographic location, battery tech and climate for that to happen. Solar has always been envisioned by the best thinkers to be part of a portfolio of a country's energy production. How much of a part depends on the country. We get a lot of rain in my country along with an often mountainous terrain, so hydro power is a good fit. Australia will never be able to replicate our hydro use to the same degree because of their drier climate. But with all of those thousands of miles of empty desert and scorching sunshine, they kick arse at solar energy production.
Autonomous driving in places like long haul freeways will occur before 2025 for sure. (it could be done now)
In general, in many cases the obstacles are not technical, but regulatory and cultural.
Though in places like inner cities, even 2025 is optimistic.
I think Manhattan won't see it full automation before 2030-2035 at the earliest.
Don't forget that even on those roads the unexpected can happen and needs to be handled correctly.
Current battery technology sucks for automobiles. Almost everybody agrees with that. The problem is how do you store significantly more energy safely? Just about everything that people have come up with results in a storage system that is less safe or manageable than gasoline.
The problem is Apple is tied to the same battery tech as everyone else. They might find a way to pack in more batteries but generally something has to give. It is the old problem of putting 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag.
This.
People always seem to think Tesla is miles ahead or that they somehow own the patents on batteries when they are also tied to the same battery tech as everyone else. While Tesla battery packs have more energy vs size than competitors, it's because of design and packaging decisions, not an advantage in battery tech.
If Apple does make an electric car, it's going to have some other features that it excels at vs other vehicles (like the interface/controls or the design/build quality).
Given today's computational capabilities I would have to say it is virtually impossible to build anAI and sensor suite that can manage every situation on the road. Let's face it it is very difficult even for humans to manage some road conditions. The question above about snow is perfectly valid, how will an automonous controller manage when their is virtually no contrast and all the usual clues to the road surface disappears.
In the end I don't see tech catching up to the point of being 100% capable of navigating anywhere any time soon. Eventually it will get there but that will require AI hardware integrated into the various chips making up a controller.
Again, fully autonomous driving will not be based in visuals alone. Even though current camera systems can operate beyond the human eye's range, eg the night vision cameras operating in infrared. Plus radar which also does not require "seeing" things. The key, though, will be committed ovation between vehicles and the roads. Plus GPS or equivalent data.
The good thing about advanced OSS and driver assistance systems is that they are not tiring, always at the same level of attention and objective. At the same the teaching them something fairly simple for us, such as seeing a kid running onto the street after a ball, requires some intense computational power.
People always seem to think Tesla is miles ahead or that they somehow own the patents on batteries when they are also tied to the same battery tech as everyone else. While Tesla battery packs have more energy vs size than competitors, it's because of design and packaging decisions, not an advantage in battery tech.
If Apple does make an electric car, it's going to have some other features that it excels at vs other vehicles (like the interface/controls or the design/build quality).
Current battery tech is evolutionary at best. A revolutionary step that packs an order of magnitude more energy is nowhere near in sight. That's why some OEMs still look into other alternative engine types, such as based on hydrogen. To my knowledge, only Toyota has officially stated that they want all their fleet to be independent of fossile fuel by 20-something (I think it was 2025 as well).
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Maybe someone will come up with an affordable road lane/child paint that is detectable through 3 feet of snow, heavy rain or fog.*</span>
*patent pending ;)
Make sure that your patent earns you enough when it wears off on that critical 1 m of road leading them AppleCars astray
Over 80% of our electricity is renewable, so e-cars would be great here.
I’m saying that even the renewables are dirty and harmful. As long as the matter is just, you know, carcinogens (OF WHICH BACON IS NOT ONE, BUT TALKING ABOUT THIS FURTHER WOULD GET ME LABELLED SOMETHING LIBELOUS) and/or the poisoning of or damage to the environment and not the usual–incorrect–association therewith. There are ways to keep it clean, sure, but renewables cannot and will not ever usurp traditional power generation sources, simply because the cost to do so is greater than the global GDP. That and we don’t have the rare metals to do it!
We just really need to keep our heads about this whole thing and start to work on meaningful change–and ONLY meaningful change. I’m talking asteroid mining and thorium reactors. Mining to revolutionize the technology world and thorium to provide safe, clean power for future generations.
Originally Posted by wizard69
What we need is compact nuclear reactors. In this case fusion reactions to minimize exposure to harmful radiation. All this talk about solar and other so called renewables just turns my Stomach over, we simply don't have the land mass to waste for such to ever be effective. Unless of course you want the entire land mass o the planet to look like hell.
You know, I love fusion–I love the idea of it–but come on. Fifty years now, we know what to do, how to do it, and we’re just building the first prototype?
I’ve no doubt that roundabout 2100 fusion plants will be springing up as we finally put the stuff into practice, but I have absolutely no optimism when it comes to technology or space exploration. Even 2100 is probably too early.
Thanks for those well-informed answers. Interesting...
Another thought:
Will fully autonomous vehicles provide no manual controls (steering wheel, accelerator, brake) for situations that require unique decision making? Example: after getting into an accident, each car has to retract from the situation and pull off to a safe space to let other cars pass. How to do this will vary 100% by situation, so it's hard to imagine that a computer would have enough situational awareness to do this automatically. In that situation, you'd want to grab the wheel yourself and quickly get out of danger.
Autonomous means no interference from a driver required at any time. That's the difference to the varying degrees of assisted driving.
To answer your question: yes, they would take such unique decisions. And there won't be a steering wheel to grab onto. Actually, apart from technological reasons there are psychological reasons for taking this step by step. People still have the desire to feel @in control", or take control at any time. And they feel in general uneasy when they are enclosed in a moving vehicle knowing that it's journey depends on how well the underlying system performs. It's also a reason why break by wire and steer by wire are not yet more present in cars.
Hi TS, thanks for the reply.
Yep, I agree that battery tech is an area that needs some real innovation. That will make all the difference towards mainstream adoption of e-cars.
Not everyone can afford a $90k Tesla but they are the only ones producing an e-car with decent range right now. But if anyone can make a difference here, it is Apple. An e-car ties in super well with so many of Apple's philosophies.
Also I am aware my comments have an NZ perspective to them. Over 80% of our electricity is renewable, so e-cars would be great here. Unfortunately the current government only likes to talk about e-cars but does absolutely nothing to support them.
In the States, a large proportion of electricity is produced fossilly I believe.
The current world would be unable to sustain the amount of electricity required to power all cars currently in use. Locally, this may work. And yet, renewable does not mean it doesn't have impact onto nature. Wind energy has many disadvantages, eg, from killing a surprisingly high number of birds, to straight down changing the climate. Other renewable sources of energy have still other issues. And as soon as fossile energy is used to charge the batteries of a e-car then it's close to absurd. One of the reasons why purple electric cars are not considered as one and only solution.
Over 80% of our electricity is renewable, so e-cars would be great here.
I’m saying that even the renewables are dirty and harmful. As long as the matter is just, you know, carcinogens (OF WHICH BACON IS NOT ONE, BUT TALKING ABOUT THIS FURTHER WOULD GET ME LABELLED SOMETHING LIBELOUS) and/or the poisoning of or damage to the environment and not the usual–incorrect–association therewith. There are ways to keep it clean, sure, but renewables cannot and will not ever usurp traditional power generation sources, simply because the cost to do so is greater than the global GDP. That and we don’t have the rare metals to do it!
We just really need to keep our heads about this whole thing and start to work on meaningful change–and ONLY meaningful change. I’m talking asteroid mining and thorium reactors. Mining to revolutionize the technology world and thorium to provide safe, clean power for future generations.
Originally Posted by wizard69
What we need is compact nuclear reactors. In this case fusion reactions to minimize exposure to harmful radiation. All this talk about solar and other so called renewables just turns my Stomach over, we simply don't have the land mass to waste for such to ever be effective. Unless of course you want the entire land mass o the planet to look like hell.
You know, I love fusion–I love the idea of it–but come on. Fifty years now, we know what to do, how to do it, and we’re just building the first prototype?
I’ve no doubt that roundabout 2100 fusion plants will be springing up as we finally put the stuff into practice, but I have absolutely no optimism when it comes to technology or space exploration. Even 2100 is probably too early.
Those thorium breeder reactors seem to be a pretty decent implementation of new-q-lar.
It's funny, Bill Gates has been talking them up for years. Like him or not he ain't no dummy.
...stop pumping crap into the air that we breathe.
Do you have any idea how much crap gets pumped into the air to charge up one of these vehicles? Making electrons move over copper wires into the batteries of these things takes a lot of crap pumped into the air, almost as much as the hydrocarbons they burn right now. Ever hear of base loads?
Do you have any idea how much crap gets pumped into the air to charge up one of these vehicles? Making electrons move over copper wires into the batteries of these things takes a lot of crap pumped into the air, almost as much as the hydrocarbons they burn right now. Ever hear of base loads?
Actually I know all about base loads thanks very much. How about you check your reading comprehension? I clearly stated earlier that in my country we have three quarters of our electricity generated by renewable power - hydropower, wind and a bit of solar. The other quarter includes oil for transportation. If people stopped using ICE cars and stated using electric we could take a big chunk out of that last quarter.
Our base load requirements are taken care of very nicely by renewables. Need some extra power or an unexpected surge in usage? Release some water out of the dams and send the power up the National Grid.
Coal and nuclear plants take at least half a flipping day to boot up for unexpected surges.
I remember you used to be a decent poster around here. But you now have quite an aggressive attitude and I don't think it is appropriate at all.
Of course Apple can compete. They can enter any segment of any business if that's what they want as they have more resources than about any company on the planet. Only regulators stand in the way of anything Apple wants to do. Heck if they don't want to be bothered with developing everything from scratch just buy it. They have all the cash they'd need. Anyone saying Apple can't do this or that is foolish IMHO.
If Apple wants to acquire a top notch company at a discount right now, they could aggressively pursue VW Group. In fact, rumor has it that VW may have to sell one of their luxury car divisions to pay for the mounting liabilities stemming from the diesel emissions cheating scandal. I can imagine a rebranded Bugatti Apple car...
Well, that’s completely insane. And from a guy who got upset at toothpick instructions; for shame.
Google’s mental illness of trying to create a car without any user control will get people killed, period. There must always be user override.
And why would that be?
I am not saying it will work from day one, and there is a clear distinction between autonomous and self-driving. Self-driving requires the environment (=toher vehicles, roads etc.) be i n line with this concept. The most dangerous period is the one of mixed population of cis: assisted, autonomous and self.driving. After that, it is just a question of getting used to that paradigm. If you look at the root cause statistics for car accidents you will find that the overwhelming majority is caused by human error. Even if (which will obviously not be allowed), self.driving cars would cause deaths, it would be less than "user-driven" vehicles actually do. No toothpick involved here.
I am not saying it will work from day one, and there is a clear distinction between autonomous and self-driving. Self-driving requires the environment (=toher vehicles, roads etc.) be i n line with this concept. The most dangerous period is the one of mixed population of cis: assisted, autonomous and self.driving. After that, it is just a question of getting used to that paradigm. If you look at the root cause statistics for car accidents you will find that the overwhelming majority is caused by human error. Even if (which will obviously not be allowed), self.driving cars would cause deaths, it would be less than "user-driven" vehicles actually do. No toothpick involved here.
That's why I said that cultural issues, and not technical ones will be the main obstacle to full one large scale autonomous/self driving vehicle.
But, like I said, on long haul roads, with few exits, they could dedicate the fast lanes to this kind of traffic and just let it rip at 100 MPH. This
would mean a lot less traffic on the rest of the road. They could even separate the traffic completely. Put the high speed lanes in the middle of the freeway.
Every movement in and out of this lane would be automated until goes back to the normal freeway which would then probably have 1/2 the traffic it has now. So, risk of accidents there would also diminish.
Even other cars would have a lot of driving/piloting assistance functions; it would not be possible for a vahicle to get into the center lane accidentally piloting/driving assistance would protect from that. Which is a good thing considering how fast cars would be moving there : 100mph in long road trains.
Of course, fair weather states like California/Arizona/Nevada will be amongst the first to get these.
Comments
Given today's computational capabilities I would have to say it is virtually impossible to build anAI and sensor suite that can manage every situation on the road. Let's face it it is very difficult even for humans to manage some road conditions. The question above about snow is perfectly valid, how will an automonous controller manage when their is virtually no contrast and all the usual clues to the road surface disappears.
In the end I don't see tech catching up to the point of being 100% capable of navigating anywhere any time soon. Eventually it will get there but that will require AI hardware integrated into the various chips making up a controller.
What we need is compact nuclear reactors. In this case fusion reactions to minimize exposure to harmful radiation. All this talk about solar and other so called renewables just turns my Stomach over, we simply don't have the land mass to waste for such to ever be effective. Unless of course you want the entire land mass o the planet to look like hell.
Where I live a company just installed a massive solar array covering more land area than the building it supports. At best that array supplies less than one percent of the companies power needs. This is after extensive attacks on energy efficiency ( replacing lights with LED based lighting almost everywhere for example). Solar is basically a joke if you have concentrated energy usage.
Don't get me wrong I do think that homes and other building should be required to have integrated solar power collection. But I think it is delusional to think Solar will every reach 100% of an industrial nations energy needs. Again it is a question of do we really want to waste the required land mass and deal with all the problems these solar installations cause.
Current battery technology sucks for automobiles. Almost everybody agrees with that. The problem is how do you store significantly more energy safely? Just about everything that people have come up with results in a storage system that is less safe or manageable than gasoline.
The problem is Apple is tied to the same battery tech as everyone else. They might find a way to pack in more batteries but generally something has to give. It is the old problem of putting 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag.
Where I live a company just installed a massive solar array covering more land area than the building it supports. At best that array supplies less than one percent of the companies power needs. This is after extensive attacks on energy efficiency ( replacing lights with LED based lighting almost everywhere for example). Solar is basically a joke if you have concentrated energy usage.
Don't get me wrong I do think that homes and other building should be required to have integrated solar power collection. But I think it is delusional to think Solar will every reach 100% of an industrial nations energy needs. Again it is a question of do we really want to waste the required land mass and deal with all the problems these solar installations cause.
Hi Wizard,
Thanks for the reply.
We agree that battery technology needs a lot more work, however I am of the view that batteries are getting better all of the time and the more solar & battery arrays that are put up, the more research will go into them to make them hopefully exponentially better.
Tesla has found a way to use the large amount of batteries needed for an e-car to their advantage. The battery tray acts as a structural support for safety when it comes to impacts and also keeps the centre of gravity very low - making the car much nicer to drive by improving handling.
However, if they can get better range through better battery tech, that would be awesome for all of their customers.
We also agree that homes and other buildings should have integrated solar collection. All of that roof space I can see from my building doing nothing productive at all really grates on me. I also believe that solar will never be 100% of an industrial nations needs - nor should anyone expect to be taken seriously if they do. There are too many variables in terms of geographic location, battery tech and climate for that to happen. Solar has always been envisioned by the best thinkers to be part of a portfolio of a country's energy production. How much of a part depends on the country. We get a lot of rain in my country along with an often mountainous terrain, so hydro power is a good fit. Australia will never be able to replicate our hydro use to the same degree because of their drier climate. But with all of those thousands of miles of empty desert and scorching sunshine, they kick arse at solar energy production.
Don't forget that even on those roads the unexpected can happen and needs to be handled correctly.
Current battery technology sucks for automobiles. Almost everybody agrees with that. The problem is how do you store significantly more energy safely? Just about everything that people have come up with results in a storage system that is less safe or manageable than gasoline.
The problem is Apple is tied to the same battery tech as everyone else. They might find a way to pack in more batteries but generally something has to give. It is the old problem of putting 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag.
This.
People always seem to think Tesla is miles ahead or that they somehow own the patents on batteries when they are also tied to the same battery tech as everyone else. While Tesla battery packs have more energy vs size than competitors, it's because of design and packaging decisions, not an advantage in battery tech.
If Apple does make an electric car, it's going to have some other features that it excels at vs other vehicles (like the interface/controls or the design/build quality).
Again, fully autonomous driving will not be based in visuals alone. Even though current camera systems can operate beyond the human eye's range, eg the night vision cameras operating in infrared. Plus radar which also does not require "seeing" things. The key, though, will be committed ovation between vehicles and the roads. Plus GPS or equivalent data.
The good thing about advanced OSS and driver assistance systems is that they are not tiring, always at the same level of attention and objective. At the same the teaching them something fairly simple for us, such as seeing a kid running onto the street after a ball, requires some intense computational power.
Current battery tech is evolutionary at best. A revolutionary step that packs an order of magnitude more energy is nowhere near in sight. That's why some OEMs still look into other alternative engine types, such as based on hydrogen. To my knowledge, only Toyota has officially stated that they want all their fleet to be independent of fossile fuel by 20-something (I think it was 2025 as well).
Make sure that your patent earns you enough when it wears off on that critical 1 m of road leading them AppleCars astray
I’m saying that even the renewables are dirty and harmful. As long as the matter is just, you know, carcinogens (OF WHICH BACON IS NOT ONE, BUT TALKING ABOUT THIS FURTHER WOULD GET ME LABELLED SOMETHING LIBELOUS) and/or the poisoning of or damage to the environment and not the usual–incorrect–association therewith. There are ways to keep it clean, sure, but renewables cannot and will not ever usurp traditional power generation sources, simply because the cost to do so is greater than the global GDP. That and we don’t have the rare metals to do it!
We just really need to keep our heads about this whole thing and start to work on meaningful change–and ONLY meaningful change. I’m talking asteroid mining and thorium reactors. Mining to revolutionize the technology world and thorium to provide safe, clean power for future generations.
You know, I love fusion–I love the idea of it–but come on. Fifty years now, we know what to do, how to do it, and we’re just building the first prototype?
I’ve no doubt that roundabout 2100 fusion plants will be springing up as we finally put the stuff into practice, but I have absolutely no optimism when it comes to technology or space exploration. Even 2100 is probably too early.
Autonomous means no interference from a driver required at any time. That's the difference to the varying degrees of assisted driving.
To answer your question: yes, they would take such unique decisions. And there won't be a steering wheel to grab onto. Actually, apart from technological reasons there are psychological reasons for taking this step by step. People still have the desire to feel @in control", or take control at any time. And they feel in general uneasy when they are enclosed in a moving vehicle knowing that it's journey depends on how well the underlying system performs. It's also a reason why break by wire and steer by wire are not yet more present in cars.
The current world would be unable to sustain the amount of electricity required to power all cars currently in use. Locally, this may work. And yet, renewable does not mean it doesn't have impact onto nature. Wind energy has many disadvantages, eg, from killing a surprisingly high number of birds, to straight down changing the climate. Other renewable sources of energy have still other issues. And as soon as fossile energy is used to charge the batteries of a e-car then it's close to absurd. One of the reasons why purple electric cars are not considered as one and only solution.
Well, that’s completely insane. And from a guy who got upset at toothpick instructions; for shame.
Google’s mental illness of trying to create a car without any user control will get people killed, period. There must always be user override.
Wait to see it!
I’m saying that even the renewables are dirty and harmful. As long as the matter is just, you know, carcinogens (OF WHICH BACON IS NOT ONE, BUT TALKING ABOUT THIS FURTHER WOULD GET ME LABELLED SOMETHING LIBELOUS) and/or the poisoning of or damage to the environment and not the usual–incorrect–association therewith. There are ways to keep it clean, sure, but renewables cannot and will not ever usurp traditional power generation sources, simply because the cost to do so is greater than the global GDP. That and we don’t have the rare metals to do it!
We just really need to keep our heads about this whole thing and start to work on meaningful change–and ONLY meaningful change. I’m talking asteroid mining and thorium reactors. Mining to revolutionize the technology world and thorium to provide safe, clean power for future generations.
You know, I love fusion–I love the idea of it–but come on. Fifty years now, we know what to do, how to do it, and we’re just building the first prototype?
I’ve no doubt that roundabout 2100 fusion plants will be springing up as we finally put the stuff into practice, but I have absolutely no optimism when it comes to technology or space exploration. Even 2100 is probably too early.
Those thorium breeder reactors seem to be a pretty decent implementation of new-q-lar.
It's funny, Bill Gates has been talking them up for years. Like him or not he ain't no dummy.
...stop pumping crap into the air that we breathe.
Do you have any idea how much crap gets pumped into the air to charge up one of these vehicles? Making electrons move over copper wires into the batteries of these things takes a lot of crap pumped into the air, almost as much as the hydrocarbons they burn right now. Ever hear of base loads?
Our base load requirements are taken care of very nicely by renewables. Need some extra power or an unexpected surge in usage? Release some water out of the dams and send the power up the National Grid.
Coal and nuclear plants take at least half a flipping day to boot up for unexpected surges.
I remember you used to be a decent poster around here. But you now have quite an aggressive attitude and I don't think it is appropriate at all.
If Apple wants to acquire a top notch company at a discount right now, they could aggressively pursue VW Group. In fact, rumor has it that VW may have to sell one of their luxury car divisions to pay for the mounting liabilities stemming from the diesel emissions cheating scandal. I can imagine a rebranded Bugatti Apple car...
And why would that be?
I am not saying it will work from day one, and there is a clear distinction between autonomous and self-driving. Self-driving requires the environment (=toher vehicles, roads etc.) be i n line with this concept. The most dangerous period is the one of mixed population of cis: assisted, autonomous and self.driving. After that, it is just a question of getting used to that paradigm. If you look at the root cause statistics for car accidents you will find that the overwhelming majority is caused by human error. Even if (which will obviously not be allowed), self.driving cars would cause deaths, it would be less than "user-driven" vehicles actually do. No toothpick involved here.
And why would that be?
I am not saying it will work from day one, and there is a clear distinction between autonomous and self-driving. Self-driving requires the environment (=toher vehicles, roads etc.) be i n line with this concept. The most dangerous period is the one of mixed population of cis: assisted, autonomous and self.driving. After that, it is just a question of getting used to that paradigm. If you look at the root cause statistics for car accidents you will find that the overwhelming majority is caused by human error. Even if (which will obviously not be allowed), self.driving cars would cause deaths, it would be less than "user-driven" vehicles actually do. No toothpick involved here.
That's why I said that cultural issues, and not technical ones will be the main obstacle to full one large scale autonomous/self driving vehicle.
But, like I said, on long haul roads, with few exits, they could dedicate the fast lanes to this kind of traffic and just let it rip at 100 MPH. This
would mean a lot less traffic on the rest of the road. They could even separate the traffic completely. Put the high speed lanes in the middle of the freeway.
Every movement in and out of this lane would be automated until goes back to the normal freeway which would then probably have 1/2 the traffic it has now. So, risk of accidents there would also diminish.
Even other cars would have a lot of driving/piloting assistance functions; it would not be possible for a vahicle to get into the center lane accidentally piloting/driving assistance would protect from that. Which is a good thing considering how fast cars would be moving there : 100mph in long road trains.
Of course, fair weather states like California/Arizona/Nevada will be amongst the first to get these.