XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" wrote in message
news:lb58kl$mrv$1@dont-email.me...
> On 1/14/14 5:33 PM, Leszek Karlik wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:06:36 +0100, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>> And we all know that SF is exactly like today, only with blasters ;-))
>>>>
>>>> The problem with good electric cars today is that they're rather
>>>> expensive and there's no support network, but for a municipal
>>>> self-driving car/public transit hybrid system they should work
>>>> ratherwell (because they can self-drive themselves to a charging
>>>> station).
>>>
>>> When I see self-driving cars I'll start thinking about that
>>> (because only then will you be able to start changing the laws and
>>> regulations to allow you to use the cars as public transit). As others
>>> have pointed out, people also use their cars for things other than
>>> just getting to work, and that will make it harder to pull off.
>>
>> That will require a change in attitudes, but money and convenience are
>> a pretty efficient attitude changer.
>
> Yes. Convenience of having my own car tends to trump any arguments against
> it.
>
>> Self-driving cars have
>
> Could have, if they ever are made
>
>> the capacity
>> for a significant reduction in transport-related mortalities, which are
>> especially harmful to the society, because it's frequently children and
>> young people who get killed in traffic accidents. (And thus they have
>> a high related cost of lost future productivity)
>
>
> That kind of logic is great, but logic generally doesn't win the market.
> Similar logic can be attached to all sorts of social causes, yet the laws
> don't follow.
>
> First you have to convince people that self-driving cars are safer, and
> that will take a long time. With no significant accidents involving
> self-driving cars, because people will remember the one bad accident (that
> probably wasn't the self-driving car's fault) and forget the hundred
> million miles with no accidents.
>
>>
>> Significant reduction in transport-related mortality will lead to vastly
>> preferential insurance rates for self-driving cars, and the ball should
>> start rolling.
>
> That'll be a while. We're not close to self-driving cars yet. When they
> demonstrate one that can drive as well as me, I'll be convinced --
> specifically, the fact that I can, and have, looked ahead of me, seen the
> cargo on a vehicle behaving funny, and backed off in time to avoid the
> stuff that suddenly came off the back and crashed down right where I would
> have been.
>
>
>
>> [...]
>>>> Oil changes are cheap, but rather frequent, every few thousand miles,
>>>> and really, suspension maintenance is much less frequently performed
>>>> than
>>>> things like drive belts, fuel and air filters, valve clearances,
>>>> coolant
>>>> replacement etc. I have internal combustion powered bikes and I do the
>>>> maintenance myself, so far no suspension work has been necessary ;-)
>>>
>>> Well, as I said it depends on your batteries. Generally the
>>> batteries are half the cost of the car according to various references
>>> I've found, so if you have to replace them even once every 10 years,
>>> you're VASTLY more expensive to maintain than both of my cars have
>>> been over the last 10 years.
>>
>> When you buy a Tesla Model S for 70 grand, you can buy a "battery
>> replacement
>> in 8+ years" option, for 8 to 12 grand.
>
> And 8 to 12 grand is much, MUCH more than I have spent in maintenance on
> BOTH of my cars in 10 years. So I'm unconvinced.
>
> Oh, and 70 grand's ridiculous. All the cars I've ever owned PUT TOGETHER
> wouldn't reach that number.
>
>>
>> Battery prices are falling rapidly, because there's a lot of incentives
>> to
>> research better batteries - phones, laptops, electric vehicles etc.
>
> They'll have to fall by a factor of at least 2 to 4 before they're getting
> in the ballpark of maintenance for the cars I've driven.
>
>
>> Gasoline's power density is way higher than electric batteries, of
>> course, but
>> using this power is inconvenient,
>
> Terribly convenient. We've got a huge infrastructure dedicated to
> delivering it quickly, safely, and efficiently.
>
>
>> expensive
>
> Adjusted for inflation, the prices haven't changed much since the 1970s.
>
>
>> and dangerous.
>
>
> Batteries are dangerous too. ANYTHING that stores lots of energy is
> dangerous. And we have over a century of experience in how to deal with
> the dangers of gasoline.
>
>> We've done
>> this for a long time, so we're used to it, but now it makes sense to
>> switch
>> to electricity :-)
>>
>
> Whenever you can double the energy generating capacity of the USA. Well,
> okay, taking into account efficiencies, only adding another 50% onto
> current energy generating capacity JUST for the cars. Don't believe me?
> Calculate how much energy our cars are using. I did it a couple years ago.
>
> Given how much of a pain in the ass people are being about making new
> powerplants just to meet regular demand, I'm cynical about managing to not
> only meet regular demand but adding on enough generation capacity to
> support all the cars.
>
> Build cheap and standardized nuclear powerplants, yeah, but no one's
> letting you do that.
> As for solar, you run into the power storage problem.
Yes.
> Need super-batteries.
No, pumped water works fine.
> When you get a battery with gasoline's power density and the ability to
> handle high peak AND long term drain, you might be talking.
And something like the same charge time when used for longer distance
travel.
> Of course, such a battery will be just as dangerous as gasoline if
> something goes wrong.
No, it isnt hard to ensure that there won't be any real
problem in a decent car crash with an electric car.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
