China wants to ban gas powered cars.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-of-fossil-fuel-cars-in-electric-vehicle-push

I have heard other countries propose this (I heard talk about France proposing it) but China almost always does what it says it is going to do. Look at the giant push away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. This really could change everything with every automaker in the world being forced to switch. Also it means a hell of a lot of new Intellectual Property will newd to be dwveloped so the leaders of the auto industry might not be the old leaders.

Cars for private individuals might one day be replaced in large part by electrics.

Heavy vehicles though probably not in the foreseeable future.

Given China's way of do it big and see where the mistakes happen we will have a global example of some of the pitfalls that come with low regulation electric cars. Given China's population the experiment will be quicker than any other country. So we watch what China does and try to do it better. Or we follow trump and watch what China does and figure out how we can screw it up worse for an inefficient profit boost for lesser children of greater men.

Tesla doesn't seem to think so. As does Cummins.

Those are both designed for in city delivery route not to exceed 200-300 miles. The Cummins is even less. I think for long haul trucking diesel will remain but for shorter hauls elwctric will do well.

They're wrong. As it was stated in the most recent issue of The Economist, a battery to power a typical 40 ton tractor trailer rig in the United States would weigh roughly 16 tons. Which means a 50% cut in cargo capacity. Which further means you would need two battery powered tractor trailers to haul the same cargo as one powered by a diesel engine.

And we haven't even addressed the amount of lithium needed. From what I understand by way of example to replace all the passenger cars (cars only) in the United States with rechargeable electric ones would involve all the lithium mined in the world (and more) every year.

It probably won't be long, however, before Tesla, or somebody else, comes up with high speed charging for long haul electric trucks, and I think that Walmart has been testing out diesel hybrids for their long haul trucks.

Some trucking will use gasoline for the rest of any out our lifetimes. Air travel as well will be gas based barring any unexpected fantasy tech like small scale fusion.

You do know that "hybrids" also have an internal combustion engine don't you?

According to The Economist long haul freight delivery accounts for 40% of greenhouse emissions from global road traffic.

With current technology. In the decade or so that Tesla has been in operation, they've been able to increase the range of their vechicles, while increasing weight.

That ignores a number of other factors. First is that while lithium is presently the best material we have for batteries now, that doesn't mean that we'll always be using it. The second assumes that the number of cars in the US will stay the same or rise. Since self-driving cars are likely to be a thing in the next decade, the number of people who actually own a car is going to plummet.

That's sort of like someone in 1904 saying that folks will continue to use horses and buggies for transportation in the 21st century. They're not wrong, because the Amish do so, but that doesn't exactly describe the situation for most Americans. As for air travel, that's plausible. The questions with that are tied to things like hydrogen storage and synthetic fuels.

Yes, and that dramatically cuts the fuel consumption and emissions levels, which is the primary concern with such vehicles. And that technology leads to improving pure electric vehicles.

Strictly in my opinion, but I think the belief in the inevitably of the widespread use of self driving cars in the United States is akin to the post World War Two belief that every family was going to own a helicopter and that they would "inevitably replace cars".

That's what is called a "Dude! Where's my jetpack?" prediction.

For the longer haul hybrids just might work.

There are vast differences between jetpacks and self-driving cars, however. Jetpacks aren't remotely feasible until we find an energy source far denser than that which we have now (ie petroleum based ones). Self-driving cars require only modest increases in technology, and there's big money behind the technology (not so much when it comes to jetpacks). There are roughly 3.5 million truck drivers in the US, replacing even half of them will result in huge savings for industry. Factor in companies like Uber, which will only be able to turn a profit when they can ditch humans, as well as the tendency of nutters to mow down large numbers of people with their cars, and you've got a huge incentive for self-driving cars to become the standard. The same can't be said of jetpacks, unless you like seeing people smack into tall buildings like bugs hitting a windshield.

I wasn't meaning to imply a comparison between jetpacks and self driving cars. "Dude! Where's My Jetpack?" was the name of a book that in part was about predictions for technological advances had been disappointing.

I was comparing predictions about self driving cars to the predictions about helicopters replacing personal vehicles.

I believe the same excessive predictions are also being made about nanomachines and military drones.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump wants the US to use more coal.

This is how we define the rise of one superpower and the decline of another.

China will never be a superpower.

And I guess you didn't know that China uses vast amounts of coal.

Um, Euroland's using more coal, not less.

Personal helicopters don't make any sense. From a fuel consumption point of view, they require considerably more amounts of fuel than a ground car does. They also have to be manufactured to much higher standards than an automobile does (I've made parts for both), they require more careful and intensive maintenance than a car does, and would need to be inspected by a trained professional on a regular basis. Additionally, there aren't large economic factors pushing for their development. There are however, large economic factors pushing the development of self-driving cars. If trucking companies can automate their trucks, they'll save billions in labor and insurance costs, not to mention keep their trucks on the road more hours out of the day. All of that means more money for them. Taxi companies, and companies like Lyft and Uber can do away with human drivers and finally make a profit. None of these factors are in play when it comes to personal helicopters. Though the rich in Dubai can experience a ride in an automated flying drone, so perhaps one day these will become common, but I doubt if it'll be all that soon.

A few years ago, I would have agreed with you on the nanomachines, but I've seen enough articles on the technology to think that the projections people are making are probably conservative compared to what we'll see in 100 years or so. As for military drones, they can already track a target for days, and alert their controllers to instances where it's possible to take the target out with minimal civilian casualties. The Curiosity rover largely does its own sample selection choices, with little to no input from humans. The processor in it is slower than anything you can get in even the cheapest smartphone today. Facebook claims that their facial recognition software is up to 99% accurate (though the public facing version isn't nearly as accurate, because they worry that it'll be "too creepy"), in five or ten years, that accuracy number will only go up. If they can do it, others can do it as well, (and if Zuckerberg wants to make some quick cash, he can sell the software to the government for big bucks), so the days when automated drones can kill people with virtually no human supervision are coming. And probably coming faster than we know.

I know all that Tuckerfan.

Everyone knows that.

Now.

I'm talking about the predictions being made back in the 1950s give or take.

Folks knew that back in the '50s as well. They just found the idea so exciting that they didn't pay attention to the economic factors involved. For your comparison to be valid, there would have to be issues we're overlooking when it comes to things like self-driving cars and drones. What could those be? That self-driving cars will be expensive? Sure, but the number of people who'll need to own a car when self-driving cars become available will be lower. That computer technology won't be up to the task? Processor capabilities are increasing all the time and we've already got ways in development to deal with hitting the limits of silicon. Even if we're not able to develop human-like AI for cars, we'll be able to throw enough processing power at the problem to replace humans behind the wheel. That people won't want them? Forget the claims that Millenials don't want to drive, as the Baby Boomers continue to age into decrepitude, letting them get behind the wheel becomes more and more dangerous. Self-driving cars eliminates that concern. Doesn't matter if grandpa's blind, he can still go places, thanks to self-driving cars. Then there's the fact that terrorists like the idea of driving vehicles into crowds of people. Can't do that if the vehicle drives itself and is programmed to avoid pedestrians. Sure, somebody could hack the cars to allow them to do that, but they could also hack a plane (many of which can fly themselves now) and use that to cause more death and destruction than they could with a car.

If you're going to convince me that the projections about self-driving cars are wrong, then you're going to have to provide evidence.

You can undoubtedly program self driving cars to follow a route. You can undoubtedly program self driving cars to avoid other vehicles and pedestrians.

But can you program the values of the owner into a car? Some people are quite willing to go to extremes, even to the point of vehicle damage or destruction and possible personal injury to avoid running over a dog (example). Others won't care one way or the other.

And what about when there is an obvious conflict in basic values. Student crosses in front of a self driving vehicle when getting on or off a school bus. Conditions are that the only alternative to hitting the child is to hit the school bus. Almost certain injury or death for one child versus putting a dozen more in some level of danger? Do you trust a computer to make that choice?

Next

Delivery of goods using self driving trucks makes a lot of sense to businesses on or near interstates and major well traveled roads. But what about obscure small businesses in out of the way locations? Which is one reason I think that most if not all self driving heavy vehicles are going to still have a driver to "supervise" and in case of emergencies.

Next.

In my opinion, Americans are far more willing to tolerate human beings making a mistake than a computer.

How do you think people will react when a self driving tractor trailer rig plows through a bunch of people and kills a dozen due to a computer error?

Or when a military drone strafes a refugee convoy after mistaking it for a column of military vehicles?

We already have self driving cars. They're on the road now. Predictions of self driving cars are no longer predictions. They're fact.

Widespread?

Not yet, but more and more every day. There are like half a dozen different companies that have their cars on the road all over the country.

I trust computers to apply brakes earlier (and not pass stopped school buses at all, ever, even if it's in a hurry) thereby avoiding the conflict more often than humans.

If such a choice existed, I trust the computer to weigh alternatives and take the course of action least likely to cause loss of life than its human counterpart. Of course this is all dependent on the skill of its human programmers and testers.

True. We'll probably enact stiffer fines and penalties to the companies who made and programmed the vehicles. Class action suits will follow.

More so than jetpacks.

Not only that, but the UK are about to trial convoys of driverless HGVs. For the trial, the lead HGV will have a driver but the rest will be computer controlled. Dayton really needs to keep up.

Anyway, i dont have time to get into the thread topic right now but two points.

Uk are phasing out combustiom engines by 2040. Thats the policy at the moment.

If you listen to people in the know, current thought is that we all wont be private car owners in the future, car clubs, single journey hires etc and other ways of treating car movements will be the dominant concept. I cant say i fully agree this will happen yet but it is interesting. California is already experimenting with interesting models.