The Guardian: France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 - Move by Emmanuel Macron's government comes a day after Volvo said it would only make fully electric or hybrid cars from 2019 (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo)
How would cabs and ride-sharing function in an all-electric car market?
Nice idea, but no way will it get done in that time frame.
(https://i.imgur.com/mXyupD1.gif)
These targets tend to be unrealistic. Norway had previously announced a 2025 target.
Germany set a target to get 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2020. Today they have 34,000 and presently approximately 1 out of every 100 new car sales are electric vehicles. So it's obviously they will not reach that goal at all.
Another problem with 'electric' cars is that in many countries they count the plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) as being 'electric' while they are often only capable of 15 - 25 miles of electric driving. In the Netherlands they stimulated the heck out of PHEV for a few years, with large amounts of PHEVs almost never being charged at all. That's a lot of lost tax revenue for no environmental gain. In the Netherlands around 90% of the 'electric' car fleet are PHEV and only some 10% is pure battery-electric.
The purpose of science is to discover what is possible. It is delusion to believe that anything you wish was true can be made so by throwing money at it. There are simply Laws of Nature that actual scientists understand.
We now know that an electric powered car cannot be made practical (meaning at a reasonable price with the same performance/reliablity/features of real cars), nor can enough electricty be produced even if such a car could actually exist. This is science.
Basing public policy on delusion and wishful thinking is a receipe for disaster.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 06, 2017, 11:39:26 AM
The purpose of science is to discover what is possible. It is delusion to believe that anything you wish was true can be made so by throwing money at it. There are simply Laws of Nature that actual scientists understand.
We now know that an electric powered car cannot be made practical (meaning at a reasonable price with the same performance/reliablity/features of real cars), nor can enough electricty be produced even if such a car could actually exist. This is science.
Basing public policy on delusion and wishful thinking is a receipe for disaster.
We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.
There are still issues with electric cars, and they have not yet matched internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money. If that doesn't appear to be happening, 2040 is a long way off and France can revisit that target.
There's nothing wrong with encouraging innovation in a field where science has already proven that massive gains can be made in practicality and affordablity in a short period of time. Think about how far battery technology has come since 1994.
Electric cars may not be a panacea, I'm not deluded about that - until we figure out how to get most of our electric energy from non fossil fuel sources they have issues carrying out their intended purpose, and battery manufacturing is a messy process, but society is figuring this out, and has made scientifically indisputable gains in this area over the last 23 years, and there's no reason to believe further research won't yield similar gains.
If the ban were proposed in 2020 I would agree with you that this is delusional. 2040 is far enough out to be a soft target that can be modified if the optimists among us are wrong, while in the meantime encouraging innovation. And France is the perfect sized country to make this kind of play - companies will invest to remain competitive in France, but if it's not going well Ford isn't going to bankrupt themselves on research that you view as futile just to stay competitive in France.
Without huge market distortion consumers will not buy electric cars for now. Norway has a fairly high share of electric vehicles but this is due to extreme market distortion. Regular gasoline / diesel cars are taxed heavily while electric cars are almost tax-free. This means that a Volkswagen e-Golf will be cheaper than the regular VW Golf.
In Norway;
* you don't have to pay the registration fee (if applicable, a Tesla Model S would cost around $ 150,000 in taxes alone!)
* you don't have to pay the annual road tax
* you don't have to pay tolls (including congestion charges)
* you don't have to pay for parking
* you can use ferries for free
* you can use bus lanes
There are talks in Norway about reducing the incentives because they lose too much tax revenue. Some toll tunnels have a threatened viability due to the increasing share of motorists not having to pay tolls (in Norway, many tunnels and bridges are funded through user fees). Another problem is the overloading of bus lanes. During rush hour, Oslo bus lanes on freeways are almost as busy as the regular lanes. However congestion would increase dramatically if they would end this bus lane incentive.
The Guardian article is short on details: Is the proposed ban on all internal combustion engines or simply on non-hybrids?
My wife told me about the Volvo announcement, and while that news sounded earth-shattering at first, I quickly realized that the company isn't ending production of internal combustion engines–rather, it's ending the production of vehicles that are powered solely by internal combustion engines.
In other words, there will be still be thousands of Volvos roaming the world burning millions of gallons of fuel, but their gasoline and diesel engines will be supplemented by electric motors, and they'll be averaging 31 mpg instead of 24. Hybrids have been common in the consumer market for nearly two decades now–Volvo's "big news" amounts to an incremental improvement at best.
Likewise, if the French are merely driving hybrids that use 10 or 20% less gasoline (or diesel) than their non-hybrid counterparts, you can be sure France will be importing petroleum for many decades to come, albeit at a slightly slower rate.
Quote from: Chris on July 06, 2017, 12:09:51 PM
Without huge market distortion consumers will not buy electric cars for now. Norway has a fairly high share of electric vehicles but this is due to extreme market distortion. Regular gasoline / diesel cars are taxed heavily while electric cars are almost tax-free. This means that a Volkswagen e-Golf will be cheaper than the regular VW Golf.
In Norway;
* you don't have to pay the registration fee (if applicable, a Tesla Model S would cost around $ 150,000 in taxes alone!)
* you don't have to pay the annual road tax
* you don't have to pay tolls (including congestion charges)
* you don't have to pay for parking
* you can use ferries for free
* you can use bus lanes
There are talks in Norway about reducing the incentives because they lose too much tax revenue. Some toll tunnels have a threatened viability due to the increasing share of motorists not having to pay tolls (in Norway, many tunnels and bridges are funded through user fees). Another problem is the overloading of bus lanes. During rush hour, Oslo bus lanes on freeways are almost as busy as the regular lanes. However congestion would increase dramatically if they would end this bus lane incentive.
Yeah, it looks like Norway has gone so far with incentives that basically everyone has bought a hybrid. And the incentives (especially the bus lane one) are basically useless if everyone has a hybrid, and it ends up costing the government tons of money in taxes, fees, etc.
Probably idea would die after frexit anyway...
Quote from: corco on July 06, 2017, 11:50:45 AM
We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.
It is? No. It is market distortion via tax breaks as described in the posts about Norway. It is about taxing regular people more so Elon Musk can get rich. That is not "private sector" anything, it is croney capitalism.
Actually, the number of people without market distortion who would choose an electric car today is the same as 20 years ago. Esentually zero.
As to the rest, I already understand that this is a dead end. If you want to be "optimistic" and not believe that, what you should have said is this:
There are still issues with electric cars, and they MAY NEVER match internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money, IF SUCH A THING CAN BE INVENTED, THE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE BEING TO DISCOVER WHAT IS POSSIBLE, SOME THINGS SIMPLY ARE NOT.
Electric cars may not be a panacea, I'm not deluded about that - UNLESS we figure out how to get most of our electric energy from non fossil fuel sources IF SUCH A THING IS POSSIBLE, IT MAY NOT BE... and believe further research COULD VERY WELL BE THE 21ST CENTURY'S VERSION OF ALCHEMY.
If the ban were proposed in 2020 I would agree with you that this is delusional. 2040 is far enough out to be a soft target that can be modified if the optimists among us are wrong, while in the meantime encouraging POSSIBLE innovation OR FORCING COMPANIES TO WASTE MONEY ON A DEAD END, WE DON'T KNOW.
--
I call this the "man on the moon" theory. The quasi-religious faith that "if they can put a man on the moon, then ...." The blind idea that anything can be invented. The use of words like "until" or "when" when the proper word is "IF". If being the biggest word in the world.
Another argument may be that since France has nationalized heath care, and diesel fuel consumption has a real effect on local air quality, which in turn has a very real effect on people's health, there may be a very real financial incentive from a health care perspective to move away from a fuel that has such a real negative implication to local air quality.
I know diesel is much, much cleaner than it was in days past, but it's worth noting that diesel exhaust contains a much more significant amount of airborne particulate relative to gasoline exhaust.
France has one of the highest shares of diesel fuel for passenger cars in Europe. Diesel has a major advantage and that is lower fuel consumption. Diesel engines also tend to last longer. This is also the problem, you regularly see 20+ year old diesel cars in France, which are really polluting compared to recent model diesel cars - even with the Volkswagen scandal in mind.
Diesel exhaust can be cleaned by spraying AdBlue - known as DEF in North America - into the exhaust system. It is considered by far the most effective way to reduce emissions from diesel vehicles. It has long been standard in the trucking industry, but only recently manufacturers started to apply AdBlue / DEF into passenger cars, usually the larger models.
It's true that diesel particulate filters can very significantly reduce particulate emission from diesel engines, however they only work when the fluid is maintained per manufacturer specifications, and fluid replacement is expensive. Moreover, DPF systems reduce the power output of vehicles as the car has to produce extra power to push the exhaust through the filter.
I'm not really writing this from the perspective of being against diesel, but it's really easy to manufacture a pollution control equipment that can be easily circumvented by the user later.
Good luck France with your coal fired cars.
France does not generate much electricity with coal. Most of its electricity is generated by nuclear power (75%) and hydro power (16%).
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 06, 2017, 03:19:14 PM
Good luck France with your coal fired cars.
:-D
I mean, we can go back to 1800
Quote from: Chris on July 06, 2017, 03:33:55 PM
France does not generate much electricity with coal. Most of its electricity is generated by nuclear power (75%) and hydro power (16%).
Good question is what would be in a mix by 2040. Many older reactors are getting old, and as far as I understand new construction is somewhat slow. There is a worldwide massive dislike to nuclear power as well..
Until ITER is extremely successful, those electric cars may need to carry a set of sails and emergency pedal-actuated generator (also known as "bicycle")
Quote from: corco on July 06, 2017, 11:50:45 AM
We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.
There are still issues with electric cars, and they have not yet matched internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money. If that doesn't appear to be happening, 2040 is a long way off and France can revisit that target.
The biggest problem with electric cars, and one that no one from any side really addresses, is recharge time. Right now, they best they can do is a 10 minute Tesla supercharger recharge good for a mere 100 miles more. Who wants to stop every 100 miles for 10 minutes? By contrast, a diesel fuel or gasoline vehicle can be fueled in as little as five minutes to a full "recharge" (in mine that's another 350-400 miles). I'll have to go use the washroom before that's done. But I can go through a 100 mile electric vehicle recharge in as little as an hour and twenty minutes at 75 miles per hour.
Quote from: Brandon on July 06, 2017, 05:30:38 PM
Quote from: corco on July 06, 2017, 11:50:45 AM
We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.
There are still issues with electric cars, and they have not yet matched internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money. If that doesn't appear to be happening, 2040 is a long way off and France can revisit that target.
The biggest problem with electric cars, and one that no one from any side really addresses, is recharge time. Right now, they best they can do is a 10 minute Tesla supercharger recharge good for a mere 100 miles more. Who wants to stop every 100 miles for 10 minutes? By contrast, a diesel fuel or gasoline vehicle can be fueled in as little as five minutes to a full "recharge" (in mine that's another 350-400 miles). I'll have to go use the washroom before that's done. But I can go through a 100 mile electric vehicle recharge in as little as an hour and twenty minutes at 75 miles per hour.
Discussed many times with most obvious options of quick battery swap (and many ways of battery ownership by different parties) and marketing electric car as mostly commuter car. I can see some in-between options added into the mix.
It is not a show-stopper, it is just another problem which may need to be addressed at some point
Keep in mind that policy makers are not envisioning people going into their garage, getting into their electric car, driving to another metro, and refueling like a gas car of today. They are envisioning something more like this:
You decide to travel to another metro area, so you grab your phone and open the Uber app and summon a self-driving ride hailing vehicle. The vehicle arrives at your door a few minutes later, and you get in, potentially alongside other travelers headed in the same direction if you didn't pay extra for a private car. Instead of looking at the scenery, the windshield is full of ads, and you spend most of the time on your phone looking at Facebook and Netflix. When the car maxes out its range, it pulls into a charging station, where you get out and transfer to another car which was summoned there waiting for you. That car then brings you to your destination, and drives off to fetch someone else or recharge once you get out.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 06, 2017, 11:39:26 AM
The purpose of science is to discover what is possible. It is delusion to believe that anything you wish was true can be made so by throwing money at it. There are simply Laws of Nature that actual scientists understand.
We now know that an electric powered car cannot be made practical (meaning at a reasonable price with the same performance/reliablity/features of real cars), nor can enough electricty be produced even if such a car could actually exist. This is science.
Basing public policy on delusion and wishful thinking is a receipe for disaster.
Where are you getting this from? Science has shown nothing of the sort. On the contrary, continuing gains in affordability, recharge time, and range are happening with each new model of electric car. Many countries, China included, are having great success with renewable energy. There is nothing to suggest that we have hit a wall that will halt development on these fronts.
2040 is nearly 25 years from now. 25 years ago, the internet was virtually unrecognisable. And 25 years before cars dominated the transportation scene, they were but a toy for the wealthy, unreliable, limited by law to a speed of 5 mph, and required four men carrying flags to walk alongside the car to warn pedestrians and horses out of the way. Around that time, scientists were proclaiming that everything that ever would be discovered had already been discovered; 25 years later, Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's Theory of Relativity made them look like fools. Now, there are things that science has shown are simply beyond our capabilities given our current understanding of the universe (such as faster than light travel). Electric cars are not one of them.
Quote from: kalvado on July 06, 2017, 05:53:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 06, 2017, 05:30:38 PM
Quote from: corco on July 06, 2017, 11:50:45 AM
We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.
There are still issues with electric cars, and they have not yet matched internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money. If that doesn't appear to be happening, 2040 is a long way off and France can revisit that target.
The biggest problem with electric cars, and one that no one from any side really addresses, is recharge time. Right now, they best they can do is a 10 minute Tesla supercharger recharge good for a mere 100 miles more. Who wants to stop every 100 miles for 10 minutes? By contrast, a diesel fuel or gasoline vehicle can be fueled in as little as five minutes to a full "recharge" (in mine that's another 350-400 miles). I'll have to go use the washroom before that's done. But I can go through a 100 mile electric vehicle recharge in as little as an hour and twenty minutes at 75 miles per hour.
Discussed many times with most obvious options of quick battery swap (and many ways of battery ownership by different parties) and marketing electric car as mostly commuter car. I can see some in-between options added into the mix.
It is not a show-stopper, it is just another problem which may need to be addressed at some point
At this point, it doesn't make an electric car attractive. The battery swap thing seems like a sick joke, IMHO.
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 11:05:51 PM
Keep in mind that policy makers are not envisioning people going into their garage, getting into their electric car, driving to another metro, and refueling like a gas car of today. They are envisioning something more like this:
You decide to travel to another metro area, so you grab your phone and open the Uber app and summon a self-driving ride hailing vehicle. The vehicle arrives at your door a few minutes later, and you get in, potentially alongside other travelers headed in the same direction if you didn't pay extra for a private car. Instead of looking at the scenery, the windshield is full of ads, and you spend most of the time on your phone looking at Facebook and Netflix. When the car maxes out its range, it pulls into a charging station, where you get out and transfer to another car which was summoned there waiting for you. That car then brings you to your destination, and drives off to fetch someone else or recharge once you get out.
That's not a future I want to be a part of. Too much control in someone else's hands.
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 11:05:51 PM
Where are you getting this from? There is nothing to suggest that we have hit a wall that will halt development on these fronts.
Umm, the history of the world since Day One. Science is about finding out what is true, not about "envisioning" something you wish were true. It is pretty clear that electric cars don't work. It is yet more clear that the science ficiton of a self-driving car doesn't work.
For everything you can list that someone invented (discovered to be true) I can list 10000 things that someone did not invent, because these things cannot exist. In other words science proved these not to be possible. Not everything you wish was true can be made true. Somethings just are not possible. Like practical electric cars, self-driving cars, and so-called "renewable" energy.
I don't see the viability in 23 years for something like this to happen. Electric cars still cost a substantially larger amount new than the internal combustion counterparts, they don't have the range, nor are they built to last. That's the dirty little secret to electric and hybrid reliability, you do have to replace the batteries after a certain period of time or number of miles. That is something that isn't cheap either, I wonder what the going rate on replacement batteries for smaller cars like the Bolt and Left actually these days? Realistically though, this is more likely to happen in a smaller country in such a short time period where the infrastructure could be built up quicker to support electric. A country like the US or Canada likely is never going to become completely reliant on electrics given the sheer size vs range compared to internal combustion given the massive size compared to smaller European countries. Really I think electrics are going to be stuck in the realm of the urban commuter here in the US until the range and price of purchase drops considerably.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2017, 08:37:20 AM
I don't see the viability in 23 years for something like this to happen. Electric cars still cost a substantially larger amount new than the internal combustion counterparts, they don't have the range, nor are they built to last. That's the dirty little secret to electric and hybrid reliability, you do have to replace the batteries after a certain period of time or number of miles. That is something that isn't cheap either, I wonder what the going rate on replacement batteries for smaller cars like the Bolt and Left actually these days? Realistically though, this is more likely to happen in a smaller country in such a short time period where the infrastructure could be built up quicker to support electric. A country like the US or Canada likely is never going to become completely reliant on electrics given the sheer size vs range compared to internal combustion given the massive size compared to smaller European countries. Really I think electrics are going to be stuck in the realm of the urban commuter here in the US until the range and price of purchase drops considerably.
France (and most of western Europe) is more evenly spaced in population than the United States; while major cities still exist, there are few areas with almost no people.
Quote from: 1 on July 07, 2017, 08:43:06 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2017, 08:37:20 AM
I don't see the viability in 23 years for something like this to happen. Electric cars still cost a substantially larger amount new than the internal combustion counterparts, they don't have the range, nor are they built to last. That's the dirty little secret to electric and hybrid reliability, you do have to replace the batteries after a certain period of time or number of miles. That is something that isn't cheap either, I wonder what the going rate on replacement batteries for smaller cars like the Bolt and Left actually these days? Realistically though, this is more likely to happen in a smaller country in such a short time period where the infrastructure could be built up quicker to support electric. A country like the US or Canada likely is never going to become completely reliant on electrics given the sheer size vs range compared to internal combustion given the massive size compared to smaller European countries. Really I think electrics are going to be stuck in the realm of the urban commuter here in the US until the range and price of purchase drops considerably.
France (and most of western Europe) is more evenly spaced in population than the United States; while major cities still exist, there are few areas with almost no people.
That's why it stands a punchers chance at working. The country is fairly small at something like 250,000 square miles and highly urbanized with 67 million in that space. Compare that to something like Texas at 268,000 square miles and 28 million people and becomes apparent how packed France really is. Its unlikely you could get very far from a place to power an electric provided the infrastructure was built up enough.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2017, 08:37:20 AM
I don't see the viability in 23 years for something like this to happen. Electric cars still cost a substantially larger amount new than the internal combustion counterparts, they don't have the range, nor are they built to last. That's the dirty little secret to electric and hybrid reliability, you do have to replace the batteries after a certain period of time or number of miles. That is something that isn't cheap either, I wonder what the going rate on replacement batteries for smaller cars like the Bolt and Left actually these days? Realistically though, this is more likely to happen in a smaller country in such a short time period where the infrastructure could be built up quicker to support electric. A country like the US or Canada likely is never going to become completely reliant on electrics given the sheer size vs range compared to internal combustion given the massive size compared to smaller European countries. Really I think electrics are going to be stuck in the realm of the urban commuter here in the US until the range and price of purchase drops considerably.
Range: how often you really use the range of a gas car? I would say that I do not drive more than 100 miles/day for at least 28 days a month. Roadgeeks aside, people tend to consider 300 miles as a threshold for a flight.
Cost: you may want to look at how things would go with mass production. Economy of scale is a great thing.
Build to last: did you ever drive cheaper brands? I can show you zillion gas cars not build to last.
I would say electric cars do have their problems, but those are deeper. Are they really cleaner? Some people say no. DO we have enough copper to build all those motors? Neodymium? Some people doubt that. Can roads sustain increased loads (compare electric and gas curb weight)? Can we generate and distribute enough electric power? - well, those two are a matter of investment. But.. do we have money?
Electric cars attract a lot of wishful thinking, and that pushes technical issues on a back burner. But.. oil is in finite supply, after all...
A problem in Europe - more so than North America - is that most people do not have a private driveway to charge their electric vehicle overnight. So they are dependent on street side parking. Of course it is possible to build a charging point at public parking spaces, but the cost to do that on a large scale is extremely high.
Charging times and charging capacity are also an issue - I'd say even more so than range. It just takes too long to charge a vehicle for long-distance driving. It is possible, but it is very inconvenient. A 150 mile range would be acceptable if it took only 5 of 10 minutes to recharge.
There are few fast charging stations outside of the freeway system (and even then coverage is limited). This can be mitigated by building more fast charging stations, but the market is too small for that to be economically viable. But once the EV-market becomes big, charging capacity will be an issue. Many fuel stations have 10 or even 20 pumps and along busy routes, they are used non-stop with most vehicles being parked there for only 2-5 minutes. Imagine if everyone had to stop for half an hour or more.
There are 7,500 Teslas in the Netherlands, out of 8.2 million passenger cars overall (that is < 0.001%). But the superchargers are often all taken by Teslas. Fast-charging capacity would need to increase dramatically to be able to carry a large scale EV market.
Quote from: Chris on July 07, 2017, 09:49:49 AM
There are 7,500 Teslas in the Netherlands, out of 8.2 million passenger cars overall (that is < 0.001%). But the superchargers are often all taken by Teslas. Fast-charging capacity would need to increase dramatically to be able to carry a large scale EV market.
That is about 0.1%, actually.
As for "fast charge in driveway"...
Tesla runs a bit less than 4 miles on 1 kWt*h. 150 miles would need about 40 kWt*h, delivering that in 10 min as you suggest is 240 kWt of power draw, or 500 amps draw. For comparison: most US homes have 100 or 200 amp service, so putting a quick charger in garage/driveway is a significant cost (and would include upgrade of area distribution grid at some point).
My bad about the 0.1%.
Driving an electric car requires a different mindset. Parking = charging. Long-distance driving usually mean charging up to 80%, because the remaining 20% requires more time.
A Tesla Model S can charge up to 200 miles worth of range in about 25 minutes at a supercharger. However so far the Tesla is an exception, other electric cars require much more time to charge per unit of range. For example the Nissan Leaf, Volkswagen e-Golf or Hyundai Ioniq can charge 90 miles of range in 25-35 minutes, making these electric cars less useful for longer trips than the Tesla.
Quote from: JJBers on July 06, 2017, 03:36:16 PMI mean, we can go back to 1800
Macron will like that - he's rather Napoleonic!
Quote from: english si on July 07, 2017, 12:51:45 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 06, 2017, 03:36:16 PMI mean, we can go back to 1800
Macron will like that - he's rather Napoleonic!
Yeah.. but didn't they predict back then that London streets would be overfilled with horse manure by 1950 or so?
Quote from: Chris on July 07, 2017, 09:49:49 AMCharging times and charging capacity are also an issue - I'd say even more so than range. It just takes too long to charge a vehicle for long-distance driving. It is possible, but it is very inconvenient. A 150 mile range would be acceptable if it took only 5 of 10 minutes to recharge.
I would suggest that the ideal ought to be:
Range = a typical driver's comfortable bladder capacity plus a safe margin to account for congestion, terrain, and potential sparseness of services
Recharge time = the approximate time needed to return a driver's bladder to "max range"; less if there are fewer recharge stations than potential drivers addressing bladder needs.
For me, at least, on long distance drives, I usually need a bio-break around the time I get to one-third or one-quarter on the gas gauge, if I haven't needed to hit the caffeine too hard.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 06, 2017, 02:49:07 PM
It's true that diesel particulate filters can very significantly reduce particulate emission from diesel engines, however they only work when the fluid is maintained per manufacturer specifications, and fluid replacement is expensive. Moreover, DPF systems reduce the power output of vehicles as the car has to produce extra power to push the exhaust through the filter.
As a diesel owner...
1) The Adblue is not expensive. My Golf's Adblue tank is 4 gallons, which costs about $45 USD to fill...every 9,000 miles (you do it yourself (https://goo.gl/VYrTSP)).
2) DPFs can reduce the power output, but manufacturers tune the engines with this in mind, so you'd never know.
Quote from: kalvado on July 07, 2017, 09:06:19 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2017, 08:37:20 AM
I don't see the viability in 23 years for something like this to happen. Electric cars still cost a substantially larger amount new than the internal combustion counterparts, they don't have the range, nor are they built to last. That's the dirty little secret to electric and hybrid reliability, you do have to replace the batteries after a certain period of time or number of miles. That is something that isn't cheap either, I wonder what the going rate on replacement batteries for smaller cars like the Bolt and Left actually these days? Realistically though, this is more likely to happen in a smaller country in such a short time period where the infrastructure could be built up quicker to support electric. A country like the US or Canada likely is never going to become completely reliant on electrics given the sheer size vs range compared to internal combustion given the massive size compared to smaller European countries. Really I think electrics are going to be stuck in the realm of the urban commuter here in the US until the range and price of purchase drops considerably.
Range: how often you really use the range of a gas car? I would say that I do not drive more than 100 miles/day for at least 28 days a month. Roadgeeks aside, people tend to consider 300 miles as a threshold for a flight.
Cost: you may want to look at how things would go with mass production. Economy of scale is a great thing.
Build to last: did you ever drive cheaper brands? I can show you zillion gas cars not build to last.
Range: Me personally?...I'm not exactly the paragon of a good example for the "norm" since I probably do drive at least 30 plus days a year over 300 miles. The tricky thing out here on the West Coast is that there are substantial distances sometimes between services. Whereas that wouldn't an issue in the eastern U.S. much less France outside of suburbia on the western side of the country range is a killer for electrics. I have a couple friends down in Los Angeles who actually drive electrics daily but hung on to a internal combustion vehicle simply because the electric can't hack it outside the city. But then again, that's why I said France would have a much better chance of building up the infrastructure for electric given the high population density in a relatively small area.
Cost: That's the thing, electric really needs to be pushed into the forefront of mass production to drive the costs down. Is France going to a completely electric market going to accomplish that?...probably not... Would an expanded electric market world wide drop the price of electrics?...more than likely, but what is the threshold?
Build Quality: At the end of the day the owner is largely the party responsible for their vehicle not lasting and not so much the automaker. The era of Yugo-type vehicles running ago is pretty much done in first world countries but people who can't maintain their vehicles is still a huge problem. State side, have you ever run into a person who actually has read the maintenance schedule much less follows it?...its a rarity. But then again the replacement costs for batteries would go down if electric production were ever to cross a certain point, right now the maintenance costs will be still be substantially higher than an internal combustion counterpart.
Quote from: kalvado on July 07, 2017, 12:59:33 PMYeah.. but didn't they predict back then that London streets would be overfilled with horse manure by 1950 or so?
Yes, though that misses the point I was making, which wasn't about 19th century technology, but about 21st century French presidents!
Quote from: english si on July 07, 2017, 04:46:27 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 07, 2017, 12:59:33 PMYeah.. but didn't they predict back then that London streets would be overfilled with horse manure by 1950 or so?
Yes, though that misses the point I was making, which wasn't about 19th century technology, but about 21st century French presidents!
OK, then lets discuss manure production by 21st century politicians?
Quote from: kalvado on July 07, 2017, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: english si on July 07, 2017, 04:46:27 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 07, 2017, 12:59:33 PMYeah.. but didn't they predict back then that London streets would be overfilled with horse manure by 1950 or so?
Yes, though that misses the point I was making, which wasn't about 19th century technology, but about 21st century French presidents!
OK, then lets discuss manure production by 21st century politicians?
I can think of one who
is a pile of manure, but I won't say who it is.
The US and Canada both have areas where just driving to the next metro area alone exceeds the range of an electric car. That undoubtedly skews the perception of feasibility. France does not have that problem, nor does most if not all of the EU as a whole. Imagine an entire country with the density of the I-95 corridor between DC and Boston. That's what Europe is like. That is why they are able to set targets for all-electric usage. If the US were to try the scenario I detailed earlier, you'd need base stations in the middle of nowhere, or relegate those trips to airplanes (which, let's be honest, more and more people are doing now anyways as roadtrips are slowly going the way of the dodo). Not a problem in Europe. Even if you exceed the range and have to switch cars, at least you'll be near a metro area the car can base itself in. Plus most intercity trips there are by train. Simply put, most people aren't going to be exceeding even the present-day range of electrics, much less the range after some iterative technological improvement.
And yes, I expect the scenario I detailed to come to pass. Ever hear of the 80/20 problem in technology? The last 20% of the project takes 80% of the work. I'd estimate self-driving cars are about 85% complete, so 60% of the work remains. Similar situation for electric cars. Considering that both have only been worked on for five, ten years at the very maximum, that's actually right on target. And the date can be changed or the law repealed if it doesn't pan out. Also, there's a lot of push for this future. Government bureaucrats are salivating at the safety aspect, bike/ped/transit advocates are salivating at the end of car ownership, and companies in the car/technology/advertising industries are salivating at the increased profit potential self-driving ride hailing offers (such a company could theoretically do in 10 years what it took Toyota 100 to do in terms of profit). Simply put: there are too many groups invested in this for society to easily change course. That doesn't mean I like it. I don't. I intend to continue with my manual-transmission, human-driving Civic for as long as possible, but, I don't expect to be able to do so for my entire lifetime.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 07, 2017, 08:25:12 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 11:05:51 PM
Where are you getting this from? There is nothing to suggest that we have hit a wall that will halt development on these fronts.
Umm, the history of the world since Day One. Science is about finding out what is true, not about "envisioning" something you wish were true. It is pretty clear that electric cars don't work. It is yet more clear that the science ficiton of a self-driving car doesn't work.
For everything you can list that someone invented (discovered to be true) I can list 10000 things that someone did not invent, because these things cannot exist. In other words science proved these not to be possible. Not everything you wish was true can be made true. Somethings just are not possible. Like practical electric cars, self-driving cars, and so-called "renewable" energy.
What specific evidence do you have to support your position? Your argument looks like "they're not able to do everything I need right now, so therefore they will always be a failure". I dare you to cite the evidence needed to prove me wrong, because so far, you don't have anything. I already made points about electric and self-driving cars, so let's talk about renewable energy, otherwise know as that thing every country in the world other than the US are making MASSIVE investments in. Experts estimate that wind power along in North Dakota could power the entire country. Similar for solar panels in Death Valley. How is that a failure? Tesla, in addition to cars, is also making home batteries that could be used to store power generated when the sun is shining/wind is blowing to be used when it isn't. These are not insurmountable problems. Well, maybe if you're locked into the current paradigm. But that's not a "scientific impossibility".
Quote from: 1 on July 07, 2017, 05:43:16 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 07, 2017, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: english si on July 07, 2017, 04:46:27 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 07, 2017, 12:59:33 PMYeah.. but didn't they predict back then that London streets would be overfilled with horse manure by 1950 or so?
Yes, though that misses the point I was making, which wasn't about 19th century technology, but about 21st century French presidents!
OK, then lets discuss manure production by 21st century politicians?
I can think of one who is a pile of manure, but I won't say who it is.
A more challenging question is if there is anyone who does NOT fit that definition...
Quote from: vdeane on July 07, 2017, 06:16:11 PM
The US and Canada both have areas where just driving to the next metro area alone exceeds the range of an electric car. That undoubtedly skews the perception of feasibility. France does not have that problem, nor does most if not all of the EU as a whole. Imagine an entire country with the density of the I-95 corridor between DC and Boston. That's what Europe is like. That is why they are able to set targets for all-electric usage.
Which only means that one size doesn't fit all. You may use same logic to say that people living along I-95 corridor (would that be close to population of France?) may reasonably switch to electric if that can be done in Europe. Is that a good idea? I don't know.
Quote from: vdeane on July 07, 2017, 06:16:11 PM
let's talk about renewable energy, otherwise know as that thing every country in the world other than the US are making MASSIVE investments in. Experts estimate that wind power along in North Dakota could power the entire country. Similar for solar panels in Death Valley. How is that a failure? Tesla, in addition to cars, is also making home batteries that could be used to store power generated when the sun is shining/wind is blowing to be used when it isn't. These are not insurmountable problems. Well, maybe if you're locked into the current paradigm. But that's not a "scientific impossibility".
And the cost is.... We're talking about 1000 gigawatts generating capacity. Typical cost for cheaper coal/gas is $1/watt of generating capacity, more for renewables, say $2. Plus all new distribution grid for long haul transport, probably about the same 4e12 dollars is 25% of US annual GDP, or 2.5 Iraq wars.
All-electric cars would double that.
ANd ongoing costs may also be interesting. I did pay $300/month for electricity in apartment during winter months when we had a real winter. (yes, all-electric apartment is not a good idea) That was at NY rate. AT German renewable-heavy rate that would be more than $1000/month... I doubt that would be affordable situation for me..
My understanding is that the cost of renewables is continually going down.
Quote from: vdeane on July 07, 2017, 06:16:11 PMImagine an entire country with the density of the I-95 corridor between DC and Boston. That's what Europe is like.
That's what
parts of (Western) Europe are like - France is less like that (one of the reasons it pioneered HSR is that distances are larger than typical in Europe), though certainly it's more Northeastern in density than Mid-western.
France is not as densely populated as it is made out to be in this thread. The average is fairly high, but the population is greatly concentrated in a number of urban areas. Almost a fifth of the French population lives in ÃŽle-de-France, the area around Paris. Traffic has to travel fairly long distances through rural areas between larger cities. It's not Nevada or Montana of course, but traveling through France is not akin to the Eastern Seaboard either. Exits on the French toll roads are routinely 15 - 20 miles apart because there are no towns of significance to serve.
Germany, Italy, England and the Benelux are much more densely populated than France. In Norway, the number of electric vehicles on the roads outside of the metropolitan areas goes down dramatically. Only Teslas are capable of some decent intercity driving, other vehicles have a limited range which means you have to stop often to recharge.
Bergen and Oslo, Norway's two largest cities, are only 200 miles apart by air. But there are no freeways between them. Even with a gasoline car it takes a solid 7 hours to drive between those cities. It's a very long day to do that with a Nissan Leaf that needs 30 minutes of recharging for every 90 minutes of driving.
Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2017, 01:39:26 AM
My understanding is that the cost of renewables is continually going down.
It does, but an interesting question is if it will go down to the point of being commercially affordable, or we will have to adapt (lets say instead of paying 30% for housing go to paying 20% for housing and 15% for energy), or that change would be forced on us...
So far, Germany - who is renewable leader - does some crazy subsidies, and on rock solid path to some real crisis I'm afraid.
German subsidies on solar panels made them much more expensive for a period - because it created a demand higher than supply. While there's improvements in supply, efficiency, etc, the cost of PV-cells has gone down due to German local governments having bought their fill of heavily-subsidised panels and so demand has decreased.
Germany, when it closed its nuclear power stations in the wake of Fukushima, became reliant on French nuclear power (the French are very happy to oversupply and export to the UK, Germany, etc) and has only decreased that reliance by expanding coal capacity.
Quote from: english si on July 08, 2017, 08:24:06 AM
German subsidies on solar panels made them much more expensive for a period - because it created a demand higher than supply. While there's improvements in supply, efficiency, etc, the cost of PV-cells has gone down due to German local governments having bought their fill of heavily-subsidised panels and so demand has decreased.
Germany, when it closed its nuclear power stations in the wake of Fukushima, became reliant on French nuclear power (the French are very happy to oversupply and export to the UK, Germany, etc) and has only decreased that reliance by expanding coal capacity.
There are secondary effects, like unpredictable demand for coal power - which results in uncertain schedule and reduced returns for coal operators. Due to regulations on how renewable has to be accommodated, price of coal generated energy went
negative in few extreme cases. If the ultimate goal is to bankrupt non-renewable sector, Germans are going in a right direction...
In truly economic approach, any weather-dependant project must be handicapped with storage facilities (hydro-pump, battery like Chinese did, or something else) to be able to provide at least short-term operational commitments. I am afraid those are the things - namely destruction of old business without building sustainable new model - which would make current development mostly useless, if not harmfull in long term.
Quote from: Chris on July 08, 2017, 05:43:42 AM
France is not as densely populated as it is made out to be in this thread. The average is fairly high, but the population is greatly concentrated in a number of urban areas. Almost a fifth of the French population lives in ÃŽle-de-France, the area around Paris. Traffic has to travel fairly long distances through rural areas between larger cities. It's not Nevada or Montana of course, but traveling through France is not akin to the Eastern Seaboard either. Exits on the French toll roads are routinely 15 - 20 miles apart because there are no towns of significance to serve.
Germany, Italy, England and the Benelux are much more densely populated than France. In Norway, the number of electric vehicles on the roads outside of the metropolitan areas goes down dramatically. Only Teslas are capable of some decent intercity driving, other vehicles have a limited range which means you have to stop often to recharge.
Bergen and Oslo, Norway's two largest cities, are only 200 miles apart by air. But there are no freeways between them. Even with a gasoline car it takes a solid 7 hours to drive between those cities. It's a very long day to do that with a Nissan Leaf that needs 30 minutes of recharging for every 90 minutes of driving.
And the train trip between Bergen and Oslo is about 8 hours one way.
Also, France strikes me as having a density similar to the upper Midwest/Great Lakes part of the USA.
Mike
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 11:05:51 PM
Keep in mind that policy makers are not envisioning people going into their garage, getting into their electric car, driving to another metro, and refueling like a gas car of today. They are envisioning something more like this:
You decide to travel to another metro area, so you grab your phone and open the Uber app and summon a self-driving ride hailing vehicle. The vehicle arrives at your door a few minutes later,
Then you see that the previous kid was sick in the back seat, so you go back to the app and summon another car. There's a football game starting up, so you're put in the back of a queue and it's an hour before another car arrives. This one smells funky and has dog hair in it but you accept it. You spend an hour loading up your car seats and suitcases because you couldn't do that the night before while being charged a fee for having the car even though you're not moving then you're off. 10 minutes later since you didn't pay for a private car it drives out of the way to pick up a guy that hasn't showered in a month and has already drank his breakfast, takes 30 minutes to load and arrange his stuff, and then won't shut up.
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 11:05:51 PM
and you get in, potentially alongside other travelers headed in the same direction if you didn't pay extra for a private car. Instead of looking at the scenery, the windshield is full of ads, and you spend most of the time on your phone looking at Facebook and Netflix. When the car maxes out its range, it pulls into a charging station, where you get out and transfer to another car
Which takes an hour because again you need to transfer and adjust your child car seat, your suitcases, all the change in the ashtray, you're old McDonalds bag so you don't get fined for leaving trash in the car, and in the mean time your wife and kids have wandered off into a nearby store. Rinse and repeat the process every 100 miles
Quote
What specific evidence do you have to support your position? Your argument looks like "they're not able to do everything I need right now, so therefore they will always be a failure". I dare you to cite the evidence needed to prove me wrong, because so far, you don't have anything.
I'm sorry, you just do not understand what science is. It is about finding out the unchangable Laws of Nature. It is not about dreaming up something you WISH were true and making it so. Because somethings just are not true.
I can list a billion things that would be nice, from living forever to having wings to warp engines to cars that run on dirt. None of those can exist. Not because enough of (other people's) money has not yet been throwen at them, but because they are simply not possible.
That is what science is. People that think otherwise are the natural victims of the snake oil salesman.
You honestly think that ANYTHING is possible? That, given enough money, you could raise a caveman from the dead (memories and all intact) from a fingernail?
Rediculious.
QuoteYou honestly think that ANYTHING is possible? That, given enough money, you could raise a caveman from the dead (memories and all intact) from a fingernail?
You know what a straw man is right?
Quote from: SP Cook on July 10, 2017, 11:13:14 AM
Quote
What specific evidence do you have to support your position? Your argument looks like "they're not able to do everything I need right now, so therefore they will always be a failure". I dare you to cite the evidence needed to prove me wrong, because so far, you don't have anything.
I'm sorry, you just do not understand what science is. It is about finding out the unchangable Laws of Nature. It is not about dreaming up something you WISH were true and making it so. Because somethings just are not true.
I can list a billion things that would be nice, from living forever to having wings to warp engines to cars that run on dirt. None of those can exist. Not because enough of (other people's) money has not yet been throwen at them, but because they are simply not possible.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-future-is-now-awesome-things-that-were-impossible-20-years-ago-2011-7
Quote from: jakeroot on July 10, 2017, 01:09:50 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 10, 2017, 11:13:14 AM
Quote
What specific evidence do you have to support your position? Your argument looks like "they're not able to do everything I need right now, so therefore they will always be a failure". I dare you to cite the evidence needed to prove me wrong, because so far, you don't have anything.
I'm sorry, you just do not understand what science is. It is about finding out the unchangable Laws of Nature. It is not about dreaming up something you WISH were true and making it so. Because somethings just are not true.
I can list a billion things that would be nice, from living forever to having wings to warp engines to cars that run on dirt. None of those can exist. Not because enough of (other people's) money has not yet been throwen at them, but because they are simply not possible.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-future-is-now-awesome-things-that-were-impossible-20-years-ago-2011-7
There is equally long list of things that seemed just around the corner, but never realized.
Vacation on the moon, supersonic flight to Australia, nuclear powered everything just to name a few.
And despite tons and tons of money thrown into cancer research, progress is very slow.
You can try to accelerate certain things, but you cannot bribe Mother Nature..
Incidentally, there is another type of non-gasoline car that exists that we haven't talked about: hydrogen fuel cells. These cars don't have the issues that electric cars have with range and refueling time. There's just one problem... stations to refuel them don't exist. The push for electric is in part because a homeowner could charge the car overnight in their garage, meaning that they are still usable even if there is no station in town.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 10, 2017, 11:13:14 AM
I'm sorry, you just do not understand what science is. It is about finding out the unchangable Laws of Nature. It is not about dreaming up something you WISH were true and making it so. Because somethings just are not true.
I can list a billion things that would be nice, from living forever to having wings to warp engines to cars that run on dirt. None of those can exist. Not because enough of (other people's) money has not yet been throwen at them, but because they are simply not possible.
That is what science is. People that think otherwise are the natural victims of the snake oil salesman.
You honestly think that ANYTHING is possible? That, given enough money, you could raise a caveman from the dead (memories and all intact) from a fingernail?
Rediculious.
You do realize there is a difference between "there are some things that are theoretically impossible" and "electric cars and self-driving cars specifically are impossible", right? And, of course, there is a difference between
revolutionary change and
incremental change. Warp drive is revolutionary. The advances needed to get self-driving electric cars on the road are incremental.
In many cases, especially with technology, change is not from "good to better" but from "good to better in some ways but worse in others". Let's say self-driving cars never perform well on a snow-covered roadway (certainly possible). Dealbreaker? Perhaps to some, but others would no doubt celebrate about how there would be more room on the roads for plows and emergency responders. A car that can't go anywhere is a car that won't be violating any travel bans that are imposed. I could easily see this becoming a something that will never be "fixed" because "it's safer if people just stayed home anyways". If you're looking for a self-driving electric car that has the exact same capabilities of your human-driven gas car, well that will probably never happen, but it's worth noting that the number of people outside the forum who would consider anything less to be a dealbreaker are in the minority, especially in more urbanized areas. Most people don't like driving. They don't care how they get there, as long as they get from point A to point B in the most efficient amount of time. For them, the car is little more than a mere appliance, on par with a washing machine. I remember thinking similar thoughts with respect to smartphones. "Sure, it's nice when you're away from the computer, but who would want to browse on such a tiny screen (and get their fingerprints all over it) and interact through apps instead of a web browser?" Turns out, most people. Sure, I'd personally find it quite nice if the future I depicted earlier never comes to pass. But I don't want to be caught by surprise if I some day find that my stick shift civic isn't being made any more because people want to buy or rideshare self-driving electrics. As was mentioned, most people fly if it takes more than 300 miles to get somewhere. Get the range to 300 miles, and only roadgeeks will give a crap how long it takes to recharge.
Also: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/8-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-computers-internet/
I notice you still haven't responded to my question, by the way. Why do you feel that further advancement on these fronts will not occur? What you seem to think is "self-evident" is only "self-evident" to yourself.
Quote from: kalvado on July 10, 2017, 01:30:07 PM
You can try to accelerate certain things, but you cannot bribe Mother Nature..
(can you stop with the ellipses, please??)You cannot "bribe" mother nature, but what "she" is capable of is not yet fully understood.
Quote from: kalvado on July 10, 2017, 01:30:07 PM
There is equally long list of things that seemed just around the corner, but never realized.
Vacation on the moon, supersonic flight to Australia, nuclear powered everything just to name a few.
And despite tons and tons of money thrown into cancer research, progress is very slow.
Very, very silly list.
Vacation on the moon: possible. Just no demand
Supersonic flight to Australia: possible if Concorde still flew
Nuclear-powered everything: dangers of nuclear power kept that from being realised (still possible though)
Cancer research is slow but there's no evidence to suggest that it cannot be cured.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 10, 2017, 02:36:44 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 10, 2017, 01:30:07 PM
You can try to accelerate certain things, but you cannot bribe Mother Nature..
(can you stop with the ellipses, please??)
You cannot "bribe" mother nature, but what "she" is capable of is not yet fully understood.
Quote from: kalvado on July 10, 2017, 01:30:07 PM
There is equally long list of things that seemed just around the corner, but never realized.
Vacation on the moon, supersonic flight to Australia, nuclear powered everything just to name a few.
And despite tons and tons of money thrown into cancer research, progress is very slow.
Very, very silly list.
Vacation on the moon: possible. Just not demand
Supersonic flight to Australia: possible if Concorde still flew
Nuclear-powered everything: dangers of nuclear power kept that from being realised (still possible though)
Cancer research is slow but there's no evidence to suggest that it cannot be cured.
OK, where can I book a ticket for moon vacation? Oh, wait - some people even say Neil Armstrong should get Oscar for that filming, not astronaut wings, and even orbital tourism is not really there..
Concorde didn't have range for Australia trips, BTW, and cost in terms of fuel burn was astronomical. SO next generations of airliners are getting lower fuel burn, less noise - with speed being pretty much irrelevant (actually, even conventional airliners today are slower than airliners of 60-70s).
Nuclear.. Same thing - doing it properly is too expensive.
But - those are the things which formed vision of future at some point, were seen as a proof of almighty science and human intelligence.... Only to get mothballed a few years later.
Can anyone say with certainty that electric cars will not go the same way? Or wouldn't stay as a niche product? Totally possible.
In general, future development is often unpredictable, unexpected problems arise and become show-stoppers.
I suspect that physics is coming to just another hard stop (hopefully before next jump), and biology becomes the fastest growing area. If I had to make some weird predictions, I would say that 100 years from now transportation would still be running on gasoline - but said gasoline would be harvested from new breed of gas-producing trees. (and I would give myself 5% chance of being correct about that). I don't see electric cars as a good development path...
Quote from: kalvado on July 10, 2017, 04:40:07 PM
OK, where can I book a ticket for moon vacation? Oh, wait - some people even say Neil Armstrong should get Oscar for that filming, not astronaut wings, and even orbital tourism is not really there..
Concorde didn't have range for Australia trips, BTW, and cost in terms of fuel burn was astronomical. SO next generations of airliners are getting lower fuel burn, less noise - with speed being pretty much irrelevant (actually, even conventional airliners today are slower than airliners of 60-70s).
Nuclear.. Same thing - doing it properly is too expensive.
But - those are the things which formed vision of future at some point, were seen as a proof of almighty science and human intelligence.... Only to get mothballed a few years later.
Can anyone say with certainty that electric cars will not go the same way? Or wouldn't stay as a niche product? Totally possible.
Building a moon base is
possible (or, at least it is
in theory). Just because you can't go there right now, doesn't mean it's impossible. We just haven't figured out a way to practically pull it off -- yet!
Concorde had range to reach Oz. It just depended on where you started from. EWR/SYD or LHR/SYD might be out of reach. But development only stopped because of expense and lack of interest, especially in light of 9/11. Just like above, there's no proof to conclude supersonic flight to/from Oz as impossible. The development just hasn't reached that stage -- yet!
Nuclear -- well I don't know enough about it. Yes, it's expensive. But I don't think we've fully exploited its potential. I doubt we will, given the recent nuclear scares. But neither you nor I could definitively say "nuclear doesn't work in everything" because neither of us are in that field. The most important thing is that we know for sure that we
don't know if it's impossible or not.
Quote from: kalvado on July 10, 2017, 04:40:07 PM
In general, future development is often unpredictable, unexpected problems arise and become show-stoppers.
I suspect that physics is coming to just another hard stop (hopefully before next jump), and biology becomes the fastest growing area. If I had to make some weird predictions, I would say that 100 years from now transportation would still be running on gasoline - but said gasoline would be harvested from new breed of gas-producing trees. (and I would give myself 5% chance of being correct about that). I don't see electric cars as a good development path...
I couldn't really say for sure where we're headed, in terms of how vehicles are powered. I suspect that petrol/diesel vehicles will be outlawed (due to CO2 emissions) before they become impractical to use (due to increased fuel costs).
My prediction is that the battery capacity for electric vehicles will improve dramatically over the next ten years, alongside improvements in charge time, where these vehicles become just as practical as gas-powered cars. But the costs are the most important thing, and is ultimately what keeps something from hitting prime-time. It remains to be seen whether or not electric cars will improve in terms of drive-away price.
Can we move this to off-topic? It really isn't about highways.
Quote from: JJBers on July 10, 2017, 07:25:59 PM
Can we move this to off-topic? It really isn't about highways.
Might be better in "Travel". Maybe. Definitely not "international highways" though.
Quote from: Mdcastle on July 09, 2017, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 11:05:51 PM
Keep in mind that policy makers are not envisioning people going into their garage, getting into their electric car, driving to another metro, and refueling like a gas car of today. They are envisioning something more like this:
You decide to travel to another metro area, so you grab your phone and open the Uber app and summon a self-driving ride hailing vehicle. The vehicle arrives at your door a few minutes later,
Then you see that the previous kid was sick in the back seat, so you go back to the app and summon another car. There's a football game starting up, so you're put in the back of a queue and it's an hour before another car arrives. This one smells funky and has dog hair in it but you accept it. You spend an hour loading up your car seats and suitcases because you couldn't do that the night before while being charged a fee for having the car even though you're not moving then you're off. 10 minutes later since you didn't pay for a private car it drives out of the way to pick up a guy that hasn't showered in a month and has already drank his breakfast, takes 30 minutes to load and arrange his stuff, and then won't shut up.
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 11:05:51 PM
and you get in, potentially alongside other travelers headed in the same direction if you didn't pay extra for a private car. Instead of looking at the scenery, the windshield is full of ads, and you spend most of the time on your phone looking at Facebook and Netflix. When the car maxes out its range, it pulls into a charging station, where you get out and transfer to another car
Which takes an hour because again you need to transfer and adjust your child car seat, your suitcases, all the change in the ashtray, you're old McDonalds bag so you don't get fined for leaving trash in the car, and in the mean time your wife and kids have wandered off into a nearby store. Rinse and repeat the process every 100 miles
AAAAAND . . .
. . . this all also assumes that there will be a 'relief' car available when you get there.
Mike