I really like technology and all that comes with it. But what's really starting to get on my nerves is how every technology reporter seems to fall for all the BS that the tech giants in California are deciding is best for us. What's set me off this today is an episode of TWiT (This Week in Tech) on the network named after the show. Before you click the link to that, it's a long episode at 2 hours and 20 minutes and I don't really have timestamps for my complaints. Hit the break and you'll see what I'm talking about...
On this episode they had one of my favorite guests, Iain Thompson, so I was really looking forward to watching/listening to it (I run the video while I'm working in case there is something visual to see). He certainly wasn't the issue. The issue came from the other guest and his assertions. I'm really tired of hearing how electric vehicles are the only future and that we will no longer individuals will no longer own their vehicles. I'm not going to go off completely on electric vehicles as I've done that in the past and it's quite possible that this same guest set me off then.
What I really want to focus on today is the idea that I won't own or drive my vehicle. I've made it rather clear that I live a fair distance from where I work, roughly 35 miles one way, in a small town of 5000 residents. That isn't 5000 working residents, that's 5000 total. That includes people who stay at home and children. And there isn't anything that states they work in the same area that I do. I'm 45 miles from 2 other cities and 50 from a third, not to mention several large villages where businesses are located. All of these are what many would (and do) consider them to be reasonable commutes. So the idea that I'm going to have to request a vehicle to drive me back and forth just doesn't make economical sense for me. I can't imagine what the cost would be for that. Or is the plan for these services to be more like a bus route where I have to plan my schedule around when it comes to my area? Scenario one (the likely one) is that I need to order a ride and I will assume that you can schedule the pickup in advance. But what happens if something delays me and I'm not ready when the car arrives? I'm sure it will stay for a specified time then leave and charge me but I'll need to order another ride and be late for work. But what if I need to go to the store at the last minute for some cold medicine for one of my kids? Do I need to sit there and wait for 30 minutes for the car service to show up just to take me to the store so I can then sit and wait for another to pick me up after I've completed my shopping? Seems like it's going to really make life a living hell for a lot of people who forget something they really need. And what about hauling wood back to the house to build that deck you've always wanted? Or towing the boat to the launch?
And let's talk about the second piece of the puzzle with the concept that you won't own or drive a vehicle, not driving. The concept of a vehicle that drives itself is alright for those that don't like to drive. For them, it likely even opens up new places to explore. But the issue becomes when you can't see where you are going. I live not far from one of the snowiest places in North America, the Tug Hill region of New York. Where I live we average 133 inches (338 cm) per year, just to the north of me in Redfield they average 264 inches (670 cm) per year. And trust me when I tell you that there are places with higher averages in that area, that just happens to be a town where someone volunteers to measure it! This year, they had a couple of storms that were dumping 3+ inches of snow per hour. How is it that these autonomous vehicles are going to "see" the road? And if their instruments can, how are they going to be able to tell just how fast they should be driving? How will they react to the wheels slipping? What will they do when a deer decides that it's going to cross the road? All of the testing that has been happening with these cars is happening in states without conditions like this. But let's look at another situation, one that I don't deal with, tornadoes. If you're sitting in this vehicle with no way to control it and a tornado is spotted, how are you going to get to a safe place, jump? That will only work if you can open the doors, and wouldn't be safe if you are cruising along at any speed above 30 MPH. These are both examples of things that programmers will need to be able to plan for so that they can add the correct code in order for the vehicle to know what to do. But I can guarantee that they will not think of every possible scenario that can happen while you are driving. There are limits to what they can think of and limits to what artificial intelligence can correct.
Now, let me go back to my issue with something else that Greg asserted. Internal combustion engines are bombs because of the fuel tanks. Let's start off with correcting that first. Gasoline or diesel are actually very stable fuel sources that provide a lot of energy. That's why they were chosen for the task. In it's liquid for, gasoline isn't flammable, it's the vapors that burn. I have little knowledge of diesel, but I believe it explodes but only under extreme pressure which is how that type of engine works. If you were to look at the number of accidents with gasoline based cars and the number of them that explode or catch fire you'll see that it's a rather low number, especially when you look at more modern vehicles. There are a lot of safety features built into the cars to prevent such fires. But even if a fire does start, it can be contained with water. That's something that every fire department in the country is designed to work with, and it's cheap. As I mentioned in my last post, batteries delivering energy to electric cars now are made of lithium-ion. One of the biggest issues with them is that any kind of puncture will cause them to explode. Sure, you can certainly put safety measures in place to limit the likelihood of that happening but if we're going to call an internal combustion engine a bomb, we need to also label these as bombs. But what makes it worse is that a fire where one of these batteries is involved can't be easily controlled with water. That means that there aren't many fire departments currently equipped to control one of these fires if it should start. You may argue that it's not necessary as these would be rare, but you can't use that if you are arguing that these need to be the main source of energy for vehicles. What if a house with an attached garage catches on fire and there's an electric vehicle in the garage? That won't be an uncommon practice since they will need to charge. Your argument that it's not necessary just got shot down. So what does this mean? It means that every fire department will not only need to purchase new trucks to have the appropriate fire suppressant available, it means that the low cost water just got replaced by a high cost chemical. Have you seen the cost of these firetrucks? They aren't cheap and it's not like you just waltz down to the local dealer and pick one out. First the department must put together a justification for the purchase, then they need to get bids, followed by constituent approval, followed by production of the truck. It can take years to get a new truck on site. Then the issue is that each time someone calls, they are either going to have to get information from the caller on whether or not there are electric vehicles near the fire, guess which truck to send, or send both trucks. These trucks aren't cheap to drive either so you don't want to take them out if it's not necessary. But if an active structure fire is reported, you can't wait for a chief to arrive on the scene to determine which to send. Action is needed immediately. And when you're talking about the cost of these trucks, imagine what that does to a small town like mine. My taxes would be so high to pay for it that I wouldn't be able to afford to live in the town.
And that, yes you guessed it, leads to another problem. If we are eliminating all internal combustion engines, I guess you're also talking about these fire trucks. The problem there is that the engine does more than just provide propulsion of the vehicle. It also provides powers the pumps that pressurize the water. If we're going all electric, you're going to have to have a huge battery to run the pumps long enough to put out a structure fire. There aren't any huge buildings in my town, but imagine how long it would take to put out a fire in an office building where you are just relying on normal water pressure in the water system. It would take significantly longer than having the truck pressurize the lines and put many firefighters at greater risk. But, these trucks would also need to be constantly on charge so that they are ready on a moments notice. Imagine the increase in electric costs that would generate!
One of Greg's biggest points on how this won't be an issue is his reliance on solar energy. In Syracuse, NY we average only 46% of the total possible sunlight. That makes it really difficult to generate enough energy to power these electric vehicles. But reduce that further based on the fact that many of those days occur in the winter months when the sun is much lower on the horizon and the solar panels are covered with snow.
Again, this is a very California centered view of the world. I, for one, have really had more than enough. If we really want to impact the environment, we need to make lightweight electric commuter vehicles but leave the internal combustion engine alone. Most driving that happens is commuting back and forth to work, moving that to electric vehicles would solve a majority of our issues. And making the vehicles very lightweight wouldn't necessarily solve the issue of range anxiety, but it would make it less of an issue. A lightweight vehicle with bare necessities won't use much electricity, which means you can go farther on a smaller battery. I know there are much smarter people out there in Silicon Valley than me, I just don't think they see what the rest of the world lives like.
No comments:
Post a Comment