Welcome to Decarbonizing Transportation. Every two weeks (or so) we go deep on one topic and present a roundup of the latest decarbonization news at the bottom of the email. A sleek black pod pulls up to the curb. You and your friends slide into the back seat. The vehicle glides back into traffic, and the camera zooms out to reveal a gorgeous San Francisco sunset. The interior of your ride looks like the starship Enterprise, and a well trained robot guides you smoothly to your destination. You’re in the back of your new
Thanks for the article! Here's our estimate of all the ways in which AVs save us & cost us more GHG, for an overall estimate of 40% GHG savings vs business as usual, once the US fleet is fully automated (e.g., year 2050 case study, vs a no-AV future): https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB19EnergyAndEmissions.pdf
My initial and two follow up comments are the first time I've participated in the Decarbonizing Transport forum. I stand behind my claim that PHEV tech offers more potential to reduce CO2 emissions than all-battery BEV and hydrogen fuel cell tech. If that's not contrarian enough, I am certain that AV (at Level 5 "driverless") is impossible and unsafe on the road and in other ways. A household EV should be considered as a safety device in power outage. A household EV is immediately available in any emergency where an AV may arrive too late. A household EV offers the means to more closely monitor and reduce fuel/energy consumption overall, for driving and household electrical devices. My perspective is presented in a 500-word essay "The Walking Communities of 2040" the first in a series of 5 that I hope to complete when it receives more than blank rejection from supposedly environmentally conscientious organizations.
"But they rely heavily on mass adoption of shared services. That seems unlikely. I suspect the more plausible outcome is that most people will continue travel in vehicles that are similar to the ones we use today and that we’ll mostly do it alone, in vehicles we own, even if they’re autonomous." Always nice to see common sense professional expertise reflected in predictions of future situations. The AV scenarios that predict large movements towards shared services or towards abandonment of personal vehicle ownership are based on little more than speculation or preferences for some future state that bears little relationship to consumer behavior today. Anyone who cares to do some simple arithmetic can satisfy themselves that there is no inherent economic advantage to using an AV as a service rather than owning one for most people in most situations, and since having immediate vehicle access has positive utility in most circumstances, it tilts AV ownership strongly towards the current vehicle ownership situation. In which case the sharing scenario is decisively weakened. Of course there will be those who reside in concentrated urban centers--although other trends at work post-COVID are likely to alter the preference gradient for such residential location choices--and for whom shared serial use, and perhaps shared concurrent use (less likely), will be more attractive than ownership of AVs, but 80% plus of urban residents are not in such situations. There are many reasons for hoping that AVs become mainstream over the next 2 decades, but as all vehicle propulsion technologies trend strongly towards electric over this period, it seems logical to conclude that AVs will have little independent effect on the decarbonization of urban transport. Good to see hype counterpoised by informed opinion.
I'd like to hear a debate - BEV vs HFCEV vs PHEV - to answer the question, Which of the 3 basic EV drivetrains offers the most benefits, advantages, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic?
Thanks for the article! Here's our estimate of all the ways in which AVs save us & cost us more GHG, for an overall estimate of 40% GHG savings vs business as usual, once the US fleet is fully automated (e.g., year 2050 case study, vs a no-AV future): https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB19EnergyAndEmissions.pdf
My initial and two follow up comments are the first time I've participated in the Decarbonizing Transport forum. I stand behind my claim that PHEV tech offers more potential to reduce CO2 emissions than all-battery BEV and hydrogen fuel cell tech. If that's not contrarian enough, I am certain that AV (at Level 5 "driverless") is impossible and unsafe on the road and in other ways. A household EV should be considered as a safety device in power outage. A household EV is immediately available in any emergency where an AV may arrive too late. A household EV offers the means to more closely monitor and reduce fuel/energy consumption overall, for driving and household electrical devices. My perspective is presented in a 500-word essay "The Walking Communities of 2040" the first in a series of 5 that I hope to complete when it receives more than blank rejection from supposedly environmentally conscientious organizations.
Thanks - interesting as always.
I think AVs can do two important things:
1) massive increase in the utilisation of vehicles, which would decrease the lifetime emissions/km substantially
2) reduce the need to buy a car = fewer cars produced = less emissions
"But they rely heavily on mass adoption of shared services. That seems unlikely. I suspect the more plausible outcome is that most people will continue travel in vehicles that are similar to the ones we use today and that we’ll mostly do it alone, in vehicles we own, even if they’re autonomous." Always nice to see common sense professional expertise reflected in predictions of future situations. The AV scenarios that predict large movements towards shared services or towards abandonment of personal vehicle ownership are based on little more than speculation or preferences for some future state that bears little relationship to consumer behavior today. Anyone who cares to do some simple arithmetic can satisfy themselves that there is no inherent economic advantage to using an AV as a service rather than owning one for most people in most situations, and since having immediate vehicle access has positive utility in most circumstances, it tilts AV ownership strongly towards the current vehicle ownership situation. In which case the sharing scenario is decisively weakened. Of course there will be those who reside in concentrated urban centers--although other trends at work post-COVID are likely to alter the preference gradient for such residential location choices--and for whom shared serial use, and perhaps shared concurrent use (less likely), will be more attractive than ownership of AVs, but 80% plus of urban residents are not in such situations. There are many reasons for hoping that AVs become mainstream over the next 2 decades, but as all vehicle propulsion technologies trend strongly towards electric over this period, it seems logical to conclude that AVs will have little independent effect on the decarbonization of urban transport. Good to see hype counterpoised by informed opinion.
I’d love to see a write up or a mention here about the $150 million just raised by Rad Power Bikes.
I'd like to hear a debate - BEV vs HFCEV vs PHEV - to answer the question, Which of the 3 basic EV drivetrains offers the most benefits, advantages, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic?