Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Automotive' started by Glitchy, Oct 4, 2017.
With solar panels today, they're only really good for extending the range abit. But we've still got awhile until we do run out of fuel, so solar panels will probably have advanced abit by then, so they may drastically improve a vehicle's range, or even let it run non-stop, provided the conditions are good.
By that point though, most, if not all cars will probably not even be driven by people. So I doubt there'd be a problem with them being on the bonnet and what not
I've heard varying dates on when fuel will run out, and some I heard is before 2100, so a couple of decades I'm guessing.
I've said before that the advancement of technology always amazes me, so my guess is that we'll probably see solar panels that can provide a decent amount of power to a car.
One reason I got to thinking about a solar/electric hybrid, is the fact that it would probably be best to have the default way of charging an EV too, since the panels wouldn't be very useful on cloudy/rainy days and when it's dark out.
Would I be correct that an electric car outfitted with solar panels would be considered a hybrid? Or would it still just be an electric car?
As for that last part, I'm considering the fact that not everyone is going to say yes to cars doing all the driving for them, whether it be safety reasons or wanting to drive the vehicle themself. What some users on this thread has said. While I'd be down for riding in a self driving car, I would still want to be able to drive my own car.
Knowing how fast tech progresses, chances are that in the future the current systems that are in place will have improved aswell. So while maybe a problem now, I don't see range being an issue in the future atall.
I've always considered a Hybrid as a vehicle with 2 engines. There's probably more to it than that, but I'd say it'd still be an electric car.
Being honest, I don't want self driving cars. It's probably great for those who find driving a chore, and those who are just terrible at it. But there are few things I enjoy as it is, and driving is pretty high up on the list of things I do enjoy. It's not that they might crash, or go wrong, or get stolen or whatever. They could be flawless. It's simply the fact that I want a car to call mine, and I want to drive that car, fix it, or whatever. It's kinda hard to explain...
I get you. I like to drive too, so I would find it sad if there ever came a day where cars did all the driving for people. I do believe they would make great taxis and provide new opportunities for people who aren't able to drive, but I think manual driving should not be ruled out completely.
As for hybrids, since solar panels convert sunlight into electricity, there's an argument right there on whether or not an electric car with solar tech counts as a hybrid.
I know I'm late but were only running out of natural Oil. There are ways of making Oil that are in the researching and testing phases. Coal is what is the easiest way of making oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction. But lets say that we want to use coal only for smelting but we still want oil as a society. Well there is a way in the extremely early phases of converting exhaust- pollution into oil. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420793/turning-exhaust-gas-into-fuel/. Not only would this slow down the world wide pollution problems but it would help country's like China immensely because it would allow them to keep there cheap factory's open while making their city's breathable again and give them oil which for a country of their size would help out a lot.
Hybrids combine combustion and electric, a solar car is not a hybrid. Solar powered cars exist. Solar energy does not provide enough power for a car with a panel small enough to fit on a car, it's not a viable idea, last check I heard, it would take a week to charge a model S Tesla with a solar panel that fits on its roof
--- Post updated ---
Minus china actually having less pollution per person than most countries
Good luck with that... The government would probably feel like they're loosing too much money, and therefore never go ahead with a system like that
Losing money from what. China had to put in a minimum wage because of a possible uprising and outside pressure. Everyone in China, big to small, towns to city's are tired of being down wind from pollution producing factory's. China is one of the worlds biggest investors for renewable energy (https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-dominance-of-renewable-energy-and-technology) so this would make the idea of turning polluting causing factory's and power plants into oil producing facility's and removing the immediate pollution effect and sending it out in slower but still damaging way until we can completely fix the problem.
Hmm, I don't think I ever heard about that. That's very interesting.
I do have a question though, if this came to fruition, wouldn't there still be pollution anyway? Or will it become a looping cycle? Like, cars emit exhaust, exhaust becomes pollution, pollution is converted into fuel, repeat?
Well that's why I said that I'm not an expert. A lot of what I said came from assumptions of what I think could be feasible.
There would still be pollution but I believe- hope be at a more manageable level. Think if every factory- fossil fuel power plant and giant ships produced only 3% of there current greenhouse emissions per hour and the other 97% were spread out over 3 years the global climate change will have either slowed down or go into neutral area.
I find this very interesting. Do you think it would be enough to shut up those nutty people who complain about global warming/climate change? I think you know the type I speak of.
Just in case, I do believe that a form of climate change does exist, but that's because I think it's a process the Earth has seen since it first formed, and will continue until the end.
Just a little side note before hand. I do agree with the small text but I believe its just at a accelerated rate due to industrialization.
No I don't believe this is good enough to calm people down about Global Climate change. Until we can control the weather which in itself is dangerous and even worse then nuclear weapons people will still say the earth is warming too fast.
We've significant evidence that we're not in a natural cycle
--- Post updated ---
We have atmospheric carbon data for the last 2000 years. It's true carbon levels fluctuate. However we're at over double the level ever recorded and accelerating at a rate never before seen. The evidence is there. There's substantially more factual evidence for it than there is for its deniers
On the question of self-driving cars, I found a post offsite that's relevant to the discussion - from an environmentalist news site, no less!
This. Just so much this. There are very few people who tick me off more than the ones who are trying to completely sanitize life. I have done some very dumb things on the road, things I'm still ashamed of. I've almost been run over by people veering out of their lane, twice. And yet, I'm still against autonomous cars, because of the way they degrade freedom of movement. Between the lawyers, the ethical considerations, and everything else, a computer is simply incapable of making the kinds of judgement calls that humans do everyday. Whether the need for speed is mundane or exceptional, a self-driving car's unbreakable adherence to all known traffic laws is going to goof someone over at some point, because the fact is, you can't always "leave earlier". If you have a reasonable idea of what's coming, you can, but what happens when you just got home from work and suddenly a relative calls you from a hospital 40 minutes away, telling you that another of your relatives might be about to die and wants you to be there for them? Or your son is sick, and suddenly his condition suddenly deteriorates from "case of the sniffles" to "OH FRICK DO WE EVEN HAVE TIME TO WAIT FOR AN AMBULANCE?" I've heard at least one story of the latter; a man is out driving with his young (single-digit age) son in what I seem to recall was a Honda Odyssey. The kid complains of stomach ache and/or some other typical mild symptom, dad assumes it's a typical cold or other common, easily-survivable illness. Then, suddenly, the kid starts complaining about a whole mess of new symptoms, seemingly getting worse by the minute. Dad takes out his phone, starts searching, finds an urgent care clinic nearby, but when he calls ahead, they give him the "we-close-in-15-minutes-if-you're-not-here-by-then-it's-not-our-problem" attitude. He just says to heck with it and floors it. That big, stupid van proved itself capable of speeds beyond 120 MPH, and he did make it to the clinic before they closed. That is why human-controlled cars are better, and also why arbitrary power-to-weight ratio limits or simply building cars to top out right at the speed limit (I've heard both suggested) are bad ideas. On that day, having the car be completely in human control might very well have saved a young life.
The robber is another good point. It's just basic common sense that you'd program a car to stop when there are pedestrians in close proximity, but it can't determine whether that same pedestrian has hostile intent... and if there's no manual override, that leaves you at their mercy.
Well... with current laws (at least in the US), I do think that "legally" all driverless cars MUST have the ability to be taken under manual control at any point in time by the occupants. If that law stays in place... I guess things like what you describe above can still happen... but how long is it until self driving cars are trusted enough that this law is repealed and automakers just start taking out all manual controls not just for keeping people from messing with their cars, but to save a couple of bucks by removing the steering wheel and pedals.
I personally have no real problem with self driving cars, I genuinely think it will save tons of lives considering how many terrible drivers I see on a daily basis. As long as I have the option to drive it myself or keep my "dumb" cars and just update them to account for new laws, I am totally ok with it.
I also see no reason why older cars can't be "retrofitted" with a self driving computer and a couple of servos. Heck, people have been making RC cars out of full size cars for years... why not take that one step further and just plug that into a computer that has a few sensors that can be mounted around the car... BOOM! Classic self driving car that can be taken over at any time, plus is still capable of self driving and staying connected with all the other self driving cars around it. As long as all the cars are connected, when one of these classics gets taken into manual mode, everything should still work out just fine. The other cars will know where you are at all times plus know your velocity, acceleration, steering angle, braking force, accelerator force and what not and be able to predict almost every move. The other cars would be moving out of your way before you even knew you did anything wrong. In a world like that the only one you would be putting in danger would be yourself, and I am fine with that.
Though to be fair, with self-driving and inter-car connection, cars could move quicker than they do now, lowering the amount of situations where you need to be quicker.
Also, while that kid would have died with self-driving cars, about 9000 die in crashes every year, and about 94% of crashes are caused by different kinds of human error.
So, you want a complete ban on use of human-operated cars (including self-driving cars with "manual override" option)?
(Because simply introducing self-driving cars won't remove human errors)
I hate cars with autopilot.I know, its good for people who cant drive car (example:health problems)
But for people without health problems its very boring. I like steering, gear change and more funny things.(i am not 18-i have steering wheel for PC and BeamNG )
And autopilot maybe can be hacked.