ICE ban clouds on the horizon. Are you out?
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
Terminator X said:
Max_Torque said:
Terminator X said:
It seems that the reports of the death of ICE have perhaps been greatly exaggerated. The EV Evangelists will be sucking through pursed lips 
TX.
Edit - "Porsche has teamed up with Siemens Energy to produce 130,000 litres of climate-neutral eFuel by 2022. Called the Haru Oni project and based in southern Chile due to its windy climate, the new venture aims to step production to 55 million litres of eFuel a year by 2024, and then to 550 million litres by 2026."
Lolz, you know i once baked a cake, but this does not make me Mr Kipling you know ;-)TX.
Edit - "Porsche has teamed up with Siemens Energy to produce 130,000 litres of climate-neutral eFuel by 2022. Called the Haru Oni project and based in southern Chile due to its windy climate, the new venture aims to step production to 55 million litres of eFuel a year by 2024, and then to 550 million litres by 2026."
Edited by Terminator X on Monday 22 February 12:00
For comparison, the UK alone burned 16.2 BILLION litres of road fuels in 2019 according to the Petrol Retailers Ascociation !
This is the problem with replacing Petrol and Diesel, we are absolutely wedded to pretty much uncontrolled consumption of these fuels, in quanties so enourmous as to be hard to comprehend)
Edited by Max_Torque on Monday 22 February 12:40
TX.
It's a great publicity piece, has nil technical information.
TX.
Terminator X said:
Keep calm and acknowledge that the future may not be as EV shaped as you hoped or thought.
TX.
I do hope that is the case and these new fuels can offer a workable solution. Personally as a daily car I'd still stick with EV as it suits our usage perfectly, is massively convenient for 99%+ of journeys and honestly think it is the best powertrain for most scenarios. I do however appreciate for many that won't be the case and have never been convinced about the green credentials other than for local street level pollution.TX.
I also selfishly want a nice V8/V12 toy for weekends and holidays and don't want that to become financially impossible going forward due to the cost of fueling it.
bigothunter said:
321boost said:
bigothunter said:
DonkeyApple said:
Autonomy is rubbish. The sensors used and the analysis of the data collected is so far behind that of the most simplenof human minds that given the complex nature of our urban and suburban roads in the UK we really have nothing to fear in this country.
Just watch autonomy become commonplace over the next 10 years. Elon maintains full autonomy (Level 5) is close.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/ford-f-earnings-q4...
https://corporate.ford.com/operations/autonomous-v...
There will be 10 million autonomous or self-driving cars on the road by 2020. This was said either in 2015 or 2016. How many do we have now?
I was driving a car with lane sensing, in bad weather it was thinking I am not in a lane LOL
Evanivitch said:
Remember when bio fuels were the holy grail...
That's the issue with alternate fuels. Nothing beats the real deal because the real work has been done for free by the time the oil is extracted. When you consider that EVs still need subsidies to come close to being able to match the cost of petrol and typically only in markets where petrol is heavily taxed simultaneously, the immense cost of a synthetic fuel is going to flip those economics to favour EVs. And then there is the fact that while about half the oil extracted is for fuel, the half that would remain for other uses will still produce a rather large amount of petrol that needs to be disposed of somehow.
The high cost of synthetics mean that both natural fuel and electricity would easily undercut them so anyone with a boggo car and boggo budgets just aren't going to participate.
Besides, as we are talking about the manufacture of Hudrogen is it not more likely that this would be used to power electric motors rather than ICE being adapted for such a niche use?
DonkeyApple said:
In the 1980s a self driving car drove into a wall. In 2020 quite a few self driving cars drove into walls. That's a lot of progress in 40 years. 
I'm astonished at how many people seem to think that "self driving" cars a have to be perfect! They don't. All they have to be is better than the average human driver. And the average human driver is, ime, absolutely terrible.Look at automation in aircraft, it has pretty much reduced air accidents by ten times of more in the last 30 years. Yes, planes still crash, and yes, they now crash because the automation fk'ed up, but guess unlike a human crash, after an automation crash the system learns and generally, doesn't make the same mistake again, because once one "node" has learned, they all learn, near instananeously.
When you think about it, as a human, you are pretty much not suited to driving. We get bored easily, we either fail to react in time, or compeltely over react, in fact, we pretty much never do the same thing twice unless we have done a lot of specific training, and when say my neighbour learns to speak spanish, that doesn't help me because we cannot transfer learning specifically, only the idea of learning. And of course we only see in the visible spectrum, and our communication is short distance only and slow.
By comparison, a computer can learn as a single entity, despite being made up of many nodes, it can "see" across a wide range of frequencies, for example, using IR to see in the dark or in the fog, it can react IDENTICALLY in a millionth of a second (or less), and it can accurately diagnose it's own faults
And once, multiple automated cars are on our roads, and all communicating and sharing information at the speed of light, then "comming round a blind corner and finding a tractor in the road" something a human can ONLY mitigate against by the method of driving really slowly, is a think of the past, because beyond-line-of-sight coms means the tractor can tell your car, all cars in fact, that it is indeed just round the corner in the middle of the road!
Yes, today, the system for machine learning and automation are, relatively speaking, still in their infancy, but don't be mistaken, as a human, you are very much "the weak link" in the chain.....
Max_Torque said:
DonkeyApple said:
In the 1980s a self driving car drove into a wall. In 2020 quite a few self driving cars drove into walls. That's a lot of progress in 40 years.
I'm astonished at how many people seem to think that "self driving" cars a have to be perfect! They don't. All they have to be is better than the average human driver. And the average human driver is, ime, absolutely terrible.Look at automation in aircraft, it has pretty much reduced air accidents by ten times of more in the last 30 years. Yes, planes still crash, and yes, they now crash because the automation fk'ed up, but guess unlike a human crash, after an automation crash the system learns and generally, doesn't make the same mistake again, because once one "node" has learned, they all learn, near instananeously.
When you think about it, as a human, you are pretty much not suited to driving. We get bored easily, we either fail to react in time, or compeltely over react, in fact, we pretty much never do the same thing twice unless we have done a lot of specific training, and when say my neighbour learns to speak spanish, that doesn't help me because we cannot transfer learning specifically, only the idea of learning. And of course we only see in the visible spectrum, and our communication is short distance only and slow.
By comparison, a computer can learn as a single entity, despite being made up of many nodes, it can "see" across a wide range of frequencies, for example, using IR to see in the dark or in the fog, it can react IDENTICALLY in a millionth of a second (or less), and it can accurately diagnose it's own faults
And once, multiple automated cars are on our roads, and all communicating and sharing information at the speed of light, then "comming round a blind corner and finding a tractor in the road" something a human can ONLY mitigate against by the method of driving really slowly, is a think of the past, because beyond-line-of-sight coms means the tractor can tell your car, all cars in fact, that it is indeed just round the corner in the middle of the road!
Yes, today, the system for machine learning and automation are, relatively speaking, still in their infancy, but don't be mistaken, as a human, you are very much "the weak link" in the chain.....
I do want to know how some people are so optimistic about things? Where does it come from?
Edited by 321boost on Wednesday 24th February 19:43
Max_Torque said:
Look at automation in aircraft, it has pretty much reduced air accidents by ten times of more in the last 30 years. Yes, planes still crash,
How many planes are there flying around UK airspace at any one time? THere are millions of cars on the road.Were the 737 max crashes not down to faulty tech overriding the pilot?
Could a plane type autopilot negotiate a busy high street with cas, buses, cyclists. drunks, kids?
Aircraft are either in wide open skies with few aircraft nearby or are in controlled airspace being told what height and bearing to fly at by a human air trafifc controller.
When s
t happens the human often takes over for example the miracle on the Hudson.Increased aviation safety is down to far more than automation. Better pilot training, more reliable engines, air traffic control technology, etc.
https://www.agcs.allianz.com/news-and-insights/exp...
I don't think wewill see fully auto cars on all UK roads any time soon. Partial auto won't work because the driver will swiych off and become deskilled.
DonkeyApple said:
That's the issue with alternate fuels. Nothing beats the real deal because the real work has been done for free by the time the oil is extracted. When you consider that EVs still need subsidies to come close to being able to match the cost of petrol and typically only in markets where petrol is heavily taxed simultaneously, the immense cost of a synthetic fuel is going to flip those economics to favour EVs.
Hang on. Being Welsh, I'm more than aware the amount of government money that subsidises Ice car development and manufacturing. As well as oil and gas industry training, subsidies and infrastructure. So let's not. Pretend EV are the only ones getting the taxpayer's cream.
DonkeyApple said:
And then there is the fact that while about half the oil extracted is for fuel, the half that would remain for other uses will still produce a rather large amount of petrol that needs to be disposed of somehow.
Alternative uses or... Put it back in the ground.
DonkeyApple said:
Besides, as we are talking about the manufacture of Hudrogen is it not more likely that this would be used to power electric motors rather than ICE being adapted for such a niche use?
Actually we were talking about Porsche's mystery synthetic fuel... Evanivitch said:
Actually we were talking about Porsche's mystery synthetic fuel...
Hydrogen. Possibly later they will try to create methane by combining that hydrogen with CO2. We're talking simple stuff rather than creating complex long chain polymers out of air. The Siemens' Chilean project which Porsche are an investor in is to produce hydrogen and to then see if they create CH4.
The HIF project is nothing more than using wind power to split water. And all Porsche has done is invest £20m that will he clawed back through green tax breaks.
Max_Torque said:
DonkeyApple said:
In the 1980s a self driving car drove into a wall. In 2020 quite a few self driving cars drove into walls. That's a lot of progress in 40 years.
I'm astonished at how many people seem to think that "self driving" cars a have to be perfect! They don't. All they have to be is better than the average human driver. And the average human driver is, ime, absolutely terrible.Look at automation in aircraft, it has pretty much reduced air accidents by ten times of more in the last 30 years. Yes, planes still crash, and yes, they now crash because the automation fk'ed up, but guess unlike a human crash, after an automation crash the system learns and generally, doesn't make the same mistake again, because once one "node" has learned, they all learn, near instananeously.
When you think about it, as a human, you are pretty much not suited to driving. We get bored easily, we either fail to react in time, or compeltely over react, in fact, we pretty much never do the same thing twice unless we have done a lot of specific training, and when say my neighbour learns to speak spanish, that doesn't help me because we cannot transfer learning specifically, only the idea of learning. And of course we only see in the visible spectrum, and our communication is short distance only and slow.
By comparison, a computer can learn as a single entity, despite being made up of many nodes, it can "see" across a wide range of frequencies, for example, using IR to see in the dark or in the fog, it can react IDENTICALLY in a millionth of a second (or less), and it can accurately diagnose it's own faults
And once, multiple automated cars are on our roads, and all communicating and sharing information at the speed of light, then "comming round a blind corner and finding a tractor in the road" something a human can ONLY mitigate against by the method of driving really slowly, is a think of the past, because beyond-line-of-sight coms means the tractor can tell your car, all cars in fact, that it is indeed just round the corner in the middle of the road!
Yes, today, the system for machine learning and automation are, relatively speaking, still in their infancy, but don't be mistaken, as a human, you are very much "the weak link" in the chain.....
To think that it’s straightforward to create a machine that comes close to its ability to negotiate a typical town centre, for instance, and do it without taking all day, or flattening things, seems like plain hubris to me. One of the human brain’s less desirable little foibles.
swisstoni said:
Hard to believe sometimes but the human brain is the most incredible thing.
To think that it’s straightforward to create a machine that comes close to its ability to negotiate a typical town centre, for instance, and do it without taking all day, or flattening things, seems like plain hubris to me. One of the human brain’s less desirable little foibles.
And yet Human Error is 10e-3 in a valid fault Tree analysis. To think that it’s straightforward to create a machine that comes close to its ability to negotiate a typical town centre, for instance, and do it without taking all day, or flattening things, seems like plain hubris to me. One of the human brain’s less desirable little foibles.
You wouldn't get on a plane with anything less than 10e-9 for continuous usage. That includes software.
As Max says, the question isn't whether automated driving is safer, we already know it is. The question is how much greater the level of safety has to be for liability (ALARP), national legislation and public perception.
Evanivitch said:
swisstoni said:
Hard to believe sometimes but the human brain is the most incredible thing.
To think that it’s straightforward to create a machine that comes close to its ability to negotiate a typical town centre, for instance, and do it without taking all day, or flattening things, seems like plain hubris to me. One of the human brain’s less desirable little foibles.
And yet Human Error is 10e-3 in a valid fault Tree analysis. To think that it’s straightforward to create a machine that comes close to its ability to negotiate a typical town centre, for instance, and do it without taking all day, or flattening things, seems like plain hubris to me. One of the human brain’s less desirable little foibles.
You wouldn't get on a plane with anything less than 10e-9 for continuous usage. That includes software.
As Max says, the question isn't whether automated driving is safer, we already know it is. The question is how much greater the level of safety has to be for liability (ALARP), national legislation and public perception.
swisstoni said:
Max_Torque said:
DonkeyApple said:
In the 1980s a self driving car drove into a wall. In 2020 quite a few self driving cars drove into walls. That's a lot of progress in 40 years.
I'm astonished at how many people seem to think that "self driving" cars a have to be perfect! They don't. All they have to be is better than the average human driver. And the average human driver is, ime, absolutely terrible.Look at automation in aircraft, it has pretty much reduced air accidents by ten times of more in the last 30 years. Yes, planes still crash, and yes, they now crash because the automation fk'ed up, but guess unlike a human crash, after an automation crash the system learns and generally, doesn't make the same mistake again, because once one "node" has learned, they all learn, near instananeously.
When you think about it, as a human, you are pretty much not suited to driving. We get bored easily, we either fail to react in time, or compeltely over react, in fact, we pretty much never do the same thing twice unless we have done a lot of specific training, and when say my neighbour learns to speak spanish, that doesn't help me because we cannot transfer learning specifically, only the idea of learning. And of course we only see in the visible spectrum, and our communication is short distance only and slow.
By comparison, a computer can learn as a single entity, despite being made up of many nodes, it can "see" across a wide range of frequencies, for example, using IR to see in the dark or in the fog, it can react IDENTICALLY in a millionth of a second (or less), and it can accurately diagnose it's own faults
And once, multiple automated cars are on our roads, and all communicating and sharing information at the speed of light, then "comming round a blind corner and finding a tractor in the road" something a human can ONLY mitigate against by the method of driving really slowly, is a think of the past, because beyond-line-of-sight coms means the tractor can tell your car, all cars in fact, that it is indeed just round the corner in the middle of the road!
Yes, today, the system for machine learning and automation are, relatively speaking, still in their infancy, but don't be mistaken, as a human, you are very much "the weak link" in the chain.....
To think that it’s straightforward to create a machine that comes close to its ability to negotiate a typical town centre, for instance, and do it without taking all day, or flattening things, seems like plain hubris to me. One of the human brain’s less desirable little foibles.
Even someone who doesn't regularly move around a complex and busy urban environment so might not immediately grasp the very simple problem, only has to go to their local retail car park and watch how pedestrians will walk past the back of vehicles that are reversing these days. They do so because modern sensors have reduced the risk and therefore delivered a reward for simply not waiting.
It's fear that keeps pedestrians where pedestrians are supposed to be. Not manners or civility as they have none. It's fear of injury. Remove that fear of unjustly from the motor car and for that car to be able to move another fear must be put into that pedestrian. That's what the dreamers are unable to comprehend.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Wednesday 24th February 22:04
DonkeyApple said:
Indeed. The reality is that to date autonomous driving is nowhere near as competent as the simplest human.
"In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 2.87 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 1.76 million miles driven."Well, sorry but it ALREADY is safer than the simplest human, and in fact safer than the average one too, even with non automoous safety features enabled.......
Sure, that's for the basic autopilot, but really the writing is on the wall for us meatware when it comes to safe driving.
Consider how a human drives a car.
We see, hear, then actuate our muscles, using our brains learning, and when we are not learnt, ie in experienced, we crash a LOT as all the statistics prove (try insuring a 21 year old on a Ferrai 812 and see how you get on....) With automation, every single car can drive, on every trip, like the most advanced part of the network
And yes, there will be crashes, mistakes, dodge software, people dying, but cruically, just like in the aero industry, less people will be hurt and killed by automation than by us fairly hopeless human drivers.
Max_Torque said:
I'm astonished at how many people seem to think that "self driving" cars a have to be perfect! They don't. All they have to be is better than the average human driver. And the average human driver is, ime, absolutely terrible.
Look at automation in aircraft, it has pretty much reduced air accidents by ten times of more in the last 30 years. Yes, planes still crash, and yes, they now crash because the automation fk'ed up, but guess unlike a human crash, after an automation crash the system learns and generally, doesn't make the same mistake again, because once one "node" has learned, they all learn, near instananeously.
When you think about it, as a human, you are pretty much not suited to driving. We get bored easily, we either fail to react in time, or compeltely over react, in fact, we pretty much never do the same thing twice unless we have done a lot of specific training, and when say my neighbour learns to speak spanish, that doesn't help me because we cannot transfer learning specifically, only the idea of learning. And of course we only see in the visible spectrum, and our communication is short distance only and slow.
By comparison, a computer can learn as a single entity, despite being made up of many nodes, it can "see" across a wide range of frequencies, for example, using IR to see in the dark or in the fog, it can react IDENTICALLY in a millionth of a second (or less), and it can accurately diagnose it's own faults
And once, multiple automated cars are on our roads, and all communicating and sharing information at the speed of light, then "comming round a blind corner and finding a tractor in the road" something a human can ONLY mitigate against by the method of driving really slowly, is a think of the past, because beyond-line-of-sight coms means the tractor can tell your car, all cars in fact, that it is indeed just round the corner in the middle of the road!
Yes, today, the system for machine learning and automation are, relatively speaking, still in their infancy, but don't be mistaken, as a human, you are very much "the weak link" in the chain.....
Your view of aviation automation being in some way self learning and replicating across a network is simply wrong. As we have seen with Boeings recent experiences, what happens is:Look at automation in aircraft, it has pretty much reduced air accidents by ten times of more in the last 30 years. Yes, planes still crash, and yes, they now crash because the automation fk'ed up, but guess unlike a human crash, after an automation crash the system learns and generally, doesn't make the same mistake again, because once one "node" has learned, they all learn, near instananeously.
When you think about it, as a human, you are pretty much not suited to driving. We get bored easily, we either fail to react in time, or compeltely over react, in fact, we pretty much never do the same thing twice unless we have done a lot of specific training, and when say my neighbour learns to speak spanish, that doesn't help me because we cannot transfer learning specifically, only the idea of learning. And of course we only see in the visible spectrum, and our communication is short distance only and slow.
By comparison, a computer can learn as a single entity, despite being made up of many nodes, it can "see" across a wide range of frequencies, for example, using IR to see in the dark or in the fog, it can react IDENTICALLY in a millionth of a second (or less), and it can accurately diagnose it's own faults
And once, multiple automated cars are on our roads, and all communicating and sharing information at the speed of light, then "comming round a blind corner and finding a tractor in the road" something a human can ONLY mitigate against by the method of driving really slowly, is a think of the past, because beyond-line-of-sight coms means the tractor can tell your car, all cars in fact, that it is indeed just round the corner in the middle of the road!
Yes, today, the system for machine learning and automation are, relatively speaking, still in their infancy, but don't be mistaken, as a human, you are very much "the weak link" in the chain.....
- A plane crashes. Humans scratch their heads and blame sloppy maintenance
- Another plane crashes in suspiciously similar circumstance. Humans start paying a lot of attention.
- Humans work out why it happened and ground the entire fleet
- Humans beaver away for years trying to fix the software
- Humans eventually determine a fix, and apply it, but by that time most of the humans will never fly on a 737 again.
Now, the thing that adjusts the pitch of an aeroplane is computationally a piece of piss compared to something looking at a video stream and trying to work out where that child on a bike may be going, so the fix in the latter will be a lot harder. In a car, it also has to work in ALL situations, because the automated car can’t suddenly decide “I don’t fancy that multi-storey today” or “I’m not sure that driveway is actually a road” or “the roadworks guys have messed with the M4 so badly its really hard to work out what to do”.
Your vision of wonderfully connected cars all learning together would give any security person nightmares. First rule of hardware: once you’ve sold it, you can’t trust it. The last thing anyone wants in the morning is a ruleset update that might have originated from Igor the hacker down the road, who has spoofed his car’s sensors and has convinced the autopilot that driving on two wheels is a valid strategy for beating traffic jams.
Someone else has pointed out the grave dangers in assuming that just because another automated car is not coming round the blind bend, nothing is.
IMO we’re going to see loads of Level 3 and 4 automation. It may or may not be as good as human, it will be flawed and it will have to hand over regularly. Full on Level 5, asleep on the back seat? 15 - 20 years away would be my guess.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff