TRC is primarily funded by ad revenue. If you like the content you find here, please do not block our ads. Thank you.
Page 13 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 392

Thread: Driverless car trials

  1. #181
    Should Get Out More Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Always Sunny Central Southern England
    Posts
    17,010
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,917 in 1,277 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Has LED technology required massive subsidy to replace incandescent lighting? Or was it the ban which drove the change? Or both?


  2. TRC is primarily funded by ad revenue. If you like the content you find here, please do not block our ads. Thank you.
  3. #182
    Should Get Out More mrlongbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Middle of nowhere
    Posts
    19,898
    Like
    1,143
    Liked 3,305 in 2,119 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
    Has LED technology required massive subsidy to replace incandescent lighting? Or was it the ban which drove the change? Or both?
    You skipped an evolution, namely CFL's, save the planet now by reducing energy consumption, worry about all the mercury going to landfill later.
    Hmmm, sounds familiar.

    And the ban had another effect, whilst everyone gave up looking at incandescent lamps here we missed a trick whilst the yanks are (or were last year) playing with an incandescent design which has a greater efficiency than CFL and is approaching LED. Now would we already have super efficient incandescent lamps if the ban had not been implemented..

  4. #183
    Should Get Out More Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Always Sunny Central Southern England
    Posts
    17,010
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,917 in 1,277 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Interesting, thanks, just Googled it. The 2016 article that I found on the MIT research suggests that they are still at a very early stage, with efficiency nowhere near current LEDs.

    Reading this:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phas..._bulbs#Oceania

    2007 seems the most common date for a lot of these legislation changes so it would have been expecting fantastic fortune telling skills to have predicted high-output incandescent technology a decade ahead!

    In vehicle fuel terms, IIRC 2007 predates the UK scrappage scheme to encourage a change to fuel-efficient cars - look how many diesels were added to the roads as a result and which are now viewed as polluting demons. If only 20-20 foresight was as common as hindsight . . .

  5. #184
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Down in the Duchy (at last)
    Posts
    14,216
    Like
    3,145
    Liked 1,785 in 1,249 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
    If only 20-20 foresight was as common as hindsight . . .
    That's my point. You don't have a crystal ball, I don't have a crystall ball, and afaik governments don't have a crystal ball. They just pretend they do, and what they say makes stuff happen. Sometimes the wrong stuff, eg diesel and NOX.

  6. #185
    Should Get Out More Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Always Sunny Central Southern England
    Posts
    17,010
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,917 in 1,277 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Cousin Jack View Post
    That's my point. You don't have a crystal ball, I don't have a crystall ball, and afaik governments don't have a crystal ball. They just pretend they do, and what they say makes stuff happen. Sometimes the wrong stuff, eg diesel and NOX.
    Indeed. Also, typically industry and technology moves on in response to challenge, ranging from ongoing war to imminent legislation.

    So what are you suggesting, that we continue with current infernal combustion engines in the hope that something is invented which dramatically reduces emissions?

    Of course, a cynic might link the ongoing saga of the new Hinckley power station (and another new power station after that) with increased demand for leccy

  7. #186
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Down in the Duchy (at last)
    Posts
    14,216
    Like
    3,145
    Liked 1,785 in 1,249 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
    Indeed. Also, typically industry and technology moves on in response to challenge, ranging from ongoing war to imminent legislation.

    So what are you suggesting, that we continue with current infernal combustion engines in the hope that something is invented which dramatically reduces emissions?

    Of course, a cynic might link the ongoing saga of the new Hinckley power station (and another new power station after that) with increased demand for leccy
    What I would actually do, if I were PM (which I'm not, nor am I ever likely to be) is

    a) stop signing up to long term vanity projects like emissions targets that will get missed.
    b) actually build some usefull infrastructure. Like several major nuclear power stations. And I mean build them, not subcontract it all to a foreigh consortium.
    c) encourage the use of existing technology to sort out nasty stuff like pollution. Like instant ban on any diesel care emitting visible smoke. That should get quite a few old and poorly maintained heaps off the road. Increased tax on diesel should discourage people from buying them.
    d) actively encourage new emerging technologies, but not with massive subsidies that distort the market.
    e) actually develop a tax system that taxes polluters and rewards non-polluters. How about something really simple like replace VED with an increase on fuel duty, loaded against diesel because although it is better on CO2 it is bad on NOX. No need for road pricing (too expensive to collect), just jack up the fuel price.

  8. #187
    Should Get Out More mrlongbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Middle of nowhere
    Posts
    19,898
    Like
    1,143
    Liked 3,305 in 2,119 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    c) encourage the use of existing technology to sort out nasty stuff like pollution. Like instant ban on any diesel care emitting visible smoke. That should get quite a few old and poorly maintained heaps off the road. Increased tax on diesel should discourage people from buying them.
    How are you paying for the increase of prices for everyday commodities and food once all delivery vehicles running on derv are priced off the road and fleets need to be replaced?

    How are the righteous warriors against diesel going to eat or cloth themselves as surely they'll dare not taint their bodies with anything that's come in by ship?

    Or do we not care about global pollution as long as we can be seen to clean up a few streets in London and other cities?

  9. #188
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Down in the Duchy (at last)
    Posts
    14,216
    Like
    3,145
    Liked 1,785 in 1,249 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Make up your mind.

    Do you care about pollution and global warming. See my suggestions above.
    Do you not care. No change necessary, I'm all right Jack, I live far from pollution anyway.

  10. #189
    Should Get Out More mrlongbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Middle of nowhere
    Posts
    19,898
    Like
    1,143
    Liked 3,305 in 2,119 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Cousin Jack View Post
    Make up your mind.

    Do you care about pollution and global warming. See my suggestions above.
    Do you not care. No change necessary, I'm all right Jack, I live far from pollution anyway.
    Well you and our glorious government only seem to be targeting cars, which as far as diesel powered vehicles go are but a drop in the ocean.
    Ban lorries, buses and trains not running @ at least 80% capacity and table a solution to shipping pollution (and I don't just mean exhaust emmisions) and I may start to think it's a problem being given due care & attention rather than what it is now.

  11. #190
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Down in the Duchy (at last)
    Posts
    14,216
    Like
    3,145
    Liked 1,785 in 1,249 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by mrlongbeard View Post
    Well you and our glorious government only seem to be targeting cars, which as far as diesel powered vehicles go are but a drop in the ocean.
    Ban lorries, buses and trains not running @ at least 80% capacity and table a solution to shipping pollution (and I don't just mean exhaust emmisions) and I may start to think it's a problem being given due care & attention rather than what it is now.
    I'm mentioning cars because I know little about trucks trains and ships, but I accept your point that they are a much bigger source of pollution. How difficult would it be to fit the engine-stop-when-stationary technology (that seems to work fine on Mercedes cars) to buses and trucks? They seem to spend as much time idling as they do running.

  12. #191
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    33.7 S, 151.1E
    Posts
    12,314
    Like
    1,428
    Liked 1,338 in 674 posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by mrlongbeard View Post
    Well you and our glorious government only seem to be targeting cars, which as far as diesel powered vehicles go are but a drop in the ocean.
    In terms of numbers, I doubt very much if they are a "drop in the ocean"

    Policy is targeting public health related pollution, ie locally emitted NOx and particulates. Most buses can easily be converted to LPG if push comes to shove, trains are tiny in number compared to road vehicles and the sensitive receivers (people) are mostly further away (as compared to folk walking down or living on busy streets), shipping again is not a local problem. It's only really trucks and vans that are a part of the problem in that sense

  13. #192
    Should Get Out More Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Always Sunny Central Southern England
    Posts
    17,010
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,917 in 1,277 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    http://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/highwa...e018-303696201

    Motorway ‘pollution tunnels’ capable of capturing toxic fumes could be introduced by Highways England under plans to improve the nation’s air quality.

    The national road operator has already trialled different barriers capable of absorbing pollution, with a potential roll out of tent-like canopies being considered.

    A trial featuring wood panels four metres and six metres high has taken place on the M62 near junction 18 in Manchester and a second ongoing trial features a three metre high fence coated in a mineral polymer material capable of absorbing nitrogen dioxide.

    In its first major intervention into the air quality debate, which so far has focused on councils, Highways England has released an air quality strategy setting out how it will use 100m in the current Road Investment Strategy to improve air quality on and around the strategic road network (SRN).

    It states: ‘We are also investigating if we can reduce the costs to construct a canopy, which is a tunnel-like structure designed to prevent vehicle emissions reaching our neighbours, to make this a viable solution.’

    The idea was swiftly criticised by the RAC, whose roads policy spokesman, Nick Lyes, said: ‘We question whether constructing tunnel-like canopies, even if they are made from a material that can partially clean the air, is the right way to deal with the problem. All this will do is concentrate potentially toxic air over the road which will have an impact on those inside their vehicles who breathe in the trapped pollution.

    ‘The solution should be about reducing levels of pollution by accelerating the transition to ultra-low and zero emission vehicles and encouraging better traffic flow through variable speed limits – something Highways England has started doing on smart motorways.’

    Highways England’s chief executive Jim O’Sullivan and chairman Colin Matthews write: ‘We are keen for partners to help us solve these air quality challenges and work with us as we implement the solutions.’

    Following the publication last month of the Government’s national air quality plan, which banned new petrol and diesel cars after 2040, the strategy states: ‘We will support local authorities as they explore options for their local air quality plans.’

    The strategy states that Highways England will work with operators to ensure that rapid charging points at motorway service areas become a comprehensive national network and ‘are already working to ensure that 95% of our network will have a charging point every 20 miles’.

    It adds that rapid charging points, which can charge a ULEV in less than 30 minutes, will be used ‘wherever possible’.

    In a move that could impact the highways asset itself, Highways England said information from continuous monitoring stations will help ensure that when schemes are planned and developed ‘we are able to plan for and take account of air quality at an earlier stage, ensuring that we deploy the most suitable design and mitigation if required’.

  14. #193
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Your friendly local advanced trainer :)
    Posts
    7,902
    Like
    480
    Liked 574 in 349 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by mrlongbeard View Post
    And the ban had another effect, whilst everyone gave up looking at incandescent lamps here we missed a trick whilst the yanks are (or were last year) playing with an incandescent design which has a greater efficiency than CFL and is approaching LED. Now would we already have super efficient incandescent lamps if the ban had not been implemented..
    That's very much my point with the ICE...

  15. #194
    Should Get Out More Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Always Sunny Central Southern England
    Posts
    17,010
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,917 in 1,277 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by The Spin Doctor View Post
    That's very much my point with the ICE...
    If the 2040 'ban' on ICE actually permits hybrids, doesn't that encourage development of the ICE.

    Also, another technology is hydrogen fuel cell. Not sure how that fits . . .

  16. #195
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Your friendly local advanced trainer :)
    Posts
    7,902
    Like
    480
    Liked 574 in 349 posts

    Default Re: Driverless car trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Horse View Post
    If the 2040 'ban' on ICE actually permits hybrids, doesn't that encourage development of the ICE.
    Honest answer?

    I doubt it. Look at the options - electric or hybrid... Now look at the existing technology and what's needed to implement the ruling... The manufacturers have perfectly capable ICEs that meet all existing legislation and vehicles designed to carry them. What haven't they got? The electric technology that can FULLY replace an ICE.

    My guess is that all research is likely to be poured into making electric vehicles a go-er. After all, if hybrids are allowed to use ICEs in their present form, what's to stop Range Rover dropping a small battery and motor into their 5 litre model and calling it a hybrid? (If they haven't done so already!) I doubt you'd notice the extra weight dragging down the already appalling fuel consumption?

    What's top range on a hybrid right now? 40 miles or so? Just about enough to drive off the end of the M40 and onto the M20 on the other side of London. So for the rest of the time, the driver simply has an ICE with the inconvenience of a bit less boot space.

    Look at the problem from the global point of view rather than the Paris Accord provisions on limiting air pollution in cities. You're simply moving the toxic gases out of town. It's not tackling the big problem of global warming.

    I'm not convinced the hybrid is the right answer. At least, not until a much more efficient ICE is developed, and I don't think this is going to encourage research into the kind of radical alternatives to the piston-engined ICE I mentioned a few days ago.



    Also, another technology is hydrogen fuel cell. Not sure how that fits . . .
    Good question - as the current commitment stands, it's going to be hard for university depts to get research grants on fuel cells... or other blue sky projects that may come along.

Page 13 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Go Back to Forum My Forum