Green Energy Revolution Megathread

[Iormlund]

Computers will soon be better drivers than humans.

They probably do already.

[crazy canuck]

Not purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Gas, parking fees, insurance - you have heard of these things right? 

Remember, we are talking about an urban area here.  The price of a car is the least of your concerns.  Just buying a parking spot at your condo is many multiples the cost of a new car.  So even if you buy a very cheap car the cost of a taxi is going to be much less.

[crazy canuck]

I am not so sure the self driving car is going to be successful for individuals.  It will likely have a big impact on the transport industry but I am not sure individual drivers will find the self driving tech very appealing.  Also, the theory that people will use uber ordered self driving cars rather than purchase their own cars is, I think, unlikely.  Not purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas - but people still like to have their own vehicles.

As for design, I think that will be determined by the engineering necessary to obtain greater range.

I think self-driving cars for individuals will come and be popular. Most driving is just a hassle to get from A to B.
As far as sharing cars is concerned, your hometown of Vancouver is probably the world capital of car sharing. I think it will increase with driverless cars as that will allow better network distribution for better availability. But a lot of people like to have their personal stuff (child seats etc.) in their car and there is still a huge peak at rush hour and that can't be covered by fleets that need constant usage.

It is the experience in Vancouver that makes me think that an Uber style driverless car fleet is impractical.  The wait time for car share is pretty long. One needs to plan a trip well in advance.  To make it more practical there would have to be a lot more cars on the road at a time when our infrastructure is decreasing space for cars to push people to transit and bikes.

Driverless cars will likely replace taxi fleets but I don't think they will replace individual cars on a large scale.

[dps]

Not purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Gas, parking fees, insurance - you have heard of these things right? 

Remember, we are talking about an urban area here.  The price of a car is the least of your concerns.  Just buying a parking spot at your condo is many multiples the cost of a new car.  So even if you buy a very cheap car the cost of a taxi is going to be much less.

Not every urban area is Manhattan, you know. 

Maybe things are different in Canada, but in most urban areas in the US, the main downside to owning a car is the upfront purchase price.  Lots of unban poor simply can't come up with the down payment for a new car or a late-model used car, or the cash price for an older used car.  They would be better off if they could, because in the long run, it's much cheaper than taking a taxi.  In my experience, you're not going to take a taxi even for a short distance for less than $20, so even if you just go to work and back, that's $40 a day.   That's $800 a month just to get to work and back (assuming a 5-day work week).  The monthly cost to my mom for owning her car (a Nissan Altima originally purchased when it was a 1 year old used car) is about $650 a month--and she got a bad deal on it.  That's $150 a month less than taking a taxi, even if you go nowhere but to work with the taxi (and using the bare minimum of what a taxi would cost--in practice, it's likely to be more than $20 a trip), and certainly one could find a much cheaper car than a 1 year old Altima.

Now, if you compare the cost of owning a car to the cost of taking the bus, it's a different story.  But OTOH, there's also an opportunity cost to taking the bus--buses have set routes and schedules, while you can take your car almost anywhere at any time you choose.

And BTW, your post shows some bias.  Poor people don't own condos--they rent apartments.  If you can afford to buy a condo, you can afford to buy a car.

[garbon]

CC: elitist and out of touch?

[Zanza]

It is the experience in Vancouver that makes me think that an Uber style driverless car fleet is impractical.  The wait time for car share is pretty long. One needs to plan a trip well in advance.  To make it more practical there would have to be a lot more cars on the road at a time when our infrastructure is decreasing space for cars to push people to transit and bikes.

If you have a free floating fleet, i.e. not stations but cars that can you can enter and leave wherever you like, it should be able to self-balance by driving around empty. That should make wait times much shorter as the fleet can always have empty cars positione where demand is expected.

Driverless cars will likely replace taxi fleets but I don't think they will replace individual cars on a large scale.

As they'll be cheaper than taxis and likely more ubiquitous too, they'll have an impact on indvidual car ownership. But I also expect that this impact will be much less than the "90% less cars on the road" that you can read in some newspaper articles on the topic.

[viper37]

Not purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Gas, parking fees, insurance - you have heard of these things right? 

Remember, we are talking about an urban area here.  The price of a car is the least of your concerns.  Just buying a parking spot at your condo is many multiples the cost of a new car.  So even if you buy a very cheap car the cost of a taxi is going to be much less.

Not every urban area is Manhattan, you know. 

Maybe things are different in Canada, but in most urban areas in the US, the main downside to owning a car is the upfront purchase price.  Lots of unban poor simply can't come up with the down payment for a new car or a late-model used car, or the cash price for an older used car.  They would be better off if they could, because in the long run, it's much cheaper than taking a taxi.  In my experience, you're not going to take a taxi even for a short distance for less than $20, so even if you just go to work and back, that's $40 a day.   That's $800 a month just to get to work and back (assuming a 5-day work week).  The monthly cost to my mom for owning her car (a Nissan Altima originally purchased when it was a 1 year old used car) is about $650 a month--and she got a bad deal on it.  That's $150 a month less than taking a taxi, even if you go nowhere but to work with the taxi (and using the bare minimum of what a taxi would cost--in practice, it's likely to be more than $20 a trip), and certainly one could find a much cheaper car than a 1 year old Altima.

Now, if you compare the cost of owning a car to the cost of taking the bus, it's a different story.  But OTOH, there's also an opportunity cost to taking the bus--buses have set routes and schedules, while you can take your car almost anywhere at any time you choose.

And BTW, your post shows some bias.  Poor people don't own condos--they rent apartments.  If you can afford to buy a condo, you can afford to buy a car.

Vancouver is a special case for Canada.  It's not a very large place (geographically speaking) and space is at a premium.  Lots of foreigners are buying properties, though now with Toronto and Vancouver new rules, they are flocking to Montreal, wich leads to a price increase there too.

About condos, I'm not too sure.  It really depends on where you live in Montreal.  If you live downtown, condos or city houses (duplex, triplex) are more popular, but if you live on the side, it's often a rent.  I don't think it's that different from the US, it's just that Vancouver's situation is probably close to Manhattan.

Also, gaz prices are twice that of the US due to taxes.  And everything you buy, including a car, is slammed with a 15% taxes.  And interests paid on mortgage is not deductible from your taxable income.  And we pay twice as much income taxes.

All these factored in, for a city like Vancouver, I can see why using a taxi for infrequent movement is cheaper than buying a car.

[dps]

Vancouver is a special case for Canada.  It's not a very large place (geographically speaking) and space is at a premium.  Lots of foreigners are buying properties, though now with Toronto and Vancouver new rules, they are flocking to Montreal, wich leads to a price increase there too.

About condos, I'm not too sure.  It really depends on where you live in Montreal.  If you live downtown, condos or city houses (duplex, triplex) are more popular, but if you live on the side, it's often a rent.  I don't think it's that different from the US, it's just that Vancouver's situation is probably close to Manhattan.

Also, gaz prices are twice that of the US due to taxes.  And everything you buy, including a car, is slammed with a 15% taxes.  And interests paid on mortgage is not deductible from your taxable income.  And we pay twice as much income taxes.

All these factored in, for a city like Vancouver, I can see why using a taxi for infrequent movement is cheaper than buying a car.

Infrequent trips, say if you're retired and don't have to get out much, yeah, I can see that a taxi would be cheaper. 

I don't see what difference income tax rates and being able to deduct a mortgage or not would have on determining whether or not it's cheaper to own a car or take a taxi.

[crazy canuck]

Not purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Gas, parking fees, insurance - you have heard of these things right? 

Remember, we are talking about an urban area here.  The price of a car is the least of your concerns.  Just buying a parking spot at your condo is many multiples the cost of a new car.  So even if you buy a very cheap car the cost of a taxi is going to be much less.

Not every urban area is Manhattan, you know. 

Maybe things are different in Canada, but in most urban areas in the US, the main downside to owning a car is the upfront purchase price.  Lots of unban poor simply can't come up with the down payment for a new car or a late-model used car, or the cash price for an older used car.  They would be better off if they could, because in the long run, it's much cheaper than taking a taxi.  In my experience, you're not going to take a taxi even for a short distance for less than $20, so even if you just go to work and back, that's $40 a day.   That's $800 a month just to get to work and back (assuming a 5-day work week).  The monthly cost to my mom for owning her car (a Nissan Altima originally purchased when it was a 1 year old used car) is about $650 a month--and she got a bad deal on it.  That's $150 a month less than taking a taxi, even if you go nowhere but to work with the taxi (and using the bare minimum of what a taxi would cost--in practice, it's likely to be more than $20 a trip), and certainly one could find a much cheaper car than a 1 year old Altima.

Now, if you compare the cost of owning a car to the cost of taking the bus, it's a different story.  But OTOH, there's also an opportunity cost to taking the bus--buses have set routes and schedules, while you can take your car almost anywhere at any time you choose.

And BTW, your post shows some bias.  Poor people don't own condos--they rent apartments.  If you can afford to buy a condo, you can afford to buy a car.

I am not sure what costs you are including in your $650 per month cost.

Monthly car payments and financing charges may be it since you referred to the cost of the vehicle.  On top of that there is insurance, maintenance and repair, gas, and parking.

In an urban area like Vancouver parking is very expensive.  Day parking is over $20 per day.  So rounding down, that is half the cost of your notional taxi ride.  Using your example, even if you do factor insurance, maintenance and repair, and gas into your monthly cost, the cost of parking still makes a taxi more viable.  And that does not even account for the cost of parking at home - which renters will feel even more acutely since, in Vancouver, they are very likely paying more to also rent a parking stall in their building.  As I noted in my last post, if someone has bought their unit, the parking stall is extra.


Your math works better outside of densely populated areas where parking is free but where all these additional costs are incurred, if one does not want to take public transit, a taxi is the next most economic choice.  And so bringing us back to the topic.  That is why I think the self driving cars will replace taxi services but not private cars.  Those who can afford private cars will, I think, want to actually drive them.

[viper37]

I don't see what difference income tax rates and being able to deduct a mortgage or not would have on determining whether or not it's cheaper to own a car or take a taxi.

disposable income.  the richer you are in a city, the likelier you are to own a car.  in the countryside, it's different.  unless you fancy walking 10km to the grocery store, there ain't much alternatives.

[jimmy olsen]

Great news

https://qz.com/1024520/renewable-energy-is-becoming-so-cheap-the-us-will-meet-paris-commitments-even-if-trump-withdraws/

Research analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them. Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he's stated he will.

"We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe," with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.
"By our forecasts, in most cases favorable renewables economics rather than government policy will be the primary driver of changes to utilities' carbon emissions levels," they wrote. "For example, notwithstanding president Trump's stated intention to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, we expect the US to exceed the Paris commitment of a 26-28% reduction in its 2005-level carbon emissions by 2020."

Globally, the price of solar panels has fallen 50% between 2016 and 2017, they write. And in countries with favorable wind conditions, the costs associated with wind power "can be as low as one-half to one-third that of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants." Innovations in wind-turbine design are allowing for ever-longer wind blades; that boost in efficiency will also increase power output from the wind sector, according to Morgan Stanley.

Even in Australia, where the political climate is hostile to renewables, Morgan Stanley sees hope in the slightly longer-term: "In Australia, we anticipate that by 2020, renewables will provide ~28% of grid-supplied energy, including over 60% in South Australia."

[Valmy]

Withdrawing from the Paris accord was completely pointless as, like the article says, we were on course to exceed those levels anyway. But then the Paris Accord itself was pretty much pointless anyway.

Still I found it annoying Trump did something that pissed people off for no reason at all.

[mongers]

Withdrawing from the Paris accord was completely pointless as, like the article says, we were on course to exceed those levels anyway. But then the Paris Accord itself was pretty much pointless anyway.

Still I found it annoying Trump did something that pissed people off for no reason at all.

Um, Isn't that his whole reason for being?

[Jacob]

It is the experience in Vancouver that makes me think that an Uber style driverless car fleet is impractical.  The wait time for car share is pretty long. One needs to plan a trip well in advance.  To make it more practical there would have to be a lot more cars on the road at a time when our infrastructure is decreasing space for cars to push people to transit and bikes.

Driverless cars will likely replace taxi fleets but I don't think they will replace individual cars on a large scale.

I think that has a lot to do with the routes you take, and when you do so.

Car sharing is working fairly well for our family as an adjunct to our regular car use. The main hitch, I think, is the need to drop the kid off at daycare before heading to work in the opposite direction. If that wasn't the case, we could probably do without a private vehicle. We have friends and family who don't have a car and rely entirely on carshare, but they don't have kids and live downtown.

I think the further you live from the centre, and the more your driving needs aligns with the direction of the general mass of commuters, the less useful car sharing is.

[Jacob]

If you have a free floating fleet, i.e. not stations but cars that can you can enter and leave wherever you like, it should be able to self-balance by driving around empty. That should make wait times much shorter as the fleet can always have empty cars positione where demand is expected.

We have both. The issues around the free floating fleets centre around the mass commutes. If you need a car in a residential neighbourhood on a workday morning, you better get out early. Similarly, if you need a car at the just-outside-the-centre train stations at the end of the workday you need to time it so you beat the rush.

Conversely, if you need a car from the just-outside-the-centre train station in the morning, you'll have plenty - or if you need one in a not too distant residential area after the day is done.