Good post Igniter...and the point that oil will still be needed for plastics is valid. As is the future of NG (Natural gas)
However, when one considers the impact of a ~1m barrel a day swing in supply/demand can have on prices. I'm still very concerned about the economic future of oil, no matter how much cleaner/economical it gets.
IMHO, the key for Alberta is to take all the technology, capital, skills, infrastructure etc that has been directed at the oil sands and consider how to encourage it to 'spillover' into non-oil applications. It is important to keep improving the oil production techniques while there still is a lucrative market, but FFS make diversification a priority.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
2017 has been the year to set#(and break) driving records with electric vehicles. The latest record-breaking event happened in Italy just last week. Tesla Owners Club Italia drove a Model S P100D for 1,078km (669.8 miles) on a single charge, breaking the long-distance record that had been in place since June.
Experimental scenario and non-practical driving techniques, but small milestones begin to add up.
Toyota’s Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
Quote:
“Historically human beings have shown zero tolerance for injury or death caused by flaws in a machine,” Pratt said. “As wonderful as AI is, AI systems are inevitably flawed… We’re not even close to Level 5. It’ll take many years and many more miles, in simulated and real world testing, to achieve the perfection required for level 5 autonomy.”
And fundementaly EVs will not kill Albertas economy by 2030.
No, Alberta will kill Alberta's economy by 2030. Reliance on a single industry that does dick for innovation, other than finding new ways to mine the resource, is what will kill the economy. I agree with Igniter's comment that the petrochemical industry is not going to go away. But I do think it is going to change dramatically in the next decade or two. EVs will be a driver. Climate change will be a driver. Pollution and water scarcity will be a driver. Dirty industries will suffer greatly. Sources of pollution and greenhouse gases will suffer greatly. But the need for petroleum products will likely not go away. The use of petroleum products will change, and for the better.
Instead of oil being used primarily for fuel, it will be channeled toward other uses like plastics and lubricants. Petroleum products used for fuel will instead go into power generation, where the waste by-products can be properly sequestered and managed properly. Demand will drop for oil. Demand for natural gas will increase. This is where Alberta should be driving innovation. They should be developing technologies that drive customers to this natural gas. Alberta should own the natural gas fuel cell marketplace and make this a standard feature in every residence and building across the country, then across the continent. The tech is there, it just needs an investment and someone to drive adoption.
On an industrial scale, the Bloombox is being adopted by large companies to power their commercial applications.
Alberta should be driving innovation into developing fuel cell technology so it drives demand for natural gas. Imagine if every home in the country had a fuel cell that powered the home, heated the home, and charged the EV parked in the garage? Think that would save the O&G sector and guarantee longevity? Think it would be good for the overall economy?
Alberta should also be leading the planet in driving innovation to capture CO2. The government should be throwing as much money as possible at developing solutions like this.
This is technology that should be on everyone's mind. This technology should be promoted and implemented all over the planet. To do so would require government support. The people have to demand this change.
Alberta could increase the demand for their natural resources by innovating and providing products the world needs. Is Alberta doing that? Or are they waiting for the Germans, Chinese, or Indians to beat them to the punch? Alberta has potential to address their own economy through innovation, which will lead to diversification. You have some very smart people in Alberta, like the people behind the video above, and they can solve the problem with proper investment. It is up to Albertans to demand the government guarantee the future of the economy by supporting innovation and develop of new technologies that support the existing and expand the demand for those products.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The key question is whether better than human or zero error is the standard for mass implementation.
Better than human is a rational standard for mass implementation. But decisions about whether to adopt the widespread use of a machine that will kill humans won't be arrived at in an entirely rational manner. We suppress most instances of auto death by human error because we've normalized it, and we'd rather not deal with the stress. Every single fatality in self-driving cars will be massively magnified.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
@new era...excellent point. I have been working in the innovation space in Alberta for over 15 years and there are two sides to the innovation story. There has been a decent amount of effort put into diversification of the Alberta economy. However, it is a tough slog because the culture of oil and gas makes innovation difficult, to oversimplfy the problem "When the price of oil is high...we don't need to innovation. When the price of oil is low...there is no money to innovate".
There are lots of examples of innovation, but Alberta is punching well below its weight class. We could do SO much more if there was a larger tolerance for risk, a different understanding of the economic peril we face and if industry was intrinsically motivated to innovate more (rather than responding to pressure). Another issue with innovation in the oil and gas sector is the mantra of sub-contracting projects to the lowest bidder, this makes adopting innovation challenging...
If you (or anyone else) is interested in hooking into the innovation ecosystem I would suggest checking out a group called "The Rainforest" or PM me. I can hook you up...
Here is the abstract... There are government created organizations with a mandate to affect the subnational systems of innovation. These ‘innovation agency’ organizations provide functionality that enables additional innovation activity; this functionality may be delivered by organizations external to the innovation agency. The Alberta Oil Sands Science and Research Authority (AOSTRA), Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR), and the Alberta Informatics Circle of Research Excellence (iCORE) are three innovation agencies that exemplify significant innovation policy investments by the Alberta government. This thesis uses historical analysis and case studies to examine these three innovation agencies. The historical analysis examines Alberta’s complex coevolution of institutions, policy leadership and technically challenging natural resources that set the stage for these innovation agencies to emerge. Case study techniques are used to explore the emergence, operations, and impact of the innovation agencies.The findings are then positioned in the system of innovation literature.It was found that the Alberta system of innovation was highly influenced by institutional control over natural resources and that the oil sands were particularly important, given their value and the scientific challenges that they presented. Peter Lougheed’s role in entrepreneurially shaping institutions was a contingency for the emergence of the cases. It was found that the innovation agencies generally acted to subsidize research activity in other organizations, although there were significant exceptions(e.g. AOSTRA’s IP policy and Underground Test Facilities). Finally, the instrumentality of the organizations was significant, leading to development and adoption of technological systems by industry and enhanced research capabilities at Alberta universities.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Last edited by Fozzie_DeBear; 08-30-2017 at 10:14 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
The key question is whether better than human or zero error is the standard for mass implementation.
I don't see the logic in zero error as the standard...
If you don't adopt the tech...you are accepting the current level of carnage. Rejecting a system which decreases the carnage because it can't eliminate the carnage doesn't make sense to me...
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
The Following User Says Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
I don't see the logic in zero error as the standard...
If you don't adopt the tech...you are accepting the current level of carnage. Rejecting a system which decreases the carnage because it can't eliminate the carnage doesn't make sense to me...
Totally agree. If Level 4 can reduce the average number of traffic accidents per year (5.5 Million in the US in 2016, with 2.5 million injuries and 35,000 deaths), then it is already a better system.
And as driveless technology adoption increases, that will only spur further critical mass in technological improvements, passenger safety habits, and supporting infrastructure.
The Toyota CEO's comments are like saying it's inherently flawed if you can't get to Alpha Centauri, no one will consider space travel until that happens. Which is utter tripe since there are many progressive steps on the way there (Mars, other planets, interstellar travel), just as there is getting to "Level 5" in autonomous driving.
It's different for Toyota though, as they are selling the vehicles.
Human driver crashes their Toyota and injures other, gets sued or has insurance to cover.
Toyota's AI car crashes and injures others, now Toyota is getting sued and needs insurance?
Perhaps his statements were made with pre-conceived notions for how they would handle the culture of autonomous driving (or lack thereof), but it doesn't dismiss the obvious benefit autonomous driving would have if it makes road safety better and reduces the number of accidents/injuries/fatalities.
History has shown many examples of disruptive technology being integrated into society over the ages, despite disaster scenarios. I doubt the fear of being sued is shared by many other car manufacturers, as proven by the millions these companies are pouring into the technology.
If you don't adopt the tech...you are accepting the current level of carnage. Rejecting a system which decreases the carnage because it can't eliminate the carnage doesn't make sense to me...
People's attitudes to safety are rarely rational. And then there's the big problem of liability. Do you program self-driving cars to minimize harm to the driver, or total harm to everybody? What happens the first time a self-driving car slams into a concrete barrier to avoid killing pedestrians, and kills the driver instead? Or kills a pedestrian to avoid harm to the driver? Lawyers are going to have a field day with this stuff.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-30-2017 at 11:04 AM.
People's attitudes to safety are rarely rational. And then there's the big problem of liability. Do you program self-driving cars to minimize harm to the driver, or total harm to everybody? What happens the first time a self-driving car slams into a concrete barrier to avoid killing pedestrians, and kills the driver instead? Or kills a pedestrian to avoid harm to the driver? Lawyers are going to have a field day with this stuff.
Yeah, they have to figure out liability, but how does it work today? Right now when facing a potential accident humans make a range of choices and people don't go bananas...I think liability will probably end up with the manufacturer
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Yeah, they have to figure out liability, but how does it work today? Right now when facing a potential accident humans make a range of choices and people don't go bananas...I think liability will probably end up with the manufacturer
The difference is if a driver swerves to avoid an oncoming truck and runs over a pedestrian, we take into account the state of stress the driver is in, his lack of awareness of what's around him 360 degrees, and the split-second nature of the decision he has to make. A driver in that situation will rarely be found at fault.
But a car programmed to swerve away from an oncoming truck onto a sidewalk with pedestrians is an entirely different kettle of fish. At some point, the designers of the software have to come up with procedures that rely on valuating probabilities against lives.
I'm not saying it's in insurmountable problem. But I wouldn't be surprised if the legislative/ethical/liability issues take as long to hash out as the technology. So if we're 10 years away technologically, we're at least 20 years away from a regulatory and legal framework.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
The difference is if a driver swerves to avoid an oncoming truck and runs over a pedestrian, we take into account the state of stress the driver is in, his lack of awareness of what's around him 360 degrees, and the split-second nature of the decision he has to make. A driver in that situation will rarely be found at fault.
But a car programmed to swerve away from an oncoming truck onto a sidewalk with pedestrians is an entirely different kettle of fish. At some point, the designers of the software have to come up with procedures that rely on valuating probabilities against lives.
I'm not saying it's in insurmountable problem. But I wouldn't be surprised if the legislative/ethical/liability issues take as long to hash out as the technology. So if we're 10 years away technologically, we're at least 20 years away from a regulatory and legal framework.
20 years? No way it takes that long...
Who would be liable in a situation where a car is using cruise control and gets into an accident?
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Cummins may be best-known for producing brawny diesel engines for commercial trucks and light-duty pickups, but it's leaping into the world of EVs with both feet. On Tuesday, the Columbus, Indiana-based company revealed an Urban Hauler Tractor concept that's pure electric. In doing so, Cummins may have stolen a little thunder from Tesla — the Silicon Valley automaker has plans to reveal an electric semi truck of its own in September.
Designed as a Class 7 semi, the 18,000-pound big rig known as AEOS is designed to move freight locally, over short hauls. It can carry some 44,000 pounds of payload, and its 140-kWh battery pack only takes an hour to charge at a 140-kWh charging station. The fully operational prototype is only tipped to have 100 miles of range, however, so AEOS is definitely a city-oriented cargo solution. (By contrast, reports have Tesla's yet-to-be-revealed rival as producing 200-300 miles of range). Cummins says that by 2020, improvements in battery tech are "expected to reduce" the charge time to 20 minutes.
Being engine experts as opposed to whole vehicle developers, Cummins has wisely tapped the auto industry engineering and development gurus at Roush Industries to help develop the truck, which helps explain how production is planned for as early as 2019. Cummins does not plan to assemble the trucks, but instead views itself as a supplier of the battery and driveline system.
I assume companies like Walmart would be all over it if it is cost effective. 100 miles gets you from your distribution center to all local stores and back. It takes more than an hour to load a truck so you can charge while loading and be ready to get back on the road.
The Following User Says Thank You to GP_Matt For This Useful Post:
Why even bother going to production with a truck that has a 100 mile range. Who is going to seriously consider buying this?
There are lots of use cases where 100 miles of range between charges is all that is required...BYD is a Chinese EV manufacturer that focuses on vehicles like Buses and Garbage Trucks where the route is known well in advance and recharges can be scheduled in advance.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
