# Another big challenge for autonomous car engineers: Energy efficiency



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

*Another big challenge for autonomous car engineers: Energy efficiency*

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...or-autonomous-car-engineers-energy-efficiency

_October 11, 2017 @ 7:15 am
Gabrielle Coppola and Esha Dey
Bloomberg_

Judging from General Motors' test cars and Elon Musk's predictions, the world is headed toward a future that's both driverless and all-electric. In reality, autonomy and battery power could end up being at odds.

That's because self-driving technology is a huge power drain. Some of today's prototypes for fully autonomous systems consume 2 to 4 kilowatts of electricity -- the equivalent of having 50 to 100 laptops continuously running in the trunk, according to BorgWarner Inc. The supplier of vehicle propulsion systems expects the first autonomous cars -- likely robotaxis that are constantly on the road -- will be too energy-hungry to run on battery power alone.

In an industry where the number of LEDs in a brake light are scrutinized for their impact on gas mileage, processing data from laser, radar and camera sensors will be an enormous challenge -- not just for coders working on machine learning, but for engineers trying to power vehicles efficiently. As major markets from California to China ratchet up pressure to curb pollution, automakers and their suppliers will have to find creative new ways to offset emissions produced by feeding the car's increasingly intelligent brain.
. . .

"They're going to favor plug-in hybrid EVs, and they're going to require that extra gasoline engine, both to extend the range to be able to do a taxi type of duty cycle, but also to help mitigate the proportion of the autonomous systems on the battery pack itself," said Jaffe, whose research and consulting firm specializes in energy storage.
. . .​
The extremely powerful processors required need power. The sensors, the V2X communications, and the cameras to catch pukers, poopers, pee-ers, vandals, and slobs need power. Add in climate control, and all of a sudden the idea of pure electric vehicles, capable of self charging, gets a lot more complicated, a lot more limited on range, and a lot more expensive.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

WeirdBob said:


> *Another big challenge for autonomous car engineers: Energy efficiency*
> 
> http://www.autonews.com/article/201...or-autonomous-car-engineers-energy-efficiency
> 
> ...


I can't wait for the Tomato's reply. Something like "No way! This article is fake news."


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

iheartuber said:


> I can't wait for the Tomato's reply. Something like "No way! This article is fake news."


I prefer ramz's strategy where he claims one small detail is wrong (but never supplies any alternative facts or proof) so therefore the entire article is wrong. It's such a childish way of thinking


----------



## WeirdBob (Jan 2, 2016)

Paging RamzFanz , tomatopaste , Maven


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

WeirdBob said:


> Paging RamzFanz , tomatopaste , Maven


First, I want to know why I'm only 3rd on your list?! My feelings are hurt. 

I liked the article.  It brought up an interesting angle/issue/problem that has not been considered much, energy efficiency. If self-driving cars are inherently consuming more energy because of heavy use of energy-sucking computers then how can they possibly be cost-effective even if the multitude of other issues are resolved?

Most of the solution is already in the article, use of hybrid technology. Only gasoline/electric hybrids were discussed. One major element of hybrid technology was missing, solar. If you use a solar/electric/gasoline hybrid engine then the energy-efficiency problems may be greatly reduced, if not eliminated entirely. Plus add in the really big cost-saving of self-driving technology, no driver, with the huge, associated benefits. However, the article forgot to mention 100s or 1000s of pounds, additional weight of required technology/equipment (lidar, cameras, computers, etc.) that must decrease energy efficiency even after subtracting an average 200-pounds for the driver.

Bottom line: There is no way for self-driving cars to be profitable, assuming high initial depreciation on high initial cost vehicles.  However, those costs are expected to drop rapidly, the same as PC prices. The necessary technology/hardware will become smaller and lighter. At that point, profits are likely to appear and steadily increase.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Maven I believe you when you say that there will need to be much higher revenues expected in order for SDCs to be profitable. Many others here also hold that opinion. But the reason why Tomato strongly disagrees is because he has people in his head all day long telling him otherwise. These people, like the people who thought the Uber xChange program would be successful, are all fools. But who's more foolish? I'll let Obi Wan pose that question:


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Maven I believe you when you say that there will need to be much higher revenues expected in order for SDCs to be profitable. Many others here also hold that opinion. But the reason why Tomato strongly disagrees is because he has people in his head all day long telling him otherwise. These people, like the people who thought the Uber xChange program would be successful, are all fools. But who's more foolish? ...


I am not responsible for what either you or Tomato (soon to be ketchup ) believes or says. I am not responsible for the idiots at the Uber xChange program. You misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I was not clear.

Revenue will be unchanged, perhaps trending slight upward. The realization of significant profits will be caused by major cost reductions, since Profit = Revenue - Expenses.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Maven said:


> I am not responsible for what either you or Tomato (soon to be ketchup ) believes or says. I am not responsible for the idiots at the Uber xChange program. You misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I was not clear.
> 
> Revenue will be unchanged, perhaps trending slight upward. The realization of significant profits will be caused by major cost reductions, since Profit = Revenue - Expenses.


Well, you bring up an interesting point which is in the future the cost of technology will get cheaper and cheaper while the price for a ride will stay the same, thus insuring higher profits over time.

The thing is "over time" means years and years, which I think is a sane and fair prediction. Except the tomato is insisting that it will be weeks and months not years, which is just crazy talk.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Well, you bring up an interesting point which is in the future the cost of technology will get cheaper and cheaper while the price for a ride will stay the same, thus insuring higher profits over time.
> 
> The thing is "over time" means years and years, which I think is a sane and fair prediction. Except the tomato is insisting that it will be weeks and months not years, which is just crazy talk.


Products in terms of material things or services are getting cheaper only when they are very close to be replaced. The idea of adding "better" or "more" or "different" features to a product during it's life spam is for the producing corporation to maintain a steady price increase. There is no asymmetric approach to this, because the corporation will start losing money very, very rapidly.

Remember how corporations are not operating based on commons people rationale. Common people look at the system from the bottom to the top, while corporations see everything from the top to the bottom. The idea of


Maven said:


> Profit = Revenue - Expenses.


 is true for an Uber driver but not for the Uber corporation. To explain this example, as we know, Uber sits on billions but they are yet to make a profit. In case of an IPO, the actual private stock holders will get rich and be able to move away, even if, as I've already mentioned, the corporation never made profits. Essentially, because of the structure of the economy, they will be able to make real profits without delivering a real profit.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Battery power issues are easily negated with proper engineering. Pull into a service bay, swap batteries, back on the road for another ~200 or so miles. This too could be automated.

Perhaps they'll be hybrids. Not sure of the point of the article.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Battery power issues are easily negated with proper engineering. Pull into a service bay, swap batteries, back on the road for another ~200 or so miles. This too could be automated.
> 
> Perhaps they'll be hybrids. Not sure of the point of the article.


RamzFanz you speak of a logistical set up that sounds more classroom than real world. What's your professional background if I may ask? Do you have any experience running a business?


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> RamzFanz you speak of a logistical set up that sounds more classroom than real world. What's your professional background if I may ask? Do you have any experience running a business?


Not the right questions. What is being done is NOT "running a business" in the traditional sense. It's expensive corporate research, a gamble at best, like spending millions researching an experimental drug that may or may not generate enough revenue to justify the cost. It closer to the classroom than what most think of as the "real world". Very few people have that kind of experience. Do you?


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Maven said:


> Not the right questions. What is being done is NOT "running a business" in the traditional sense. It's expensive corporate research, a gamble at best, like spending millions researching an experimental drug that may or may not generate enough revenue to justify the cost. It closer to the classroom than what most think of as the "real world". Very few people have that kind of experience. Do you?


I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me but I do have experience running a real business that turned a real profit.

I do not have experience in a company that lost money and still stayed in business. So if that's the real MO of Google with SDCs then I do not have experience with that


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

But as future generations of the technology succeed, the AI equipment will require less and less power. This is simply a problem of lack of maturity, and I would guess their priority in getting a completely autonomous car on the road outweighs their quest for electronic efficiency at this juncture.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me but I do have experience running a real business that turned a real profit. I do not have experience in a company that lost money and still stayed in business. So if that's the real MO of Google with SDCs then I do not have experience with that


My point is that experience running a normal company, worth less than say $10 Million is irrelevant in this stuation. In the realm of high finance, doing things that are idiotic and suicidal for a normal company are not only standard practice, but smart business. Losing money, even $2 Billion a year, is less important than the *valuation *of the corporation increasing at an impressive *multiple *of the total amount lost, say $68-$70 Billion. The long-term, future plan is to start making a profit a few years *after *SDCs are finally introduced, eventually allowing costs to be drastically slashed.


PrestonT said:


> But as future generations of the technology succeed, the AI equipment will require less and less power. This is simply a problem of lack of maturity, and I would guess their priority is in getting a completely autonomous car on the road outweighs their quest for electronic efficiency at this juncture.


Agree. The AI equipment will also get physically smaller.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Maven said:


> My point is that experience running a normal company, worth less than say $10 Million is irrelevant in this stuation. In the realm of high finance, doing things that are idiotic and suicidal for a normal company are not only standard practice, but smart business. Losing money, even $2 Billion a year, is less important than the *valuation *of the corporation increasing at an impressive *multiple *of the total amount lost, say $68-$70 Billion. The long-term, future plan is to start making a profit a few years *after *SDCs are finally introduced, eventually allowing costs to be drastically slashed..


There's just one problem with the highly theoretical fantasy you've laid out:

Uber is currently valued at $70billion and you imagine they become profitable by becoming a SDC business? Ok except Google and GM are apparently launching competing SDC taxi firms. How much SDC taxi money will there be to go around? Enough to make all three firms profitable? Doubtful.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

Autonomous cars have other obstacle's other then the car itself. Insurance cost will be borne by Uber and Lyft, not the contractors like now. All it will take is one death in an accident regardless of who's at fault, Lawyers are licking their chops waiting on every street corner
Another issue will be charging of the vehicle if a passenger has a long trip delayed due to traffic.
Then there are the hackers, some computer geek might want to hack the cars for fun and create accidents.
I don't see self driving cars in the foreseeable future because of these reasons.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

peteyvavs said:


> Autonomous cars have other obstacle's other then the car itself. Insurance cost will be borne by Uber and Lyft, not the contractors like now. All it will take is one death in an accident regardless of who's at fault, Lawyers are licking their chops waiting on every street corner
> Another issue will be charging of the vehicle if a passenger has a long trip delayed due to traffic.
> Then there are the hackers, some computer geek might want to hack the cars for fun and create accidents.
> I don't see self driving cars in the foreseeable future because of these reasons.


There's actually a few more reasons to add to the list but you're on the right track: there are too many variables. Just too many.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

iheartuber said:


> RamzFanz you speak of a logistical set up that sounds more classroom than real world. What's your professional background if I may ask? Do you have any experience running a business?


He used to install sprinkler systems. He has no expertise in this area


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> There's just one problem with the highly theoretical fantasy you've laid out:
> Uber is currently valued at $70billion and you imagine they become profitable by becoming a SDC business? Ok except Google and GM are apparently launching competing SDC taxi firms. How much SDC taxi money will there be to go around? Enough to make all three firms profitable? Doubtful.


One man's fantasy.... The idea of Uber was once a fantasy now worth Billions. Wish I owned a piece of it. Uber's strength and value is in its market share. Google, GM, and other will have to play "catch up", difficult at best. They be better off buying into Lyft. As I said before, the "taxi money" revenue will be about the same or slightly higher. The long-term future profits will eventually come from greatly reduced costs, years after SDCs are introduced.


iheartuber said:


> There's just one problem with the highly theoretical fantasy you've laid out:
> Uber is currently valued at $70billion and you imagine they become profitable by becoming a SDC business? Ok except Google and GM are apparently launching competing SDC taxi firms. How much SDC taxi money will there be to go around? Enough to make all three firms profitable? Doubtful.


You're correct. There isn't enough for all the *dozens *of SDC competitors to profit. There will be many losers and even more mergers. However, there will also be 1-3 big winners in the end.


peteyvavs said:


> Autonomous cars have other obstacle's other then the car itself. Insurance cost will be borne by Uber and Lyft, not the contractors like now. All it will take is one death in an accident regardless of who's at fault, Lawyers are licking their chops waiting on every street corner.


Large fleet owners typically self-insure. SDCs won't change that.


peteyvavs said:


> Another issue will be charging of the vehicle if a passenger has a long trip delayed due to traffic.
> Then there are the hackers, some computer geek might want to hack the cars for fun and create accidents.
> I don't see self driving cars in the foreseeable future because of these reasons.


Another technical problem that designers are well aware of. Time will tell if you're correct.


iheartuber said:


> There's actually a few more reasons to add to the list but you're on the right track: there are too many variables. Just too many.


You're correct!  There are many variables. Probably more then either of us realize. Major research efforts are designed to deal with that.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

iheartuber said:


> RamzFanz you speak of a logistical set up that sounds more classroom than real world. What's your professional background if I may ask? Do you have any experience running a business?


I've been in business for myself most of my adult life. I'm 52. My most recent company was a technology installation business with 22 trucks and that included automation.

Energy isn't a limitation in the rollout as batteries can be swapped. It's pretty straight forward if designed to be.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Maven said:


> One man's fantasy.... The idea of Uber was once a fantasy now worth Billions. Wish I owned a piece of it. Uber's strength and value is in its market share. Google, GM, and other will have to play "catch up", difficult at best. They be better off buying into Lyft. As I said before, the "taxi money" revenue will be about the same or slightly higher. The long-term future profits will eventually come from greatly reduced costs, years after SDCs are introduced.
> 
> Large fleet owners typically self-insure. SDCs won't change that.
> 
> ...


They can only be properly researched "in the field", not the lab. So far not much field testing


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> There's actually a few more reasons to add to the list but you're on the right track: there are too many variables. Just too many.


 poppycosh



Maven said:


> First, I want to know why I'm only 3rd on your list?! My feelings are hurt.
> 
> I liked the article.  It brought up an interesting angle/issue/problem that has not been considered much, energy efficiency. If self-driving cars are inherently consuming more energy because of heavy use of energy-sucking computers then how can they possibly be cost-effective even if the multitude of other issues are resolved?
> 
> ...


Wow, even behind the Tomato. And that guy's an outright menace. Sad. Very sad.



iheartuber said:


> I can't wait for the Tomato's reply. Something like "No way! This article is fake news."


" [Kyle Vogt, GM-owned Cruise CEO:] "by collapsing the entire sensor down to a single chip, we'll reduce the cost of each LIDAR on our self-driving cars by 99%."

*NVIDIA introduces a computer for level 5 autonomous cars*

In fact, the company said that over 25 of its partners are already working on fully autonomous taxis. The goal with this smaller, more powerful computer is to remove the huge computer arrays that sit in the prototype vehicles of OEMs, startups and any other company that's trying to crack the autonomous car nut.
Be careful what you wish for, it usually ends up with the Tomato slapping you around.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> poppycosh
> 
> Wow, even behind the Tomato. And that guy's an outright menace. Sad. Very sad.
> 
> ...


Tomato I'm on to your game. You troll to get replies. You call us "sad" say our ideas are "silly" or "bs", when really you just do it to get a reply.

Well it backfired. Because your posts have grown boring. And your credibility is nil at this point.

See ya..


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Tomato I'm on to your game. You troll to get replies. You call us "sad" say our ideas are "silly" or "bs", when really you just do it to get a reply.
> 
> Well it backfired. Because your posts have grown boring. And your credibility is nil at this point.
> 
> See ya..


You asked me to reply:

"I can't wait for the Tomato's reply. Something like "No way! This article is fake news."

I replied:

" [Kyle Vogt, GM-owned Cruise CEO:] "by collapsing the entire sensor down to a single chip, we'll reduce the cost of each LIDAR on our self-driving cars by 99%."

*NVIDIA introduces a computer for level 5 autonomous cars*

In fact, the company said that over 25 of its partners are already working on fully autonomous taxis. The goal with this smaller, more powerful computer is to remove the huge computer arrays that sit in the prototype vehicles of OEMs, startups and any other company that's trying to crack the autonomous car nut.
As usual you're unable to offer a substantive response so you act all offended and run away.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> You asked me to reply:
> 
> "I can't wait for the Tomato's reply. Something like "No way! This article is fake news."
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah... I've long since grown tired of the Tomato. Buh bye


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Blah blah blah... I've long since grown tired of the Tomato. Buh bye


Can't say I blame you. You were taking quite a beating there towards the end.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y-4PnbgnED4/hqdefault.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cc/d1/bf/ccd1bf7b8f6f1a01ce7d83d68f6c19dc.gif


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Can't say I blame you. You were taking quite a beating there towards the end.
> 
> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y-4PnbgnED4/hqdefault.jpg
> 
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cc/d1/bf/ccd1bf7b8f6f1a01ce7d83d68f6c19dc.gif


Oh Lord. You seem to think you "beat me" and "slap me around". Sounds like you have some weird sexual fetishes. But hey, I don't judge!

Tell you what: if you really wanna think you "beat me" go ahead. Whatever.

But the real thing you gotta do is: make sure your resume is updated.

Best of luck!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Oh Lord. You seem to think you "beat me" and "slap me around". Sounds like you have some weird sexual fetishes. But hey, I don't judge!
> 
> Tell you what: if you really wanna think you "beat me" go ahead. Whatever.
> 
> ...


Like a rented mule.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

WeirdBob said:


> *Another big challenge for autonomous car engineers: Energy efficiency*
> 
> http://www.autonews.com/article/201...or-autonomous-car-engineers-energy-efficiency
> 
> ...


TWO

TWO COOLING SYSTEMS.
ONE for passengers.
One just for Computers.

Brain Fry will cause DEATH for cars just like people !

NO ONE WANTS TO RIDE IN A ROBO CAR WITH A FRIED BRAIN !

Highly Dangerous !
Will happen often.


----------



## getawaycar (Jul 10, 2017)

The radar and laser systems might be the greatest drain on energy.

Sending out radar signals and laser beams hundreds of feet in every direction around the vehicle seems a huge energy drain.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Like a rented mule.


RIP tomato


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

iheartuber said:


> RIP tomato


hey, be nice to tomato, he was just a kid with a dream that had it shattered


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> hey, be nice to tomato, he was just a kid with a dream that had it *shattered *


*

More like SPLATTERED!!*


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

goneubering said:


> *
> More like SPLATTERED!!*


More like puréed


----------

