워드프레스 KBoard 피드 https://acl.kaist.ac.kr/wp-content/plugins/kboard/rss.php 워드프레스 KBoard 피드 <![CDATA[Partial Automation Doesn't Make Vehicles Safer]]> Partial Automation Doesn't Make Vehicles Safer -Self-driving tech is better treated as a convenience, not a safety feature BY Willie D. Jones / 02 OCT 2024 Willie Jones covers transportation for IEEE Spectrum and the history of technology for The Institute. The electric Ford Mustang Mach-E, shown here at AutoMobility LA in 2019 in Los Angeles, has been a part of several recent deadly crashes where its driver assistance tech may have played a role. David McNew/Getty Images Early on the morning of 3 September, a multi-car accident occurred on Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, raising alarms about the dangers of relying too heavily on advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). Two men were killed when a Ford Mustang Mach-E electric vehicle, traveling at 114 kilometers per hour (71 mph), crashed into a car that had pulled over to the highway’s left shoulder. According to Pennsylvania State Police, the driver of the Mustang mistakenly believed that the car’s BlueCruise hands-free driving feature and adaptive cruise control could take full responsibility for driving. The crash is part of a worrying trend involving drivers who overestimate the capabilities of partial automation systems. Ford’s BlueCruise system, while advanced, provides only level 2 vehicle autonomy. This means it can assist with steering, lane-keeping, and speed control on prequalified highways, but the driver must remain alert and ready to take over at any moment. State police and federal investigators discovered that the driver of the Mustang involved in the deadly I-95 incident was both intoxicated and texting at the time of the crash, factors that likely contributed to their failure to regain control of the vehicle when necessary. The driver has been charged with vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter, and several other offenses. Are Self-Driving Cars Safer? This incident is the latest in a series of crashes involving Mustang Mach-E vehicles equipped with level 2 partial automation. Similar accidents were reported earlier this year in Texas and Philadelphia, all occurring at night on highways and resulting in fatalities. In response, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched an investigation into the crashes and the role ADAS systems may have played in them. Unfortunately, there isn’t good data on the proportion of fatal crashes involving vehicles equipped with these partial automation systems. —David Kidd, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety This is not a niche issue. Consulting and analysis firms including Munich-based Roland Berger predict that by 2025, more than one-third of new cars rolling off the world’s assembly lines will be equipped with at least level 2 autonomy. According to a Roland Berger survey of auto manufacturers, only 14 percent of vehicles produced next year will have no ADAS features at all. “Unfortunately, there isn’t good data on the proportion of fatal crashes involving vehicles equipped with these partial automation systems,” says David Kidd, a researcher at the Arlington, Va.–based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The nonprofit agency conducts vehicle safety testing and research, including evaluating vehicle crashworthiness. IIHS evaluates whether ADAS provides a safety benefit by combining information about what vehicles come equipped with with data maintained by the Highway Loss Data Institute and police crash reports. But that record keeping, says Kidd, doesn’t yield hard data on the proportion of vehicles with systems such as BlueCruise or Tesla’s Autopilot that are involved in fatal crashes. Still, he notes, looking at information about the incidence of crashes involving vehicles that have level 2 driver assistance systems and the rate at which crashes happen with those not so equipped, “there is no significant difference.” Asked about the fact that these three Mach-E crashes happened at night, Kidd points out that it’s not just a coincidence. Nighttime presents a very difficult set of conditions for these systems. “All the vehicles [with partial automation] we tested do an excellent job [of picking up the visual cues they need to avoid collisions] during the day, but after dark, they struggle.” Automated Systems Make Riskier Drivers IIHS released a report in July underscoring the danger of misusing ADAS systems. The study found that partial automation features like Ford’s BlueCruise are best understood as convenience features rather than safety technologies. According to IIHS President David Harkey, “Everything we’re seeing tells us that partial automation is a convenience feature like power windows or heated seats rather than a safety technology. “Other technologies,” says Kidd, “like automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, and blind-spot monitoring, which are designed to warn of an imminent crash, are effective at preventing crashes. We look at the partial automation technologies and these collision warning technologies differently because they have very different safety implications.” The July IIHS study also highlighted a phenomenon known as risk compensation, where drivers using automated systems tend to engage in riskier behaviors, such as texting or driving under the influence, believing that the technology will save them from accidents. A similar issue arose with the widespread introduction of anti-lock braking systems in the 1980s, when drivers falsely assumed they could brake later or safely come to a stop from higher speeds, often with disastrous results. What’s Next for ADAS? While automakers like Ford say that ADAS is not designed to take the driver out of the loop, incidents like the Pennsylvania and Texas crashes underscore the need for better education and possibly stricter regulations around the use of these technologies. Until full vehicle autonomy is realized, drivers must remain vigilant, even when using advanced assistance features. As partial automation systems become more common, experts warn that robust safeguards are needed to prevent their misuse. The IIHS study concluded that “Designing partial driving automation with robust safeguards to deter misuse will be crucial to minimizing the possibility that the systems will inadvertently increase crash risk.” “There are things auto manufacturers can do to help keep drivers involved with the driving task and make them use the technologies responsibly,” says Kidd. “IIHS has a new ratings program, called Safeguards, that evaluates manufacturers’ implementation of driver monitoring technologies.” To receive a good rating, Kidd says, “Vehicles with partial automation will need to ensure that drivers are looking at the road, that their hands are in a place where they’re ready to take control if the automation technology makes a mistake, and that they’re wearing their seatbelt.” Kidd admits that no technology can determine whether someone’s mind is focused on the road and the driving task. But by monitoring a person’s gaze, head posture, and hand position, sensors can make sure the person’s actions are consistent with someone who is actively engaged in driving. “The whole sense of this program is to make sure that the [level 2 driving automation] technology isn’t portrayed as being more capable than it is. It does support the driver on an ongoing basis, but it certainly does not replace the driver.” The European Commission released a report in March pointing out that progress toward reducing road fatalities is stalling in too many countries. This sticking point in the number of roadway deaths is an example of a phenomenon known as risk homeostasis, where risk compensation serves to counterbalance the intended effects of a safety advance, rendering the net effect unchanged. Asked what will counteract risk compensation so there will be a significant reduction in the annual worldwide roadway death toll, the IIHS’s Kidd said “We are still in the early stages of understanding whether automating all of the driving task—like what Waymo and Cruise are doing with their level 4 driving systems—is the answer. It looks like they will be safer than human drivers but it’s still too early to tell.” 출처: Partial Automation Doesn't Make Vehicles Safer > Self-driving tech is better treated as a convenience, not a safety feature]]> Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:52:24 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[Episode 143 - The Problem(s) with Replacing Fossil Fuels]]> Episode 143 - The Problem(s) with Replacing Fossil Fuels
Don’t miss 2023’s most-watched episode of SAE Tomorrow Today! From geopolitical pressures to the shunning of fossil fuels, there is no question the current state of energy in the US and globally is a mess. One possible answer? An “all of the above” approach. For candid insight into this topic, we sat down with Mark P. Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science. Mark served in the White House Science Office under President Reagan and subsequently provided science and technology policy counsel to a variety of private-sector firms, the Department of Energy, and U.S. research laboratories. He began his career as an experimental physicist and development engineer in microprocessors and fiber optics. As part of this wide-ranging discussion, Mark shares his views on the need for hydrocarbon, the instability of the grid, energy’s relationship to inflation, the US dependance on China, and why there should be a holistic approach to the world’s energy needs. Mark is author of the book The Cloud Revolution: How the Convergence of New Technologies Will Unleash the Next Economic Boom and a Roaring 2020s and host of the new podcast The Last Optimist. He is also author of Digital Cathedrals (2020), and Work in the Age of Robots (2018). His articles have been published widely, including in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, USA Today, and Real Clear. Mills has appeared as a guest on CNN, Fox, NBC, PBS, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He has testified before Congress numerous times, and briefed state public-service commissions and legislators. Meet Our Guest
mills_mark.jpg

MARK P. MILLS Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute

Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science. He is also a strategic partner with Montrose Lane (an energy-tech venture fund). Previously, Mills cofounded Digital Power Capital, a boutique venture fund, and was chairman and CTO of ICx Technologies, helping take it public in 2007. Mills is author of the book The Cloud Revolution: How the Convergence of New Technologies Will Unleash the Next Economic Boom and a Roaring 2020s and host of the new podcast The Last Optimist. He is also author of Digital Cathedrals (2020), and Work in the Age of Robots (2018). His articles have been published widely, including in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, USA Today, and Real Clear. Mills has appeared as a guest on CNN, Fox, NBC, PBS, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He has testified before Congress numerous times, and briefed state public-service commissions and legislators. Mills served in the White House Science Office under President Reagan and subsequently provided science and technology policy counsel to a variety of private-sector firms, the Department of Energy, and U.S. research laboratories, and prior to that began his career as an experimental physicist and development engineer in microprocessors and fiber optics. Early in his career, Mills was an experimental physicist and development engineer at Bell Northern Research (Canada’s Bell Labs) and at the RCA David Sarnoff Research Center on microprocessors, fiber optics, missile guidance, earning several patents for his work. He holds a degree in physics from Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada.

Transcript:

Grayson Brulte: Hello, I'm your host, Grayson Brulte. Welcome to another episode of SAE Tomorrow Today, a show about emerging technology and trends and mobility with leaders, innovators, and strategists who make it all happen. On today's episode, we're absolutely honored to be joined by Mark P. Mills, author, entrepreneur, and faculty fellow at the Manhattan Institute. On today's episode, Mark will share his unique perspective on the energy transition in the mobility. We hope you enjoy this episode.  Mark, welcome to the podcast. It's great to have you here because energy's a hot topic that's not truly understood in great detail to say the least. Mark, you're a physicist by training. In your opinion, what is the current state of energy globally?
Mark P. Mills: Can we say it's kind of a mess? Yes. Um, a self-inflicted. Which is sort of what we do, uh, geopolitically. Look, the reality is that the, a lot of the western nations, not the Asian nations and not the emerging markets, have embraced a myth, uh, a fiction that's not true. And as a consequence, they've implemented policies and spent money in ways that are causing problems today, will cause problems tomorrow. But the good news is it's all relatively easy to fix and relatively quick to fix. And by that, I mean policies that imagine that we can quote, transition away from using lots of hydrocarbons, oil, gas, and coal to quickly stop using them in significant quantities and replace it with in the main wind and solar. That's not happening. It's not in the data. It's not going to happen, which is easy to demonstrate just given the velocities of the magnitude of economies and it's actually economically and geopolitically dangerous to try to push a energy transition faster than is, we'll call it technologically and economically feasible. We have a lot of history for two centuries of the velocities of big infrastructures, and there's nothing new here. Um, in the, in the energy world, we don't have any new physics. We know a lot about what it takes to make energy work for society. And when I say we, I mean the intellectual knowledge exists. It's not clear however, that enough people understand the realities.
Grayson Brulte: It seems that it's being politically driven. United States, our inflation rates down to 7.7%. It's gonna take trillions of dollars. Bloomberg, new energy finance estimates over the next three decades, 119 trillion, I mean, 119 trillion. We're going into a global recession. Interest rates are high. There's no money left to do this.
Mark P. Mills: Well first, governments can print money, which is which they do, and which is, which is an inflationary behavior, uh, governments can increase taxes to collect money, whether it's fees as tax, as a form of tax, and they're doing that all over the world, certainly in the United States and Europe. So, but I, but the bottom line is, you're right, there isn't, there is not enough money to replace the low cost hydrocarbon systems that exist with higher carb, higher cost, non hydrocarbon systems. It's not that we can't build lots of them, and we'll, we will, uh, doubtless spend trillions of dollars. In the coming decade on non hydrocarbon energy sources. And frankly, we should, by the way, it's not like we shouldn't be, uh, pursuing every possible way to, uh, provide options for energy for society. What I object to and, and what I think a lot of people who study this object to is what you'd have to call monomaniacal, focus on wind and solar is some magical replacement for hydrocarbons, and when I say monomaniacal focus, let's be clear that the forecasts for an energy transition almost entirely an are anchored in more wind and solar and batteries to moderate it. It's like 75% of the growth and energy in the sort of transition model that the International Energy Agency has some 75% of the energy that they imagine of net new energy will come from wind and solar. Uh, I, I just don't think that's gonna happen. Uh, I think the evidence is clear that we can't actually make that happen.
Grayson Brulte: I don't see how we can make it happen. Then, yet the geopolitical issues in China, the parts for the wind turbines come from China. The solar parts come from China. We're on the verge of a potential, another Tiananmen Square massacre over there with, with the crackdowns. We're already dependent on them. For EVs, we're seeing what's happening with Apple supply chain. It just seems like we're getting ourselves into a mess with, without clearly understanding geopolitics.
Mark P. Mills: I think the geopolitics are becoming easier to understand more quickly than the physics of energy, frankly, uh, that's, and, and that's probably is the way it should be. I mean, I got a bias towards physics, but, uh, in the re in the real world, um, Physics gets the win in the end, but money in politics matter an awful lot, and they actually take precedence. Good governments can try to violate laws of physics or do workarounds. It's, but, but your point is, is an important one. Uh, the world is what is awakened to the realities that something like 80 or 90% of all solar modules are manufactured in China. Uh, something on the order of 60 to 70% of all the critical battery chemicals and materials, the refined materials for lithium batteries, for electric cars are produced or refined in China.Uh, this is not an accident, it was a deliberate policy on the Chinese part, but, and I, and I'm all in for trade by the way. I think we should trade with people. I think global trade's a good thing. Uh, the challenge with trade is, is always one with respect to, we'll call it transparency and some semblance of equality in how we treat industries in terms of regulations and taxation subsidies. It's not easy, uh, but there's a huge asymmetry in what's going on. But, but the bottom line is we are dependent on China for the energy transition materials and machines. China is dependent on the rest of the world for hydrocarbons, and of course, China, like the rest of the world, it's primary sources of energy more than 80% for the world and more than 85% for China come from hydrocarbons. So their dependency in, in effect on the west is equal to or higher than our dependency on them. So we have a, we have a bilateral dependencies. The difference is the Chinese have more options on where to get oil, let's say than we have options on where to get solar modules. They dominate solar modules. We're the, we're one of the biggest players in oil, but there's lots of places to get oil.
Grayson Brulte:  There's lots of places. We just look at what Mark Rich did with Iran, the oil it's going to flow to China. I started studying some of the policy of President Xi and his Silk Road speeches, the maritime road speeches and President Xi of China would show up in Indonesia or show up in the Congo and he'd give a speech. All of a sudden, that's followed by a very large investment. There was a great line from an analyst I read, says, Chinese money comes without lectures. That's why we're taking their money. And suddenly, all the cobalt from the Congo, all of the nickel from Indonesia are going to China. Was this a deliberate strategy by the CCP to corner this market?
Mark P. Mills: Well sure, but it was a clearly publicly articulated strategy. It wasn't a secret strategy. So in the last two, five year plans or, or 10 year plans, I think I apologize, but I forget whether were the five year or 10 year plans. But certainly for the last 20 years, Chinese government has made it very clear that they, uh, have a strategy of foreign investment in minerals, basic metals, a strategy to, uh, do the same in their own country as well as more importantly, a strategy to provide incentives for. Uh, and remove barriers for the construction of refinery. So metals, whether it's copper or nickel, or more exotic metals like cobalt--all these metals after their mined have to be refined. Just like oil has to be refined at a gasoline, you have to produce a refined version and then convert the refined version of the metal or mineral into the specific chemical formulation needed to build whatever the thing is you're building. Uh, so you don't just take lithium outta the ground and import to a battery, that's not how it works. It comes in a specific chemical form. It has to be converted into another chemical form. All this takes energy, money, capital. But none of this, this is the irony here that whole array of technology, which the Chinese now dominate. It's not because they know something we don't know about the engineering. They didn't make any magical discovery about refining. They didn't advance the technology in some profoundly efficient and remarkable way. They're using technologies that are well known to everybody, that many cases we pioneered in America, or they were pioneered in Europe. And uh, they've just chosen to, to do it. They've made it easy for businesses to build. Uh, so the velocity of construction of a big refinery that costs billions of dollars, uh, matters. You put that much money at risk. If it takes five years to get a permit and five years to build it, where are you gonna build it? Where it takes five months to get a permit and, you know, another six months to build it, which would be China. In America where you do the five and five in years, if you're lucky, uh, or you end up having the permits drag on for more than a decade, which happens all the time. Given our, our regulatory environment and the manner in which we administer the regulations, not that we shouldn't have regulations for clean air, clean water, those kinds of things. It's how we go about administering it and making it possible for sort of what you have to call malicious interference and delays, uh, on the part of organizations and people who just don't want to have them in America at all, or don't want to have them anywhere, but they have no mechanism to oppose it in China. So in the end, so you get what you get is what we got, which is we don't, we don't build those kinds of refineries here. Chinese do. We provide incentives to, uh, buy electric vehicles with batteries made chem with chemicals refined in China, in minerals minded in Africa. I, I think that's a bad trade. Economically, geopolitically. I think it's probably a bad trade morally, and it's clearly a bad trade environmentally.
Grayson Brulte: It's bad morally. If you study the Congo. The child labor, the deaths, the injuries are appalling. They, they fall into these holes in the ground with the colbalt comes and, and they suffocate to death. That's not a good way to go. And you, you look at the torture that that's happened in China then from a carbon aspect to keep, move, put it on a ship right. To move it to China to refine ship to America. That's creating carbon. But China did this in the open Americas clearly said, we're going to an all electric future, but never built the infrastructure to do this. Why did we not put the infrastructure in place before we started transitioning to an electric future?
Mark P. Mills:  Well, we have the infrastructure. We just don't have as much as we needed to to meet the imaginations of an all electric future. The, the world has been electrifying for a hundred years, so we went from zero share of energy in electrical form, a little over a century ago. Well, 120 years, but let's just, you can round it off to a hundred years. The world wasn't very electrified in 1920, and we now have about 20% of the world's energy delivered in the form of electricity and in, in the west, in, in America and Europe. It's. More like a third to some cases, 40%. So it's a, it's a long one century rise, and that is gonna continue, we'll continue to electrify things that can be electrified, including a lot of transportation and a lot of electric vehicles. But to your point, uh, if you're going to increase electrification, uh, you become more dependent on the electric grid. Then the two things that matter are building a grid that's adequate to the task, which we're not in building one that's reliable. Uh, because the more dependent you are on electricity, whether it's to, to zoom, uh, or to use Google, Google maps or social media, uh, or more seriously, uh, the migration to cloud-based computing for all manner businesses. Which I've written a lot about on my new book. This is extremely important economic social progress, but it takes extraordinarily reliable electric grids to make an economy become more dependent on electricity and electric grids. You know, frankly, they're hard to make reliable utilities not, don't have a hell of a good job in the last century, but it's very difficult to make them because, uh, you know, electricity's hard to store first of all, and then you have added to that two other features. Nature keeps trying to break your stuff. Uh, you know, nature's been trying to kill humans and thinks humans built forever. So nature attacks you. And then human nature is a problem because humans operate cyclically, like this should be obvious. We sleep. It's not just that we sleep, we operate, our economies are sort of cyclical. They peak and they, they don't, they're not, they don't run flat out. But that means electric demand is cyclical and, and it can vary by, you know, two threefold, fourfold, you know, from peak to valley. And that's really hard to, to manage. You have to have grids that can handle the peaks without a lot of storage because storing is hard even. We're infatuated with lithium batteries now. For good reason. Lithium batteries are pretty amazing. It's still very hard to store electricity at scale society uses. So you basically have to build grids that can do all three things with, you know, withstand nature's insults with 10 human, human nature, right? And, and also, uh, just fundamentally delivered as sheer quantities of energy needed by society. So now you add electric cars, for example, great, but a single electric, you know, car charger has a peak power demand equal to your entire house for typical house. And if you make it a supercharger, then it's peak power. Demand is equal to the, a whole neighborhood of houses. So the upgrades required to electric grids are epic and frankly unprecedented in the timeframes that are imagined. So you, so why did we do it? Well, I guess , no, no one, uh, you could say the government, this government in America today is trying to do that. That's part of the subsidies in this new, uh, Orwellian named Inflation Reduction Act. But we haven't done it because there hasn't been demand. I mean, markets are pretty good at building things when there's real demand. Now we're trying to create artificial demand, you know, convince people to buy electric cars more quickly than they might otherwise buy them. Okay. That will have, that'll have a consequence. We'll probably see it, but we already saw it. I mean, you saw the irony when, uh, California, you know, Newsom's Governor Newsom signed the law to ban conventional cars, allowing only by an electric car by 2030 in California was only days later that he had to issue another announcement. For those who have an electric car today, please don't charge your cars. We're grid short. Okay. That'll happen a lot more often. And, and I think people won't like it. Probably we'll fix it by maybe changing who we vote for. I, uh, maybe. And if we don't, we'll have, you know, unreliable electricity in blackouts that, I mean, that'll be -- you're gonna get one of the two. Because we can't build, we can't build the grids at the velocity. People imagine.
Grayson Brulte: Look at California. I was speaking to a gentleman the other day. The port of San Pedro, Los Angeles, Long Beach. They're getting ready. They're building on infrastructure for class eight chargers. Let's call 'em as Elon, calls 'em mega chargers. Yeah. If you're gonna run electric class eight out of the port, where's the energy gonna come? The, the strain on the grid's gonna be even larger than you have the Marino Valley project that they're trying to do it as well. How it can't come from hydro dams with the water Lake Mead and the Colorado rivers going down. It reminds me of the saying you worked in the Reagan administration. Pre President Reagan had the great saying, trust, but verify . We're trusting but we're not verifying. Where's the disconnect here?
Mark P. Mills: Well, people, people are verifying they're doing, uh, energy planning by powerpoint. Instead of with engineers. So they put up graphs of, you know, we're gonna need this much more electricity, and, and you fill the gap with lots of windmills and solar arrays. So, okay. You can draw a graph like that, and then they'll then, if I say, well, what if, when the, you know, the sunsets, obviously the wind's not blowing, what do we do? Well, they, they draw a graph with lots of batteries. Okay. You can, you can say those things. So they are doing their form of verification, but to your point, The verification sort of has an upstream requirement as you sort of follow that tail. It's, I, as you know, I've done a lot of what I write about, and I'm not alone in this. No, you have to ask the question, well, how much will all, all that stuff cost? Where will we get it from? China mostly. Uh, and, and are we, and this is the critical thing, I mean the, the single biggest sort of bridge out, you know, this bridge to the future language everybody uses as an analogy that we have to have this bridge to the future without hydrocarbons. The bridge is built from metals and minerals, just like real bridges are. By that I mean everything that we build. Has to start with a mine somewhere where we get iron or to make steel where we get copper to make electrical things where we get lithium, make lithium batteries, where we get manganese for the batteries that use manganese or cobalt. So it all begins with mining. We know a lot about this. We know, we know how much, uh, uh, material is needed to build a machine to deliver a given amount of energy. And this is what we know. And this is International Energy Agency data, not Mark Mill's data. We know that it takes an increase in mining, uh, somewhere between 1000% and 7000% to deliver the same unit of energy to society. If we go the solar wind battery route instead of the hydrocarbon route. This is a, this is an unprecedented increase in demand for metals, uh, in all of human history. And I'd take the bet because we have a lot of history on how long it takes to open minds. It won't happen. , it's just not gonna happen in the timeframes people are talking about, which is a decade or two, we're not gonna increase the supply of these metals by 1000 to 7000% in the next decade or so. We know, we know that no one's, because we have data on this, we know that the mining industries globally are not now investing in or announcing investments in minds of that, opening new mines of that scale. Uh, there are new investments, but. They're very modest. They're, they're literally one 10th of what will be required to meet these demands. You could ask why they're not doing it. That's a whole different discussion, but the, it's still a fact that they are not doing it, and it's a fact that we need, just take copper's the oldest mined metal in all of civilization. We began mining copper before written history. We know lots about copper. We know where it is. We know how to mine it. We can make mines better. But we also know, given what we can do today with the technologies that exist today, cuz you're gonna have to use what exists today. You can't use what you're gonna invent in the future to build something today. This is that all these sort of infantile will make it better, okay? Yes, we'll make it better. So we'll wait till it's better to use it. But you can't, you can't use future technology today. So using what we know today with mines, you know, the IHS markets put out a study six months ago, a very good study just on copper. The energy transition plans will have the world short copper by 250%. There's the demand. 250% higher in a very few years for copper than the world is planning to produce. You don't open copper mines the way you open up a Starbucks. It's not the same thing. Google up picture pictures of copper mines and see how big they are, how big the holes in the earth are, and, and nevermind the environmental issues aside with associated with that. Just think in terms of the scale of physical machinery that have to be built and, and it deployed to do this plus here's the, the irony that machinery all burns oil. I mean, the global mining industry uses roughly as much oil as the global aviation industry, and we wanna increase the mining industry by two or three x. Okay? , where's the oil gonna come to run the mining industry if we're gonna ban oil.
Grayson Brulte: You can't ban oil. I repeat, you cannot ban oil. Oil, oil is only down 0.57% and some markets, the segment, it's actually increasing. And then you have BlackRock and UBS tell Texas, no, we're not gonna work with you. And Texas goes, oh yeah, we're gonna ban you for your fossil fuel stance. Yeah, it just doesn't, there's isn't any rationale. Hydrocarbons play a very important role in the, in the economy today. They play a very important role in energy. Why are we not taking a hybrid process? Okay, we want to transition to more renewable energy, but hydrocarbons play a very important role. Don't demonize 'em as you demonize them. Coal is going through the roof. Is at a 50 year high in terms of usage right now?
Mark P. Mills: Well, China's increased consumption to coal Asia in general at the moment is it's, your point, is epic at peak use China is, is at the moment announced plans and is already under construction building coalfire power plants. The new plants that they plan to build will use more coal than the United States does today for all purposes. So they, in fact, let's use, since this is all about carbon dioxide, let's put another little factoid out there. China's increased use of coal over the last decade and they're not slowing down, has emitted more CO2 than Britain has since the industrial Revolution. So the, the velocity of coal increase is now epic and being pursued for obvious reasons. Low cost electricity matters. By the way, the reason that China produces. Uh, 80% of the word solar modules is that making solar powered silicon, solar silicon, the silicon, the poly silicon to make solar modules is incredibly energy intensive. It takes a thousand times more energy to make a pound of silicon than a pound of steel. And so it's done with electric machines, electric furnaces and effect, and you do that with coal-fired electricity in China. So in a very ironic and real way, uh, solar modules are solidified coal. It's what they really, it's what they've done. They've taken coal, burned it, make electricity, and then converted, uh, you know, sand and quartz into, you know, uh, semi conducted grade silicone. So we, we have this, um, you know, you, you phrase this hybrid. Hybrid is to use the phrase that a former president, uh, used, and I would, let's just give him credit. President Biden, not Biden, sorry. President Obama is using it non cynically. Remember when he famously said he believed that we should have an energy policy of all of the above? Okay. I, let's just take it face value. It's, he is right. So let's, your, yours is a hybrid word. Through all of human history, new energy sources when we've found them or developed them or invented them, have been additive. They've not replaced. In fact, the quintessential example of that is wood, the oldest energy source. full stop, right? There's not , there's not, you know, the dawn of fire, we burned wood. We didn't burn dung first. We burned wood cuz wood, you know, wood is wood. You know, dry wood is just a nice fuel. Still is. So the world today in absolute quantity terms, uses uh, about the same amount of wood it did a century or two ago. We still burn a lot of wood. In fact, energy supply from burning wood globally is still triple the energy supply from wind and solar combined globally. So wood hasn't gone away. Uh, it hasn't increased. It's certainly not our primary source of energy for the world, but it's still around as we've added other sources of energy on top of it, notably first coal, and then of course the oil and gas, and then, you know, hydro and nuclear power. Now wind and solar. All, all good stuff, right? Uh, we'll have lots more of all the above. If you want to, if you wanna provide more incentives for one or the other, for some geopolitical, social, economic, or emotional reason or environmental reason. Okay. That, that, I mean, that's what governments do. It's hard. You can argue against that when it's excessive. I don't find it very productive to argue against win production tax credits. Okay. Well, you know, we have tax credits for other stuff. I think they're excessive. There wouldn't be as many wind farms if we didn't have the tax credits, but okay if we're gonna make that decision, but just leave the oil and gas guys alone. I just, if you leave 'em alone, they'll make sure the windmills will be able to operate economically and productively on grids because we'll have cheap gas to do the arbitrage, the hybridization, if you like. I mean, our economy, uh, just like our cars, a hybrid is better than. In, in a technical sense in either either of the two. A gasoline powered car can be made more efficient by hybridizing it, and it's actually a better vehicle than an all electric car. That's actually true of electric grid broadly, or the energy system of our society broadly. Hybrid architectures can be extremely efficient and flexible give you a lot of optionality, which is what you'd want. Again, because nature's mean to humans and humans can be stupid. We break stuff. So you want to have, you wanna have options. You want to be able to have very flexible systems.
Grayson Brulte:  You want options. Give you an example. You live in a storm area, power goes out, the generator runs on gas. Mm-hmm. , you can make dinner that evening. That's an example of hybrid. Well, gas, you could say it's relatively cheap. Now, JP Morgan's predicting it's gonna rise to $90 a barrel in 2023, $98 a barrel in 2024 due to supply and balance. And meanwhile, you have a statement from the Department of Energy. They're not gonna refill a strategic patrol reserve until it gets to $70. JP Morgan says, we're, we're not getting there anytime soon. What's gonna happen with our, with the oil energy policy?
Mark P. Mills: Well, you know, you were talking earlier about people demonizing hydrocarbons and the, the two people that aren't demonizing hydrocarbons are, uh, JP Morgan's, CEO, Jamie Diamond, and ironically Elon Musk. I mean, maybe you could kind of expect Jamie Diamond to say what he said before Congress, you know, a month or so ago when he was asked directly point blank whether or not they should not, they, the bank should stop funding oil and gas industries and try to abandon oil and gas. And he said the quote was something that, that would be a road to hell. Uh, and, uh, but that he meant social and economic hell because, look, what you said earlier, let's just re reemphasize it globally, about 82% of world's energy comes from hydrocarbons. 82%. Uh, that number was 84% 20 years ago, so it's down two percentage points in 20 years after trillions of dollars of spending on non hydrocarbons. But that's the vast majority of the society's energy is hydrocarbons. When Elon Musk, and he said this several times in, in the, in the recent months, he, he, uh, and I'm paraphrasing, but I we can, you can find this on the magic Dr. Google machine, but he said something like, I'm not, I'm not one to demonize fossil fuels. And he also said, we should be drilling more. And he didn't say, we should stop making electric cars. Of course not. Again, to your point about hybridization or all the above, you need both. You need all the above. You want cheap energy. So JP Morgan's forecast and energy is based on looking at the demand side. You know what the world is doing. Even in a recessionary environment, we still use oil in a recessionary environment. If you get a full-on depression, you can reduce oil demand, but in recessions, oil demand growth just slows, doesn't go away. It's, it's never super fast and it's never super slow, it just chugs along. So they're looking at the demand side and they're looking at the supply side and what the, the, what JP Morgan knows is clear in the data, that global investment in new production, by that, I mean, mainly the European and US companies is at an epic low level. Uh, so investing in new production, which began to decline in 2015, by the way under either ESG pressures in Europe first and then increasing pressures in America. So the businesses and politicians that have been pressuring oil and gas companies to invest less in the future got their wish. They got their wish, they have invested. And that will have a consequence, which is higher prices because demand is not going away. It's sustaining or going up slowly. Supply is declining faster than demand's growing, and that always leads to higher prices. How long those prices stay high is always a function of how long it takes markets to respond and start drilling more. Uh, that's sort of obvious when you state it, but if you create impediments to the industry that's doing the drilling, Or ban them outright or defund them outright, then you're just guaranteeing high prices. You're not guaranteeing people are gonna, quote, transition, you're guaranteeing high oil prices for the essential roles that it's, uh, undertaking. And they also guaranteeing a shift on who's producing the oil. So, you know, we're still the largest producer of oil in the world, the United States. Despite the rhetoric about, you know, what this administration's done, they've thrown up lots of roadblocks to expansion. Let's be clear the US is still the world's biggest producer of oil and natural gas. we're, but roughly speaking, the three big dogs are us, OPEC and Russia. Russia's shrunk a little bit, but not a lot. Uh, we shrunk a tiny amount, not a lot. OPEC's increasing production, and they've announced massive increases in investments for new, new production because they know it's true what I just said. The world's gonna need more, and if we decide to produce less, we meaning the Western oil and gas companies, well, what a gift to OPEC because they'll get to fill the gap. It's not just they'll get to fill the gap at yesterday's prices. They'll get to fill a gap at tomorrow's prices, which by virtue of our action, we're ensuring will be higher. So put very simply and simplistically what these policies do is ensure a greater wealth transfer from us to them, and not small numbers, trillions of dollars, uh, over a period of a decade of wealth will transfer from the middle class cuz it's middle class who pay the stuff from the middle class of America and Europe to the, uh, oil oligarchs of the Middle East. It's, uh, I, I think that's a bad trade. Uh, and it's the trade we're engineering and I guess we could be grateful that they're gonna go ahead and take our money and make sure we can keep our economy running.
Grayson Brulte: There seems that there's a, a lack of understanding history. We'll go back before OPEC, it was the seven sisters. Some people refer them as a cartel. Yeah. It seems to me we're making the same mistake. We're we're demonizing the wrong company. When I, when my same mistake in 1999 states was the world number one producer of minerals. Today it's China. Okay. We were energy independent at one point and then we had minerals at one point, and then we outsource them. It just seems like we're completely misaligned and then right in the middle is somebody on a fixed income that's depending on the dividends from the oil companies to sustain the retirement for not relying on the government. It just seems like the policy is a lose lose across the board economically.
Mark P. Mills: Well, it is a lose-lose policy because it does two things. It increases the direct cost of energy for people and the middle class are hurt the most. We engineer subsidies for the poorest and tax middle class for that because most of the money comes from the middle class, just arithmetically. You don't have to, it has nothing to do with political philosophy. It's just a fact. Right? That's where tax taxes come from. So we, we increase direct costs, but we also fueled inflation. I mean, energy fueled inflation is usually evanescent, right? We get a, you get a high price oil, $140 a barrel, if you look at history, it doesn't last very long, high prices tend to cause a reaction and they tend to collapse, not just cuz a lot more production comes online, but people react to those prices, they change their behaviors, they fly less, they take fewer vacations, all the rest of that stuff. But if you create an environment where you make it difficult to produce an adequate quantity energy and oil specifically and natural gas, the prices will stay high. So you'll get two things. You, you'll get high cost, direct cost to heat your home, drive your car. But if you sustain high prices for the inputs of energy to make stuff. Everything is made with energy. Then you get systemic inflation to your point, uh, earlier, uh, you know, ships and trucks and airplanes carry goods. Well, sure. Uh, for air, for aircraft, which is an easy one, about a third of the cost of running a an aircraft is its fuel purchases. Uh, so you could do the math, increase fuel cost 10%, it increases by three percentage points, the cost of your ticket, let's say. But if I double the cost of oil and I leave it high, again, do the math, and I've increased the ticket by 30%. People are, you know, they, they spent hours on Kayak and other websites, you know, Priceline searching for five and 10% discounts, and we're, we're putting ourselves in a path. We're increasing the cost of things that energy is used to do, including food, especially food, but also all kinds of manufactured goods, we're fueling that with inflation and we're adding to that mineral inflation. This is perhaps the most poorly appreciated and least analyzed feature of the energy policies that are being implemented, which is that by increasing our demand for copper and nickel in particular, but all other suite of metals and minerals, to build these energy machines and including exotic minerals like neodymium, which you have to use to make the motors and wind turbines. Almost a half a ton of neodymium in each wind turbine and the wind plans for the world will demand, uh, something on the order of as much neodymium every week as we now produce annually. So we're, we're not increasing neodymium production by 50 fold anywhere in the world. So let's make neodymium become more expensive. Wind turbines have become more expensive because of mineral costs. It's already happened. Batteries have already become more expensive the last two years because of mineral costs of copper, lithium, cobalt, copper's up 200%. Uh, nickels up about 300%. Lithium is up 800% in the last three years, uh, because of demands outrunning supply. But that spills over, not just into making the green machines more expensive, it spills over into everything else that's made from those metals, which is all, all appliances are made from copper. They have to have copper and electrical systems. Plumbing is copper. You can switch to plastic plumbing, which is a hydrocarbon by the way. So you, it's so, you can't, we are, we're fueling systemic inflation in a way that's sort of unprecedented. And meanwhile, the Fed is trying to fight inflation by raising interest rates . What the Fed can't do is a great line. Uh, I think, I think one of the presidents, one of the federal reserves said the Fed can print money, but it can't print oil. They can't print copper either. So by making money more expensive, they make it more expensive for the next oil well or the next copper mine. Cuz you have to borrow money to put the capital equipment in place. So you've, you systemically increase costs, which is, which is what, you know, you started out asking the state of the world, it's a mess. It's a mess because we are implementing policies that won't work, but it's worse than that they won't work, it's that it's systemically increasing cost for people and it's systemically fueling inflation. And I, I think that's gonna get reversed cuz people really hate inflation. And when they finally figure out what's causing inflation and they will, it becomes sort of obvious energy is the first thing people think about. But then when you think about the mineral side, as the more they learn about this, I think the more unhappy people will become and politicians and most democracies eventually tend to react when the electorate gets really unhappy. I mean, it takes time. It's not like I'm being cynical about it taking time. You could argue it's reasonable. It takes time because many of these inflationary pressures are evanescent and if you overreact to a short-term inflation by making big policy changes, that's probably not a good idea. So, you know, people are, I think, reasonably patient to wait to see how it's gonna work. And so that's, that's sort of my feeling. What's going on is that the electorate is sort of being somewhat patient, I mean, sort of philosophical here instead of about seeing how it's gonna work out. And it's becoming increasing clear, it's not working out so well. And I think what'll happen increasingly is policy makers will say, wow, I, I gotta do something else. They're not gonna capitulate and say, oh my, my bad solar, we don't need solar anymore and I'm not gonna do, uh, electric vehicle subsidies. That's not gonna happen in my opinion. What will happen is we'll do both to your point, they'll finally capitulate to the logical strategy, which is to, uh, make it possible for the markets that produce the energy the world needs, including hydrocarbons.
Grayson Brulte:  There's an area of inflation that I've been studying a lot in great detail that the public really hasn't tuned into yet, but I started looking into it. Hotel inflation, AAR, Average Available Room rate. Yeah, there's a lot of inflation that's starting to creep there. It's not just the United States. I'm looking at it globally, and you look at some of these tourism numbers are starting to go down. So as you mentioned, the fuel costs for the aircraft are going up astronomically. The hotel prices are going up -- the inflation's there, but is being mostly driven by the shortage in labor. Now consumers don't spend, the economic dollars aren't traveling. We're coming full circle on this inflation picture. It's not pretty.
Mark P. Mills: No. Uh, the hotel one is fascinating. Um, I've looked at a lot of this too. I've got a piece coming out early in the year on technology and inflation because I'm being very simplistic. But inflation is fueled by the obvious, right? If you print too much money, which governments tend to do, you have too much money chasing too few goods, yada yada, inflation. But the other part is if you want to tamp down inflation, right? You increase the supply. If you increase supply, if you provide incentives to increase supply, whatever it is, oil, labor, uh, you, you get the controlled inflation. So we have a labor shortage, uh, and the labor shortage---if you're the worker, this is a good thing. You have pricing power. It means that you can ask more for your, your salary. So what is the solution to that? I mean, the solution to that feels immoral. Even though this is what you could say business would want, or the Fed might want, is you wanna pay people less. You want, you want the, you want the power on the other side of the equation to say, I'm just not gonna pay you what you thought and I'm gonna fire you cause I can hire somebody else. Okay. Uh, I don't like that solution. The solution I like, and this is a different subject. it may be a subject for another episode. It's, it's sort of the core thesis of my book, you know, The Cloud Revolution, which is, uh, I have a large section of it on robotics and automation. Both virtual robots, you know, AI in the cloud, and physical robots. The way you get more labor is you let robots, both physical and virtual, assist humans. So I, let's be simplistic, if I can double the labor pool, if I can make each employee twice as productive, equal to two people, but I only have to pay half as much for the machine, whether it's a virtual machine or real machine. As a human, I can pay the human more, and it's now deflationary in a sense, it's anti inflationary cuz I have doubled the product ---the labor--- at only a 50% increase in cost, roughly speaking. And a, a big share of that has gone to the human, not just to the robot. This is great. This is, this is not just, uh, productive, it's a very definition of productivity. It's productive and wealth creating. It's morally and socially what we've been doing, big picture, a hundred years where we could, people get, can get paid more, but we get more product for less net money on the other side of it. That's where I think the world's gonna go, but it will be harder to get it there if we make capital expensive, cuz robots are capital intensive. It'll make it harder to get there if we make energy expensive because, You know, robots take fuel. It takes energy to make the robots, it takes energy to run the robots. It takes energy to heat those buildings because there's people in them, not just robots. They, they be heated and cold. So if you make an electric grid, expensive, the operating costs of the hotels one of the biggest costs in a hotel other than people. Is there electric bill? Right. Hotels are very electric intensive buildings. Much more so than an office building because you know, an office building has computers and lights in it. That's it. Hotels have all kinds of toys and gadgets and hot tubs and pools and, you know, and, and they're usually, the hotels are where it's hot, so they have lots of air conditioning cuz people typically don't go on vacation to my homeland in the summer, which is Canada, they go the other direction.
Grayson Brulte: Energy makes the world go round. What is the best path forward? In terms of the mix of energy to meet all these demands. So when you go into the hotel, you can have the air conditioning. When you want to get in your EV, you can do it. Or if you want to get in your hybrid car, you can do it. What's the best mix of energy?
Mark P. Mills: So it's even more than the energy makes the world go around. Nothing. Nothing exists without energy. I mean, I can be, I can be, uh, a little philosophical, uh, in the physics domain. I mean, energy is the foundational reality of the universe. Matter doesn't exist, but for the, what we can do with energy to convince atoms to combine in unusual ways, that's what manufacturing is, and it requires energy. Humans don't exist but for energy, the energetics of the ATP molecule is the magic thing that makes humanity possible. It's an en, it's an energy machine. Anyway, I digress. Energy is so fundamental, it's breathtakingly silly to have policies that lead to more expensive, less reliable energy. So the answer to the question is, policy should be driven to increase availability and lower costs. Availability in terms of getting it when I need it in reliability sense and getting it when I need it in growth sense, more growth is more energy, more electrification. It needs more reliability, which costs energy because you have to build bigger systems which take energy. So how do you supply the primary energy sources? Well, you do the all the above, but the question usually in people's heads, is what's the new thing I can do different? I mean, if I'm really wrapped up with the idea that I shouldn't be using so many hydrocarbons, what can I do different other than wind and solar? And I'll stipulate again. We should do more wind and solar. And if I were guessing today how, what the net growth will be in the wind and solar contribution of the world's energy, it's gonna to double or triple for sure. For sure. On a global scale, that's a lot of windmills and solar arrays. But if it doubles or triples it's contribution to the world's energy. It'll get all the way up to 10 or 12 or 15% of world energy where it's at three and a half percent today. Where's the other 80% come from? 90%. Well, okay. Some hydrogen dams burning wood still, by the way, lots of oil and gas and coal still, but the only, the only magical energy source that's underutilized, that's truly phenomenologically magical, of course, is nuclear fission, and often is a question in people's heads. What about nuclear power? Well, what about it? We know, we know a lot about nuclear energy. We've got a lot of decades of experience. We've really haven't figured out until very recently, how build the kind of reactors that we really need at scale. And I, but I don't mean just the bigger reactors. We need those, the really big power plants are important to big grids, but we know that there's lots of solutions that are not, don't require magic or an imagination or basic research. So the future is gonna be anchored in two things. if we really were serious about it, other than more of everything else we already used, including hydrocarbons and including wind and solar. In the nearer term, the only thing that we could really push a lever, it's nuclear. And that's really a fundamentally a regulatory problem. In the West, we make it very hard to build nuclear plants. We have to fix that system cuz there's 70 different designs. I mean, the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, has identified 70 dozen new designs for nuclear reactors. I dare say every one of them will work. Technically we know how to build these things and they're not all big reactors. Some of them are, are small enough to be, I'll call house size, not the size of your house. The amount of power that a house needs, these are kilowatt class reactors. NASA's already built these for the moon base and the Mars base. We, we are technically capable of building reactors that are a megawatt scale size of a container on the back of a truck that could power a whole neighborhood. You bury the reactor with an on-off switch. It has only one fail mode, which is off. It would run for 30 or 40 years, uh, with no fuel, no refueling. What sounds magical. These things are all technically feasible. We could accelerate all that. That's, that would be the single biggest transformation. But, but again, let's assume half of all electricity came from nuclear power. 30 years from now, if we get the world to where America is, a third of all energies is in electric, goes to electricity, that's only taking 15 percentage points off the table. Right. Uh, the whole world's energy needs, so it's not, it's, it's not going to eliminate hydrocarbons, but it'll certainly tamp down the growth demand for coal and gas significantly. Then you're left with, well, what about really transformational stuff like fusion or satellite solar power, which is actually more practical than fusion, by the way. There's no limit to energy. The thing about the physics of energy is it's unlimited, fundamentally unlimited. Building supply energy for society is dictated by our capacities to build machines that are affordable and useful. And that requires kind of innovation that is anchored in discoveries for new materials that don't now exist. So could they ever exist? Sure. That's what called basic research called, right. Uh, we'll find things that will feel magical to us today. I mean, one of the great science fiction writers, Arthur C. Clarke, famously had his three laws, but one of his most famous laws was any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, so as you say it, it's obvious, right? Well, the trick is, what is the technology and Bill Gates to quote somebody else who's obviously smart, cuz he's a what rich guy. Rich guys are of course always smart, but I'm being unfairly facetious. He's a smart guy and when he, when he talks about the future of energy, uh, I'll end my, my rant with quoting Bill Gates cuz I agree with him on this. He has said many, many times recently and over the last decade that the technologies that we need to transform society away from hydrocarbons---his words---don't exist today. They don't exist. He said that, I've said it. He said it. We, we know that's a fact. So then he says, but there doesn't mean there. There aren't gonna ever be technologies. That's where you need basic research. But he said very correctly that there is in his line is a good line is for those there's no predictor function now, which is sort of a geeky way of saying, you know, nerds speak. We don't, we can't predict the future. like, okay, we knew that, but, but he didn't mean that we can't predict the future in a sense that we can't predict that they'll be new technologies we can predict that there will be new technologies. We can, we don't have a predictor function. We don't have the capacity to break when they will appear. And that's really annoying. The policymakers, they hate that. They wanna, they wanna order up the future today. And what they're doing is they're subsidizing yesterday's technology so, If there were a grand scheme, it would be unleash the hydrocarbons. Don't abandon wind solar batteries, just don't over subsidize them. That's silly. And subsidize more basic research. That's the, that's the trifecta. Do that and we'll have a really, a really great, exciting, profitable, productive future for humanity.
Grayson Brulte: And we always have to keep innovating because nothing exists without energy as you said, Mark, because today is tomorrow, tomorrow is today, and the future is an all above energy policy. Mark, thank you so much for coming on SAE Tomorrow Today.
Mark P. Mills: Thanks for having me on. Appreciate it.
Grayson Brulte: Thank you for listening to SAE Tomorrow Today. If you've enjoyed this episode and would like to hear more, please kindly rate, review, and let us know what topics you'd like for us to explore next. Be sure to join us next week as we speak with Mark Gottfredson, partner at Bain &amp; Company. On this episode, he'll discuss market consolidation, the mobility industry, and the economic impacts of downturns. SAE International makes no representations as to the accuracy of the information presented in this podcast. The information and opinions are for general information only. S. SAE International does not endorse, approve, recommend or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this podcast.
출처: Problem(s) with Replacing Fossil Fuels | SAE Tomorrow Today]]> Tue, 16 Jan 2024 18:18:58 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[Here's what needs to happen to achieve safe self-driving cars]]> Here's what needs to happen to achieve safe self-driving cars
The tech is farther away than it seems.
IAN KRIETZBERG   SEP 11, 2023 11:16 AM EDT
Elon Musk's vision for Tesla  (TSLA) - Get Free Report is not just to revolutionize the push toward electric vehicles. He wants to revolutionize the entire industry, notably by selling a car that lacks a steering wheel but has the ability to drive itself.
Tesla has since released a few versions of advanced driver assist software, Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. But Tesla's FSD is a bit of a misnomer; cars using FSD do not truly drive themselves. The driver has to be ready to take over if necessary, as the self-driving software is still far from being safe and reliable, something Musk himself inadvertently proved during a recent demo of the tech.
Despite constant promises that true FSD is right around the corner, the tech is just not yet at a safe point for mass distribution, UChicago computer science professor and AI expert Bo Li said in an interview with TheStreet.

The road to self-driving cars

There are three main things that need to happen to propel self-driving cars forward.
"First of all, rigorous standardized testing is very important," Li said. "Every company has their own simulators and testing platforms, but there's no standardized testing yet."
A standard, third-party baseline will ensure a more objective perspective of an individual model's safety and vulnerabilities.
The second step involves a different approach to ensuring the trustworthiness of a car that is being powered and controlled by an artificial intelligence model: increasing the number of models. A single model in control of a car, Li said, is "very dangerous." But a self-driving car being powered by multiple, segregated components is much more sophisticated, and therefore, much safer. "We need to have various components to work together with a car, for instance, adding the traffic rules as a logical knowledge database, or adding the regulations so that the cars have not a single model," Li said. More Tesla: The last step, specifically for those cars that are trained on real-world data, is that researchers need to be positive that self-driving cars are behaving as expected in normal cases, but also in rare events. The issue with this is there is far more data on normal events — driving down a highway, for instance — than there is on the kind of rare events that can result in accidents. "When you train a model on real-world collected data, you're not seeing those patterns enough, and this leaves a lot of holes," Li said. "The model could be vulnerable in those special events." With analysts and investors bullish on the possibility of a thriving robotaxi industry by 2030, Li thinks it's difficult to know how long it will take to actually get there. But she said it'll likely be longer than optimistic end-of-decade prediction — researchers and engineers both need "slightly more time to understand" the new AI models that are coming out. She's not even sure that fully self-driving cars in every environment will ever be truly possible (or safe.) The tech, Li said, can be leveraged well in simple scenarios, such as highway driving. "But for generic autonomous driving in urban places, I think it's very hard because the scenarios are too complicated," she said. "For models, we cannot control the outcome. I think at this stage, we should control the use-case of scenario and domains to benefit from them." "I feel it's very dangerous to let them just go widely in any scenario." Tesla is currently facing a number of investigations into the safety of its FSD software. If you work for Tesla, contact Ian by email ian.krietzberg@thearenagroup.net or Signal 732-804-1223 Forget Tesla – We’re all-in on this EV stock
출처: Here's what needs to happen to achieve safe self-driving cars - TheStreet
]]> Mon, 18 Sep 2023 13:34:01 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[WHAT SELF-DRIVING CARS TELL US ABOUT AI RISKS]]> WHAT SELF-DRIVING CARS TELL US ABOUT AI RISKS 5 conclusions from an automation expert fresh off a stint with the U.S. highway safety agency [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="1200"]A white car with instruments mounted on the roof and with the word “Cruise” emblazoned on its front door stands in a pedestrian crossing on a busy street in San Francisco, with people walking past it This self-driving Cruise robotaxi got stuck at a crossroads in San Francisco in 2019, inconveniencing pedestrians. ANDREJ SOKOLOW/PICTURE-ALLIANCE/AP[/caption] N 2016, JUST WEEKS before the Autopilot in his Tesla drove Joshua Brown to his death, I pleaded with the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in vehicles. Neither my pleading nor Brown’s death could stir the government to action. Since then, automotive AI in the United States has been linked to at least 25 confirmed deaths and to hundreds of injuries and instances of property damage. The lack of technical comprehension across industry and government is appalling. People do not understand that the AI that runs vehicles—both the cars that operate in actual self-driving modes and the much larger number of cars offering advanced driving assistance systems (ADAS)—are based on the same principles as ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs). These systems control a car’s lateral and longitudinal position—to change lanes, brake, and accelerate—without waiting for orders to come from the person sitting behind the wheel. Both kinds of AI use statistical reasoning to guess what the next word or phrase or steering input should be, heavily weighting the calculation with recently used words or actions. Go to your Google search window and type in “now is the time” and you will get the result “now is the time for all good men.” And when your car detects an object on the road ahead, even if it’s just a shadow, watch the car’s self-driving module suddenly brake. Neither the AI in LLMs nor the one in autonomous cars can “understand” the situation, the context, or any unobserved factors that a person would consider in a similar situation. The difference is that while a language model may give you nonsense, a self-driving car can kill you. In late 2021, despite receiving threats to my physical safety for daring to speak truth about the dangers of AI in vehicles, I agreed to work with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as the senior safety advisor. What qualified me for the job was a doctorate focused on the design of joint human-automated systems and 20 years of designing and testing unmanned systems, including some that are now used in the military, mining, and medicine. My time at NHTSA gave me a ringside view of how real-world applications of transportation AI are or are not working. It also showed me the intrinsic problems of regulation, especially in our current divisive political landscape. My deep dive has helped me to formulate five practical insights. I believe they can serve as a guide to industry and to the agencies that regulate them. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="992"]A white car with running lights on and with the word u201cWaymou201d emblazoned on the rear door stands in a street, with other cars backed up behind it. In February 2023 this Waymo car stopped in a San Francisco street, backing up traffic behind it. The reason? The back door hadn’t been completely closed.TERRY CHEA/AP[/caption]

1. Human errors in operation get replaced by human errors in coding

Proponents of autonomous vehicles routinely assert that the sooner we get rid of drivers, the safer we will all be on roads. They cite the NHTSA statistic that 94 percent of accidents are caused by human drivers. But this statistic is taken out of context and inaccurate. As the NHTSA itself noted in that report, the driver’s error was “the last event in the crash causal chain…. It is not intended to be interpreted as the cause of the crash.” In other words, there were many other possible causes as well, such as poor lighting and bad road design. Moreover, the claim that autonomous cars will be safer than those driven by humans ignores what anyone who has ever worked in software development knows all too well: that software code is incredibly error-prone, and the problem only grows as the systems become more complex.

While a language model may give you nonsense, a self-driving car can kill you.

Consider these recent crashes in which faulty software was to blame. There was the October 2021 crash of a Pony.ai driverless car into a sign, the April 2022 crash of a TuSimple tractor trailer into a concrete barrier, the June 2022 crash of a Cruise robotaxi that suddenly stopped while making a left turn, and the March 2023 crash of another Cruise car that rear-ended a bus. These and many other episodes make clear that AI has not ended the role of human error in road accidents. That role has merely shifted from the end of a chain of events to the beginning—to the coding of the AI itself. Because such errors are latent, they are far harder to mitigate. Testing, both in simulation but predominantly in the real world, is the key to reducing the chance of such errors, especially in safety-critical systems. However, without sufficient government regulation and clear industry standards, autonomous-vehicle companies will cut corners in order to get their products to market quickly.

2. AI failure modes are hard to predict

A large language model guesses which words and phrases are coming next by consulting an archive assembled during training from preexisting data. A self-driving module interprets the scene and decides how to get around obstacles by making similar guesses, based on a database of labeled images—this is a car, this is a pedestrian, this is a tree—also provided during training. But not every possibility can be modeled, and so the myriad failure modes are extremely hard to predict. All things being equal, a self-driving car can behave very differently on the same stretch of road at different times of the day, possibly due to varying sun angles. And anyone who has experimented with an LLM and changed just the order of words in a prompt will immediately see a difference in the system’s replies. One failure mode not previously anticipated is phantom braking. For no obvious reason, a self-driving car will suddenly brake hard, perhaps causing a rear-end collision with the vehicle just behind it and other vehicles further back. Phantom braking has been seen in the self-driving cars of many different manufacturers and in ADAS-equipped cars as well.

Ross Gerber, behind the wheel, and Dan O’Dowd, riding shotgun, watch as a Tesla Model S, running Full Self-Driving software, blows past a stop sign.

THE DAWN PROJECT

The cause of such events is still a mystery. Experts initially attributed it to human drivers following the self-driving car too closely (often accompanying their assessments by citing the misleading 94 percent statistic about driver error). However, an increasing number of these crashes have been reported to NHTSA. In May 2022, for instance, the NHTSA sent a letter to Tesla noting that the agency had received 758 complaints about phantom braking in Model 3 and Y cars. This past May, the German publication Handelsblattreported on 1,500 complaints of braking issues with Tesla vehicles, as well as 2,400 complaints of sudden acceleration. It now appears that self-driving cars experience roughly twice the rate of rear-end collisions as do cars driven by people. Clearly, AI is not performing as it should. Moreover, this is not just one company’s problem—all car companies that are leveraging computer vision and AI are susceptible to this problem. As other kinds of AI begin to infiltrate society, it is imperative for standards bodies and regulators to understand that AI failure modes will not follow a predictable path. They should also be wary of the car companies’ propensity to excuse away bad tech behavior and to blame humans for abuse or misuse of the AI.

3. Probabilistic estimates do not approximate judgment under uncertainty

Ten years ago, there was significant hand-wringing over the rise of IBM’s AI-based Watson, a precursor to today’s LLMs. People feared AI would very soon cause massive job losses, especially in the medical field. Meanwhile, some AI experts said we should stop training radiologists. These fears didn’t materialize. While Watson could be good at making guesses, it had no real knowledge, especially when it came to making judgments under uncertainty and deciding on an action based on imperfect information. Today’s LLMs are no different: The underlying models simply cannot cope with a lack of information and do not have the ability to assess whether their estimates are even good enough in this context. These problems are routinely seen in the self-driving world. The June 2022 accident involving a Cruise robotaxi happened when the car decided to make an aggressive left turn between two cars. As the car safety expert Michael Woon detailed in a report on the accident, the car correctly chose a feasible path, but then halfway through the turn, it slammed on its brakes and stopped in the middle of the intersection. It had guessed that an oncoming car in the right lane was going to turn, even though a turn was not physically possible at the speed the car was traveling. The uncertainty confused the Cruise, and it made the worst possible decision. The oncoming car, a Prius, was not turning, and it plowed into the Cruise, injuring passengers in both cars. Cruise vehicles have also had many problematic interactions with first responders, who by default operate in areas of significant uncertainty. These encounters have included Cruise cars traveling through active firefighting and rescue scenes and driving over downed power lines. In one incident, a firefighter had to knock the window out of the Cruise car to remove it from the scene. Waymo, Cruise’s main rival in the robotaxi business, has experienced similar problems. These incidents show that even though neural networks may classify a lot of images and propose a set of actions that work in common settings, they nonetheless struggle to perform even basic operations when the world does not match their training data. The same will be true for LLMs and other forms of generative AI. What these systems lack is judgment in the face of uncertainty, a key precursor to real knowledge.

4. Maintaining AI is just as important as creating AI

Because neural networks can only be effective if they are trained on significant amounts of relevant data, the quality of the data is paramount. But such training is not a one-and-done scenario: Models cannot be trained and then sent off to perform well forever after. In dynamic settings like driving, models must be constantly updated to reflect new types of cars, bikes, and scooters, construction zones, traffic patterns, and so on. In the March 2023 accident, in which a Cruise car hit the back of an articulated bus, experts were surprised, as many believed such accidents were nearly impossible for a system that carries lidar, radar, and computer vision. Cruise attributed the accident to a faulty model that had guessed where the back of the bus would be based on the dimensions of a normal bus; additionally, the model rejected the lidar data that correctly detected the bus.

Software code is incredibly error-prone, and the problem only grows as the systems become more complex.

This example highlights the importance of maintaining the currency of AI models. “Model drift” is a known problem in AI, and it occurs when relationships between input and output data change over time. For example, if a self-driving car fleet operates in one city with one kind of bus, and then the fleet moves to another city with different bus types, the underlying model of bus detection will likely drift, which could lead to serious consequences. Such drift affects AI working not only in transportation but in any field where new results continually change our understanding of the world. This means that large language models can’t learn a new phenomenon until it has lost the edge of its novelty and is appearing often enough to be incorporated into the dataset. Maintaining model currency is just one of many ways that AI requires periodic maintenance, and any discussion of AI regulation in the future must address this critical aspect.

5. AI has system-level implications that can’t be ignored

Self-driving cars have been designed to stop cold the moment they can no longer reason and no longer resolve uncertainty. This is an important safety feature. But as Cruise, Tesla, and Waymo have demonstrated, managing such stops poses an unexpected challenge. A stopped car can block roads and intersections, sometimes for hours, throttling traffic and keeping out first-response vehicles. Companies have instituted remote-monitoring centers and rapid-action teams to mitigate such congestion and confusion, but at least in San Francisco, where hundreds of self-driving cars are on the road, city officials have questioned the quality of their responses. Self-driving cars rely on wireless connectivity to maintain their road awareness, but what happens when that connectivity drops? One driver found out the hard way when his car became entrapped in a knot of 20 Cruise vehicles that had lost connection to the remote-operations center and caused a massive traffic jam. Of course, any new technology may be expected to suffer from growing pains, but if these pains become serious enough, they will erode public trust and support. Sentiment towards self-driving cars used to be optimistic in tech-friendly San Francisco, but now it has taken a negative turn due to the sheer volume of problems the city is experiencing. Such sentiments may eventually lead to public rejection of the technology if a stopped autonomous vehicle causes the death of a person who was prevented from getting to the hospital in time. So what does the experience of self-driving cars say about regulating AI more generally? Companies not only need to ensure they understand the broader systems-level implications of AI, they also need oversight—they should not be left to police themselves. Regulatory agencies must work to define reasonable operating boundaries for systems that use AI and issue permits and regulations accordingly. When the use of AI presents clear safety risks, agencies should not defer to industry for solutions and should be proactive in setting limits. AI still has a long way to go in cars and trucks. I’m not calling for a ban on autonomous vehicles. There are clear advantages to using AI, and it is irresponsible for people to call on a ban, or even a pause, on AI. But we need more government oversight to prevent the taking of unnecessary risks. And yet the regulation of AI in vehicles isn’t happening yet. That can be blamed in part on industry overclaims and pressure, but also on a lack of capability on the part of regulators. The European Union has been more proactive about regulating artificial intelligence in general and in self-driving cars particularly. In the United States, we simply do not have enough people in federal and state departments of transportation that understand the technology deeply enough to advocate effectively for balanced public policies and regulations. The same is true for other types of AI. This is not any one administration’s problem. Not only does AI cut across party lines, it cuts across all agencies and at all levels of government. The Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and other government bodies all suffer from a workforce that does not have the technical competence needed to effectively oversee advanced technologies, especially rapidly evolving AI. To engage in effective discussion about the regulation of AI, everyone at the table needs to have technical competence in AI. Right now, these discussions are greatly influenced by industry (which has a clear conflict of interest) or Chicken Littles who claim machines have achieved the ability to outsmart humans. Until government agencies have people with the skills to understand the critical strengths and weaknesses of AI, conversations about regulation will see very little meaningful progress. Recruiting such people can be easily done. Improve pay and bonus structures, embed government personnel in university labs, reward professors for serving in the government, provide advanced certificate and degree programs in AI for all levels of government personnel, and offer scholarships for undergraduates who agree to serve in the government for a few years after graduation. Moreover, to better educate the public, college classes that teach AI topics should be free. We need less hysteria and more education so that people can understand the promises but also the realities of AI.  
출처: What Self-Driving Cars Tell Us About AI Risks - IEEE Spectrum
]]> Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:40:40 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[“전기차 시대 탄소 배출량, 내연차 시대보다 많을 수도”]]> “전기차 시대 탄소 배출량, 내연차 시대보다 많을 수도”   전기차 시대에 오히려 더 많은 탄소가 배출될 수 있다는 분석이 나왔다. ‘배터리 광물’ 확보 과정에서 배출하는 탄소량이 내연기관차 운행 중단으로 감축하는 탄소량을 상쇄하거나 초과할 가능성이 있다는 것이다. 미국 맨해튼 연구소(Manhattan Institute)의 마크 밀스 선임 연구원(노스웨스턴 대학 공학부 교수)은 지난 12일 발간한 보고서를 통해 이같이 주장했다. 보고서에 인용된 지난해 연구에 따르면 9~10만㎞ 주행을 가정했을 때, 폭스바겐 소형 전기차(e-Golf)는 동급의 내연기관차 모델보다 더 많은 탄소를 배출하는 것으로 나타났다. 배터리 광물 채취 과정, 유럽연합(EU)에 전기를 공급하는 발전소의 탄소 배출량 등을 고려한 결과다. 볼보 역시 2021년 자사 전기차 SUV와 내연기관 구동 SUV(모델명 XC40)의 전 생애주기에 걸친 누적 탄소 배출량을 비교 연구한 결과, 글로벌 전력망(그리드) 전력 기준으로 15만㎞ 주행까지, 신재생 발전 비율이 높은 EU 그리드 기준으론 7~8만㎞까지 전기차 모델의 탄소 배출량이 더 많다는 결과가 나왔다. 한화투자증권 박영훈 연구원은 전기차가 내연기관차보다 친환경적이지 않을 수 있다는 보고서의 지적에 “언젠가 한 번은 분명히 짚고 넘어가야 할 문제”라고 20일 강조했다. 보고서는 전기차 생애주기의 앞단인 배터리 광물 채굴 과정에 주목했다. 전기차엔 내연기관차보다 10배 더 많은 광물이 들어간다. 다량의 광물 채굴엔 에너지(동력) 사용이 필요하고, 에너지 사용은 탄소 배출을 동반하기 때문이다. 국제에너지기구(IEA)에 따르면 구리, 니켈, 알루미늄 등 전기차 원료 생산에 사용되는 에너지는 같은 무게의 강철(내연기관차 주요 원료) 생산에 들어가는 에너지의 2~3배다. 향후 배터리 광물 채굴량이 늘어날 때, 추가 채취를 위해 더 많은 에너지를 투입해야 한다는 점도 중요한 변수로 거론한다. 광물 소비가 증가할수록 더 깊게 채굴해야 하고, 더 깊게 채굴할수록 파낸 광석 전체에서 목표로 하는 금속이 차지하는 비율(품위)은 낮아진다. 그러면 더 큰 기계를 동원해야 한다. 2003~2013년 칠레에서 생산된 구리 원광의 평균 품위는 약 25% 하락했다. 그 결과 이 기간 구리 관련 에너지 사용(단위 GJ) 증가율은 구리 공급량(t) 증가율의 두 배였다. 밀스 연구원은 석유 사용을 줄이는 게 목표라면 내연기관차 판매 금지보다 내연기관의 연료 효율을 증가시키는 게 “훨씬 더 쉽고 확실한 방법”이라고 강조했다. 권용주 국민대학교 자동차운송디자인학과 교수는 “이 보고서는 현재적 관점을 취하고 있다. 최근의 전동화 추진 움직임은 보고서가 지적하는 앞단의 탄소 배출도 기술적으로 줄여나갈 수 있다는 미래적 관점에 기초한다”고 설명했다. 황민혁 기자 okjs@kmib.co.kr   출처: “전기차 시대 탄소 배출량, 내연차 시대보다 많을 수도” - 국민일보]]> Thu, 20 Jul 2023 15:47:00 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[Billionaire Brings Tesla Autopilot Rebuke > Outspoken critic delivers sobriety check on EV maker’s Full Self-Driving mode]]> Yesterday, in a livestreamed event, Dan O’Dowd—a software billionaire and vehement critic of Tesla Motors’ allegedly self-driving technologies—debated Ross Gerber, an investment banker who backs the company. The real challenge came after their talk, when the two men got into a Tesla Model S and tested its Full Self-Driving (FSD) software—a purportedly autonomous or near-autonomous driving technology that represents the high end of its suite of driver-assistance features the company calls Autopilot and Advanced Autopilot. The FSD scrutiny O’Dowd is bringing to bear on the EV maker is only the latest in a string of recent knocks—including a Tesla shareholder lawsuit about overblown FSD promises, insider allegations of fakery in FSD promotional events, and a recent company data leak that includes thousands of FSD customer complaints. At yesterday’s livestreamed event, O’Dowd said FSD doesn’t do what its name implies, and that what it does do, it does badly enough to endanger lives. Gerber disagreed. He likened it instead to a student driver, and the human being behind the wheel to a driving instructor.

Ross Gerber, behind the wheel, and Dan O’Dowd, riding shotgun, watch as a Tesla Model S, running Full Self Driving software, blows past a stop sign.THE DAWN PROJECT

In the tests, Gerber took the wheel, O’Dowd rode shotgun, and they drove around Santa Barbara, Calif.—or were driven, if you will, with Gerber’s assistance. In a video the team published online, they covered roads, multilane highways, a crossing zone with pedestrians. At one point they passed a fire engine, which the car’s software mistook for a mere truck: a bug, though no one was endangered. Often the car stopped hard, harder than a human driver would have done. And one time, it ran a stop sign. In other words, you do not want to fall asleep while FSD is driving. And, if you listen to O’Dowd, you do not want FSD in your car at all. O’Dowd says he likes Tesla cars, just not their software. He notes that he bought a Tesla Roadster in 2010, when it was still the only EV around, and that he has driven no other car to this day. He bought his wife a Tesla Model S in 2012, and she still drives nothing else.

“We’ve reported dozens of bugs, and either they can’t or won’t fix them. If it’s ‘won’t,’ that’s criminal; if it’s ‘can’t,’ that’s not much better.” —Dan O’Dowd, the Dawn Project

He’d heard of the company’s self-driving system, originally known as AutoPilot, in its early years, but he never used it. His Roadster couldn’t run the software. He only took notice when he learned that the software had been implicated in accidents. In 2021 he launched the Dawn Project, a nonprofit, to investigate, and it found a lot of bugs in the software. Dowd published the findings, running an ad in The New York Times and a commercial during the Super Bowl. He even toyed with a one-issue campaign for the U.S. Senate. In part he is offended by what he regards as the use of unreliable software in mission-critical applications. But note well that his own company specializes in software reliability, and that this gives him an interest in publicizing the topic. We caught up with O’Dowd in mid-June, when he was preparing for the live stream. IEEE Spectrum: What got you started? [caption id="" align="alignleft" width="235"]A headshot of a silver-haired man in a suit and glasses. Dan O’Dowd’s Dawn Project has uncovered a range of bugs in Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software.[/caption] Dan O’Dowd: In late 2020, they [Tesla Motors] created a beta site, took 100 Tesla fans and said, try it out. And they did, and it did a lot of really bad things; it ran red lights. But rather than fix the problems, Tesla expanded the test to 1,000 people. And now lots of people had it, and they put cameras in cars and put it online. The results were just terrible: It tried to drive into walls, into ditches. Sometime in 2021, around the middle of the year, I figured it should not be on the market. That’s when you founded the Dawn Project. Can you give an example of what its research discovered? O’Dowd: I was in a [Tesla] car, as a passenger, testing on a country road, and a BMW approached. When it was zooming toward us, our car decided to turn left. There were no side roads, no left-turn lanes. It was a two-lane road; we have video. The Tesla turned the wheel to cross the yellow line, the driver let out a yelp. He grabbed the wheel, to keep us from crossing the yellow line, to save our lives. He had 0.4 seconds to do that. We’ve done tests over past years. “For a school bus with kids getting off, we showed that the Tesla would drive right past, completely ignoring the “school zone” sign, and keeping on driving at 40 miles per hour. Have your tests mirrored events in the real world? O’Dowd: In March, in North Carolina, a self-driving Tesla blew past a school bus with its red lights flashing and hit a child in the road, just like we showed in our Super Bowl commercial. The child has not and may never fully recover. And Tesla still maintains that FSD will not blow past a school bus with its lights flashing and stop sign extended, and it will not hit a child crossing the road. Tesla’s failure to fix or even acknowledge these grotesque safety defects shows a depraved indifference to human life. You just get in that car and drive it around, and in 20 minutes it’ll do something stupid. We’ve reported dozens of bugs, and either they can’t or won’t fix them. If it’s ‘won’t,’ that’s criminal; if it’s ‘can’t,’ that’s not much better. Do you have a beef with the car itself, that is, with its mechanical side? O’Dowd: Take out the software, and you still have a perfectly good car—one that you have to drive. Is the accident rate relative to the number of Teslas on the road really all that bad? There are hundreds of thousands of Teslas on the road. Other self-driving car projects are far smaller. O’Dowd: You have to make a distinction. There are truly driverless cars, where nobody’s sitting in the driver’s seat. For a Tesla, you require a driver, you can’t go to sleep; if you do, the car will crash real soon. Mercedes just got a license in California to drive a car that you don’t have to have hands on the wheel. It’s allowed, under limits—for instance, on highways only.

“There is no testing now of software in cars. Not like in airplanes—my, oh my, they study the source code.” —Dan O’Dowd, the Dawn Project

Tesla talks about blind-spot detection, forward emergency braking, and a whole suite of features—called driver assistance. But basically every car coming out now has those things; there are worse results for Tesla. But it calls its package Full Self-Driving: Videos show people without their hands on the wheel. Got to prove you are awake by touching the wheel, but you can buy a weight on Amazon to hang on the wheel to get round that. How might a self-driving project be developed and rolled out safely? Do you advocate for early use in very limited domains? O’Dowd: I think Waymo is doing that. Cruise is doing that. Waymo was driving five years ago in Chandler, Ariz., where it hardly ever rains, the roads are new and wide, the traffic lights are normalized and standardized. They used it there for years and years. Some people derided them for testing on a postage stamp-size place. I don’t think it was mistake—I think it was caution. Waymo tried an easy case first. Then it expanded into Phoenix, also relatively easy. It’s a city that grew up after the automobile came along. But now they are in San Francisco, a very difficult city with all kinds of crazy intersections. They’ve been doing well. They haven’t killed anyone, that’s good: There have been some accidents. But it’s a very difficult city. Cruise just announced they were going to open Dallas and Houston. They’re expanding—they were on a postage stamp, then they moved to easy cities, and then to harder ones. Yes, they [Waymo and Cruise] are talking about it, but they’re not jumping up and down claiming they are solving the world’s problems. What happened when you submitted your test results to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration? O’Dowd: They say they’re studying it. It’s been more than a year since we submitted data and years from the first accidents. But there have been no reports, no interim comments. ‘We can’t comment on an ongoing investigation,’ they say. There is no testing now of software in cars. Not like in airplanes—my, oh my, they study the source code. Multiple organizations look at it multiple times. Say you win your argument with Tesla. What’s next? O’Dowd: We have hooked up everything to the Internet and put computers in charge of large systems. People build a safety-critical system, then they put a cheap commercial software product in the middle of it. It’s just the same as putting in a substandard bolt in an airliner. Hospitals are a really big problem. Their software needs to be really hardened. They are being threatened with ransomware all the time: Hackers get in, grab your data, not to sell it to others but to sell it back to you. This software must be replaced with software that was designed with people’s lives in mind. The power grid is important, maybe the most important, but it’s difficult to prove to people it’s vulnerable. If I hack it, they’ll arrest me. I know of no examples of someone shutting down a grid with malware. 출처: Billionaire Brings Tesla Autopilot Rebuke - IEEE Spectrum
]]> Fri, 14 Jul 2023 13:37:10 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[A Former Pilot On Why Autonomous Vehicles Are So Risky >5 questions for transportation-safety expert Missy Cummings]]> A Former Pilot On Why Autonomous Vehicles Are So Risky >5 questions for transportation-safety expert Missy Cummings A photo illustration of ​Missy Cummings with colors and shapes. In October 2021, Missy Cummings left her engineering professorship at Duke University to join the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) in a temporary position as a senior safety advisor. It wasn’t long before Elon Musk tweeted an attack: “Objectively, her track record is extremely biased against Tesla.” He was referring to Cummings’s criticism of his company’s Autopilot, which is supposed to help the driver drive, though some customers have used it to make the car drive itself—sometimes with disastrous results. Some of Musk’s fans followed his lead: Cummings received a slew of online attacks, some of them threatening. As a former Navy fighter pilot,Cummings was used to living dangerously. But she hates taking unnecessary risks, particularly on the road. At NHTSA, she scrutinized data on cars operating under varying levels of automation, and she pushed for safer standards around autonomy. Now out of the government and in a new academic perch at George Mason University, she answered five high-speed questions from IEEE Spectrum. We are told that today’s cars, with their advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), are fundamentally safer than ever before. True? Cummings: There is no evidence of mitigation. At NHTSA we couldn’t answer the question that you’re less likely to get in a crash—no data. But if you are in an accident, you’re more likely to be injured, because people in ADAS-equipped cars are more likely to be speeding. Could it be that people are trading the extra safety these systems might otherwise have provided for other things, like getting home 3 minutes sooner? Cummings: I call it risk homeostasis. It’s a big problem with Tesla, for example. You’re told it has self-driving capability, with all these features, such as automatic braking. Oh, the car is going to do x, y, and z for me, and then it turns out that it doesn’t. Did you observe risk homeostasis back in your fighter-pilot days? Cummings: It happened with air-to-ground bombing radar. Pilots figured out that you could use it to set up a self-contained approach to an aircraft carrier and then manage the landing by yourself. Given the control freaks that pilots are, it happened. But the system didn’t adjust for the pitching deck, so it set people up for much more lethal approaches. Some have said that partial autonomy is the riskiest solution of all. What’s your take? Cummings: The policy should be that either the computer is driving or you are driving. And by driving I mean steering—people do fine with regular cruise control. The act of keeping your hands on the wheel and guiding the car’s lateral motion is enough to keep your brain engaged. So, no L3 [full self-driving, but the driver must be ready to take the wheel], which is too confusing, and no hands-free L2 [partial self-driving]. I am not against the passing of control per se, but there should just be two modes of operation, with crystal clear feedback about which mode you are in. When do you think true self-driving cars will come? Cummings: It’s possible to do self-driving in narrow applications. Waymo has been giving rides for a long time in Chandler [Ariz.]. That environment is very structured, and it’s much easier to operate these systems in. My favorite application is last-mile delivery, say, food delivery; it could be very helpful when, say, viruses spike. But the day when AI in cars can handle all conditions on the road, all of the time—it’s not going to be in my lifetime. Mary (Missy) L. Cummings is the director of the Autonomy and Robotics Center at George Mason University and a senior member of IEEE. She received a Ph.D. in systems engineering from the University of Virginia. 출처: A Former Pilot On Why Autonomous Vehicles Are So Risky - IEEE Spectrum]]> Thu, 15 Jun 2023 13:56:34 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[Electric cars will not eliminate fine dust pollution caused by tyres and brakes]]> Electric cars will not eliminate fine dust pollution caused by tyres and brakes Researchers from the University of Malta showed that only 3.4% of particulate matter (PM10) originated from car exhaust pipes. Dust caused by tyre and brake friction is an overlooked reality that will not go away with electric vehicles
Electrical cars may eliminate harmful exhaust gases and CO2 emissions, but they will not do away with fine dust pollution, a new study shows. Researchers from the University of Malta showed that only 3.4% of particulate matter (PM10) originated from car exhaust pipes. Dust caused by tyre and brake friction is an overlooked reality that will not go away with electric vehicles. Particulate matter is finely divided solids or liquids that are dispersed through the air via a combustion process, industrial activity or natural process. They are microscopic particles that remain suspended in the air. Exposure to such particles can affect both lungs and the heart. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution exposure to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease. The researchers found that non-exhaust emissions contributed to 35% of the particulate matter collected in their experiment on Malta’s roads. Non-exhaust emissions are caused by friction between the tyre and road surface, the resuspension of dust particles previously deposited on the road, and the abrasion between the brake pad and the wheel. Road dust or ‘crustal’ contributed to 18% of the findings, while tyre and brake wear contributed to 17% of the collected matter. Marine aerosol (23%), Saharan desert dust (21%), secondary sulfate aerosol (9.4%) and aged marine/shipping aerosol (8.9%) were the other contributors. To understand which sources could be contributing to the emissions, researchers from the Institute of Earth Systems collected data at an Msida traffic site with a sampler over the course of a year. The collection site forms part of the Maltese air quality monitoring network operated by the Environment and Resource Authority. Samples were collected between 19 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. The particles collected were then chemically analysed to identify their source. Tyre and brake dust Matter stemming from exhaust tail pipes consists mainly of iron particles from engine corrosion, zinc from car catalytic convertors, and black carbon. Tyre and brake dust on the other hand has large amounts of copper and heavy metals. Exhaust material is normally finer and is associated with long term health complications, while larger particles from tyre and brake dust cause short term damage. The findings may expose gaps in environmental policy related to the use of private cars and public transportation. Malta is among other countries pushing for the transition from internal combustion engines to electrical vehicles. Transport Malta recently launched a €15 million scheme aimed at encouraging the use of cleaner and more sustainable forms of transportation. The initiative will support the purchase of new electric vehicles in EU Category L, M and N, including passenger cars, vans, goods-carrying vehicles, minibuses, coaches, quadricycles, motorcycles, and pedelecs. MaltaToday reached out to Mark Scerri, one of the researchers behind the study, who explained that results showed the need for a multi-faceted approach to combat climate change. “The study shows that just switching to electric vehicles will not solve the issue, but it should not be interpreted as an excuse to retain internal combustion vehicles,” he said. Scerri said the solution lies in incentivising mass public transportation. “Government must disincentivise car use, and push for public transport,” he said. “Making public transport free for commuters is not enough, money was never the problem.” The university lecturer said a change in mentality and culture is much needed to address the problem. “Look at the recent controversy surrounding e-scooters. Instead of criticising government for not providing the needed infrastructure, people criticised commuters seeking an alternative mode of transport for not finding where to park them,” he said. Scerri said he hopes the research helps policy makers in taking a broader approach in seeking solutions to climate change. 출처: Electric cars will not eliminate fine dust pollution caused by tyres and brakes
]]> Tue, 04 Apr 2023 14:45:50 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[The End of the Oil Age Gets Postponed Again]]> The End of the Oil Age Gets Postponed Again

It looks like we have to wait a little more to see the end of the oil age. Our desire to burn more and more stuff knows no limits — at least not when talking about the foreseeable future. Statements like “oil will be needed for at least another 10 years” or “independent experts agree that global oil and natural gas demand will increase over the next 30 years” suggest that transitioning to ‘renewables’ will have to wait a little. Will we burn as much carbon as we see fit then? Well, as usual, reality will have a thing or two to say in the matter.

British Petrol (or BP for short) has famously put this ‘peak demand’ date into 2019 — a forecast they would quickly backtrack two years after. A couple of more years into this brave new world, and after years of unprecedented shortages, the world has started to realize that fossil fuels might indeed be needed for a while down the road.

The myth of peak demand has not been slain though. It just got itself a decade of shelf life extension — keeping us on the wrong track and giving us a happy ride on the hopium train. The very inconvenient reality, this myth prevents us from seeing though, is that effectively ALL of our energy (including nuclear, solar, hydro and wind) comes either directly from (or depends hopelessly on) fossil fuels in general, and on one type in particular: oil. Mining, heavy machinery, long distance transport — without which there is no ‘renewable’ or nuclear future — simply doesn’t work without oil and its most valuable derivative, diesel.

Despite the hype, 84% of our energy consumed still comes from fossil fuels. Note, that non-fossil sources have been artificially inflated to match ‘inefficiencies’ in power generation, as if all of our coal, gas and oil use would went into electricity generation. (Which is simply not the case, as most of our fossil energy is used up in high heat applications like glass, pig iron, concrete, chemicals etc. production where using electricity is either technically impossible or highly disadvantageous.)
Walker Electric Truck — manufactured from 1907 to 1940. Note the sign and try not to miss the fact how long the battery was in operating condition… (I wonder how long today’s electric wonders will be in use.)

Besides that petroleum provides feedstock to many essential components in electric vehicles (from plastics to ‘rubber’ and from paint to resins) — not to mention the asphalt on which those cars and trucks roll. All of these materials we take for granted are cheap and abundant only because we haul up 80+ million barrels of oil every day. Plastics, and the many other materials we derive from petroleum, are byproducts of fuel distillation and their ratio to diesel and gasoline is pretty much fixed. Should thus oil production fall, we would soon face scarcities and price increases on all these fronts as well. Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

Now, from a purely technical perspective, is it possible at all to get rid of diesel fuel, and to electrify road transport? If you ask my personal opinion: not a chance. Batteries are inherently heavy and bulky things with a very low energy density — making them a really bad choice for powering heavy duty equipment (1).

In fact, batteries store less then a fifth of the energy per pound compared to what a same amount of potatoes— yes, dumb uncooked potatoes — contain.

Knowing all this many pin their hopes on hydrogen, but those who are intimately involved with the physics of this technology (and I’m not talking about nuclear scientists, this can be understood by laymans as well, if explained understandably, really) see how impossible a challenge it is. Of course, as long as money from governments and investors led down the garden path keeps flooding into the development departments of engineering firms, the hydrogen myth will be pursued and newer and newer test vehicles will come out… Only to be forgotten in a day.

Hydrogen in essence is an impractical, but highly explosive battery, the components of which can be transported separately from each other. If you understand it as such, you immediately start to see the losses in the system from hydrogen generation, to compression, cooling, transportation, refilling etc… Not to mention the special and very expensive storage tanks and fuel cells, made from rare and expensive materials like platinum, needed to make all this magic ‘possible’…

Hydrogen is not a resource, but a spectacular way of wasting energy.

Unlike coal or oil, hydrogen is not available in its pure and elemental form in nature. You have to invest energy and scarce metals into separating it from other elements like oxygen, then suffer all the losses described above, only to turn it back into water — hoping that you will get something out in the form of useful work in the end. This whole process is giving you back roughly one quarter of the energy, compared to what you put into generation at step 1 — without taking into account the vast amount of energy and resources needed to build and maintain such a system. For example if you have got a 100 kWh-s of electricity from your solar panels in the Sahara, you get roughly 25 kWh-s back in form of electricity moving your truck from point A to B in Europe. Good luck using that little portion to build out then maintain the whole system, let alone an entire civilization.

From an energetic, storage and conversion perspective Hydrogen is totally uncompetitive with diesel, and this has nothing to do with a malevolent fossil fuel lobby or evil cabals, only with pure physics. No wonder it never made a brake-through in the market despite many decades of development and billions of dollars spent on the hype around it.

Oil is the essence of this civilization. If there is ever a peak to it, it would mean peak civilization as well. Understand this and you understand everything else going on around the world.

We will use petroleum as long as we can pay for its extraction. If that becomes increasingly unaffordable, then the flow oil will simply wane, leaving much of the black goo underground in inaccessible, remote and inconvenient locations. This way we will never run out of it — we will simply become unable to get it.

The myth of infinite technological progress, and thus our ability to decouple ourselves from oil, must be uphold at any cost though. Peak oil demand starts to lose its appeal in face looming supply shortages and the obvious difficulties coming with it. So the rather gloomy message of us running out of affordable oil needs to be sold to investors, policy makers and the public in a more palatable way… Wood Mackenzie duly came to the rescue by painting our oil predicament green, ‘re-framing’ the question as „low emission” vs “high emission” oil. Nice.

Scratch the green paint on this inherently polluting and climate wrecking fuel though and you immediately discover cracks in the myth. Knowing that oil gets drilled, pumped then delivered by using oil, the message, that “global reserves of both low-cost and low-emission oil and gas stocks are dwindling” translates into an admission that “we are running out of the easy to get oil, and what remains requires ever more energy (i.e. burning more carbon) to extract”. Seen in this light, the finding from Wood Mackenzie correlates perfectly well with the study I wrote about last April. As the original authors concluded in 2021:

“The total energy needed for the oil liquids production thus continually increase from a proportion equivalent today to 15.5% of the gross energy produced from oil liquids, to the half in 2050. We thus foresee an important consumption of energy to produce future oil liquids.”

So much for peak demand. Even supporting a mild decrease in the end use of petroleum products — as envisioned by peak demand acolytes — would still require a growing amount of the black gold to be brought to the surface, to compensate the accelerating energy demand growth of drilling. By 2050 — according to current estimates — half of the natural gas and fuel coming out of wells and refineries would have to go back to the machinery operating on the oil fields: the floating rigs, the ships and helicopters serving them, or onshore the thousands of trucks carrying the equipment, sand and water for drilling and so on.

Photo by Maria Lupan on Unsplash

Of course oil companies will try to prevent this from happening, by installing solar panels and wind turbines to power as much of the equipment as oil- and gas-free as possible (as well as to collect green credits for their efforts made at *ahem* ‘saving the planet’), but this approach has its own limits too. Primarily it is due to the intermittency of ‘renewable’ electricity, but one must not forget about the immense resource requirements of ‘renewables’ in form of copper, metallurgical grade silicon, rare earth metals, steel, concrete and so on — all which need to be extracted, transported and then built and maintained by diesel guzzling machinery. Back to square one.

Will the overall fuel consumption of drilling (and consequently the emissions released by it) decrease as a result then — as proposed by Mackenzie and friends? For a while I suspect yes, but the relentless rise in energy demand for continuing operations will get into the driving seat again and will eventually overrun even the strongest of oil and mining companies.

Resource depletion is here, and there is no practical limit to how bad it can get.

As cheap and easy to mine / pump resources deplete and give way to ever more challenging (and thus ever more energy intensive and polluting) ones, we can easily end up with complex fossil fuel reserves requiring more energy to get into then what they provide in the end. Yes, that means that we will be forced to leave much of ‘our’ hydrocarbons underground — together with copper and many other metals for the very same reason. Not a hundred years from now. Some of it already today. And most of it within decades.

This is what I call walking up against a landslide. The sooner we, as societies, realize that we are fighting a battle we simply cannot win, the sooner we can start planning what to do with the remaining easy to access resources, instead of using them up in wars or throwing them on the waste dump. But in order to do that, first, we must get rid of stupid myths like ‘peak oil demand’, ‘renewables’, ‘the hydrogen economy’ and get down to working on a low tech, low energy future together with a transition towards a local and truly sustainable economy based on regenerative agriculture.

Until next time,

B, thehonestsorcerer.medium.com

출처: The End of the Oil Age Gets Postponed Again  |  Peak Oil News and Message Boards
]]> Mon, 06 Mar 2023 16:57:45 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[241. 자율주행차 – 24. 자율주행차가 코닥 모멘트?]]> 241. 자율주행차 – 24. 자율주행차가 코닥 모멘트?
새로운 기술이 모두 처음부터 받아들여졌던 것은 아니다. 많은 논란과 기술적인 발전을 거쳐 구현됐다. 20세기에는 자동차를 포함해 수많은 발명품이 등장에 인간의 생활 행태를 바꾸었다. 그런데 21세기 들어서는 또 다른 형태로의 진화가 이루어지고 있다. 그런데 그것을 다루는 사회의 반응은 모두 주가 위주로 취급되고 있다. 성공한 애플이 그랬고 애플을 능가한다고 주장하는 테슬라가 그렇듯이 대부분은 투자은행들의 이슈화에 따른 것이다. 다른 말로 하면 미국식 주주 자본주의의 결과물이다. 뉴욕대학교 스톤경영대학원 에스워스 다모다란 교수는 분위기와 주가 흐름으로 테슬라를 거래한다고 지적한다. 그런 화제주를 주도하고 있는 것 중 하나가 자율주행이고 관련 기술 이슈는 인공지능과 뉴럴넷이다. 관련해 어떤 일들이 벌어지고 있는지 정리해 본다.
글 / 채영석 (글로벌오토뉴스 국장)
석기 시대가 철기 시대로 바뀐 것은 돌이 없어서가 아니었다. 마차가 사라진 것은 말이 없어서가 아니라 자동차가 등장해서였다. 필름이 없어진 것은 카메라가 없어져서가 아니라 디지털 장비의 도입에 의한 것이었다. 종이신문이 사라지고 있는 것은 종이가 없어서가 아니라 디지털 미디어의 등장에 의한 것이다. 화석연료가 사라지는 것은 석유가 없어서가 아니라 대체 에너지가 등장해서다.
산업혁명의 시대 인류는 그렇게 신문명을 통해 발전했다. 그중에서도 20세기 최고의 발명품이라고 일컫는 자동차는 대량 생산과 대량 소비를 통해 인간의 이동을 쉽게 했고 결과적으로 세계화로까지 이어지며 지구를 하나의 공동체로 만들었다.
그 자동차는 전 세계 석유의 45%를 소비한다. 석유의 소비는 곧 환경오염으로 이어진다. 그뿐만 아니라 연간 130만 명가량이 교통사고로 사망한다. 19세기 말의 말똥보다 더 심각한 환경 오염으로 인해 자동차에 대한 시각이 달라지고 있다. 자동차가 환경 오염의 주범이냐의 여부와는 관계없이 또 다른 해결책이 필요한 상황이 됐다. 그래서 등장한 해법이 전동화차와 자율주행 기술, 그리고 공유경제다. 배터리 전기차를 통해 대기오염을 줄이고 자율주행기술로 교통사고를 막고 공유 경제를 통해 사회적 인프라를 효율적으로 사용하자는 것이 핵심이다.
전 세계적으로 대도시에서는 버스와 택시, 트럭 등 운송사업의 인력 부족이 심각하다. 무엇보다 빠른 고령화로 인한 교통 약자에 대한 대책도 사회적인 이슈로 부상해 있다. 단순하게 생각해 자율주행차가 구현된다면 운전자 부족 문제를 해결할 수 있고 카셰어링이 활성화된다면 교통약자는 물론이고 고가의 내구성 소모품인 자동차를 구입할 수 없는 사람들에게도 교통수단을 제공할 수 있을 것이다. 더불어 교통사고도 크게 줄일 수 있다고 예상할 수 있다.
그런데도 ‘제조업의 꽃’으로 일컬어지며 산업혁명의 중심에 서 온 자동차는 만드는 입장에서나 사용하는 입장에서나 아직은 포기할 수 없는 상품이다. 아니 훨씬 많은 고용을 창출하고 훨씬 많은 수익을 낼 수 있는 상품이 될 수 있다. 그래서 IT 업체들은 그들의 기술을 자동차로 판매하고자 하고 있다. 엔비디아와 인텔 등은 인공지능 플랫폼을 개발해 자동차에 접목하고 있다. 더 나아가 스마트폰의 안드로이드처럼 자율주행차를 위한 OS의 표준으로 삼고자 막대한 투자를 해 기술을 개발하고 있고 하나씩 결실을 보고 있다. 경쟁력이 하드웨어에서 소프트웨어로 옮겨 가고 있다.
자동차산업의 발원지인 유럽과 대중화를 이끌었던 미국, 그리고 세계화를 주도한 일본을 넘어 중국이 새로운 권력으로 등장할 수도 있다고 해석할 수 있게 하는 대목이다. 거지도 QR코드로 동냥을 받는다는 중국이 배터리 전기차를 기반으로 하는 자율주행차를 사용한 공유경제 시대의 주도권을 쥘 수 있다고 예상하는 것은 거대한 시장이 있기 때문이다. 아직은 적지 않은 시간이 필요하겠지만 충분히 상상해 볼 수 있는 미래다. 물론 미국 중심의 교육을 받아온 학자들과 미디어들은 존 나이스비트와는 다른 의견을 제시하고 있다.
이번에는 챗 GPT 가 전가의 보도?
미국 펜실베이니아주립대(베런드칼리지) 강인규 교수의 최근 오마이뉴스에 챗 GPT 관련 기고문 중 일부를 보면 인간이 얼마나 망각의 동물인지를 실감케 한다.
“입체 텔레비전, 3차원(3D) 프린터, 알파고, 블록체인, 증강현실(AR), 자율주행, '4차 산업혁명', 메타버스 등 새로운 기술이나 전망이 온갖 화제를 뿌리며 등장하고 난 뒤, 정작 결실은 약속과 거리가 먼 경우가 적지 않았습니다. 하지만 뚜렷한 실체가 없는 것으로 드러난다 해도, 기술에 대한 열광은 사그라지는 법이 없습니다.
기술은 일종의 '알리바이' 속성을 지니고 있습니다. 변변치 못한 기술을 잔뜩 부풀린 전망과 섞어 내놓으면서 미래 속으로 도망칠 수 있기 때문이지요. 일론 머스크가 "2년 뒤에"를 20년 가까이 써먹으면서도 별 탈이 없던 것을 봐도 알 수 있습니다.
물론 사람들의 건망증도 한 몫 합니다. 사람들은 기다리는 도중 자신이 무엇을 기다리고 있었는지 잊어버리기 때문에 기술에 관한 한 좀처럼 배신감을 느끼지 않습니다. 그리고 기억력이 좋은 사람에게는 '미래'의 특효약이 준비돼 있습니다.
"좀 더 기다리면 다 실현 돼."
이번에는 챗지피티(ChatGPT)가 뜨거운 관심을 불러 모으고 있습니다. 2016년에도 대화형 인공지능 '테이(Tay)'가 혜성처럼 나타나 이목을 집중시켰지만, 걸쭉한 혐오 발언을 쏟아내고는 유성처럼 사라져 버렸습니다. 따라서 또 다른 대화형 인공지능이 공개됐다는 소식을 듣고도 서둘러 사용해 볼 생각을 하지 않았습니다.”
한국은 특히 뭔가 새로운 것이 등장하면 모든 미디어들이 소위 전문가들을 동원해 금방이라도 큰일을 낼 것처럼 호들갑스럽게 반응한다. 인공지능의 블랙박스 현상을 엔지니어들도 분석해내지 못하는데 모든 인공지능으로 인한 미래를 그린다. 대량의 데이터로부터 스스로 핵심적인 개념을 간추려내도록 하는 기계학습 방법론을 말하는 딥러닝을 통해 인공지능은 스스로 새로운 알고리즘을 만들고 스스로 답을 찾아내는 지경에 이르렀는데 정장 엔지니어는 그 이유를 모른단다.
이 블랙박스 현상을 인상적으로 알려준 것이 이세돌과 알파고의 바둑 대국이었다. 구글은 알파고를 동원해 바둑계에 충격을 주면서 인공지능을 세상의 중심에 올려놓았다. 하지만 그 며칠간의 이벤트가 진행되는 동안 구글의 주가가 53조 원이나 폭등했다는 사실은 별로 시선을 끌지 못했었다. 미국을 대표하는 IT회사들의 이런 혁신적인 기술 개발로 미국은 더 풍요로워져야 하는데, 현실은 그 반대다.
어쨌든 인공지능을 채용한 로봇이 사람들이 하기 싫어하는 힘들고 단순반복적인 일을 할 것이고 그로 인해 일자리가 사라질 것이라고 경고한다. 하지만 한국은 이미 2021년 기준 로봇 밀도 1000(1만명 당 로봇 대수)으로 세계 평균 156대를 크게 웃돌았고 679의 싱가포르는 물론이고 399의 리본, 397의 독일보다 앞설 정도로 이미 수많은 일자리를 기계에 빼앗긴 상태다.
3D 텔레비전이 처음 등장했을 때 한국의 전문가들은 컨텐츠 생산효과가 53조에 달할 것이라고 허풍을 떨었으나 지금은 실체도 없다. 그에 대해 누구도 잘못된 전망이었다고 말한 것을 들어 본 적이 없다. 위 강인규 교수가 언급한 3차원(3D) 프린터, 알파고, 블록체인, 증강현실(AR), 자율주행, 4차 산업혁명, 메타버스와 관련한 뉴스가 어떻게 다루어졌고 지금은 어떤 상황인지 짚어 볼 필요가 있다.
자율주행차는 인공지능과 뉴럴 넷으로 해결 가능?
자율주행차에 관해서도 장및빛 전망이 많았다. 테슬라의 일론 머스크의 예의 “1년 후” 자율주행차를 출시하겠다고 발표한 즈음 볼드(BOLD, 2016년 피터 디아만디스, 스티브코틀러 지음, 비즈니스북스 간)의 저자는 다음과 같이 설파했다.
“어쩌면 앞으로는 ‘기하급수의 힘에 떠밀려 산술급수적인 기업이 문을 닫는 순간’을 ‘신 코닥 모멘트’라고 불러야 할지도 모른다. 앞으로 보게 되겠지만 신 코닥 모멘트는 뜻밖의 사건이 아니라, 기하급수적 성장의 6D에 따른 불가피한 결과다. 산술급수적인 사고를 고수하면서 자기 자리를 보전하려 애쓰는 경영자들은 괴롭고 우울해하다가 결국에는 떠나게 되겠지만, 기하급수 기업가들에게 ‘신 코닥 모멘트’는 가능성을 의미할 것이다. “
그런데 2022년을 기점으로 자율주행에 대한 시각이 갈라지고 있다. 대부분의 자동차회사는 아직은 긴 시간이 걸리는 것이라고 보고 있다. SAE 기준 레벨3나 레벨4의 기술 구현은 가능할 수 있겠지만 흔히 말하는 모든 자동차가 완전 자율주행차로 바뀌는 데는 긴 시간이 걸릴 것이라고 보고 있다.
거기에는 인공지능의 한계가 있다. 자율주행 기술은 자기 위치 추정과 외부 인식, 행동 계획, 차체 제어 등 네 가지 프로세스로 구성된다. GPS나 센서로 자차는 물론이고 주변의 보행자나 자동차 등 움직이는 대상물의 위치를 추정하면서 스스로 차체를 제어하면서 목적지까지 이동하는 것이다.
아직은 이런 프로세스를 완전히 수행할 수 있는 자율주행이라는 단어를 본격적으로 사용할 수 있는 수준은 아니다. ADAS라는 표현대로 첨단 운전자 보조 시스템이다. ADAS는 위 프로세스를 수행하기 위한 밀리파 레이더와 비디오카메라, 라이다 등 각종 센서로 구성된다.
카메라는 분명한 대상에 대해서는 인식하지만, 야간이나 눈, 비, 안개 등에는 무용지물이고 밀리파 레이더는 악천후에도 사용할 수 있지만 보행자나 가로수 등 비금속 대상물의 형태를 잘 인식하지 못한다. 또한 라이다는 야간에도 사용 가능하고 보행자나 비금속도 인식하며 대상물의 형태도 비교적 정확하게 파악할 수 있지만 악천후에는 대응하지 못한다.
간단하게 말해 인공지능은 인간처럼 직관적이지 못하다. 챗지피티가 이미 입력된 데이터를 바탕으로 답을 하는 것과 마찬가지로 인공지능을 채용한 자율주행도 머신 러닝에 의해 학습된 것을 바탕으로 분석하고 판단해 자세 제어를 한다. 그 한계보다 더 무서운 것은 딥러닝을 통해 인공 지능 스스로 학습하는 능력을 습득해 예상외의 결과물을 내놓고 있지만 정작 엔지니어들은 무엇 때문인지를 알지 못한다는 것이다.
이런 상황에서 일론 머스크는 뉴럴 넷을 통해 구현이 가능하다고 주장하며 자신이 단계적으로 발전시켜온 FSD 를 지속해 밀고 있다.
당장에는 소프트웨어 정의 자동차가 핫 이슈
테슬라는 지금 오토파일럿 하드웨어 4.0(HW 4.0) 업그레이드를 준비하고 있다. 테슬라는 그동안 레이더와 밀리파 레이더 없이 자율주행이 가능하다는 주장을 해왔으나 2022년 12월 다시 레이더를 추가한다고 발표했으며 올해 1월 초에는 하드웨어 4.0 출시에 대해 이야기도 했다. 그리고 모델 3에 새로운 오토파일럿/FSD 하드웨어 제품군을 탑재할 가능성이 있다고 밝혔다.
테슬라는 이와 같은 내용을 유럽과 중국 규제 당국에 신청했다. 내용은 4세대 복합 차량 제어시스템(오토 파일럿) 도입과 신차 컴퓨터 및 GNSS. 3세대 인버터 도입 등이 포함되어 있다.
일론 머스크는 최근 하드웨어 4.0의 도입에 대해 언급했으며 업그레이드나 시기에 대한 세부 정보를 공개하지 않았다. 또한 기존 모델에 개조를 제공할 계획이 없다고도 확인했다.
테슬라는 2016년부터 앞으로 생산되는 모든 차량이 향후 소프트웨어 업데이트만을 통해 자율 주행이 되기 위해 필요한 모든 하드웨어를 갖추고 있다고 주장해 왔다. 하지만 이에 대해서는 다양한 검증과 소비자의 실차 테스트(?)에 의해 옳지 않다는 것이 입증됐다.
초기부터 매년 다음 해 완전 자율주행 기술에 도달할 것이라는 약속을 지키지 못했고 여전히 정식 버전이 아니라 베타 버전인데도 FSD(Full Self Driving) 라는 이름 아래 1만 5,000달러의 옵션으로 판매하고 있다. 초기에는 무료 업데이트하겠다고 했으나 유료화하고 또 다른 수익원을 만들었다.
어쨌든 그런 과정을 거친 테슬라가 이번에는 HW 4.0이라고 하는 오토파일럿 하드웨어 업데이트를 실시할 것이라는 얘기가 나오고 있다. 지금까지 완전 자율주행기술을 소프트웨어 업데이트만을 통해 가능하고 믿었던 기존 구입자들은 더 이상 발전된 버전을 사용할 수 없을 수도 있다는 것이다.
이에 따르면 전면 카메라 허브를 3개의 저해상도 카메라 대신 2개의 고해상도 카메라로 바꾼다. 새로운 카메라 허브에는 카메라를 깨끗하게 유지하는 데 도움이 되는 새로운 팬 또는 난방 시스템이 장착된 것으로 보인다. B 필러의 카메라에도 추가된다. 다만 그동안 모델3 프로토타입에서 볼 수 있었던 헤드램프와 범퍼 카메라를 추가할 가능성은 없다고 한다.
그렇다고 테슬라의 자율주행 기술에 현재의 레벨2에서 레벨4로 일약 도약할 수는 없을 것으로 보인다. 앞서 언급한 고해상도 카메라로 바꾸고 그 카메라를 깨끗하게 유지할 수 있게 한다고 해도 도로에서 발생할 수 있는 흙탕물 등을 해결할 수는 없다. 그런 상황이 아니더라도 카메라로 촬영한 물체가 무엇인지를 정확하게 정의할 수 없다는 것은 이미 FSD 16.69 베타버전에서 구겨진 비닐 봉투 앞에 멈춰 버린 것에서 보여 주었다.
자주 언급하는 내용이지만 기존에 존재한 것을 바탕으로 하는 빅데이터는 끊임없이 변하는 수많은 물체와 물질을 모두 저장할 수는 없다. 그 외에도 여전히 도로 위에 놓여지는, 상황에 따라 수시로 바뀔 수 있는 각종 표지판에 대해서도 해답이 없다.
레거시 완성차업체나 테슬라나 기술적인 측면에서는 소프트웨어 정의 자동차에 더 비중을 두고 있다. 어쩌면 그들은 그런 과정에서 인공지능의 알 수 없는 현상, 즉 블랙박스 현상에 의해 퀀텀 점프를 기대하고 있는지도 모른다. 그것이 어떻게 되든 사람들은 수익에 눈이 멀어 화제주에 투자할 것이다. 미인대회와 비교되는 주식시장은 그 중 이슈화에 성공한 업체로 몰려들 것이다. 그들의 안목에 기후재앙은 없다.
]]> Thu, 02 Mar 2023 11:37:27 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[234. 자율주행차 – 23. 중국 자율주행산업도 현실의 벽에 봉착]]> 234. 자율주행차 – 23. 중국 자율주행산업도 현실의 벽에 봉착 자율주행에 대한 생각이 정리되어 가고 있다. 2023CES에서도 자율주행 관련 다양한 부품과 IT기술들이 공개되었지만, 현실적으로 자율주행은 ADAS 레벨2에 머물러 있다. 쉽게 말해 약 5년 전과 마찬가지로 페달에서 발을 떼고 스티어링 휠에서 손을 뗄 수 있는 정도다. 전방에서 눈을 뗄 수 있는 레벨3와 운전을 생각하지 않아도 되는 레벨4, 그리고 운전자가 없는 레벨5는 오히려 더 멀어졌다. 이유는 안전과 인공지능의 한계 때문이다. 뿐만 아니라 각종 센서가 사물을 인지해 컴퓨터가 무엇인지를 판단하고 그것을 AI를 통해 실행에 옮긴다는 자율주행 프로세스에서 인지 단계에서도 큰 진전을 이루지 못하고 있다. 특히 미국보다 더 활발하게 로보택시를 도입하고 있는 중국에서도 최근 들어 수익창출이 어려울 뿐 아니라 운영 규정과 비용 장벽 등 복합적인 도전 과제로 인해 그동안과는 다른 의견이 대두되고 있다. 자율주행 관련 중국의 현황을 짚어 본다.
글 / 채영석 (글로벌오토뉴스 국장)
지금 우리가 말하는 자율주행은 수년 전과는 다른 개념으로 사용되고 있다. 미국 SAE 기준 레벨4나 레벨5가 아니라 로보택시와 셔틀, 고속도로의 대형 트럭 등을 통해 수익성을 낼 수 있는 비즈니스를 의미하고 있다. 지금은 BMW가 2013년 표현했던 ‘고도로 자동화된 자동차’라는 표현이 새삼 와 닿는 때다. 그만큼 완전 자율주행차의 구현이 어렵다는 것이다.
중국 국가발전개혁위원회와 기타 10개 부처가 발행한 청사진에 따르면 중국은 2025년까지 조건부 자율주행이 가능한 차량의 대량 생산과 특정 상황에서 고도의 자율주행차 상용화를 실현할 계획이다.
2022년 8월, 중국 당국은 대중교통을 위한 자율주행차의 대규모 상용화를 가속화하고 지방 당국이 관련 관리 정책을 수립하도록 독려하는 핵심 조치인 첫 번째 국가 지침 초안을 발표했다. 폐쇄된 버스 고속 대중교통(Bus Rapid Transit : BRT) 시스템에서 버스와 같은 자율 운전 차량의 사용을 장려하고 교통부가 발표한 규칙 초안에 따라 자율 차량이 간단하고 상대적으로 제어할 수 있는 시나리오에서 택시 서비스를 제공할 수 있도록 한다는 것이다.
같은 해 11월 중국 산업정보기술부와 공안부는 자율주행차의 도로주행 시험을 전국적으로 확대하기 위한 지침 초안을 공개했다. 이와 함께 우한, 후베이성, 충칭 등 지방 정부는 바이두에 같은 달 지정된 지역에서 완전 무인 승차 호출 서비스 요금을 부과할 수 있는 허가를 부여했다.
이어서 12월 베이징은 바이두와 포니에이아이 등 두 로보택시 운영자에게 최신 자율 주행 허가를 부여하여 일반 도로에서 운전자나 안전 운영자 없이 완전 무인 차량을 테스트할 수 있도록 허가했다. 각각 최대 10대까지 운행할 수 있으며 원격 안전 운영자가 긴급 상황 발생 시 온라인 지원 플랫폼을 통해 차량을 제어한다는 전제가 있다. 선전은 스마트 및 인터넷 연결 차량에 대한 현지 규정이 발효된 2022년 8월 1일부터 특정 도로에서 사람이 운전하지 않는 완전 자율 주행 차량을 허용했다.
중국의 자율주행 관련 구체적인 실행에 관한 허가는 지방 정부가 한다. 이 때문에 실제보다는 더 빠르게 느껴지기도 하는 한편 업체 입장에서는 각 지방 정부의 규제에 모두 대응해야 한다는 단점이 있다.
지난해 8월 중국 바이두, “자율주행차 기술 테슬라보다 앞서”라는 칼럼에서 언급했듯이 바이두는 2022년 7월 레벨 4 자율 주행 시스템과 최대 1,200TOPS(초당 테라 연산)의 컴퓨팅 성능을 갖춘 듀얼 컴퓨팅 장치로 구동되는 6세대 자율주행차 아폴로 RT6를 공개했다. 그때까지 아폴로 고는 베이징, 상하이, 광저우, 광둥성 선전 등 중국 10개 도시에서 로보택시 라이드 헤일링 서비스를 제공하고 있으며 100만 건 이상의 주문을 받았다. 이 수치만으로 친다면 바이두는 세계 최대 자율주행 서비스 제공업체라고 할 수 있다.
바이두는 지금까지 레벨 4 자율 시험 주행거리를 4,000만km 이상 축적했다. 2022년 3분기 말까지 아폴로 고의 탑승 누적 주문량이 140만 대를 넘어 세계 최대의 로보택시 서비스 제공업체가 되기도 했다.
자율주행 스타트업 포니에이아이는 자율주행 기술의 상업적 적용을 추진하기 위한 노력을 강화하고 있다. 광저우 난사구에서 100대의 자율주행차를 운행할 수 있는 허가를 받았으며 로보택시 서비스에 대한 현지 표준 택시 가격을 기준으로 요금을 부과하고 있다.
포이에이아이는 상용화된 로보택시 공간을 올해 상하이와 선전으로, 2024년에는 더 많은 도시로 확장할 계획이다. 또한 포니에이아이는는 광저우자동차의 승차 호출 앱인 온타임 및 또 다른 승차 호출 플랫폼인 카오카오와 파트너십을 체결했다. 상하이자동차의 인공지능연구소와 협력해 무인 기술을 공동으로 연구 개발하고 있다.
이처럼 중국 자동차업체들의 자율주행차 개발이 활기를 띠는 양산이 전개되자. 중국 내 전문가들은 지속적인 기술 혁신과 정부의 적극적인 정책 지원 덕분에 중국에서 자율주행 기술의 상용화가 향후 몇 년 안에 추진력을 얻을 것이라는 전망을 내놓았었다.
“중국, 2030년 세계 최대 자율주행차 시장된다.”
중국 외에서도 그에 대한 전망이 나왔다. 글로벌 컨설팅업체 IHS 마킷은 중국의 자율주행 택시 서비스 시장 규모는 2030년까지 1조3,000억 위안(1,886억 달러)을 넘어 중국 전체 차량호출 시장의 60%를 차지할 것이라고 예상했다. 다만 중국 내 로보택시 시장은 2~3개의 주요 서비스 제공업체가 장악하게 될 것이며 상위 제공업체가 전체 시장 점유율의 40% 이상을 차지하게 될 것이라는 점에 주목해야 한다고 지적했다.
블룸버그NEF 는 공공 도로에서의 지속적인 테스트, 규제 완화 및 자율주행차 제조 비용 절감은 자율주행차의 배치 및 상용화를 가속하는 데 도움이 될 것이라고 평가했다. 블룸버그NEF의 2022년 전망에 따르면 중국은 2040년까지 약 1,200만 대의 세계 최대 규모의 로보택시 함대를 운영할 것이며, 이어서 미국이 약 700만 대의 자율 차량을 운영할 것으로 보았다.
시장조사 기관인 리서치&마켓은 전 세계 자율주행차 시장은 2020년 761억 3,000만 달러에서 2030년까지 2조 1,600억 달러에 달하여 2021년부터 2030년까지 연평균 40.1%의 성장률을 기록할 것으로 예상하고 있다.
현재 중국은 여러 도시에 지능형 커넥티드카 시범구역을 구축해 다른 나라에 비해 자율주행차 테스트 시나리오에서 우위를 점하고 방대한 데이터를 축적하고 있다. 이를 배경으로 완전한 무인 로보택시의 소규모 상업 운영이 복잡한 교통 상황을 고려할 때 2025년에 현실이 될 것이라는 예상도 나왔다.
더불어 교통 효율성을 개선하기 위한 방법으로 차량에서 도로 네트워크로 정보를 전송하는 것을 지원하는 5G 지원 차량-도로 조정 시스템과 같은 지능형 교통 인프라 구축을 강화하기 위한 노력을 강화해야 한다는 의견도 나오고 있다.
글로벌 경영 컨설팅 회사인 맥킨지는 중국은 2030년까지 이러한 신차 및 모빌리티 서비스 판매 수익이 5,000억 달러를 초과할 것으로 예상되는 세계 최대의 자율주행차 시장이 될 것이라고 전망했다.
바이두와 포니에이아이, 로보택시와 트럭에 집중
바이두는 올해 추가로 200대의 완전 자율 주행 로보택시를 전국에 배치하고 세계 최대의 완전 무인 승차 호출 서비스 지역을 건설할 계획이라고 발표했었다. 바이두는 대규모 비용 절감으로 중국 전역에 수만 대의 자율주행차를 배치할 수 있게 될 것이며 소비자 입장에서는 로보택시를 타는 것이 오늘날 택시를 타는 비용의 절반으로 떨어질 것이라는 점을 강조하고 있다.
자율주행 플랫폼인 아폴로 고 서비스를 2025년에는 65개 도시, 2030년에는 100개 도시로 확대할 계획이다. 현재는 베이징, 상하이, 광저우, 선전을 포함해 중국의 10개 이상의 도시를 커버하고 있다.
자율주행 트럭의 상용화에 대한 움직임도 활발하다. 대표적으로 포니에이아이는 2022년 11월에는 스마트 물류, 고급 자율 주행 및 고급 스마트 대형 트럭의 대량 생산을 촉진하기 위해 중국 물류 회사인 시노트랜스 Ltd와 기계 제조업체인 사니그룹 등 두 파트너와 전략적 제휴를 맺었다.
포니에이아이는 물류 운송을 위한 자율 트럭을 개발하기 위해 이미 시노트랜스 및 사니그룹 자회사 사니헤비트럭과 합작 투자 회사를 설립했다. 더불어 머신 러닝과 인공지능, 빅데이터, 모빌리티, 첨단 센서의 융합 덕분에 자율주행 혁명이 다가오고 있다고 주장했다.
현재 중국에서 자율주행 트럭은 항구, 광산 및 일부 폐쇄된 도로와 같은 비교적 단순한 시나리오에서 주로 테스트 또는 적용되고 있다.
물론 이외에도 모빌아이가 니오 ES8에 모빌아이 드라이브를 채용해 로보택시를 운행하기로 하고 하오모.AI는 중국 최대 자율주행 컴퓨팅 센터를 출범하는 등 도전은 계속되고 있다. 바이두와 길리자동차의 합작회사 지두자동차도 ROBO시리즈를 출고하며 적극적인 행보를 보이고 있다.
베이징에 본사를 둔 싱크탱크 이퀄오션은 중국 물류 시스템의 대형 트럭 수는 2030년에 627만 대에 달할 것으로 예상되며 그때까지 자율주행 트럭의 수익은 8,539억 위안(1,239억 달러)에 달할 것으로 예상했다.
글로벌 컨설팅 서비스 제공업체 얼라이드 마켓 리서치는 글로벌 자율주행 트럭 시장은 2020년에 10억 달러의 수익을 창출했을 수 있으며 2025년까지 126억 7,000만 달러를 창출하여 2020년에서 2025년까지 연평균 10.4% 성장할 것으로 예상했다.
스마트카의 보안 문제도 여전한 복병
현재 중국은 여러 도시에 지능형 커넥티드카 시범구역을 구축해 다른 나라에 비해 자율주행차 테스트 시나리오에서 우위를 점하고 방대한 데이터를 축적하고 있다. 이를 배경으로 완전한 무인 로보택시의 소규모 상업 운영이 복잡한 교통 상황을 고려할 때 2025년에 현실이 될 것이라는 예상도 나오고 있다.
글로벌 경영 컨설팅 회사인 맥킨지는 중국은 2030년까지 이러한 신차 및 모빌리티 서비스 판매 수익이 5,000억 달러를 초과할 것으로 예상되는 세계 최대의 자율주행차 시장이 될 것이라고 전망했다.
그런 한편 2022년 12월 중국에서 급부상하고 있는 스마트 전기차 브랜드 니오( NIO : 웨이라이) 보안 책임자가 대국민 사과 성명을 발표했다. 니오 이용자의 개인정보, 차량 판매 정보 등이 다량 유출됐고, 이를 담보로 해커로부터 협박을 받았기 때문이다.
차량과 연결된 데이터의 유출 사건은 비단 니오에만 국한된 이야기는 아니다. 세계적인 자동차 회사에서도 고객 데이터 유출 사고를 피하지 못하고 있다. 미국이나 캐나다 등에서도 해킹 사고가 계속 보고되고 있다. 이에 따라 세계 각국은 차량 데이터 관리 및 보완에 관한 법제도 정비에 안간힘을 쏟고 있다. 그런데도 제도 미비, 프라이버시 양도와 편의성 확보의 불균형, 이용자 인식 부족 등 풀어야 할 과제가 만만치 않다.
중국은 디지털 경제 발전 가속화에 따라, 최신 기술이 집합된 스마트카, 커넥티드카의 발전 속도도 가파르게 증가하고 있다. 2020년 중국의 커넥티드카 보급률은 약 15%로  2025년까지 75%를 초과할 것으로 예상된다. 이는 세계 평균을 웃도는 수준으로 향후 3년간 중국의 커넥티드카 시장이 폭발적으로 증가할 것임을 의미한다.
커넥티드카는 정보통신기술과 연결되어 양방향 인터넷이 가능하다. 이 때문에 이를 통해서 수집 및 보관되는 데이터의 양도 매우 다양하며 방대하다. 주행 및 주차하는 동안 주변의 모든 정보를 수집하고 저장한다. 이에는 교통, 지도, 환경 등의 도시 교통 데이터는 물론이고, 다른 차량 데이터까지도 포함된다.
또 보행자 등 타인의 개인정보와 위치 정보까지도 모두 수집 및 저장된다. 이와 더불어 차량 운전자 개인의 운전 및 운행 습관, 개인정보, 소비 습관, 음성 영상 등 복합적 데이터가 차량 내에서 집적된다.
차량에서 수집, 처리, 저장되는 데이터는 운전자에게 많은 편리성을 제공한다. 단순히 운행을 위한 보조 역할이 아니라 차량이 엔터테인먼트, 쇼핑, 금융업무까지 가능한 하나의 개인공간의 역할을 할 수 있도록 한다. 동시에 차량이 점점 디지털화될수록 이용자는 더 많은 위험에 노출될 수 있다는 것을 의미한다.
중국에서는 대체적으로 하위법이 먼저 만들어지고 최상위 기본법률은 차후에 집대성되곤 했다. 하지만 디지털 경제와 관련해서는 사이버보안법, 데이터보안법, 개인정보보호법 등 기본법률이 먼저 빠르게 제정 또는 개정됐다.  뿐만 아니라 그 하위 세칙들도 빠르게 제정되고 있다.
이런 노력에도 불구하고 중국에서는 자동차 데이터 유출, 커넥티드카 정보서비스 제공 업체 및 관련 플랫폼 공격 등 크고 작은 사건사고가 한 해만도 몇백만 건에 달한다. 법제 정비가 되었어도 법률법규를 이행하는 주체의 강력한 의지가 없다면 자동차 데이터는 계속 해커들의 목표가 될 수밖에 없다.
중국의 디지털경제 건설이 심화할수록 발전과 개인의 프라이버시 보호 사이의 균형을 조정하는 일이 무엇보다 중요해졌다. 특히 디지털경제의 핵심 산업인 커넥티드카는 핸드폰만큼이나 개인의 민감정보가 종합적으로 수집 및 활용되는 만큼 우려와 관심이 집중될 수밖에 없다.
수익성 한계로 투자 급감하고 규제 표준화 미비로 시장 확대도 한계
중국은 국가 지능형 커넥티드카 혁신센터가 제시한 2030년까지 레벨4 자율주행 기술을 전체 신차 판매의 20%로 늘리고 레벨 2 기술은 현재의 30%에서 70%를 늘린다는 로드맵이 있다. 이런 로드맵과는 달리 자율주행 레벨4 기술에 대한 우려가 등장하고 있다.
우선은 수익성이 불투명하다는 이유로 투자가 급감하고 있다. 차이나데일리 등 중국 미디어들에 따르면 2022년 관련 투자 건수는 약 130건이었고 투자 금액은 약 200억 위안이었다. 프로젝트 수는 2021년에 비해 약간 감소했지만, 투자 금액은 약 5분의 1로 줄었다.
바이두는 주행 관련 사업이 매출에 크게 기여하지 않는다고 밝히고 있다. 포니에이아이도 2022년 말 단기 수익 확보가 어렵다고 밝혔다. 위라이드도 마찬가지이다.
그 때문에 레벨 4 준수 차량의 비율은 목표인 20%에 미치지 못할 것이며 리서치 회사 S & P Global Mobility는 레벨 3 이상의 법률은 중국 전체에 충분하지 않으며 설립되더라도 규모를 확장하는 데 시간이 걸릴 것이라며 7%에 머물 것이라고 예상했다.
앞서 언급했듯이 중국에서는 지방 정부가 자율 주행에 대한 특정 규칙을 제정하고 있으며 전국적인 법률이 진행되지 않고 있다. 기업은 운영 영역이 제한되어 있으며 각 지역에 대응해야 한다. 또한 레벨 3 이상의 자율 주행의 경우 일부 도시를 제외하고는 사고 발생 시 책임이 있는 사람, 차량 등록과 같은 특정 규칙이 제정되지 않았다.
또한 여러 장소에서의 실증 테스트에서는 원칙적으로 안전을 확보하기 위해 동승석에 안전 운전자가 있어야 하고 그것은 비용으로 연결된다. 차량 자체의 가격도 높다. 중국 CITIC 증권의 추정에 따르면 일반 택시 차량의 가격은 약 10만 위안이지만 자율 주행 호환 자동차의 가격은 약 50만 위안으로 5배 더 높다. 레벨 4는 레이더와 카메라 등 많은 수의 센서를 채용한다.
그 때문에 각 회사는 비용 절감을 위해 노력하고 있다. 바이두가 2022년 7월 발표한 자율 주행 자동차는 25만 위안으로 이전 자동차의 약 절반이다. CITIC 증권은 운전자가 없는 자율주행차의 경우 차량 가격이 약 20만 위안 이하로 떨어지면 보급이 가속화될 것으로 보고 있다.
그 이야기는 중국 정부 산하 연구소의 한 연구원의 말처럼 자율 주행 상용화는 정식 수수료만 받는 것처럼 현재 시험 단계에 있다고도 할 수 있다.
이런 로보택시의 수익성이 불확실성 때문에 자동차 업체들 관련 시스템을 대외적으로 판매하기 위한 노력을 빠르게 강화하고 있다. 자율 주행 시스템 공급 업체로서 이익을 확보하는 전략을 추구하고 있다는 것이다.
관련 기술의 매출 확대를 위한 노력도 하고 있다. 2023 CES에 위라이드가 레벨3를 지원하는 각종 센서를 출품한 것이 대표적이다. 물론 저가 제품들이 주를 이루고 있다. 2017년 설립된 위라이드는 2022 에는 년 보쉬로부터 투자받았을 때 레벨 3 및 기타 제품과 호환되는 장비를 양산할 것이라고 발표했었다. 그를 바탕으로 외부 업체에 자율 주행 지원 시스템 공급 업체의 기능을 강화하기 위한 전략을 취하고 있다.
포니에이아이도 공급 업체 기능을 확장하고 있다. 2022년 5월에는 자율 주행 소프트웨어의 대량 생산 및 납품을 시작했다고 발표했다. 또한 시스템의 외부 판매를 담당할 사업본부를 신설해 자율주행 택시와 함께 사업의 한 축으로 발전시킬 계획이다.
어쨌거나 중국도 다른 나라에서와 마찬가지로 자율주행에 대한 과도한 기대가 줄어들고 있다.
미국의 맥킨지앤컴퍼니는 레벨 4 자율주행 및 관련 시스템(승용차용)의 글로벌 시장이 2030년 이후에는 150억~250억 달러, 2035년 이후에는 1,700억~2,300억 달러로 빠르게 확대되리라 전망했다.
하지만 언제나 그랬듯이 투자자들의 주머니를 노리는 이들 시장조사회사나 컨설팅회사의 전망은 신뢰성이 약하다. 상황이 바뀌면 언제든지 다른 이유를 들어, 또 다른 전망을 제시할 수 있다. 이 칼럼 앞부분에 언급된 것을 보면 확인할 수 있다.
출처 : 234. 자율주행차 – 23. 중국 자율주행산업도 현실의 벽에 봉착 > 채영석의 글로벌인사이트 | 글로벌오토뉴스 (global-autonews.com)
]]> Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:05:22 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[Firefox 브라우저 이용 장애 / Disability with Firefox browser]]> Tue, 29 Nov 2022 14:35:36 +0000 Notice <![CDATA[Analysis: Ford, VW pop the automated-vehicle bubble with Argo AI exit]]>

Analysis: Ford, VW pop the automated-vehicle bubble with Argo AI exit

By Paul Lienert
Driverless car operated by Argo AI in Austin, Texas
A driverless car operated by Argo AI drives in Austin, Texas, U.S. May 12, 2022 in this handout picture. Argo AI/Handout via REUTERS THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY./File Photo/File Photo

DETROIT, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The road map to fully self-driving vehicles is being rewritten once again, this time by Ford Motor Co (F.N) and Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE).

When the two automakers joined forces in July 2019 to share control of self-driving startup Argo AI, it shook up the landscape among other key players.

Wednesday's announcement that Pittsburgh-based Argo is being shuttered and some of its employees moving to Ford and VW underscores the growing realization that automated vehicles may be even further away from mass deployment than industry executives predicted back in 2019.

"It's become very clear that profitable, fully autonomous vehicles at scale are still a long way off," Ford CFO John Lawler said on Wednesday.

As Ford, General Motors Co (GM.N) and other companies began to realize they would need to step up investment over a longer period of time, “it was never clear what the financial returns were going to be” on automated vehicles, Evangelos Simoudis, an investor, author and corporate adviser, told Reuters on Wednesday.

Regarding Ford and Volkswagen's exit from Argo AI, Simoudis said, “I expect we will see more of those decisions.”

As the AV deployment timeline stretches out even further - after an estimated $100 billion cumulative investment by global automakers and suppliers - once-inflated valuations of self-driving companies have come crashing to earth.

VW's initial investment in Argo in 2019 was valued at $2.6 billion, including $1 billion in cash and the $1.6 billion value of VW's European self-driving unit, which was absorbed into Argo. VW also bought Argo shares from Ford for $500 million.

Ford previously injected $1 billion into Argo when it bought control of the company in 2017. On Wednesday, it wrote down $2.7 billion in impairment charges.

Before it acquired the stake in Argo, VW flirted with at least two other U.S.-based self-driving startups: Alphabet Inc's (GOOGL.O) Waymo and Aurora Innovation (AUR.O).

VW reportedly considered a $13.7 billion investment in 2018 in Waymo for a 10% stake that would have valued Waymo at $137 billion.

The value of Waymo just before then was estimated by Wall Street at $175 billion to $250 billion. Its most recent valuation by PitchBook of $30.75 billion dates to May 2020.

The market cap of Aurora, which went public nearly a year ago, has sunk to $2.5 billion, from a 52-week high of more than $20 billion.

When VW announced its initial investment in Argo in July 2019, it walked away from a development deal with Aurora, when the Silicon Valley firm was valued at $2.5 billion and backed by Hyundai Motor (005380.KS) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O).

Hyundai eventually formed a self-driving joint venture called Motional with Aptiv (APTV.N). Amazon bought self-driving startup Zoox.

Argo's most recent valuation was $7.25 billion, but that was more than two years ago, according to investor website PitchBook. The company laid off 150 employees in July, when it said it was adjusting its business plan.

The value of its nearest rival, the General Motors majority-owned Cruise, was estimated by PitchBook at $30 billion in January 2021, but its current value likely has dropped since key investor SoftBank sold its stake back to GM earlier this year. GM meanwhile is losing $2 billion a year on Cruise.

Mobileye Global (MBLY.O) went public this week, but at a third of the $50 billion valuation it was targeting earlier in its IPO.

The company, which was acquired by Intel Corp (INTC.O) in 2017 for $15.3 billion, saw its market cap recover to more than $21 billion on Wednesday, reflecting the company's financial strength and reputation, particularly in assisted driving systems. Intel still holds a majority stake.

출처 : https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ford-vw-pop-automated-vehicle-bubble-with-argo-ai-exit-2022-10-26/

]]> Fri, 28 Oct 2022 10:16:44 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[We Blew It]]> We Blew It We blew it. That’s right, we blew it. What do I mean? Rather than investing in a sustainable mix of energy and in increasing the productivity of labor and industrial processes, we squandered irreplaceable oceans of capital and credit in oh-so profitable skims and scams such as $10 trillion in stock buybacks and completely unproductive speculative absurdities. All the capital that was malinvested in shifting production overseas, financial scheming and speculation cannot be replaced. All the credit that was squandered on skims and scams (borrow billions to fund stock buybacks, borrow trillions to reward cronies and buy the complicity of the masses) is now an unstable toxic dump that threatens a financial system that is now the crumbling keystone of the entire global economy. We didn’t have to be this foolish, but the incentives made it all rational to squander trillions of irreplaceable capital and decades of irreplaceable time. The incentives reward maximizing short-term profits by any means available, which include bribery, buying political favors, balance sheet fraud, loading companies with debt then taking them public, etc. — none of which increase productivity, innovation or sustainability. These incentives follow a power-law distribution: the greater the leverage, debt, monopoly and financial trickery, the greater the gains.

Late Stage, Crony Capitalism

None of these extremely profitable financial strategies boosted productivity, jobs or efficiencies. All they accomplished was enriching the already rich. Call this incentive structure whatever you like: late-stage capitalism, crony capitalism, etc., the bottom line is this global system doesn’t reward investing in productivity or long-term sustainability because those investments are risky. Why invest in something risky when you can generate billions in pure profits via exploitation, fraud and financial games that were once illegal? Exploitation: arbitrage low wages and minimal environmental standards by shipping production overseas; should costs rise slightly as residents object to their nation becoming a toxic waste dump and their workers being ripped off, production is moved to a more exploitable locale. Fraud: off-balance sheet, buying a company with debt, selling off its assets, hiding expenses and debt in off-balance sheet footnotes and then selling the indebted shell to unwary investors. Financial games: load the company with debt to buy back shares, reducing the float and boosting per share earnings without increasing sales, productivity or profits. Stock buybacks were illegal not that long ago because they are blatant means of self-enrichment. So were pharmaceutical ads aimed at consumers. This is not the warm and fuzzy version of capitalism found in textbooks. In the PR textbook version, entrepreneurs “create wealth” via innovation that creates new products and services and boosts productivity by increasing the skills of the workforce and the efficiencies of industrial production.

Vampires

Those paid to glorify this facade can cherry-pick examples, but the real money isn’t made in innovation, it’s made by ring-fencing monopolies and plundering productive assets. Rather than foster innovation, monopolies choke off disruptive innovations and competition as threats to their steady flow of profits. Rather than invest in increasing productivity — the only real source of wealth creation — profits have been maximized by plundering productive assets: the workforce, resources and once-productive sectors.
All this profiteering took cheap energy and resources and limitless credit for granted. As long as somebody somewhere was doing the dirty work of extracting and processing all the energy and resources needed to keep the system running, then the financiers were free to “create wealth” for themselves via fraud, exploitation and games. Now that the low-hanging fruit has all been plucked, it’s taking a lot more capital and expertise to extract harder-to-get resources. Credit seemed infinite when rates were near-zero, and everyone said that was The New Normal. But alas, capital still responds to risk by demanding a return, and the happy days of infinite credit and zero rates are over, regardless of whatever hopeful predictions are issued by those wistful for bottomless credit lines. Rather than incentivize investing in our workforce and productivity, the system incentivizes plundering the workforce and productive assets, commoditizing everything into chunks that can be tossed into the plunder-meat-grinder to maximize the short-term gains of those who own the financial assets and the political power. Now that we need to boost productivity and efficiency to build a sustainable economy, the capital, credit and skills needed to do so have been squandered to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

A Race Against Time

Time is running out to change the incentive structure and the system to reward investment in productivity rather than plunder. Look at the charts below of global energy and population. Hundreds of billions of dollars, yen, yuan and euros have been invested in alternative energy sources, but their share of global energy is still so thin a slice that you have to squint to see it. It will take tens of trillions of dollars to make a dent in energy and industrial-transport-building efficiency. Many people are proponents of nuclear energy, but few look at the scale or cost. The U.S. has built a grand total of two nuclear plants in the past 25 years. Yes, a small modular design recently received approval, and the first prototype may be ready for testing in 2030. (According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “As of May 25, 2022, there were 54 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 92 nuclear power reactors in 28 U.S. states. The newest nuclear reactor to enter service, Watts Bar Unit 2 with 1,122 MW net summer electricity generating capacity, began commercial operation in 2016. Two new nuclear reactors are actively under construction: Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia”). To make a real difference, hundreds of such nuclear energy modules will have to be manufactured, and not next century, but starting now. Where are the resources, fuel, capital and expertise to do so? Oops, all the capital went into skims and scams rather than into the workforce and real-world productivity. Investing in our workforce has morphed into an especially cruel form of financial plunder, self-exploitation: the workforce is expected to borrow tens of thousands of dollars to fund their own education, with little guidance from a rapacious banking-higher-education system other than “the more diplomas you get, the richer you’ll become.” While this self-serving advice enriches the banking-higher-education cartels, it isn’t generating systemic productivity gains. If it did, we’d be seeing huge leaps in productivity rather than declines. Plunder is fun until everything has been plundered. Then what? 출처 : https://dailyreckoning.com/we-blew-it/]]> Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:06:20 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[The Status of Global Oil Production (Part 5)]]> What are the Alternatives to Oil?  A key area in which oil distillates, which come from oil, are used is transportation.  In the U.S., ~70% of oil is used for transportation purposes.  In Part 5, I will focus on alternatives to oil in the transportation sector.  Environmentalists like to say that oil can be easily replaced with electric and fuel cell vehicles in the transportation sector.  But how realistic is that assertion? Electric vehicles are all the rage these days.  The impression given by some prominent promoters of electric vehicles in the U.S. is that in fairly short order the vast majority of American motor vehicle owners will be driving electric vehicles because electric vehicles are so much better than gasoline or diesel fuel powered vehicles.  For one thing, CO2 doesn’t emanate from the tailpipe of an electric vehicle which makes electric vehicles superior in their eyes. Also, electric vehicles owners say electric vehicles are fun to drive because of their rapid acceleration and quiet ride.  I hear the virtues of electric vehicles in particular from liberal/progressive electric vehicle promoters who like the thought that every adult American will drive an electric vehicle to solve the global warming problem. Electric vehicles have been around since the start of the auto industry.  Many of the early cars in the late 1800s/early 1900s were electric but it became obvious fairly quickly that oil distillate powered vehicles had an advantage over electric vehicles. The advantage that oil distillates have is that the energy density (energy content/unit volume) is significantly greater than electric batteries and that advantage still exists even with advanced battery technologies.  To reduce the disadvantage for electric vehicles, auto makers put as many battery cells in series as they can to maximize the range of electric vehicles. Current batteries used in electric vehicles are generally lithium ion batteries because lithium is the lightest of metals which reduces the mass of the battery and the vehicle although electric vehicles are still very heavy (Alternative batteries are starting to be used or are under development).  Based upon data from Wikipedia, gasoline has an energy density from 13 to 38 times that of a lithium ion battery.  For diesel fuel, the energy density is from 15 to 43 times that of a lithium ion battery. What does that mean for present gasoline and electric vehicles?  According to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) report, electric vehicles in 2021 had a median range of 234 miles.  For gasoline powered vehicles, the median range was 403 miles. Modern electric vehicles have the whole bottom of the vehicle covered with electric battery cells.  Many electric vehicles now have a rated range of +300 miles.  You are unlikely to achieve that range unless you are willing to drive very slowly at around 70oF. There are three areas, in particular, where the difference in energy density is important. 1). Hauling and towing-Hauling and towing requires a significant amount of energy.  Obviously the heavier the load, the more energy that is required.  Hauling and towing with an electric vehicle can substantially reduce the range of the vehicle.  There are many YouTube videos that demonstrate what happens when a trailer is towed with an electric vehicle. To make a long story short, towing on flat terrain can significantly reduce the range of an electric vehicle. Towing uphill dramatically reduces the range of an electric vehicle. 2). Driving in cold weather-Cold weather can seriously reduce range.   Obviously the colder the temperature, the more the range is reduced.  There are numerous YouTube videos that highlight the effects of cold weather on the range of electric vehicles. A further point about cold weather is that in winter it’s not unusual to use heaters, defrosters, windshield wipers, etc. that drain energy from the battery.  Temperatures above 70oF also decrease the range but not as significantly. 3). Long distance driving-If you want to drive long distances with an electric vehicle, you have to be willing to stop more frequently to recharge the battery.  Based upon media reports, with a Tesla Supercharger you can charge up in 25-30 minutes.  If you frequently go long distances, particularly in cold and inclement weather, you may find that an EV is not your best choice. Electric vehicles are portrayed as “green”.  I suppose if the fact that CO2 doesn’t come out of a tailpipe is being “green” then they are green but if you consider the environmental impact of mining and refining metals like lithium, cobalt, nickel as well as other metals and metalloids, then electric vehicles aren’t so green. I suppose the advantage for Americans is that most of the mining, refining and manufacturing of battery cells is done in other countries which will reduce U.S. CO2 emissions and allow electric vehicle owners to avoid the environmental impacts of the mining, refining and manufacturing. A substantial amount of fossil fuel energy goes into mining and refining of elements that go into electric batteries as well as the manufacturing of electric vehicles.   The argument that electric vehicle promoters make is that less CO2 is generated from electric vehicles over their lifetime compared to oil distillate powered vehicles so electric vehicles are good for the environment. The problem is that an electric vehicle will still produce significant quantities of CO2 over its lifetime even if it’s less than an oil distillate powered vehicle.  I don’t expect electric vehicles to be our salvation when it comes to global warming.  If people really want to reduce their carbon footprint, they should be walking, bicycling or riding mass transit.  From what I see, the vast majority of Americans don’t go anywhere without a motor vehicle. A problem when it comes to walking and bicycling in the U.S. is that the U.S. has to a large extent been designed for motor vehicles and only motor vehicles.  In the last ~75 years, urban development has been concentrated on suburbs and exurbs. Destinations in suburbs and exurbs are spread out and roads are dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians.  Some suburbs and exurbs don’t even have sidewalks because you apparently aren’t supposed to walk in those areas. Even the streets in most American cities aren’t designed to accommodate bicycles.  Bicyclists in American cities can only dream of having bicycle infrastructures like the European cities of Utrecht and Groningen as illustrated in these two videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boi0XEm9-4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv38J7SKH_g The goal of the present U.S. federal administration is to have 50% of all new personal motor vehicle sales be electric by 2030.  I place the probability of achieving that goal at essentially zero.  Even if that goal was achieved, most vehicles on the road would continue to be oil distillate powered vehicles because of the large number of oil distillate powered vehicles presently on the road and the long time needed to replace the present fleet of vehicles. A report in February 2022 put the percentage of the ~250 million cars, SUVs and light trucks in the U.S. that are electric at less than 1%.  U.S. new light vehicle sales in 2021 were approximately 15 million vehicles. There will be a lot of people who won’t buy an electric vehicle for the reasons given above.  There are a lot of people who won’t buy an electric vehicle because they can’t afford to buy one (The average price for a new EV in the U.S. is $66,000 according to Kelley Blue Book).  There are people who won’t buy an electric vehicle because they don’t want an electric vehicle. In terms of U.S. oil consumption, there are numerous industries that are not conducive for going electric such as long haul trucking, construction, agriculture, logging, mining and aviation.   Also, the U.S. military uses on the order of 250,000-300,000 b/d of oil.  What they use it for to a significant extent is not conducive to electric vehicles. I hear some liberal/progressive commentators who promote the idea that in fairly short order everything will be electric and all electricity will be produced from renewable sources.  I am highly skeptical of that.  I don’t see the present economic system as being able to function without huge inputs of fossil fuel energy, including oil. Fuel Cell Vehicles– There is a lot of talk about hydrogen (H2) being a significant energy source for motor vehicles in the near future.  Figure 1 is a diagram of a fuel cell: fuel cellFigure 1*-Diagram of a fuel cell *From the Internet In a fuel cell, a fuel such as hydrogen come in contact with an electrode (anode), the electrons get stripped off the H2 and the hydrogen ions react with O2- ions to form water.  The electrons go through an external circuit that can power a motor.  The electrons then proceed to the cathode to form O2- ions from O2. What I find interesting is that now hydrogen is color coded so that we have green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, grey hydrogen and black or brown hydrogen depending on how the hydrogen is produced. What environmentalists want is green hydrogen, hydrogen gas made from water.  It’s actually quite easy to generate hydrogen gas from water through electrolysis.  The problem is that it’s energy intensive and expensive.  Of course to be environmentally produced, the energy for the electrolysis would have to come from renewable resources. A problem associated with generating and using H2 in fuel cell vehicles is that much of the original energy used to generate the H2 is lost at steps along the way ending in the actual driving of a fuel cell vehicle as shown in Figures 2 and 3: Figure 2Figure 2*-Comparison of providing energy to a fuel cell vehicle verses an electric vehicle *From the Internet Figure 2 illustrates the process by which an energy source, such as the sun, is used to generate electricity to create hydrogen from water, the process of distributing the hydrogen and finally the use of H2 in a fuel cell vehicle.  Note that the process of providing energy to an electric vehicle requires one step. Figure 3Figure 3*-Energy losses in the process of providing energy to a fuel cell vehicle *From the Internet What Figure 3 illustrates is that a considerable amount of the original electrical energy (100 watts) used to generate and use the H2 gas is lost in the process of hydrogen generation, compression and distribution of the hydrogen, the conversion of the hydrogen to electricity in the fuel cell and then the process of using the electricity in an electric motor. What Figure 3 shows is that only about 38% of the original 100 watts of energy makes it to power the vehicle.  If the H2 has to be hauled significant distances, I can see the loss during transportation being much greater than what is illustrated in Figure 3. For an electric vehicle, about 80% of the original electric energy used to charge a vehicle’s battery is available to power the vehicle. Hydrogen can be burned directly in the engine of a motor vehicle or it can be used in motor vehicle fuel cells.  The advantage of a fuel cell is that a fuel cell is more efficient than burning H2 in an internal combustion engine. There are two fuel cell vehicles presently available, the Toyota Mirai and Hyundai Nexo.  The Mirai starts at about $50,000 which is cheaper than the Nexo which starts at around $60,000.   A fuel related problem at the moment for fuel cell vehicles is that only two states, California and Hawaii, have hydrogen gas filling stations. Report Conclusion-Promoters of fracking make the case that fracking is a game changer for global oil production.  U.S. tight oil production from fracking delayed peak global oil production a bit but at this point, it’s clear to me that U.S. tight oil production will decline in the coming years and it doesn’t appear that production will increase significantly in the foreseeable future in other countries that could conceivable produce significant quantities of tight oil. Vladimir Putin has indicated that Russia will not go the fracking route anytime soon and that is the country I would expect to have the highest probability of significantly increasing tight oil production. China may have significant shale formations but they tend to be deeper than in the U.S. which makes it more difficult and expensive to produce tight oil.  Fracking requires a lot of water and a lack of water is an issue in the prime shale regions within China.  China’s oil producers have been working on fracking but there has been strong public opposition to the technique due to the problems it creates. In Venezuela, the Orinoco Oil Belt has a considerable amount of extra heavy oil but there will be no significant oil production increase in that region anytime soon due to the political and financial situation there. In terms of electric vehicles, Americans with the financial means will tend to buy electric vehicles, at least for one of their vehicles, but people without financial means will tend not to buy electric vehicles.  Those who buy electric vehicles may feel smug about being “environmentally superior” but I don’t expect that electric vehicles will alter U.S. and global CO2 emissions by all that much in the foreseeable future. I don’t see fuel cell vehicles having a significant impact on the U.S. or global automotive fleet anytime soon. The coming years will be interesting when it comes to oil depletion.  We are facing a serious problem in my view.  Most Americans are oblivious to oil depletion and think oil production, either U.S. or global, can increase for a long time to come if not forever. The U.S. DOE/EIA and the mainstream media in the U.S. have promoted the idea that oil will always be available to Americans in the quantities they desire so it shouldn’t be surprising that Americans think what they think about oil supply.  And if the price of oil rises significantly, they are sure to find a scapegoat. We have at least one political party in the U.S. that promotes the idea of infinite or near infinite oil supply as well.  What the members of the party think about is all the money to be made from that oil, consequences be damned. The U.S. has designed a transportation infrastructure tailored to motor vehicles and to a large extent only motor vehicles.  What we need in the U.S. is a dramatic change in land use planning that doesn’t require people to have motor vehicles to get to where they want to go.  Our direction will not be easy to change but the time to start a serious national change is at hand.   출처 : https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-08-31/the-status-of-global-oil-production-part-5/]]> Fri, 02 Sep 2022 15:27:13 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[The Status of Global Oil Production (Part 1)]]> An Overview  At this point in time, probably all American adults are aware that the price of oil, or at least gasoline and diesel fuel, are much higher than they have been in recent years.  Human nature being what it is, it’s necessary to find a scapegoat for the high prices. From the conservative point of view, it’s obviously the president, a Democrat, who is the cause of the high prices.  The president must be impeding oil development throughout the U.S. even though almost all geologically fruitful areas for oil development in the U.S. are open for development and have been for a long time.  It should be pointed out that the president hasn’t prevented U.S. oil production from going up 263,000 b/d in the first quarter of this year compared to the 2021 average. It appears that a significant portion of the 263,000 b/d increase has been due to the fracking industry completing thousands of drilled but uncompleted (DUC) wells in recent months.  Most of the production increase from shale plays has come from the Permian Basin, by far the largest shale play in the U.S., so I found this recent quote interesting:
“The supply chain seems stretched to the max in the Permian Basin. There really is not much ability to increase drilling activity.” An executive at an oilfield service company, quoted by Oilprice.com
Secondly, the president must have instituted regulations that are impeding gasoline and diesel fuel production.  Whatever the president may be doing, he hasn’t prevented the refinery industry from exporting large amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel. According to U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (U.S. DOE/EIA) data for the week ending 6/10/22, U.S. refiners exported 926,000 barrels/day (b/d) of gasoline and 1.379 million barrels/day (mb/d) of distillate fuel oil (diesel fuels and fuel oils are included in this term). From the liberal/progressive point of view, it’s clear that it’s the oil industry with their nefarious machinations’ that are causing the high prices.  Petroleum corporations are obviously colluding to limit production of oil, gasoline and diesel fuel that is leading to high gasoline and diesel fuel prices. From an international perspective, the war in Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia or countries like Saudi Arabia that don’t increase oil production significantly are causing the high oil prices. Could it be that there is a politically less appealing but a more realistic explanation for what is causing high oil prices? The basic view I hear from Americans is that oil production can go up, whether in the U.S. or throughout the world, because there are an innumerable number of oil containing regions that can be drilled if the U.S. government, and other governments, would just get out of the way.  I hear the same basic view expressed by media commentators, whether conservative, liberal or something in between. Many Americans appear to think that oil can be found anywhere.  All an oil company has to do is drill a hole deep enough and oil will come out.  Although that sounds appealing, the problem is that specific geologic circumstances are required to create and trap oil.  That is why oil is found in specific locations.  Because many Americans, including politicians, don’t want to accept that fact there are political debates about opening areas in the U.S. that at best contain trivial amounts of oil. Interestingly, I have not seen nor heard any news stories from the mainstream media, or non-mainstream media for that matter, that have suggested that depletion may be a factor for high oil prices. The Elephants in the Room For this report I will focus on crude oil + condensate, what most people think of when they think of oil that comes out of the ground.  The data for graphs representing oil production of countries comes from the U.S. DOE/EIA.
Most of the oil that has been produced up to now has been conventional oil (oil that comes out of the ground due to reservoir pressure or that is pumped out) from conventional oil fields and most of that oil has come from what are termed elephant fields.  I will consider an elephant oil field as one that falls into one of three categories: 1). A giant field with an Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) of 0.5-5.0 billion barrels (Gb) of oil 2). A supergiant field with an EUR of 5.0-50.0 Gb of oil 3). A megagiant field with an EUR of 50.0+ Gb of oil There are several megagiant fields (Ghawar-Saudi Arabia and Burgan-Kuwait) globally and less than 50 conventional supergiant fields.  Elephants are typically found early is the exploration process because they are large and easy to find. A mere 120 of the world’s largest oil fields produced ~32 mb/d of oil in 2000, almost half of the world’s daily production that year.  The world’s 15 largest oil fields produced approximately 22% of the world’s daily oil production in 2000.  The point here is that a small number of large conventional oil fields make up a significant proportion of our oil supply. Most of the world’s conventional oil has been found, and most of that oil was found in elephants.  Figure 1 is a graph of global oil discoveries as a function of time: Figure 1Figure 1*-Oil discoveries and production *From the Internet The large spikes in Figure 1 are associated with the discovery of large elephants, fields like Ghawar, Burgan, Samotlor, etc.  For quite a while now, global oil production and consumption have been considerably higher than the rate of new discoveries. Elephants can produce oil for an extended period of time, often decades, at very high rates.  The problem with having a high production rate is that even a large oil field has a limited amount of oil.  At some point even the largest oil fields will go into decline and when they do, they can decline at impressive rates. Figures 2-7 are examples of prominent elephant fields that have gone into decline: Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4Figure 5Figure 6Figure 7Figures 2-7*-Graphs of elephant oil fields that are in decline *From the Internet  Figure 2 is a graph of Ghawar oil field production (Saudi Arabia), the largest conventional oil field in the world.  It has a EUR of 110-120 Gb and had a maximum production rate of over 5 mb/d.  According to a recent report (2019) out of Saudi Arabia, it was producing ~3.9 mb/d as of 2019. Figure 3 is a graph of Samotlor field oil production (Annual versus Cumulative), the largest field in the Former Soviet Union and 7th largest oil field in the world.  At its peak, it was producing at a rate of approximately 3.2 mb/d.  The EUR for Samotlor is approximately 22 Gb. Figure 4 is a graph of Cantarell Complex oil production (Mexico), the largest complex in the western hemisphere.  Cantarell consists of 4 fields-Akal, Nohoch, Chac and Kutz.  Akal is by far the largest of the 4 fields.  Production reached its highest rate in 2004 at 2.1 mb/d.  Today it produces at roughly 1/10th of the peak production rate.  The EUR for Cantarell is approximately 19 Gb. Figure 5 is a graph of Prudhoe Bay field oil production (Annual versus Cumulative), the largest field in the United States at ~12 Gb.  Maximum production occurred in 1988 at 1.5 mb/d.  Today the production rate is approximately 0.2 b/d. Figure 6 is a graph of Statfjord field oil production, the largest field in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea, with a EUR of ~4.2 Gb.  The production rate peaked at 646,000 b/d in 1991.  The production rate in 2021 was approximately 15,000 b/d, a decline of approximately 98%. Figure 7 is a graph of Forties field oil production (annual versus cumulative), the largest field in the U.K. sector of the North Sea with a EUR of ~2.5 Gb. Forties field oil production peaked in 1980 at 523,000 b/d.  In 2021, the production rate was approximately 20,000 b/d, a decline of approximately 96%. After the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, there was an intense effort globally to increase oil production outside of OPEC nations.  The effort was particularly intense in Alaska, the North Sea and Mexico but it went well beyond those regions. The Impact of Declining Elephants If an elephant produces a significant portion of the total production for a region, say over 30%, then when the field goes into decline that can lead to the region going into decline even if smaller fields are added to the production base within the region.  Three obvious examples of this are Alaska, the North Sea, and Mexico. Alaska-Figure 8 is a graph of Alaskan oil production from 1973 through 2021: Figure 8Figure 8-Alaskan oil production Alaskan oil production surged in the 1970s with the addition of the Prudhoe Bay field (EUR ~12 Gb).  Since 1988, when the Prudhoe Bay field reached its maximum production rate, many smaller fields have been added to the North Slope of Alaska but that hasn’t stopped the inevitable decline of Alaskan oil production.  Alaskan oil production reached a peak of 2.02 mb/d in 1988.  As of 2021, it was producing 0.437 mb/d, a decline of 78.4%. North Sea-North Sea oil production surged in the 1970s and 1980s.  There are a large number of oil fields in the North Sea, many of them elephants.  Impressive production rates were achieved for those elephants but it didn’t take long before production declined in those fields. Figure 9 is a graph of North Sea oil production from 1973 through 2021: Figure 9Figure 9-North Sea oil production North Sea oil production peaked in 1999 for the sum of Norway, United Kingdom and Denmark at 6.003 mb/d.  The production rate plateau in recent years is due largely to the addition of the Johan Sverdrup field (EUR 1.9-3.0 Gb). As of 2021, North Sea oil production was 2.649 mb/d, a decline of 55.9% from the 1999 rate.  North Sea oil production will start to decline again in a few more years as the Johan Sverdrup field goes into decline. Mexico-Figure 10 is a graph of Mexican oil production: Figure 10Figure 10-Mexican oil production Mexican oil production increased rapidly in the 1970s with the addition of the Cantarell Complex.  Nitrogen injection of the Cantarell reservoirs in the late 1990s/early 2000s led to Cantarell achieving a production rate of 2.1 mb/d in 2004. Cantarell Complex oil production declined rapidly after 2004.  The state oil company, Pemex, to a degree replaced declining production from Cantarell with new production from the Ku/Maloob/Zaap (KMZ) project, brought on-line in 2002, but that didn’t prevent Mexican oil production from peaking in 2004 at 3.476 mb/d and then going into decline.  As of 2021, the production rate for Mexico had declined to 1.734 mb/d, a decline of 50.1% from the 2004 value. The Ku-Maloob-Zaap Complex reached a production rate of 839,200 b/d in 2010 and 853,000 b/d in Nov. 2015.   The production rate was down to 770,000 b/d in July 2019 and 719,000 b/d in 2021.  The Ku-Maloob-Zaap Complex is a complex in decline. To address the decline of conventional elephants, the oil industry has taken 4 measures.  A problem with those measures is that they tend to be more expensive per unit of oil produced.  A second problem is that they generally come with more extensive environmental problems. First, smaller fields are developed in an attempt to replace declining production from elephants. Second, the oil industry has gone into deeper and deeper offshore areas.  Deep water oil development is defined as oil extraction in water depths >1000 ft.  Deep water offshore development mainly occurs in 4 countries: U.S., Brazil, Norway and Angola but the impact of deep water development has mainly been in the U.S. and Brazil.  Interestingly, oil production in Angola has generally declined since 2008 when the production rate was 1.951 mb/d.  In the first quarter of 2022, Angola’s oil production rate was 1.168 mb/d. In 2021, offshore oil discoveries fell to a 75 year low.  The argument put forward is that low oil prices inhibited exploration.  That said, there is a problem in that the most fruitful offshore areas have now been pretty extensively explored, including the deep water areas. Third, extra heavy oil and oil sands can be developed in countries like Venezuela and Canada.  Extra heavy oil is oil that has a high viscosity (it doesn’t flow well).  Venezuela has a region called the Orinoco Oil Belt that contains a considerable amount of extra heavy oil.   Canada is the most prominent country with regard to oil sands.  The oil sands in Canada are located in the Athabasca region of Alberta. Fourth, in the U.S. and a few other countries, the oil industry has pushed a process called fracking.  Fracking involves using high pressure fluid to break up shale formation rock to release oil and gas.  Fracking is combined with horizontal drilling in which a well can have a horizontal deviation of miles.  A well pad may have on the order of 10 horizontal wells that go off in various directions. Fracking has been very effective in the U.S.  Between 2008 and 2019, tight oil production from fracking increased ~7.3 mb/d in the U.S.  The downside of fracking is that the well production rate declines 70-90% by the end of the third year of production, the sweet spots within shale plays are typically much smaller than the overall play extent and fracked wells are quite expensive.  According to media reports in the U.S., the shale industry lost over $300 billion during the 2010-2020 period. Fracking combined with horizontal drilling has been going on in the U.S. for over 15 years but it hasn’t been a significant factor increasing oil production in other countries for a variety of reasons from environmental, technical, political, economic, property and mineral rights issues, and infrastructure limitations.  It’s not clear when, or if, fracking will play a major role for oil production in other countries. Today it is highly unusual to find a conventional oil field of a billion barrels of oil or more (I’m aware that Iran is claiming a recent find of over 50 Gb. I am always wary of exaggerated claims and this article highlights problems with the Iranian claim: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Truth-Behind-Irans-Massive-Oil-Find.html). Global Oil Production Figure 11 is a graph of global oil production from 1973 through the first quarter of 2022: Figure 11 Figure 11-Global oil production Global oil production increased approximately 8 mb/d from 2008 to 2019.  Almost all of that production increase was due to an unconventional oil production increase within the U.S., most of it from fracking.  The remainder of the increase in the U.S. was from deep water Gulf of Mexico oil production. The decline in global oil production in 2020 relative to 2019 (6.15 mb/d) was due to the COVID pandemic that caused a significant decline in oil demand.  Since then, demand has picked back up to the point where oil prices have risen significantly. It will be difficult to increase global oil production back to the rate of 2019 in 2022 and beyond because some of the decline that has occurred since 2019 is associated with declining oil fields and second, it will be difficult to raise U.S. tight oil production significantly beyond the 2019 level. First quarter 2022 global oil production has picked up but it’s considerably below the production rate prior to the pandemic.  The difference between the first quarter 2022 and fourth quarter 2018 production rates is 4.074 mb/d.  Fourth quarter 2018 was the quarter with the maximum global production rate achieved before the pandemic. In a separate report, ”The Status of U.S. Oil Production”, https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-05-04/the-status-of-u-s-oil-production/, I made the case that 4 of the top five oil shale plays in the U.S. will not again produce at the maximum rate they had achieved in the past.  The Permian Basin, the fifth play, can exceed the maximum rate of 2019 because of the present elevated price of oil but there are serious future problems for the Permian Basin that will lead to a production decline in the not-too-distant future. Figure 12 is a graph of global oil production – U.S. oil production from 1973 through the first quarter of 2022: Figure 12Figure 12-Global Oil Production – U.S. Oil Production What is evident from Figure 12 is that global oil production outside of the U.S. did not increase much from 2008 to 2019.   In 2008, global oil production – U.S. oil production was 69.30 mb/d.  In 2019, global oil production – U.S. oil production was 69.86 mb/d, an increase of 0.56 mb/d over 2008. Global oil production outside of the U.S. increased only marginally from 2008 to 2019.  Some countries, such as Canada, Brazil, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait had oil production increases from 2008 to 2019 as shown in Table I:
Country Canada Brazil United Arab Emirates Kuwait
Oil Production Increase (tb/d) 1,829 969 666 235
Table I The sum of the increase for the countries in Table I is 3.699 mb/d. Other countries had production decreases.  Figure 13 is a graph of oil production from 1980 through the first quarter of 2022 for countries that had their maximum oil production rate prior to 2006, achieved a maximum production rate of at least 150,000 b/d and have declined at least 25% since their maximum production rate. Figure 13Figure 13-Summed Oil Production for Countries in Decline with a Production Peak prior to 2006* *Mexico, Norway, United Kingdom, Denmark, Indonesia, Argentina, Syria, Australia, Brunei, Chad, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Malaysia, Romania, Trinidad/Tobago, Vietnam, Yemen, Peru For the countries in the graph of Figure 13, summed oil production reached its highest rate in 1997 at 17.60 mb/d.  In the first quarter of 2022, the summed production rate had declined to 10.26 mb/d, a decline of 7.34 mb/d or 41.7%. Syria and Yemen are included in the graph of Figure 13 even though both have been involved with wars in recent years.  Their peak production rates occurred well before the wars started and they were both in steady decline prior to the wars so they were included in the graph. Other countries started declining after 2005.  Examples include Azerbaijan (-31.30% from 2010 to 2021), Angola (-42.23% from 2008 to 2021) and Algeria (-33.55% from 2007 to 2021). According to the U.S. DOE/EIA oil production data page for countries on their website, over 150 countries had a 2021 oil production rate of less than 20,000 b/d and most of those countries produced no oil at all.  For countries where the geological past didn’t involve the generating and trapping of oil, the countries have little or no oil to produce. Figure 14 is a graph of historical conventional oil production and a prediction of future production: Figure 14Figure 14*-Historical conventional oil production (blue) and a prediction of future production (red) *From the Internet Conventional oil production has trended down in recent years as Figure 14 illustrates.  If the prediction of the graph for future conventional oil production is reasonably accurate, the production rate will decline at a higher rate in the not-too-distant future. Estimates of the global ultimate recovery of conventional oil have historically fallen in the range of 2000-2500 Gb.  By my calculations, global cumulative oil production through 2021 was 1460 Gb.  The 1460 Gb figure would also include some unconventional oil production as well.  In 2022, global oil extraction will be approximately 29 Gb. For the purposes of this report, I will consider unconventional oil production to include extra heavy oil/oil sands, deep water oil, and tight oil from fracking.  Oil production from these sources has been increasing in recent years and some people argue that unconventional oil can replace a decline from conventional sources. Is that realistic?  We will explore that in future parts of this report under the countries that conceivably have unconventional oil resources worth exploiting and we’ll also look at what’s happening in important specific regions of the globe such as the Middle East.  Let’s explore the Middle East in Part 2. Energy Bulletin – by Roger Blanchard 출처 : https://peakoil.com/production/the-status-of-global-oil-production-part-1]]> Sun, 07 Aug 2022 21:20:27 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[테슬라와 일론 머스크의 2022년 봄, 그리고 팩트들]]> Things You Need To Know About Tesla's Supercharger Network Vs Other Charging Networks
자동차산업의 뉴스도 팩트와 트렌드, 그리고 방향성을 잘 읽어야 한다. 팩트가 곧 진실은 아니다. 그 수치만으로 모든 것을 분석하고 평가할 수는 없다. 지금 자동차산업의 뉴스는 전기차가 주도하고 있다. 하지만 아직은 서구권에서는 유럽 중심, 아시아권에서는 중국이 중심이다. 아시아에서도 인도는 전체 판매 대수도 적지만 전기차 판매 42만대 중 사륜차의 시장 점유율도 3%가 채 되지 않는다. 그러니까 3%라는 팩트가 모든 것을 말하는 것이 아니다. 지금 수치상으로 가장 많이 시선을 끄는 것이 테슬라의 주가지수일 것이다. 그 주가로 모든 것을 평가하는 경향이 강하다. 그 팩트에 목을 매는 사람들이 많다. 그 수치로 수많은 분석을 하고 평가한다. 테슬라 관련 팩트를 중심으로 과연 무엇을 봐야 할지 짚어 본다.
글 / 채영석 (글로벌오토뉴스 국장)
테슬라의 주가지수는 월간으로 보면 2019년 말 84달러, 2020년 1월 130달러선이었던 것이 12월 705달러를 돌파했고 2021년 12월에는 1,100달러로 통상적이지 않은 상승세를 보였다. 한때는 장중 1,253달러였던 떼도 있었다. 그리고 지난 5월 24일에는 628달러까지 떨어졌다가 다시 700달러선을 며칠 사이에 돌파했다. 그야말로 널뛰기 하고 있다. 이것이 정상적이라고 생각하는 사람들은 테슬라의 주가로 수익을 올리는 이들이라는 비판이 나오고 있다. 테슬라의 주가는 기업가치보다는 갈 곳 없는 유동성이 몰리고 있다는 분석이 더 합리적이다. 2022년 봄은 최고의 실적이라는 팩트와 ‘테슬라의 자율주행은 사기’라는 뉴욕타임스의 평가가 엇갈리며 그 어느 때보다 극과 극의 현상이 나타나고 있다. 그 사이에 무슨 일이 있었을까?
크게는 2021년 연간 판매 대수가 다른 메이저업체 대부분이 하락세를 보인 가운데 테슬라는 87% 증가했다. 그리고 올봄에는 독일 베를린 공장을 준공했고 텍사스 공장 가동을 시작했다. 상하이 공장의 확대 소식과 더불어 올해 테슬라의 판매 대수가 2021년 97만 대의 두 배에 달할 것이라는 전망이 나왔다. 그런데 주가는 그사이 절반으로 폭락했다.
올봄 뉴스 중 가장 시선을 끌었던 것은 2021년에 이어 1분기 실적 발표였다. 테슬라의 2022년 1분기 글로벌 신차 판매 대수가 전년 동기 대비 70% 증가한 31만 48대였다. 테슬라의 2021년 전 세계 신차 판매 대수는 2020년보다 83.7% 증가한 93만 6,172대였다.
1분기 매출액은 전년 동기 대비 81% 증가한 187억 6,000만 달러였으며 그중 168억 6,000만 달러가 자동차 부문에서 나왔다. 이는 2021년 1분기의 103억 9,000만 달러보다 큰 폭으로 증가한 것으로 4분기의 177억 2,000만 달러보다 높은 것이다. 순이익은 7배 증가한 33억 2,000만 달러였다고 밝혔다. 2021년 1분기 4억 3,800만 달러, 4분기 23억 2,000만 달러였다.
특히 2021년 4분기 영업이익률이 14.7%였는데 이번에는 19.2%로 더 높아졌다. 참고로 2021년 1분기는 5.7%였다. 더불어 테슬라는 미지급 상환 부채가 분기 말 기준 1,000만 달러에 불과했다.
하지만 일본 니케이신문과 퀵팩트세트가 공동으로 조사한 전 세계 1만 3,600개 회사를 대상으로 한 2022년 1분기 순이익 보고서에서는 사우디아라비아의 국영 석유회사 사우디 아람코가 최근 유가 급등으로 인해 애플보다 많은 37억 8,000만 달러로 1위를 차지했으며 BMW 가 3위, 포드가 7위, 폭스바겐이 9위, 테슬라가 14위라고 하는 다소 의외라고 여겨질 만한 데이터도 참고할 필요가 있다.
중국발 코로나 봉쇄 조치와 모델 생산 지연
投资12亿扩产，特斯拉上海工厂明年4月完工- OFweek新能源汽车网
중국발 코로나19로 인한 봉쇄 조치로 인해 테슬라 상하이 공장이 가동을 멈췄다. 처음에는 3월 28일부터 나흘 동안 생산을 중단한다고 했으나 한 달을 넘겼다. 테슬라는 이미 3월 중순에도 이틀 동안 생산을 중단한 적이 있다.
그런데 들여다보면 테슬라는 지금 소형차인 모델 3 와 모델Y의 판매만으로도 높은 수익을 올리고 있다. 모델X와 모델S는 아직 정상적인 출고 재개가 계속 이루어지지 않고 있다. 이는 일론 머스크가 프리미엄 모델로 시장에 진입해 보급형 모델을 위주로 하겠다는 초기의 발언과 얼추 일치되는 것처럼 보인다.
여기에서는 조금은 다른 것을 알 수 있다. 테슬라는 2021년 1월 모델S와 모델 X에 대해 독일에서도 리콜 관련 조사가 시작됐고 12월에는 미국 이외 시장에서는 당분간 주문받지 않는다고 고객들에게 이메일로 알렸다. 당시에는 2022년 하반기에 다시 시작될 것이라고 했었다.
모델 X의 이상 문제가 발생했으며 미국 시장에서는 소프트웨어 관련 리콜도 있다. 이에 대해 일렉트렉 등 전기차 관련 해외 미디어들은 2022년 2분기에 출고할 것이라고 했던 것이 최근에는 다시 10월로 연기됐으며 모델 X 듀얼 모터 사양은 2023년 1월이 되어야 고객에게 인도될 수 있다고 보도하고 있다.
테슬라는 2022년 2월 초부터 세 번째와 네 번째 소프트웨어 리콜에 직면하고 있다. 난방 시스템과 보행자 경보 시스템에 문제와 관련된 것이다. 후자의 경우 미국의 4개 모델 시리즈 중 57만 8,000대에 해당한다. 가열 시스템에 대한 소프트웨어 업데이트 (극한조건에서 히트 펌프가 고장 나면)에는 미국과 캐나다에서 소수의 차량이 포함된다. 테슬라는 안전벨트 기능(특히 안전벨트 경고 소음)과 FSD 소프트웨어에 관한 문제를 해결해야 했다.
테슬라는 지난 1년 동안 모델 S와 모델X를 출하하지 않았기 때문에 특별한 일이 아닐 수는 있다. 두 모델의 업데이트로 지연이 이유로 알려져 있다. 미국에서는 지난 6월 모델S가, 모델 X는 10월에 배송이 다시 시작됐지만, 테슬라의 3분기 실적 중 모델 S와 모델X는 8,941대가 생산되고 9,275개가 배송됐다. 이 수치도 모델 S와 모델 X를 정확히 구분되지는 않고 있다.
S&P 500 ESG 지수 제외와 10% 인원 감축 이슈
Elon Musk Hosted Party To Celebrate Tesla's 'Gigafactory'
그런 와중에 S&P 다우존스 인덱스가 지난 5월, ESG 점수가 높은 300개 이상의 미국 기업으로 구성된 주가지수인 S&P 500 ESG 지수에서 테슬라를 제외했다. 이에 대해 일론 머스크는 직원들의 인종 차별에 대한 불만과 사고 조사에 대한 미국 당국의 대응에 문제를 제기하며 ESG는 끔찍한 사기라고 강하게 반발하고 있다.
S&P 다우존스 인덱스는 매년 ESG 지수의 구성 요소를 개편한다. S&P 는 미국 캘리포니아 서부의 전기차 공장에서 인종 차별과 열악한 노동 조건에 대한 불만, 그리고 운전자 지원 시스템을 운영하면서 테슬라 자동차로 인한 치명적이고 개인적인 사고를 조사하는 NHTSA에 대한 대응을 테슬라를 배제한 특정 요인으로 지적했다. 이러한 사건이 위험으로 판단되어 ESG 점수에 부정적인 영향을 미쳤다고 설명했다.
이에 대해 일론 머스크는 트위터를 통해 테슬라는 다른 어떤 회사보다 환경을 위해 더 많은 일을 한다며 다섯 개의 석유 및 가스 회사가 추가되었다는 것을 두고 미친 짓이라고 언급하며 ESG가 무기화되었다고 비난했다.
테슬라는 지난 2월 캘리포니아의 인권보호국에 의해 공장에서의 인종차별 혐의로 고소당했다. 테슬라는 사실에 근거하지 않은 것으로 이의를 제기할 의지를 표명했다. NHTSA는 2018년 운전자 지원 시스템이 작동하는 동안 여러 번의 충돌을 보고했다고 주장된 후 2021년 공식 조사를 시작했다.
S&P 500 ESG 지수가 주가에 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 점에서 앞으로의 추이가 주목된다.
테슬라 인원 감축 관련 뉴스도 중요한 이슈로 부상해 있다. 최근 전체 인원 10만 명 10%에 해당하는 1만 명을 감축한다고 발표한 것이다. 일론 머스크는 잉여 인력이 많기 때문이라고 했지만, 미디어들은 세계 경제 상황에 대한 일론 머스크의 예측이라고 부풀리며 그의 말에 또 다른 해석까지 보탰다. 지난 몇 주 동안 일론 머스크는 경제학자와 상인들과 함께 이미 경기 침체의 위험에 대해 공개적으로 경고했다. 그러나 시장에서는 최근 테슬라의 실적이나 생산 시설 확대의 흐름에 비춰 채용을 늘려도 부족한 상황에 감축한다는 것이 이해할 수 없다는 반응이 나왔다.
그러자 며칠 후 일론 머스크는 전체 인원수는 증가할 것이라고 트윗을 날렸다. 물론 다른 사용자의 트윗에 대한 댓글이지만 그의 한마디 한마디가 시선을 끌고 있는 상황에서 간단하게 받아들여지지 않았다. 문제는 그런 그의 말에 안도하기보다는 투자자들은 오히려 그의 반복된 번복에 대해 실망하며 주가가 다시 10% 가까지 폭락했다.
이는 테슬라의 경제적 불균형과 소셜 미디어 서비스 트위터에 대한 인수발표 직후에 12%가 하락했고 다시 인수 실패 후 약 35% 붕괴한 주가와 함께 테슬라의 변동성을 더 악화시키고 있다. 이는 2021년까지 신격화되었던 테슬라의 주가에 대해 의구심을 보내는 시선이 늘었다는 것을 말한다. 물론 아직도 캐시 우드가 이끄는 아크 인베스트는 테슬라의 목표 주가 4,600달러를 제시하고 있기도 하다.
뉴욕타임스, ‘테슬라의 자율주행은 사기다.’
Latest Car News & Updates on Specifications, Launches, Price, Mileage Reviews from Singapore - IBTimes SG
그 사이 뉴욕 타임스는 일론 머스크의 크래시 코스(Crash Course)라는 영상을 제작해 OTT인 훌루(Hulu)를 통해 배포했다. 크게 ‘테슬라의 자율주행은 사기다.’라는 제목으로 알려진 이 영상은 6년 전 조슈아 브라운이 테슬라 모델S의 사고로 사망한 사건을 중심으로 다룬 내용이다. 내용 중에는 테슬라의 직원이 FSD가 완벽하지 않았다는 것을 시인하기도 했다.
테슬라의 자율주행 시스템(정확히는 ADAS)은 다른 메이커들과 달리 라이다를 사용하지 않고 카메라 센서만으로 모든 정보를 수입한다. 일론 머스크는 그들이 축적한 데이터만으로 소화할 수 있다고 주장하고 있다.
실제로 지난 15년 동안 머스크는 로켓 및 EV 및 소프트웨어 정의 차량을 대중화하는 데 많은 큰 발전을 이루었다. 그러나 안전이 중요한 시스템에 관해서는 지름길이 없다는 것을 확인할 수 있는 시간이 흘렀다.
그러면서 부상한 것이 그런 기술을 상용화하는 과정에서 안전 규제 당국이 제대로 역할을 하지 않았다는 비판이 일었다. 특히 미국의 자동차산업에 대한 규제 및 집행 권한을 가진 NHTSA(미국고속도로교통안전국)는 그런 안전 규제를 적용하고 조사하는 일을 6년이 지나는 동안 수행하지 않았다는 것이다.
쉽게 말하면 수익성을 우선으로 하는 제조업체의 결함을 사전에 발견하고 제어하는 책임을 해야 하는데 사고가 발생한 이후에도 제대로 조사가 이루어지지 않고 있다는 것이다. 이는 디젤 스캔들도 마찬가지였다. 그 전에 이미 알고 있어야 할 내용을 책임 태만으로 수많은 피해를 양산했다.
“자본주의 체제에서, 기업들이 이윤 추구를 위해 가능한 한 많이 벗어나려고 노력하는 것은 전혀 드문 일이 아니다. 파렴치한 회사로부터 대중을 보호하는 데 필요한 가드레일을 세우는 것은 정부의 임무다. 그 과정에서 발생하는 모든 실패에 대해 빛을 비추는 것은 언론인들의 임무이며, 그래서 우리는 대중으로서 모든 사람을 인식하고 책임을 물을 수 있다.”는 지적이 일론 머스크의 크래시 코스에 대한 워싱턴포스트의 또 다른 지적이다. 물론 미국이라는 나라 자체가 일련의 총기사건에서 알 수 있듯이 자본가들에 의해 좌우되고 있기 때문에 그 역시 지나간 이야기가 될 수도 있다.
지금 미국을 비롯한 테슬라가 판매되고 있는 많은 나라의 운전자들은 테슬라의 오토 파일럿 사용 설명서에 주의를 기울이는 것은 여전히 운전자의 책임이며, 소프트웨어에 문제가 있으면 운전자가 책임을 질 준비가 되어 있어야 한다고 적시되어 있지만 일론 머스크의 팬덤 들은 듣고 싶은 것만 듣는 것 같다.
물론 그것은 자율주행 기술이 곧 완전한 자율성을 제공할 것이며 인간보다 안전하다고 말한 일론 머스크로 인한 것이 크다. 그들은 일론 머스크의 모든 말에 대해 그들식으로 해석하고 전망하고 있다. 하지만 오토파일럿이라는 용어를 인간 참여가 더 이상 필요하지 않다는 의미로 해석하는 사람들이 너무 많다는 지적도 분명 새겨들어야 한다.
테슬라와 일론 머스크로 돈을 버는 사람들
Ini Perjalanan Lobi Luhut dan Jokowi Rayu Elon Musk Agar Investasi di RI | kumparan.com
국내에도 테슬라 뉴스만을 정리하는 유튜버들이 있지만 어떤 사건이 발생해도 장기적인 안목에서 봐야 한다며 스페이스X 등 일론 머스크의 혁신적인 사고방식으로 결국은 투자자들의 인내심을 요구한다. 애널리스트들이 하는 말대로 사건이 발생하면 이미 악재는 반영됐다며 안심시킨다.
테슬라의 일론 머스크는 자동차의 파워트레인을 내연기관에서 전기차로 전환하는 데 지대한 역할을 했고 그 과정에서 많은 혁신을 이루어냈다. 원자재 문제 등 산적한 과제로 순탄하게 진행될지는 알 수 없지만, 소프트웨어 정의 자동차로의 전환은 물론이고 기가 프레스라고 하는 새로운 생산 기술의 도입 등으로 전통적인 자동차회사들 벤치마킹의 대상이 되어 있다.
그러나 일론 머스크는 완전 자율주행차 상용화와 배터리 가격을 절반으로 낮추겠다는 약속, 전기 픽업트럭 출시 시기의 잦은 연기, 그리고 2만 5,000달러의 저가 전기차 개발 포기 등으로 비판받고 있다. 물론 그런 정도는 여러 가지 상황으로 인한 것이라고 해석할 수 있다.
하지만 그보다는 최근에는 오토 파일럿, 또는 FSD(Full Self Drivong)라는 용어로 자율주행이라고 오해하게 한 데 대한 시장에서의 실망이 전체적으로 테슬라의 이미지에 적지 않은 타격을 주고 있는 것으로 보인다. 전통적인 완성차회사들은 아직까지 자율주행이라는 용어를 스티어링 휠을 잡지 않고 운행이 가능하다고 주장하지는 않고 있다. 인공지능학자들은 21세기 내에 자율주행은 불가능할 수도 있다고 말한다.
테슬라는 미국식 자본주의의 산물이라는 평가가 있다. 총균쇠의 저자 재러드 다이아몬드는 대변동(2019년, 김영사 刊)에서 미국식 주주 자본주의는 넘치는 유동성을 배경으로 새로운 아이디어를 띄워 자본가들의 배를 불리는 것 이상 아무것도 아니라고 비판한다. 대표적인 것이 우주여행이다. 그는 우주사업을 하는 사람들을 모두 화성으로 귀양보내고 싶다고 강하게 말한다. 정말로 80억 인류가 화성으로 모두 이주해서 안전하게 살 수 있다고 생각하고 있는 것인지 궁금하다.
국내 애널리스트들은 미국발 인플레이션으로 세계 60%의 국가가 스태그플레이션 위험이 있다고 강조하는데도 주가 띄우기를 지속하고 있다. 여전히 장밋빛 청사진을 들이대며 투자자들을 끌어모으기 위해 안간힘을 쓰고 있다. 그러면서 그들은 올 해 1분기에만 6조 6,000억 원을 매도했다. 투자자들에게는 안심하라면서 그들은 내다 파는 이율배반적인 행동을 하고 있다. 미국의 유니콘들이 기발한 아이디어와 신기술로 새로운 세계를 개척할 것이라며 투자를 부추긴다.
Tesla officially announces end of unlimited free Supercharging, new ' Supercharging credit program' starts in 2017 - Electrek
애널리스트들과 전문가(?) 들은 21세기의 혁신은 더 많은 수익을 올리는 계기가 될 것이라고 주장한다. 하지만 그렇지 않다는 주장이 더 설득력 있다. 20세기에는 전기와 자동차, 세탁기로 대변되는 대표적인 혁신 외에도 수많은 혁신이 있었다. 하지만 21세기의 혁신은 스마트폰뿐이라고 주장하는 학자들이 많다. 물론 지금도 혁신이 모든 것을 바꾼다는 논리는 지속하고 있다. 하지만 3D 텔레비전이 50조 원 이상의 컨텐츠 효과를 낼 것이라고 했던 그들의 전망이 무색하게도 지금은 메타버스가 10년 동안 67조 원의 경제효과를 낼 것이라고 떠들어 댄다. 갈 곳 없는 자본을 끌어들이기 위한 수단에 불과하다. 메타버스가 무엇인지는 그것을 제시한 페이스북에서도 정확히 정의하지 못하고 있다. 그런데도 한국은 이 분야에 대한 많은 전문가가 등장해 있다.
테슬라의 미래에 대해 정확히 예측할 수는 없지만, 기후재앙을 극복하기 위한 목적으로 시작한 전기차 비즈니스가 제대로 자리 잡기 위해 그들이 내놓은 전기차 관련 혁신성을 심화하는 것이 더 중요해 보인다. 그것이 지구를 살리고 지속가능한 미래를 개척하는 길이라고 지금은 동의하고 있기 때문이다. 세계적으로 형성된 팬덤을 대상으로 하는 셀럽으로서가 아니라 진정한 혁신가의 자세가 필요해 보인다.
“지갑이 두툼해지면 머리가 빈다.”라는 속담이 떠 오른다.
출처 : http://www.global-autonews.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=bd_028&wr_id=211
]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2022 13:07:37 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[전기 부족해 진공청소기 사용도 제한…유럽 에너지 위기 10년 간다]]> 최승신의 글로벌 에너지 쇼크 진단_상, 전기 부족해 진공청소기 사용도 제한…유럽 에너지 위기 10년 간다  

유럽발 에너지 쇼크 원인은 극단적 E 전환 정책…화석연료 투자 배제로 위기 대응 능력 상실 에너지 위기는 식량과 자원난으로 이어져…모든 것 비용 증가하자 공장들 연이어 문 닫아 개도국·빈곤국과 함께 유럽 내 17% 국민 에너지 빈곤층…앞으로 위기는 '목숨'과 직결

최승신 C2S컨설팅 대표.
최승신 C2S컨설팅 대표.
유럽이 역대급 에너지 쇼크를 겪고 있다. 지난해 9월 찾아온 1차 에너지 쇼크로 MWh당 20~40유로 선을 유지하던 유럽의 도매전력가격이 400~500유로 수준으로 10배 이상 상승했다. 지난해 도매전력 선물이 1000유로로 올라가기도 했다. 이에 따라 영국은 2022년 가구당 연간 에너지요금을 700파운드(약 110만원) 올렸고 올해 가을 다시 인상할 예정이다. 독일도 가구당 가스를 비축하는 데 연간 1220유로(약 162만원)를 추가로 부담해야 한다. 이 같은 유럽의 에너지 위기는 유럽에서 멈추지 않을 전망이다. 이미 석탄 가격의 급격한 상승으로 인도에서는 36GW 규모의 석탄화력 발전소가 석탄가격 급등과 재고 부족으로 운전을 중단, 순환정전에 들어갔다. 유럽이 비싼 가격에 연료를 쓸어담는 사이에 개도국이나 빈곤국 등에서는 에너지 위기로 인한 전력난과 식량난으로 국민들이 죽음의 위기에 내몰리고 있다. 본지는 국내 에너지 분야의 전문가인 최승신 C2S컨설팅 대표<사진>를 만나 유럽발 에너지 쇼크의 원인과 함께 곧 다가올 한국의 위기에 대해 진단해봤다. "유럽이 러시아에서의 에너지 수입 의존도를 줄이는 것은 쉽지 않습니다. 오히려 신재생에너지를 늘리고 화석연료를 줄인다는 유럽의 기존 에너지전환 정책을 유지한다면 현재 에너지 위기는 더 장기화할 것입니다." 최승신 C2S컨설팅 대표는 "에너지 위기는 유럽에서 식량과 같은 필수적인 제품까지 모든 것의 가격을 올렸다. 유럽 국민들이 최근 고통받는 이유는 잘못된 에너지 전환정책으로 인해 에너지비용이 급등하고 있기 때문"이라며 목소리를 높였다. 최 대표는 유럽은 이미 2차례 에너지 쇼크로 고통받고 있다고 설명했다. 그에 따르면 지난해 9월을 기점으로 유럽은 주요발전원인 풍력발전의 전력생산 급감으로 인해 이를 천연가스로 대체하는 과정에서 천연가스 재고가 역대 최저 수준으로 급락했다. 또한 북유럽의 수력발전의 저수량이 역대 최저치를 기록한 데다 프랑스의 원전 발전량도 지속적으로 감소추세에 있었다. 이에 따라 유럽의 천연가스 가격이 급등했으며, 이를 석탄과 석유로 대체하는 과정에서 가격이 동반상승했다. 게다가 이들을 원료와 연료로 사용하는 비료나 이산화탄소같은 식량 밸류체인에 필수적인 제품들의 가격이 급등했다. 1차 에너지 쇼크가 식량난으로 확대된 것. 2차 에너지 쇼크는 우크라이나 전쟁으로 인해 모든 것이 부족하고 가격이 급등하는 상황으로 이어졌다. 원전에 필요한 우라늄부터 각종 화석연료와 핵심광물이 주요 생산지인 러시아와 우크라이나의 전쟁으로 공급이 원활히 이뤄지지 못하면서 1차 에너지 위기를 더욱 심화시키고 있다는 게 최 대표의 설명이다. 1차 위기 때 우상향하던 가격은 2차 위기에서 수직상승 곡선을 그리고 있다. 유럽의 도매전력가격은 예년 대비 10배 이상 급등했다. "현재 상황은 위기가 점차 심화되고 있는 양상입니다. 석탄과 천연가스를 이용해 만드는 비료의 경우 지난해 7월부터 중국은 수출제한을 걸었고, 러시아와 아르헨티나를 비롯한 비료와 주요 곡물 수출국들이 유사한 조치를 내렸습니다. 비료가격이 급등하자 곡물과 가축사료의 가격이 급등한 반면 에너지 비용을 모두 전가할 수 없는 상황에서 공장은 오히려 감산과 폐쇄에 들어가면서 공급은 더욱 악화되고 있습니다. 골드만삭스의 제프리 커리는 이를 분자위기(Molecule Crisis)라 부르고 있습니다. 거의 모든 제품이 공급 부족과 가격 급등을 겪고 있습니다." 그는 유럽이 최근 겪고 있는 에너지 쇼크의 원인으로 재생에너지에 집중된 에너지 정책을 꼽았다. 재생에너지 확대와 함께 화석연료에 대한 투자가 줄었다. 코로나19를 기점으로 이 같은 현상은 더 심화됐다. 결국 재생에너지가 제 역할을 하지 못하는 상황에서 유럽은 대응 능력을 완전히 잃게 된 셈이다. 여기에 재생에너지에 필요한 화석연료에 대한 공급능력마저 상실해 그린인플레이션을 발생시키는 단초까지 제공했다고 최 대표는 지적했다. "재생에너지 확대는 유럽의 에너지 위기를 더욱 심화시키는 요인으로 작용할 것입니다. 재생에너지가 폭염과 한파에 기대했던 전력을 생산하지 못했는데 이를 천연가스로 대체하는 과정에서 유럽의 천연가스 재고 수준이 지속적으로 낮아졌고 지난해 1차 에너지 쇼크로 확대된 것입니다. 영국이 반복된 정전을 겪었고 스웨덴은 폭염과 한파에도 재생에너지가 기대전력을 잘 생산해줄 것으로 믿고 링할스 원전 2기를 폐쇄했지만 한파로 풍력발전 블레이드가 얼어 작동하지 못해 정전을 겪었습니다. 이로 인해 전기요금은 5~6배가 올라갔으며, 공장은 불어난 에너지비용을 감당하지 못해 구조조정에 들어갔습니다. 급하게 석유발전소를 가동하고 폴란드의 석탄 발전소 전력을 수입했습니다. 정책당국은 시민들에게 진공청소기 사용자제를 부탁했습니다." 유럽과 유사한 경우가 미국 캘리포니아와 텍사스에서도 일어났다고 그는 전했다. "미국 월스트리트저널(WSJ)은 지난해 6월 캘리포니아와 텍사스의 그린정전이라는 기사를 통해 재생에너지가 기대했던 전력을 생산하지 못한 점을 원인으로 지적했습니다. 폭염으로 전력수요가 급증했지만 풍력발전의 전력생산이 급감하면서 이를 가스발전 백업으로 대체하려 했습니다. 그러나 늘어나는 수요를 감당하지 못해 정전이 반복적으로 발생했던 것이죠." 그는 재생에너지에 대한 근본적인 이해 부족도 유럽이 겪은 에너지 위기의 원인으로 꼽았다. 재생에너지로의 전환에는 더 많은 화석연료가 필요하다고 강조했다. "바츨라프 스밀의 저서 '숫자는 어떻게 진실을 말하는가'를 보면 5MW급 풍력발전에 필요한 강철이 평균 500t인데 다량의 코크스를 채운 용광로에서 제련되고 분탄과 천연가스가 필요하다고 지적하고 있습니다. 2030년 세계가 목표로 하는 풍력발전 건설을 위한 강철생산에만 6억t이 넘는 석탄과 원유 9000만t이 필요합니다. 이들을 운반하고 유지보수하는 데도 화석연료가 필요합니다. 블레이드 방수처리에는 다량의 에틸렌이 필요합니다. 블레이드에 필요한 발사나무의 85%가 에콰도르에서 생산되지만 이들의 생태계가 어떻게 파괴되는지에 대한 관심은 매우 적습니다." 아울러 그는 "에너지전환에 필요한 희토류 가공을 중국이 독점한 이유는 반환경적이라는 이유로 아웃소싱을 했기 때문이다. 최근 수급난을 겪고 있는 반도체 역시 다량의 물과 전력이 필요하다"며 "친환경이라는 재생에너지를 만들어내는 과정은 여전히 화석연료 기반에 있었지만 이에 대한 투자는 지속적으로 감소해 2013년 연간 8000억달러에서 2020년 3500억달러로 감소했다"고 덧붙였다. 그는 유럽의 에너지 쇼크를 결코 가볍게 봐선 안된다고 강조했다. 개도국이나 빈곤국에 대한 영향뿐 아니라 유럽 내 17%에 달하는 에너지 빈곤층들도 '죽음의 위기' 속에서 살아야 한다는 게 최 대표의 설명이다. "유럽이 에너지 쇼크를 겪기 이전에 전 국민의 17% 정도가 에너지 빈곤층이었습니다. 지금 이들이 어떻게 살고 있나 들여다보면 난방을 끄고 주전자에 물을 끓이면서 그 불에 얼어 붙은 손을 녹이고 있습니다. 에너지 비용을 감당할 수 없어서요. 에너지 빈곤층은 곧 식량 빈곤층입니다. 에너지 쇼크뿐 아니라 식량 등 모든 것의 가격이 올랐죠. 그러다보니 그들의 생존 수단인 푸드뱅크까지 문을 닫으면 어떨게 될까요. 그런 계층이 전체의 5분의 1에 가깝다는 겁니다. 앞으로 더 늘어날 겁니다. 그 사람들은 앞으로 찾아올 폭염과 한파에 굉장히 위험한 순간을 겪어야 합니다. 개도국과 빈곤국, 선진국의 빈곤층은 앞으로의 위기가 생명과 직결됩니다. 최근 선진국들이 에너지안보를 얘기하는 것도 이 위기가 현실화됐기 때문입니다." 그는 유럽의 위기는 장기화될 것이라고 거듭 목소리를 높였다. 최근 녹색분류체계(택소노미)에 원전을 녹색에너지로 포함했지만 원전을 짓는데만 시간이 10년 가까이 필요하다고 최 대표는 말했다. 러시아의 파이프라인 가스를 대체할 LNG 인프라구축과 미국 LNG 장기계약분 생산량을 확보하는 데도 원전 설비를 건설하는데 버금가는 시간이 소요되며, 석탄 역시 추가생산이 단기간 나오기 어렵다는 것. "유럽에서는 재생에너지 산업뿐만 아니라 일반 제조업과 발전소 등 거의 모든 곳에서 화석연료의 부족함을 호소하고 있지만 이를 늘리기는 힘들 것입니다. 재생에너지를 늘린다면 더 많은 화석연료가 필요하므로 가격은 다시 급등할 것이고, 비용상승과 수익감소로 그린 보틀넥이 일어날 것입니다. 재생에너지가 폭염과 한파에 다시 기대전력을 생산하지 못해 화석연료에 의존하는 악순환이 반복될 것입니다. 이미 유럽의 에너지정책은 총체적인 난국을 맞이했습니다. 영국의 리시 수낙 재무부 장관은 자국의 에너지 빈곤층 문제를 타개하기 위해 빈곤층에게 세금을 인하해주는 것으로 대응했습니다. 그럼 이들이 다시 난방을 켤 수 있을까요. 영국은 겨울에 난방하지 않는 방법으로 생강을 먹고 애완견을 껴안고 있으라는 공문을 에너지기업이 보내 비난을 받은 바 있습니다. 이건 모두 재생에너지의 기대전력 생산미흡에 대한 대안이 없기 때문입니다. 당장의 대안이 없다면 유럽의 에너지위기는 10년간 반복될 것입니다." 출처 : https://www.electimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=304322]]> Tue, 17 May 2022 14:42:02 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[Self-Driving Cars Still Have A Lot To Learn]]>

Self-Driving Cars Still Have A Lot To Learn

A new report uncovers every incident self-driving cars faced in California last year, and they still have a lot to learn.

By Owen Bellwood Monday 12:40PM Every year, we’re told that this is the year we’ll get self-driving cars. And every year, come December, those autonomous vehicles fail to materialize anywhere beyond the research facility. But now, a report from California has outlined some of the things self-driving cars still need to learn before they can be let loose on the public. In The Golden State, some of the companies pioneering self-driving cars have been testing their autonomous vehicles out on the streets. Firms like Cruise, Waymo and Apple have all sent fleets of autonomous vehicles out onto the roads in California to test their mettle. And now, the California Department of Motor Vehicles has published a report outlining every issue these self-driving cars faced in 2021. The DMV has strict rules for anyone testing self-driving cars in the state. As such, every time a test vehicle is out on the road and a driver has to take over for any reason, the incident must be logged. At the end of the year, these incidents are all compiled in the Disengagement Report, which includes more than 2,500 incidents from the past 12 months. The Disengagement Report shows that there are 25 companies licensed to test their autonomous cars on the streets of California. OEMs like Toyota, Mercedes and Nissan are on this list, while including tech firms like Qualcomm and NVIDIA. There’s a Tesla-shaped hole in this list, though, as it prefers to let its customers test out its latest level 2 driver-assist systems, with fairly troubling results at times. But no matter what company it is, each autonomous vehicle tester in California’s report seems to be encountering similar issues – all following the three Ps: perception, prediction and planning. Object perception is about what the software driving the autonomous car thinks is in the road ahead. So the issues self-driving cars faced in this regard are all about when a car mistook an object for something else, like a red traffic light for a green one. Everything from “small objects in the road” to “incorrectly perceived rain” lead to unwanted braking. Or, at times, the cars were also late to apply the brakes. In one test, a self driving car was “late to perceive” an animal crossing the road and the test driver had to slam on the anchors. Then there are the prediction issues, which are all about the way self-driving cars can “guess” how the objects they observe will behave. As such, the times test drivers were forced to step in came about when the cars couldn’t correctly predict how pedestrians would behave, how other cars in traffic would act or that a parked car won’t move. In each instance, incorrect predictions about these objects caused an “undesirable motion plan” and forced the test driver to take over. Then there are the planning issues. Rather than the behaviors of various objects, these are directly related to other road users, such as other cars, trucks, pedestrians crossing the road, or even cyclists. So here, it’s all about how the car plans to react to vehicles changing lanes on a highway, trucks making wide turns, or pedestrians “making illegal crossings.” Away from the three Ps, self-driving cars also had issues maintaining the correct speed on various roads. Test drivers reported taking the wheel when the self-driving car was following the speed limit, but was said to be driving “too slow or too fast given the traffic and road conditions.” There’s also the whole “map discrepancy” issue, which seemingly only affects Apple-operated vehicles. I guess that’s just more Apple Maps woes, which is something we’ll all have to learn to live with. Then, there are also a lot of general hardware issues. Sometimes, drivers were forced to take the wheel when data recorders failed, if certain components went offline or if a software glitch asked for the test driver to take over. Some companies also reported “precautionary” takeovers when they approached pedestrians, traffic signals or certain stopped vehicles. And finally, there are all the times that test drivers were forced to take the wheel when they encountered a “recklessly behaving road user.” Because, of course, you can program an autonomous car to follow the rules of the road, but you’ll sadly never get some people to do the same.  
출처 : https://jalopnik.com/self-driving-cars-still-have-a-lot-to-learn-1848533182
]]> Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:06:15 +0000 Techtrend <![CDATA[The End of Growth. No more cheap energy, no more growth]]> The End of Growth. No more cheap energy, no more growth The energy crunch, of which I have started to write about in September, 2021 doesn’t want to ease its grip on us. The price of natural gas is still near record highs along with coal — both costing three times as much as the last ten years’ average. Oil is also climbing steadily upwards, now surpassing 90 USD — a price not seen since 2014. Here is quick visual reminder on why this is a huge problem:
World energy consumption by source. Image source: Our World in Data

See those yellow/orange lines on the right? Those are “renewables” — made entirely using fossil fuels. The first three bars (coal, oil, nat. gas) take up 85%. Nuclear? 4.4% — also built and maintained using fossil fuels. That is our problem. Even today, the vast majority of our energy hungry processes (including the mining, manufacturing and transporting of solar panels and wind turbines among countless other things) rely entirely on fossil fuels — and need to be fed constantly, with an ever increasing amount to avoid shortages and an eventual collapse in production.

The price of fossil fuels thus affects everything: from metals to plastics, from food to electricity. It’s no wonder the price of commodities are soaring.

The switch to renewables on the other hand, is simply and factually not happening. Solar, wind and hydro is only an extension to an ever increasing overall fossil fuel use:

Primary energy consumption by source, World. Image source: Our World in Data

Contrary to western government propaganda we are not getting an inch closer to Net Zero. Some countries? Maybe, but do not ask where those panels and turbines came from. See those tiny downticks in oil, coal and gas use? That is where most of our current energy woes (leading to inflation and various shortages) are coming from. Let me explain.

nergy must be spent in every single economic activity. Without it the (human) world stops. No mining. No transport. No manufacturing. No food. No nothing. Energy is not a simple cost item on a long list, but one of the most important inputs to civilization (if not the most important). Take it away, and any civilization collapses immediately.

Unfortunately for us, humans, this is what we see unfolding before our eyes in slow motion. Metals, essential to a transition to “renewables” cost more than ever, or are near to their all time highs. This prolonged energy crisis, going on for half-a-year now, has made an already worsening metals crisis even worse. It’s no wonder: mining and smelting ever worse ores is an energy intensive process by nature; you have to haul more and more rocks to get the same amount of metals. Combined with an ever increasing demand, this degradation has lead to an exponential increase in energy needs (electricity, gas, diesel fuels) and thus increased costs. To cite the study linked above:

Analyzing only copper mines, the average ore grade has decreased approximately by 25% in just ten years. In that same period, the total energy consumption has increased at a higher rate than production (46% energy increase over 30% production increase).

This is a prime example of diminishing returns in real life. You increase your efforts more and more to keep up with demand, but your work yields weaker and weaker results… As a result, the productivity (or efficiency) of the mining industry has hit a peak in 2002, and falling relentlessly ever since (Michaux, 2021, Figure 33). As the author made it clear:

What this means, is the cost of mining is being driven up, as each of the higher quality deposits are extracted and processed. In particular, the truck and shovel fleet in open pit mining is required to haul much more ore per unit of metal, resulting in an increase in diesel fuel consumption. To put things in appropriate context, decreasing grade does not mean that the supply of copper in the ground is running out. It does mean that the supply of copper that is economical to extract is declining, forcing the production cost going up. It also makes mining very reliant on the energy (diesel fuel in particular).

Due to this unfortunate, but perfectly natural process of the depletion of once rich reserves and rising costs of energy, the mining of essential metals is now coming dangerously close to a tipping point, from where less and less metal would be produced despite a soaring demand. In case of copper — an irreplaceable commodity in all “renewable” (such an oxymoron) projects — this tipping point could happen well before 2040. Worst case, before 2030… (Michaux, 2021, Figure 11)

We are not there yet, and the “transition to renewables” has just started — one could argue. A copper shortage, resulting from the above trend however, is already sending prices upward and have already started to slow the “transition to renewables” (better put: the addition of solar and wind to the now struggling fossil fuel infrastructure).

Again, it doesn’t matter if few windswept islands in the North Sea, or an energy deprived peninsula of Eurasia switches a part of its electricity production to renewables, when those non-renewable devices are produced by burning coal, oil and natural gas on the other half of the planet, using rapidly depleting reserves of metal ores.

Can you spot a difference? Image source: Our World in Data

Then surely more mines will be opened and it will drive the cost down! For those hoping that “high prices always give rise to higher production” I have bad news to serve: it takes 10 years to establish a new mine and ramp up mineral extraction. To cite Wood MacKenzie:

delivering the base metals to meet [net zero 2050] pathways strains project delivery beyond breaking point from people and plant to financing and permitting.

As an article on mining.com pointed out even more clearly:

Copper, which Woodmac emphasizes “sits at the nexus of the energy transition” stands out particularly. The 19 million tonnes of additional copper that need to be delivered for net-zero 2050 implies a new La Escondida must be discovered and enter production every year for the next 20 years. Even if you focus on just one of the obstacles bringing new copper supply online – the time it takes to build a new mine – and leave aside all other factors, net-zero 2050 has zero chance.

New mines would offer little in terms of salvation anyway, as they require an increased use of energy (from polluting and now possibly dwindling fossil sources) to get the same amount of metal compared to yesteryear — guaranteeing higher prices for years to come…

As less and less of us will be able to pay these higher and higher costs of — for example copper — “production” and as a result “renewables”, less and less of them will be built. This is how the production of solar and wind could slowly grind to a halt in a tight lockstep with the withering mining industry, in a process called demand destruction. This is how capitalism ends itself: it doesn’t “worth” doing it anymore.

It is very important to note however that this is not a financial problem. Money printing — be it digital currencies or whatever-coins — will not make ore grades better, nor fossil fuels abundant again. In fact it will only use up even more energy and inflate everything else away, as you can already see it happening today.

I know that it’s very hard to accept, but it looks like that we are already approaching planetary limits to growth — before a true transition to renewables could even begin.

his is where we tie back to the energy market. If we have so much oil in the ground as governments tout, why did we haven’t come out of the “pandemic induced” slump of oil production yet? Now, that demand is soaring again — much to the detriment of the future of life on this planet — oil prices are on the rise again. Why there isn’t enough oil (and gas, and coal) on the market?

The answer is dead obvious after one gets the basics of geology (see Michaux, 2021, Figure 56–57). Resource depletion is as true to coal oil and gas as to anything else. These resources are located in finite deposits, created millions of years ago — just like copper, or any other mineral. Following the low hanging fruit principle, the big fat fields with low energy (and monetary) investment needs were emptied first. Then the industry moved on to lower and lower quality, harder and harder to reach plays.

“Harder to reach” means higher energy inputs, and with higher energy prices, this has translated to higher costs of extraction. Now as a result, we are running out of the best spots — in fact there are barely any places left to drill. It looks increasingly unlikely that we will hit 2018’s level of oil extraction again, and face a long slow decline after a few years of struggle. It’s important to note here, that we do not need to completely run out of a resource in order to experience serious issues.

Clearly, economists do not read such studies… As a Morgan Stanley analyst wrote: “The oil market is heading for simultaneously low inventories, low spare capacity and still low investment.” — a good observation, albeit lacking the fundamental understanding of the nature of drilling for a finite resource. Of course there is a lack of investment, if the next well you must drill to compensate the eventual depletion of old (easy to drill) wells costs you more and more, every year.

The same goes for exploration — we are well past diminishing returns on both activities. No wonder, that even the biggest oil companies are now choosing to invest in “renewables”, or decide to pay back their investors instead… Then leave. Not even OPEC can pump more —they are also out of spare capacities for the same reason. This is how the entire system looses its resiliency. Stir in geopolitical instability, threatening to disturb supply in the middle east, or Russia being embargoed… and here you go: the biggest oil crisis ever.

The same story plays out with natural gas. The US, where everything seems to be right (for now), will be running out of natural gas in a mere 12 years from now… if they could pump the remaining gas at full speed. However as fields deplete, they give less and less gas and/or oil ; preventing any attempt made at pumping them at full throttle till the very end (1). The only possible way forward for the US is thus to face an ever falling production rate: first slowly then at an ever increasing pace. The US might have a couple of good years left with stagnating natural gas extraction into 2023, 2024 at best, then production will most probably tip over and start to decline.

Canada, Australia and Europe are all facing the same issue on a similar timeframe — leaving the western world with Russian, Middle Eastern and South American gas (whose rate of production is also set to fall in the coming decades). This could easily lead to a peak in global gas production by 2028 — six years from now. Not the best news for the energy transition, and certainly not for agriculture (2).

Where does this leaves us?

  1. Higher energy prices (oil, natural gas, electricity, wind & solar) leading to higher extraction and manufacturing costs for everything, including solar panels and wind turbines too.
  2. This translates to higher investment costs for ALL sorts of energy (from fossil to wind and yes, nuclear too). Not only in monetary, but in energetic terms too: competing with vital needs like food production and infrastructure maintenance, not to mention manufacturing — providing jobs for a lot of people. Expect hot debates around the “renewable transition” as various pressure groups collide over the matter of energy use.
  3. As investments fall, we will eventually— in the not so distant future — pass a point where replacing depleted wells and mines with new ones, or with renewables will become a loosing battle. Simply put: we will be losing more capacity than what we could add to the global energy system, resulting in a global peak of energy production (peak oil, peak gas, peak electricity) somewhere in the coming ten to twenty years. (Certainly before 2040, possibly before 2030 depending on the availability and use of coal.)

This is a bold prediction to make, I know. Still, based on the information what I have today, this seems to be the most likely scenario. Then who knows? Maybe the financial economy collapses sooner making this entire discussion moot. Maybe oil companies find a way to access reserves under the melting Arctic. Maybe aliens come and save us…

More realistically speaking, it would make much more sense to talk about how we ration whatever is left of the planet’s resources. How do we bring down consumption in the most equitable way possible? How do we get rid of both fossil fuels and mining on the long term? How should country’s, town’s, or individuals handle the upcoming shortages and increasing unaffordability of energy (both from fuels and electricity)? How do we build back resiliency?

That’s a lot to think about, and your answers may vary greatly depending on where you live. As always though, it is better to be prepared than surprised.

출처 : https://peakoil.com/consumption/the-end-of-growth-no-more-cheap-energy-no-more-growth

]]> Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:42:03 +0000 Techtrend