According to the salesman, the My Mazda app will tell me where my new car is, what the mileage is, whether it’s locked, and how much fuel is in the tank. I hope that’s secure, as it would be a thief’s dream.
1 Like
And a data collector’s dream, everywhere you go and when, what route you take, which shops you call at on the way, all very saleable.
Is synthetic fuel going to throw ICE technology a life line 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DNRFB7GEbfVE&ved=2ahUKEwi20_KXrfT-AhUfTEEAHXZRDbEQwqsBegQICBAE&usg=AOvVaw2VVsF8rTrJBvSLWnqW5cs7
When the going gets weird, the weird get going. You might have heard of Dolly the cloned sheep… now meet Gwenydd the multipurpose sheep… Gwynedd: New 'multi-purpose' sheep bred successfully - BBC News
Kind of conflating two things. The video is about using a synthetic fuel in a 1920s Bentley, and that’s out of choice. More precisely, they are using synthetic e-fuel. This is different from biofuel, though the company owner kind of conflated. In a biofuel, the process is essentially a fermentation to produce ethanol. You’re using micro-organisms, sometimes genetically engineered, even xeno-engineered (30+ years ago I was working on bacteria used to degrade naphthalene, a common pollutant in old mining towns, and added a gene from the firefly, so that when the naphthalene were switched and doing their stuff, this luciferase gene would also switch on, making the bacteria essentially glow. The reason why you want glowing bacteria is that you could very easily check that they were cleaning up the waste, but also they weren’t getting out and about in the wider environment), to take anything containing a sugar or carbohydrate and turn it into alcohol. In the US, fructose corn syrup, normally used in soft drinks, is often switched to ethanol production in winter, when there is a lessening of demand for cold drinks. Coca Cola is one of the biggest suppliers.
Synthetic electrofuels are produced by a different process. In a biofuel, you give the bacteria )or yeast) their food (the waste) and probably some supplements to help them produce the enzymes necessary. You will need a different inoculum for different food sources. And if using waste, output can be impacted by anything that kills your bacteria, obviously.
The company owner casually mentions “carbon capture”. This is a major element. You need electricity to produce electrofuels. Now some would say you can do this from renewables. Its an expensive way of doing things.
In the video, there is the suggestion you could race a 100 year old Bentley on this fuel. Thats a choice, given that dino-fuel will be available for a long time. But there might be a time, in the distant future, maybe 2050, when such fuel is no longer available, possibly because of regulatory pressures, possibly because of a collapse in demand. But in 2050 are there going to be many 130 year old Bentleys being raced in the same way as now. Probably not. They will become too precious.
New cars will shift to electric over the next 10-15 years. Ships, heavy trucks, diesel trains, aircraft and 100 year old racing Bentleys will continue to require efuel. Current production volumes of efuels are not in barrels but liters. The output is tiny compared to conventional fuel.
Efuel plants are bing set up around the world, but their main customers will not be car owners. Transportations companies will be the priority. And there is the flaw in the plan from VW et al. There is lobbying going on. Companies like Ford have started the process of transforming their companies away from ICE, and that is an unstoppable process that will take a decade or more. A company takes a decision that its not going to develop a new line of engines, that its not going to refit the crankshaft shop, that its not going to build a new engine assembly hall, and instead it has decided it will invest in learning new skills, it will start the process of buiulding a whole new supply chain, establishing new supplier relationships.
Then come along companies like BMW, VW, Toyota, who made a bad bet (somewhat similar to lean burn in the 1980s, when a company like Austin Rover stuck all its resources into developing a lean burn engine, the K-Series, because it thought adoption of catalytic converters in Europe would never happened. It was a decision that likely contributed to the downfall of the company) and who are furiously lobbying EU legislators to turn back the clock. Ford of course, thinks this is completely unfair, putting it at a competitive disadvantage.
Which is the second thing this video is conflated with. The video is about a racing team making a choice to switch to efuel on the basis its better for the environment than what is presently used. Good PR. But its not about whether this fuel will save the petrol engine, at least not in the way people think. Petrol engines might become range extenders; fitted to a car to provide electric juice to a generator. ie the car will still drive like an electric car. But you won’t be throwing a car through the gears, revving it. Which is why the rotary might have a second chance. Its an engine not very good in cars; when you vary the load (rev it), it wears out quick, no matter what fancy alloys you put in the rotor tips. But its really in aviation where the engine is just ticking away for long periods… Its way more compact than a piston engine, and less parts to go wrong.
Thanks for the clarrification there are all sorts of stories regarding efuels doing the rounds including several compaies seeing then as a way of keeping ICE technology alive :- Subscribe to read | Financial Times
Sorry link above to FT subscription this would appear to be the same story :- eFuels: Synthetic fuel from renewable energy sources - Porsche Newsroom
Yes, Porsche, VW have been involved in lobbying rhe Commission over this.
But VW also said this:
When asked by ANE about the decision to exempt cars with combustion engines running on efuels from the 2035 sales ban, Thomas Schäfer said all the debate surrounding efuels is just “unnecessary noise” since the ICE age will be “over anyway” by the middle of the next decade… He went on to mention the Volkswagen core brand projects EVs will account for 80 percent of annual sales by 2030. The Wolfsburg-based marque has already announced plans to become a purely electric automaker in Europe by 2033. During the same interview, the head honcho rhetorically asked: “Why spend a fortune on old technology [ICE running on efuel] that doesn’t really give you any benefit?”
“Look at the physics. We don’t have enough energy as it is, so why waste it on e-fuels?” he said, adding the fuels are better served for decarbonising vehicles less suited to electrification like heavy trucks and planes.
“This discussion around e-fuels is widely misunderstood. They have a role to play in existing fleets but won’t replace EVs,” he argued.
Strange
Porsche in particular has been a key driver behind the technology in recent years, having invested $75 million (£61.2m) in Chilean firm Highly Innovative Fuels (HIF).
HIF began operating the Haru Oni plant in Chile in December 2022, producing 130,000 litres of e-methanol for Porsche’s Mobil 1 Supercup race series…However, Porsche currently has no plans to sell the fuel to motorists, reserving it for ‘lighthouse’ projects such as the Supercup, as well as its customer-facing experience centres.
In their current form, e-fuels are also prohibitively expensive for many: Porsche research and development executive Michael Steiner has previously estimated the fuel to cost $44.72 per US gallon (£37.24 per imperial gallon), projecting an eventual cost of $7.57 per US gallon (£6.30 per imperial gallon).
LOL. The £40 gallon. No wonder Rolls Royce is interested, and VW is rapidly rowing back. £530 to fill up a 911.
Industry not of the same mind
We are writing to express our concern that Member States are reconsidering their support for the 2035 phase out date for petrol and diesel cars and small vans. The EU businesses need clarity and high ambition in legislation to support their longer-term plans to switch to electric vehicles.
The 127 businesses that comprise the EV100 network have already committed to fully decarbonising their vehicle fleets by 2030 without the use of e-fuels. Leading companies in our network and beyond are demonstrating their commitment to the EV transition that is already well underway. The reversal of the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2035 would have adverse consequences for the environment and air quality (road transport remains the largest source of particulate matter emissions where people live and work)1. The lack of a strong regulatory framework could have significant consequences for businesses’ decarbonisation plans. In addition, without adopting the Regulation on CO2 emission standards for cars and vans, the EU will be unable to reach
its climate neutrality goal by 2050 – which Member States are committed to.This sets a dangerous precedent for EU policy making and undermines business trust in the political and policy making process. First mover companies have already significantly invested in zero emission vehicles and should be rewarded for taking the inherent risks to decarbonise their fleet. It would be a very negative signal to reverse the political agreement reached last year.
We call on Member States to honour the political agreement reached between the co -legislators during the trilogue negotiations and set a clear path for European companies already decarbonising their fleet by investing in electric vehicles, in line with EU’s climate targets.
Yours Sincerely,
The signatories(including Ford, Volvo),
ie. “we’ve already committed to investing, and sacrificing profit, why are you even considering handing advantage to companies who have failed to significantly invested in EV?”
In the headlong rush to EV’s there are social and political consequences we may sleepwalk into.
The most sinister paragraphs…
"But the primary solution offered by the study is to change the overall philosophy of transportation, from primarily-private to primarily-public transport; and to change the ways in which communities are constructed in order to increase the benefits of the increased public transport, by increasing the population density in both “low-density suburban” areas and "high-density urban spaces.
Having larger percentages of populations concentrated in smaller places makes it easier, and less energy-consuming, to move them around than if people are dispersed, because you can do it with less vehicles, and minimise the energy used by each publicly-used vehicle by maximising the capacity of each vehicle to carry passengers. If all of those passengers are travelling to vaguely the same place and needing to be in that place at vaguely the same time, then the transport system is optimised, energy usage is reduced, and therefore demand for the energy source (in this case lithium) is reduced.
“Our findings,” the study says, “show that reducing dependence on private vehicles, densifying low-density suburbs while allowing more people to live in existing high-density urban spaces, and improving EV efficiency and reducing battery sizes are the most effective pathways to reducing future lithium demand.”
George Orwell couldn’t come up with a more dystopian vision of the future than that. Some might argue we are already taking that path.
Lets be clear; the University of California (technically UCD) didn’t conduct that “study”. Its a paper that is written by people employed by the university (and by Providence College and TenXTen). The work was commissioned by ClimateWorks, 11th Hour Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, under the guise of the Climate and Community Project. Its no surprise that a motorbike website doesn’t fully grasp the difference between a private study and a University sanctioned study, but it suits the owners of that website to big up the importance or not of the report, to create a false thesis; that whatever the authors discuss will actually come to pass, for better or worse. Its also got to be remembered, given the acknowledgements section, the report is really contexualising the US experience.
Davis is a bit different to most US cities, as it has very good cycle paths and an adequate public transport system. But most parts of the US do not have access to public transport of any description. What was once quite an extensive transcontinental rail network has become disused or even dug up. In many cities, you will find 6 lane highways dividing shopping centres, with no crosswalks, pedestrian bridges, pedestrian tunnels that are so common here. We take for granted pavements and pedestrian crossings. But in the States, not so.To get from Walmart on one side of the street to Target you literally have no choice but to drive your car. In this context, the use of a private car is enforced because of zoning laws. Its not a display of freedom, but instead being shackled to the car. In the US, a car is a necessity, not something purchased out of choice.
In the UK, 77% of households own a car. In the US, 92% of households own a car. One explanation is that the Brits are horribly backward and we are so much poorer than the Americans, and its indicative of superior American living standards. But this falls apart when you consider Wyoming and Idaho, which have the highest rate of car ownership, at 96% of households. But these are not wealthy States; middle to lower ranking, and extremely under populated. Mostly rural. Car ownership is not an option there, not a freedom of choice.
In that sense the UK has more freedom than the US; we have the freedom not to own a car. The US needs more transportation options, to increase freedom. Then car ownership will fall, not because they are being forced to give up a car, but because they have the freedom to consider other options. Remember, transportation usage in the US is an outlier in the Western world. Their use of the car is not the same as our use of the car. The report is about how the US can be more like Europe, and gain freedoms in transportation options.
The report raises good points that the US Decarbonisation policy will have a direct effect (for the worse) on the Global South, principally Latin America, because of the sources of lithium. So its right that a switch to lithium (though I think also sodium is being looked at) must be balanced with increasing the freedoms of people to select other modes of transport if they wish.
I see the report as an honest attempt not to repeat our approach to oil, which resulted in misery to countless millions, mostly to benefit us (the collective West as Russia calls us now).
My concern was the notion (whoever’s mouth it comes out of) is that, once we are electric, we would be better herded together in greater population densities in order to control us better and mitigate the environmental damage done by mining for battery components. Whether that idea is currently directed at USA or Europe is irrelevant to me.
Who will take that decision and through what political process?
If all the people in one place want to get to another (same) place at the same time, there will not be room on the bus for them. Where I live it is impressive to see that public transport is well untilized throughtout the day and the week. At peak hours it can be standing room only, but nothing like waiting for a bus in certain parts of London.
David
1 Like
When Pol Pot wanted to control the masses, he didn’t send them to the cities…
1 Like
An AI take on a well known song. Voices and lip movements all AI generated.
May have misheard some finer detail but I’m sure I recently heard some Google boffins commenting on their Google Assistant and how they were surprised to find it had self taught an obscure Indian dialect so that it could answer questions coming from that part of the world.
They didn’t know how this had happened. They said AI was like a black box that worked - but if they opened it they didn’t know how.
Let’s hope Google Assistant doesn’t decide to start WW3 as an upskilling research project.
You probably ought to read this to understand the different models used, and why black box models cannot be interpreted by a human:
Sounds like a group of people more than a little concerned about what they have created and the ethics of the use of Black Box machine learning.
The hypothetical exercise with robotic v human surgery struck a note with me. I was offered the choice of robotic surgery or an experienced surgeon. I chose the latter after I was told that the average results were marginally better with robotics - but only because many poor and/or inexperienced surgeons could improve their results enough to counterbalance the drop in performance by the smaller number of elite surgeons, who were now conducting surgery from a booth in the corner of the operating theatre.
An unintended consequence was that experienced NHS surgeons were leaving to perform open surgery in the private sector, bringing the average results back down to where they were in the first place.
You do know the da Vinci robot is operated by a surgeon? Its not autonomous and does not utilise AI. 
Its also not the only RAS system on the market.
Your critique has nothing to do with AI. Numerous studies show similar long term outcomes, but RAS shortens recovery time, reduces blood loss and reduces pain. None of that should be dismissed. In the years to come, demographic changes will change the case for RAC>
And you are incorrect about surgeons and the private sector. Consultants have for years held multiple posts in the NHS and private sector. The provaste sector money isn’t that great, and the work offered is mostly weekends and evenings.
The COVID Pandemic means there needs to be a total overhaul of how surgeons are trained, so likely more VR/AR systems to train, but also to carry out more remote surgeries. I was impressed to observe a surgeon carrying out surgery in Coleraine while standing in an operating theatre in Belfast, 10 years ago.
In my line of work I analyse medical technology. Recently I have been analysing the latest procedure volumes from England, France, Germany for 2019-2022, looking through arounf 100k surgical codes. The story is similar. In 2020, COVID caused a massive decline in some surgeries. 2 years on, Germany is still at 2020 levels of surgeries. France has managed to get back to something approaching 2019 levels, and England is similar. This is very bad news. There is no capacity to address pent up demand; all those people who had canceled surgeries. I see no evidence anywhere that any kind of extra resources are being added, and it makes sense why. Germany, compared to other European countries, operates hosptials at a lower bed occupancy level. While they have space for more patients, they can’t magic up doctors and nurses. Similar issues in the UK/France. And even if you could find more doctors to deal with pent up demand, what are you (the employer) going to do when caught up? Sack them?
The policy is likely to be a form or letting it inflate away; eventually those patients who missed out on an op will be dead, or their illness has become inoperable. Not just a UK issue.
Another knock on effect of COVID was the early retirement of many senior surgeons. Surgeons learn on the job. Now that is harder, hence technology will become more important.
One of the interesting things happening in the United States is the role the payers (insurers) have in reducing readmission rates. Patients readmitted to hospital generally have a poor outcome. From the insurers point of view, this means increased costs. When hospitals treat partients, they apply to the insurers for reimbursement of costs. Insurers are now saying they will reduce reimbursements unless hospitals get readmission rates under control. Besides treatment patients better, this has lead to better care in the community, enabled by technology. Nurses are able to take more biometric measures during a house call, that are automatically uploaded for analysis. AI-enabled algorithms are now proving very useful in identifying at risk patients, where there can be intervention in the home.
Another area AI is beneficial is in diagnostic imaging. You might not be aware, but the UK is facing a catestropic shortage of radiologists that is baked in from what people did 20 years. By 2025, there will be a 44% shortfall in required radiologists (the doctors who issue the report on scans), due to retirements without replacement. Currently, the UK must either import radiologists or contemplate teleradiology (you have a radiologist in, say, India, remotely analyse scans sent electronically)… Or you introduce processes to improve the workflow of the remaining radiologists who are facing twice as much work. AI can greatly help image analysis.
Mammograms are analysed by eye. 50% of mammograms are read correctly, meaning 50% of results are incorrectly giving a cancer diagnosis or saying the patient is free of cancer. This leads to women receiving unecessary surgery. AI has been employed to analyse the mammograms. The system had to be trained with images of healthy breasts and images of diseased breasts. However, an enormous image set was needed to train the system. There wasn’t enough images available of sufficient quality. So AI created 250,000 mammograms as a training set. Once deployed, the AI system achieved 75% correct outcomes.
Another bit of recent medical news involving AI. Now AI is being used to identify candidate drug molecules, which considerably reduces drug development timelines (AI was used in COVID-19 vaccine development). AI was used to identify a new antibiotic for Acinetobacter baumannii, a particular recalcitrant bug. This is extremely important news. Antibiotic resistance has threatened to send surgery back to the Victorian period; many surgeries today are not survivable without effective infection control. AI shoudl really help development of antimicrobials, an area that has struggled to get investment because of the recent history of failures.
In a previous career, I worked in biodefence; developing approaches to protect the military and the country from biological attack (through detection of the threat agents). For years there were discussions about how to detect new and emerging threats (how do you detect something that you don’t know yet if it can cause disease). There are ways, but its really difficult,. and requires enormous arrays. I see now that Pictura Bio, an Oxford University spinout, has just received significant MOD funding to develop their novel AI-powered diagnostic test, which will effectively give an infinite capability to detect any virus, existing or future.
When my late wife was diagnosed with cancer she qualified for private health care through my employer. She had been in the NHS system and when she was transferred to a private hospital we were surprised to see that the surgeon and oncologist she had been referred to under the NHS were the same people in the private hospital.
It was over the road from the big NHS hospital. (Poole General and the Harbour Hospital if anyone’s interested.) Chemotherapy was administered at the private hospital but when she needed radiotherapy or to use any heavy plant like MRI scanners they took her over to the NHS hospital where the private hospital had booked slots. It made me wonder how many NHS patients were being denied treatment by these block bookings.
I often saw our surgeon and oncologist scuttling across the road between the two hospitals from the window of her room.
She had a private room, a nice menu to choose from and her own TV. But apart from that the treatment she received was exactly the same as she would have done on the NHS. Just much faster.