Originally posted by @christopher-albon
It seems to me the two concepts we have wrong with the next generation of cars are :-
1) You don't put the AI in the car. It goes in the road.
2) You don't recharge the car. You swap batteries the batteries out.
This would point to several obvious advantages. Can somebody tell me the science behind why we have chosen to go down the route we have with next generation cars?
# 1 may work if they want to put in the effort to have a WIFi or bluetooth kind of thing to communicate with each car but why not have both so there is a back up in case the autonomous unit in the car has a brain fart, the road AI can take over and keep it from crashing.
#2, Don't think that will end up being needed, for instance, Solar cells in the form of the paint on the car itself being developed will allow recharging or at least extending the range of existing batteries. Also there is a kind of development fight going on between fuel cells powered by hydrogen which has some advantages such as using the existing kind of infrastructure already in place but substituting gasoline with H2 and the new engineering of Metalorganic structures holding more and more H2 will end up competing directly with Lithium technology but Lithium will not stand still either, Lion batteries continue to be developed in terms of range and weight. But other batteries may come in later too, sulphur batteries may give longer range than Lion. So if electric wins it looks to be a combination of lighter, smaller batteries capable of recharging in a few minutes supplimented by solar paint giving energy as long as the sun shines. For instance, if you have a commuter car, say you have an 80 Km one way commute, you get to work, just park in the sun and when you leave, you have topped off the battery so you almost never have to do an official recharge in the first place, the sun doing the work.
Right now there are solar powered cars in a race across Australia and they are now reaching speeds of over 120 Km/hr, 80 miles an hour. Just on solar alone. Eventually it seems certain Peroskvite cells will perform better than silicon and be ten times cheaper and last just as long. Right now that last is the problem, the best of them right now are running maybe a thousand hours and coming down 10% but they have to do much better than that, and of course overcome the Peroskvite moisture problem which kills those cells to they have to be permentantly shielded from water and get to 30+ % efficient and there is work being done now pointing the way to even 60% cells with nanotech, different from either of those technologies.
So it is not as cut and dried as you seem to want to make it out.