1 . Preparing Cities for Robot Cars
The possibility of self-driving robot cars has often seemed like a futurist’s dream, years away from materializing in the real world. Well, the future is apparently now. The California Department of Motor Vehicles began giving permits in April for companies to test truly self-driving cars on public roads. The state also cleared the way for companies to sell or rent out self-driving cars, and for companies to operate driverless taxi services. California, it should be noted, isn’t leading the way here. Companies have been testing their vehicles in cities across the country. It’s hard to predict when driverless cars will be everywhere on our roads. But however long it takes, the technology has the potential to change our transportation systems and our cities, for better or for worse, depending on how the transformation is regulated.
While much of the debate so far has been focused on the safety of driverless cars (and rightfully so), policymakers also should be talking about how self-driving vehicles can help reduce traffic jams, cut emissions (排放) and offer more convenient, affordable mobility options. The arrival of driverless vehicles is a chance to make sure that those vehicles are environmentally friendly and more shared.
Do we want to copy — or even worsen — the traffic of today with driverless cars? Imagine a future where most adults own individual self-driving vehicles. They tolerate long, slow journeys to and from work on packed highways because they can work, entertain themselves or sleep on the ride, which encourages urban spread. They take their driverless car to an appointment and set the empty vehicle to circle the building to avoid paying for parking. Instead of walking a few blocks to pick up a child or the dry cleaning, they send the self-driving minibus. The convenience even leads fewer people to take public transport — an unwelcome side effect researchers have already found in ride-hailing (叫车) services.
A study from the University of California at Davis suggested that replacing petrol-powered private cars worldwide with electric, self-driving and shared systems could reduce carbon emissions from transportation 80% and cut the cost of transportation infrastructure (基础设施) and operations 40% by 2050. Fewer emissions and cheaper travel sound pretty appealing. The first commercially available driverless cars will almost certainly be fielded by ride-hailing services, considering the cost of self-driving technology as well as liability and maintenance issues (责任与维护问题). But driverless car ownership could increase as the prices drop and more people become comfortable with the technology.
Policymakers should start thinking now about how to make sure the appearance of driverless vehicles doesn’t extend the worst aspects of the car-controlled transportation system we have today. The coming technological advancement presents a chance for cities and states to develop transportation systems designed to move more people, and more affordably. The car of the future is coming. We just have to plan for it.
What does the underlined word “fielded” in Paragraph 4 probably mean?
A.Employed. |
B.Replaced. |
C.Shared. |
D.Reduced. |
2 . Preparing Cities for Robot Cars
The possibility of self-driving robot cars has often seemed like a futurist’s dream, years away from materializing in the real world. Well, the future is apparently now. The California Department of Motor Vehicles began giving permits in April for companies to test truly self-driving cars on public roads. The state also cleared the way for companies to sell or rent out self-driving cars, and for companies to operate driverless taxi services. California, it should be noted, isn’t leading the way here. Companies have been testing their vehicles in cities across the country. It’s hard to predict when driverless cars will be everywhere on our roads. But however long it takes, the technology has the potential to change our transportation systems and our cities, for better or for worse, depending on how the transformation is regulated.
While much of the debate so far has been focused on the safety of driverless cars (and rightfully so), policymakers also should be talking about how self-driving vehicles can help reduce traffic jams, cut emissions (排放) and offer more convenient, affordable mobility options. The arrival of driverless vehicles is a chance to make sure that those vehicles are environmentally friendly and more shared.
Do we want to copy — or even worsen — the traffic of today with driverless cars? Imagine a future where most adults own individual self-driving vehicles. They tolerate long, slow journeys to and from work on packed highways because they can work, entertain themselves or sleep on the ride, which encourages urban spread. They take their driverless car to an appointment and set the empty vehicle to circle the building to avoid paying for parking. Instead of walking a few blocks to pick up a child or the dry cleaning, they send the self-driving minibus. The convenience even leads fewer people to take public transport — an unwelcome side effect researchers have already found in ride-hailing (叫车) services.
A study from the University of California at Davis suggested that replacing petrol-powered private cars worldwide with electric, self-driving and shared systems could reduce carbon emissions from transportation 80% and cut the cost of transportation infrastructure (基础设施) and operations 40% by 2050. Fewer emissions and cheaper travel sound pretty appealing. The first commercially available driverless cars will almost certainly be fielded by ride-hailing services, considering the cost of self-driving technology as well as liability and maintenance issues (责任与维护问题). But driverless car ownership could increase as the prices drop and more people become comfortable with the technology.
Policymakers should start thinking now about how to make sure the appearance of driverless vehicles doesn’t extend the worst aspects of the car-controlled transportation system we have today. The coming technological advancement presents a chance for cities and states to develop transportation systems designed to move more people, and more affordably. The car of the future is coming. We just have to plan for it.
1. According to the author, attention should be paid to how driverless cars can ________.A.help deal with transportation-related problems |
B.provide better services to customers |
C.cause damage to our environment |
D.make some people lose jobs |
A.Safety. |
B.Side effects. |
C.Affordability. |
D.Management. |
Technology is constantly advancing.
Steam engines were used to pull the carriages and it must have been
Some bullet trains don’t run on tracks at all. They fly over them. They
6 . When it comes to lowering our carbon emissions (排放), it seems that nothing is simple. Electric vehicles (EVs) act as an example of potential greenwash. “They seem very attractive at first sight,” writes The Next Web in a report. “When we look more closely, it becomes clear that they have a substantial carbon footprint.”
The rare earth metals and costly minerals included as essential ingredients in EV batteries are not renewable. What’s more, their extraction (提炼) is often anything but green.
So the question is: is it worth it? Just how much emission reduction can EVs justify? Luckily, a life cycle assessment has been done to give us some answers.
“A life cycle analysis of emissions considers three phases,” writes The Next Web. “the manufacturing phase, the use phase, and the recycling phase.” In the manufacturing phase, the battery is to blame. “Emissions from manufacturing EV batteries were estimated to be 3.2 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), 1/4 of those from an electric car, 13 tons of CO2. Those were bigger than emissions from gas cars, 10.5 tons of CO2.” If the vehicle life is assumed to be 150,000 kilometers, emissions from the manufacturing phase of an electric car are higher than gas cars.”
In the use phase, the source of electricity the consumer is using to power their car comes into play in a major way. “To understand how the emissions of electric car vary with a country’s renewable electricity share, consider Australia and New Zealand,” continues the report. “In 2018, Australia’s share of renewables in electricity was about 21%. In contrast, the number in New Zealand’s was about 84%. Electric car emissions in Australia and New Zealand are estimated at about 170g and 25g of CO2 per km respectively. As a consumer, our car is only as green as our country’s energy mix.”
Finally, in the recycling phase, we look at vehicle dismantling(拆除), vehicle recycling, battery recycling, and material recovery. “The estimated emissions in this phase, based on a study, are about 1.8 tons for a gas car and 2.4 tons for an electric car. This difference is mostly due to the emissions from battery recycling, which is 0.7 tons,” shows in the report. “While electric cars cause more greenhouse gas emissions than gas cars do, it's important to note the recycled batteries can be used in subsequent batteries. This could have significant emissions reduction benefits in the future. For complete life cycle emissions, the study shows that EV emissions are 18% lower than gas cars.”
So here’s the takeaway: EVs are greener. Maybe they’re not as green as we thought. There’s certainly room for improvement. But the real challenge lies in speeding the global energy transition toward greener energy-production.
1. Why is a life cycle analysis of emissions made?A.To illustrate the advantages of EVs. |
B.To show how gas cars outperform EVs. |
C.To weigh the environmental impact of EVs. |
D.To examine the energy sources of gas cars and EVs. |
A.By giving instructions. | B.By highlighting features. |
C.By making comparisons. | D.By analyzing cause and effect. |
A.Recycling of batteries. | B.Overall driving distance. |
C.Manufacturing technology. | D.Government’s energy policy. |
A.EVs are worthy of the praise they have received. |
B.EVs are not successful for their environmental downsides. |
C.EVs will no longer be widely accepted for their emissions. |
D.EVs are not truly green until their energy sources become green. |
Once a small county in mountains and little-known to the rest of China, Chongli in Hebei Province, where most of the snow sports
Recently, police in Mumbai have come up with a new system to punish those who cannot wait at traffic lights
注意:1.文章的开头已经给出。
2.提示词: 报废车abandoned vehicles
对校车的信任度 | 对校车的担心 |
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10 . Traffic Management
Traffic lights are key tools for regulating traffic now.They are not, however, perfect.Drivers exchange the traffic jams that would happen at unmanaged crossings for a pattern of stop-go movement that can still be annoying, and which burns more fuel than a smooth passage would.
Creating such a smooth passage means adjusting a vehicle's speed so that it always arrives at the lights when they are green.That is theoretically possible, but practically hard.Roadside signs wired to traffic lights can help get the message across a couple hundred metres from a crossing, but such signs are expensive, and are not widespread.Margaret Martonosi and Emmanouil Koukoumidis at Princeton University, and Li-Shiuan Peh at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, however, have an idea that could make the process cheaper and more effective.Instead of a hardwired network of signs, they propose to use mobile-phone applications.The driver must load the team's software, named SignalGuru, into his phone and then put it on a special thing attached to the inside of his car's windscreen, with the camera lens (镜头) pointing forward.SignalGuru is designed to detect traffic lights and track their status as red, yellow or green.It broadcasts this information to other phones in the area that are fitted with the same software, and — if there are enough of them, the phones thus each know the status of most of the lights around town.Using this information, SignalGuru is able to calculate the traffic-light schedule for the area and suggest the speed at which a driver should travel in order to avoid red lights.
Tests in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where five drivers were asked to follow the same route for three hours, and in Singapore, where eight drivers were asked to follow one of two routes for 30 minutes, revealed that SignalGuru was capable of predicting traffic-light activity with an accuracy of 98.2% and 96.3% respectively, in the two cities.This was particularly impressive because in Cambridge the lights shifted, roughly half-way through the test, from their unbusy schedule to their afternoon-traffic schedule, while in Singapore lights are adaptive, using detectors fixed under the road to determine how much traffic is present and thus when a signal should change.In neither case was SignalGuru fooled.
Fuel consumption fell, too —by about 20%.SignalGuru thus reduces both annoyance and fuel use, and makes going back and forth to work a slightly less horrible experience.
1. Roadside signs wired to traffic lights are not the best way to create a smooth passage because____________.A.they are too costly and not widely used |
B.they are expensive and easily break |
C.they are complex and confusing to drivers |
D.they are theoretically possible but practically useless |
A.a camera | B.a computer |
C.a mobile phone | D.a GPS system in one's car |
A.help drivers avoid traffic accidents | B.allow drivers to adjust their speed |
C.change the traffic lights in advance | D.send information to all cell phones |
A.proved to be unreliable | B.operated at a high speed |
C.understood drivers' schedules | D.functioned rather stably |