Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ford and University of Michigan Study Whether Flying Cars Would be Better For Environment (detroitnews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the marching-ahead dept.

Ford and the University of Michigan undertook a study to see just how efficient vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) vehicles would be when compared to both internal combustion cars and electric cars. From a report: The study found that these flying electric vehicles, while not suitable for short commutes, could play a "niche role in sustainable mobility for longer trips." Flying cars could also be valuable mobility options for congested cities as part of a ride-share taxi service, according to the study published Tuesday in Nature Communications. "With these VTOLs, there is an opportunity to mutually align the sustainability and business cases," Akshat Kasliwal, one of the authors of the study and a grad student at the School for Environment and Sustainability, said in a statement. "Not only is high passenger occupancy better for emissions, it also favors the economics of flying cars. Further, consumers could be incentivized to share trips, given the significant time savings from flying versus driving." The sustainability study, the first ever conducted for flying cars, comes as the automotive industry at large is focused heavily on autonomous and electric vehicles. Much of this focus is driven by emission regulation and a need to alleviate growing congestion problems in dense urban areas.

72 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Better for their funding, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What the hell does this have to do with anything more than finding grants?

    1. Re:Better for their funding, yes by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of scientists with low or lacking ethics. They believe because they are scientists they can only do good and hence doing anything for grants is quite acceptable. Incidentally, you will also find quite a few that fake results and publish outright lies in this group.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Better for their funding, yes by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of scientists with low or lacking ethics. They believe because they are scientists they can only do good and hence doing anything for grants is quite acceptable. Incidentally, you will also find quite a few that fake results and publish outright lies in this group.

      Much better to trust politicians.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Better for their funding, yes by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      At least politicians figured out that when they graduate, they are supposed to go out and find something off the campus to do with their lives.

    4. Re:Better for their funding, yes by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, no. Just do not blindly trust things a scientist says, verify against common sense, scientific basics and genral consensus in the respective field. Yes, that takes work. Be very careful when they give opinions though (not "expert opinions"). That is a codeword for "I am going to forget that I am a scientist now". Also, the worst liars usually get exposed after a while, even if the damage is often already done when they do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Better for their funding, yes by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. There are easier victims off-campus.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Better for their funding, yes by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Or priests. They might not be infallible but they work for someone who is, and that's the next best thing!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Better for their funding, yes by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of scientists with low or lacking ethics. They believe because they are scientists they can only do good and hence doing anything for grants is quite acceptable. Incidentally, you will also find quite a few that fake results and publish outright lies in this group.

      Much better to trust politicians.

      No, business leaders are the ones to trust.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    8. Re:Better for their funding, yes by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of scientists with low or lacking ethics. They believe because they are scientists they can only do good and hence doing anything for grants is quite acceptable. Incidentally, you will also find quite a few that fake results and publish outright lies in this group.

      Much better to trust politicians.

      No, business leaders are the ones to trust.

      Banks are a specially honest subgroup of business leaders, making used car dealers look like saints.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Nice thing is, so easy to make routes by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Flying cars make sense to me as point to point between hubs, with regular flying cars to take.

    Tunnels make a lot of sense for that as well, but it's a lot quicker and easier to stand up transfer hubs and start flying craft between them...

    I've noticed in almost every city I've been in, that it is absolutely terrible to get from one side to another if you aren't along a major road or subway route on both ends. Flying cabs/buses would be a great way to solve that for a limited set of people.

    On a side note, also can't have protestors messing with tunnels or aerial traffic, unlike bus routes and roads.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Nice thing is, so easy to make routes by hawguy · · Score: 1

      On a side note, also can't have protestors messing with tunnels or aerial traffic, unlike bus routes and roads.

      Seems like it'd be even easier for protestors to disrupt aerial traffic than road traffic with a drone fleet - possibly autonomous to prevent jamming.

    2. Re:Nice thing is, so easy to make routes by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Seems like it'd be even easier for protestors to disrupt aerial traffic than road traffic with a drone fleet - possibly autonomous to prevent jamming.

      People holding signs and yelling at passing cars is little more than a nuisance and may get some peoples attention. Sending up a swarm of drones is not going to make people sympathetic to a cause. At that point it goes from a protest to endangering lives. Which won't get the kind of attention any non-insane group is looking for.

    3. Re:Nice thing is, so easy to make routes by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Flying cars make sense to me as point to point between hubs, with regular flying cars to take."

      In a few years, the people who still have to drive to their jobs, will be replaced by robots and/or AI, the cars will drive themselves and if you don't have to drive to work (and shopping will be completely dead by then), so where would one drive to other than to the airport to get the hell out?

    4. Re:Nice thing is, so easy to make routes by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      How would it endanger lives? Once the car's autopilot (you think they're going to let people without a pilots license and a few hundred hours logged "on type" actually fly paying passengers in these things?) realises that the local air traffic control is not giving a good description of traffic, the aircraft will perform a safe landing at the nearest appropriate point. Probably an under-used bit of road.

      Human over-ride would probably be permitted, on presentation of the pilot's license (biometric) and validation of her logbook for this particular model of vehicle. After all, that is how the regulations for other forms of commercial flight work, and what is different about this form of flight?

      We're currently going through one of those periodic bursts of angst because a football player got killed when being flown commercially by a pilot without a commercial license, in an aircraft whose owners had not licensed it for commercial use (which has a higher maintenance and inspection load than for private use). Loosening commercial pilot licensing requirements is an idea that is going to fly much worse than a Mythbuster's lead balloon at the moment.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Let's make this a real study... by msauve · · Score: 1

    Give me a flying car (as promised by Popular Mechanics decades ago), and you can compare my use with that of all those lowly road-dwellers.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  4. Flying While Texting by Zorro · · Score: 1

    The Loss of life will be catastrophic. It will also be real entertaining to watch the black box video of the last seconds on Youtube.

    1. Re:Flying While Texting by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It will not. The average person is barely capable to learn to drive, how on earth would they be able to learn to fly?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Flying While Texting by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The Loss of life will be catastrophic. It will also be real entertaining to watch the black box video of the last seconds on Youtube.

      That's why it is better for the environment. A lot less people.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re: Flying While Texting by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      They would not, this is what you have computers for. Fortunately there's no quirky pedestrians in the air to deal with.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re: Flying While Texting by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Just my point. Texting would be a non-issue.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re: Flying While Texting by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Bird strikes are a major issue for civil air travel. Flying cars must be automated, even a good pilot can't fly in swarms through city streets safely. You would have to be watching in 6 directions at the same time.

    6. Re:Flying While Texting by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Corollary - people who have invested in the future of the gene pool will not be allowed to use flying cars.

      That's going to make the ride home from getting lucky at a party suck. You get breakfast, walk down to the street, hail a flying taxi, get into it, fly half way home and the taxi dumps you unceremoniously at the side of the road as the sperm fuses with the egg. And you'll never use a flying car again. And all because the condom ripped, or whatever.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    7. Re:Flying While Texting by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If they create manual flying cars, then sure, but I seriously doubt that'll ever be a thing. I suspect flying cars - if they ever become mainstream - will be 100% computerized.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Flying While Texting by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Corollary - people who have invested in the future of the gene pool will not be allowed to use flying cars.

      That's going to make the ride home from getting lucky at a party suck. You get breakfast, walk down to the street, hail a flying taxi, get into it, fly half way home and the taxi dumps you unceremoniously at the side of the road as the sperm fuses with the egg. And you'll never use a flying car again. And all because the condom ripped, or whatever.

      Seriously though, unless these VTOL's are going to have an exceptional glide path - think sailplane numbers or better, they will eventually end up killing a lot of people.

      Because they so far resemble drones, and my experience with drones is that if there is a problem, they instantly become a rock. If they have wings, they better be longer than that artist's conception in TFA, because that will be less of a glide path than say, the Space Shuttle, which is a well aimed rock. Imagine if you will, someone picking someone up after a night at a nice New York restaraunt. Assuming there are multiple spots for the droneplane to land (New York Real Estate prices anyone) if the drone plane suffers any anomaly on the vertical ascent before it gets enough forward velocity to avoid a stall, it will enter rock mode. New York being what it is, the areas where people wealthy enough to afford this means we might be looking at up to 1000 feet before the droneplane can even begin to enter horizontal flight mode. So we're looking at dead rich people, dead mix of people on the ground, likely building damage, and loss of real estate to accomodate landing and takeoff.

      This whole idea of urban flying cars is as well thought out as putting screen doors on submarines.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. Power stops = you're dead by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Might not matter much to a commando or drug lord, but for an insurance salesman... these things will have a 100% fatality rate per power failure.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Power stops = you're dead by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Just isn't true. First, rates would just go up on them to compensate. If the rates were too high, they wouldn't operate. Second, to keep rates the same, the fatality rate would only have to be on par with our current modes of transportation.

    2. Re:Power stops = you're dead by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Might not matter much to a commando or drug lord, but for an insurance salesman... these things will have a 100% fatality rate per power failure.

      Aside from the obvious solution of parachutes, these drones would have multiple redundant systems, including power. So with 16 small propellers, there could be 4 completely separate power and control systems, if you lose one, you only lose 25% lift, so you might need to make an emergency landing (and maybe it will be a little rough), but you won't necessarily die due to a simple electrical/mechanical failure.

    3. Re:Power stops = you're dead by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, carry quadruple your fuel / battery. That'll be efficient!

    4. Re:Power stops = you're dead by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Aside from the obvious solution of parachutes...

      Obvious to who? You do know that a parachute big enough to land an entire vehicle and payload safely is large, and requires much more vertical altitude to open than your garden variety base jumping rig. And do you think a parachute is reliable like a doorbell? No, they flap and swirl and have vortexes, occasional line tangles... a parachute is not like a doorbell. You can't reliably predict how much vertical altitude it needs to open. Good luck trusting your life to a parachute at 300 feet and falling fast.

      Also, where is your parachute going to land? Are you driving your flying care over buildings, wires, water, trees, busy roads? Is it windy? Dark? Parachute, yah right, that's the ticket to surviving your flying car power outage.

      Splat calculator says you have 5 seconds to live.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re: Power stops = you're dead by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Why would you need to quadruple those? Makes no sense.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Power stops = you're dead by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Aside from the obvious solution of parachutes...

      Obvious to who? You do know that a parachute big enough to land an entire vehicle and payload safely is large, and requires much more vertical altitude to open than your garden variety base jumping rig. And do you think a parachute is reliable like a doorbell? No, they flap and swirl and have vortexes, occasional line tangles... a parachute is not like a doorbell. You can't reliably predict how much vertical altitude it needs to open. Good luck trusting your life to a parachute at 300 feet and falling fast.

      Also, where is your parachute going to land? Are you driving your flying care over buildings, wires, water, trees, busy roads? Is it windy? Dark? Parachute, yah right, that's the ticket to surviving your flying car power outage.

      Splat calculator says you have 5 seconds to live.

      You seem to misunderstand -- the parachute isn't meant for normal landings, it's a last-ditch effort to save your life in the event your personal helicopter has a catastrophic failure.

      Hitting the ground is unavoidable, but having a parachute can make the difference between surviving and not.

      It's not like the it's a new idea, some aircraft already have emergency parachutes:

      https://www.airspacemag.com/da...

      [ a study ]... found a 13-fold decrease in the odds of a fatality when the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS, developed with Popov’s company, BRS Aerospace) was deployed in an accident, versus when it was not.

    7. Re:Power stops = you're dead by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Using a gas generator like in an airbag would ensure deployment before impact. Having crumple zones and a max allowed flying altitude would complete the safety picture. You don't need 4x the battery power for redundancy, you only need sufficient redundant power to land.

    8. Re:Power stops = you're dead by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      The point isn't 4x the batteries/motors. the idea is 4 smaller batteries instead of 1 big one. Then it can have partial failures instead of all or nothing.

    9. Re:Power stops = you're dead by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You seem to misunderstand -- the parachute isn't meant for normal landings, it's a last-ditch effort to save your life in the event your personal helicopter has a catastrophic failure ...[ a study ]... found a 13-fold decrease in the odds of a fatality when the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS, developed with Popov’s company, BRS Aerospace) was deployed in an accident, versus when it was not.

      "last time I checked, the paper has not been cited by anybody." Whoops! Smells like unreproducible research.

      Look how long the lines are on that huge parachute, nearly 100 feet. Expecting to get line stretch (beginning of deceleration) in less than 500 feet is pure fantasy. So, below 500 feet you're dead. Which will be the normal operating altitude of a flying car.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re:Power stops = you're dead by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Autorotation in a quadcopter? Guffaw!

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:Power stops = you're dead by hawguy · · Score: 1

      You seem to misunderstand -- the parachute isn't meant for normal landings, it's a last-ditch effort to save your life in the event your personal helicopter has a catastrophic failure ...[ a study ]... found a 13-fold decrease in the odds of a fatality when the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS, developed with Popov’s company, BRS Aerospace) was deployed in an accident, versus when it was not.

      "last time I checked, the paper has not been cited by anybody." Whoops! Smells like unreproducible research.

      Look how long the lines are on that huge parachute, nearly 100 feet. Expecting to get line stretch (beginning of deceleration) in less than 500 feet is pure fantasy. So, below 500 feet you're dead. Which will be the normal operating altitude of a flying car.

      For someone that insists on peer reviewed papers, you sure know a lot about how imaginary flying cars will operate. So I'm going to need a citation for this 500 ft operating ceiling.

    12. Re:Power stops = you're dead by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      If you manage to survive to 1000' without needing your parachute maybe you're good :-)

      For the rest of us, the pandemonium should be entertaining.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  6. Flying cars great for global warming by Megahard · · Score: 1

    Because then we can fly over all the flooded highways.

    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
  7. Yes by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

    By reducing the population significantly.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  8. No, they would not be by youngone · · Score: 1

    Flying cars would be a disaster for the environment, as they will set large areas on fire when they crash, as they will regularly.
    I suppose flying cars will help keep the population down though, so that might be a win for the environment.

  9. me no understand by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm no physicist, but I just can't fathom how a vehicle that has to fight gravity for the entire duration of the trip could ever be more efficient than something that rolls along the ground.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:me no understand by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I just can't fathom how a vehicle that has to fight gravity for the entire duration of the trip could ever be more efficient than something that rolls along the ground.

      Current aircraft are twice as efficient as a single passenger car in fuel per passenger-mile.

      You need to learn to fathom better.

    2. Re:me no understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are talking about airliners, not general aviation aircraft. When we compare the energy consumption per passenger/km of a full airliner with a full bus, the bus wins.

    3. Re:me no understand by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It cannot, unless you fiddle with the conditions and make the comparison extremely unfair. Basically, you need to lie directly to make such a claim.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:me no understand by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And then you do that comparison for a single person driving 5 miles to go shopping and your argument just looks exceptionally clueless.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:me no understand by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure a city bus will destroy any aircraft in fuel per passenger-mile... and they arguably have more leg room to boot.

    6. Re:me no understand by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      So what you're saying is that I win if I carry 3 passengers, or flying personal cars lose if they don't carry 150?

      I am going to make a prediction here... I think you can guess which way the study will go based on your own assertion.

    7. Re:me no understand by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Only for larger aircraft. A Cesna 172 only gets about 18 mpg (15 mp US gallons).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:me no understand by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It's not impossible, just difficult. The device would have to save enough energy by, for example, going in a straight line without constantly slowing down and speeding up, to make up for the fact it's also fighting gravity. And bear in mind the experiment will be considered a success if an average flying vehicle can beat an average single family motor vehicle - the rise of SUVs and light trucks as a means of primary transportation in the US means that that's actually much easier than it sounds. A Cessna does about 15mpg. An SUV somewhere around 20. But the Cessna can go in a straight line.

      Now I'm thinking about it, I can think of multiple other strategies, from using updrafts, to using a hybrid lighter-than-air design, where you could minimize the energy spent lifting the vehicle up. I'm not sure how practical these are, but the efficiencies of, say, airships have been well known for a long time.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:me no understand by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Also while I'm at it, a flying car does not need anything like the amount of land based infrastructure to support it that a regular car does. And that, ultimately, might be where the environmental savings are realized, especially as energy could, potentially, be obtained from renewable resources.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:me no understand by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But a flying car isn't a flying car if it has wings, that's an airplane. A flying car will need to be something more like a large drone.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:me no understand by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Drag - or the lack thereof.

      Rolling resistance and air resistance increase nonlinearly. And when you take stop-and-go traffic into account, I imagine that also works in aircrafts' favor.

    12. Re:me no understand by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The original article sounds like a student-thesis gone wrong.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  10. Suitable by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The study found that these flying electric vehicles, while not suitable for short commutes, could play a "niche role in sustainable mobility for longer trips."

    I imagine the batteries would prefer it the other way around.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  11. Of course it would be good for the environment! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Reducing the human population is always good for the environment! And those things would be falling out of the sky all over the place!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  12. nonsense by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

    from a pure "sustainability" perspective, it takes far more energy to lift off the ground vertically and fly then any rolling vehicle.
    secondly " high passenger occupancy " aka "buses" use less energy per occupant - when full - then single owner vehicles. Obviously this is true no matter if the "bus" rolls or flies , the more occupants, the better.
    It seems the study, likely commissioned to push "Detroit", as an agenda also pushed by Detroit.
    Just imagine what would happen if a City owned flying "bus" malfunctioned and crashed killing 50+ people on the bus, and 100 more on the City Street it crashed into. Flights would end instantly and permanently. Flying "cars", "buses" or personal transporters are pure fantasy as daily urban commuters for the common folk.

    1. Re:nonsense by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing is that if you compare a heavy car with a single occupant and very light plane with multiple people, you may actually end up at numbers where flying seems to be competitive. Of course, in any fair comparison this is utter nonsense, as there are very light cars as well that can get a _lot_ more mileage out of the fuel.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:nonsense by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Most of the people killed with guns in civilian settings have racial characteristics such that that the people in power don't care about them.

    3. Re:nonsense by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Just imagine what would happen if a City owned flying "bus" malfunctioned and crashed killing 50+ people on the bus, and 100 more on the City Street it crashed into.

      This place would be covered in posts from c6gunner saying it was pilot error?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Re:Ummmm, seriously? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    I have no idea how reliable the numbers are but the information out there suggests something like the Terrafugia Transition will get 35mpg in car mode and 21.4mpg in flight, a fair bit better than the 15 or so mpg I see quoted for the Hummer.

    And I bet the Rotax 912 engine they are using is probably not the most fuel efficient 4-cylinder engine on the face of the planet (meaning there is possibly room for improvement on those figures)

  14. They would if they were electric flying cars by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Actually, BC is converting its local planes to electric planes, so if these were electric flying cars, charged from renewable energy, they would be more environmentally friendly. Private jets are about 20x worse for the environment than flying first class in one of the worst passenger jets, though.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:They would if they were electric flying cars by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Actually, BC is converting its local planes to electric planes

      No, they are planning to do that, just as soon as electric planes are actually feasible.
      And that won't be until after battery technology improves the power/weight ratio a lot.

  15. Re:Ummmm, seriously? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    That is basically because the plane is really light and cannot carry a lot of weight. The hummer is a small truck, on the other hand.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  16. Re:I'm literally shaking right now by gweihir · · Score: 1

    People without morals that want grant money or took money to come up with a way to justify a result given by the one paying the study. The scum of the scum of the scientific world. Unfortunately, there people are not rare.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  17. Re:It would be great by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Ford is involved. This study will make a nice diorama display at the Ford Museum in Dearborn.

  18. Commuting Must End by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    Everybody wants a way to commute from your home to your office easier and with less environmental impact - but why commute at all? For most office workers, the work can come to you by telecommuting. Work at home, virtually. Get rid of offices, and convert them to apartments. Really high-speed internet will allow 75% of all office work to be done remotely.

    Construction work and medical care may be the only major industries immune from telecommuting.

    1. Re:Commuting Must End by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The service industry (waitress etc) needs physical presence. Since tele-commuting means exporting jobs to the third world the service industry will make up 75% of our jobs.

  19. FAA likey will make taxis hard to pull off and by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    FAA likely will make taxis hard to pull off and battery seizing will an big buffer on top of posted max range.

  20. How could it possibly be better for the environmen by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    You might have shorter travel times, but flying cars will use a lot more energy to stay aloft (versus a car that is always supported by the ground).

    Also, each advance in the field of transportation comes with a significant increase in the number and distance of trips taken by people. Flying cars will get you to your destinations faster, so people will be traveling a lot more to destinations that were too far away to drive. This will especially be true of people commuting to work. A two hour car commute, one way, is unthinkable for most people, but if a flying car can shorten that to an hour, then a lot mroe people would be willing to make that commute.

    On the plus side, flying cars would make rural locations a lot mroe accessible, for home owners and businesses.

  21. The ICE is only around 20% efficient by Locutus · · Score: 1

    Internal Combustion Engines are so inefficient. So electric 'anything' has that going for it.

    Combining that with the fact that there are no stop lights, stop signs, sharp left/right turns, traffic in the sky two dimension rolling mobility just doesn't fly.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  22. Coming next by jlv · · Score: 1

    Next year they'll release a study on how using a (Star Trek) transporter is even better for the environment.

    Who cares that there is no such technology right now...

  23. here's a problem by idji · · Score: 1

    Flying cars may one day be great, but we won't be able to rely on them. In heavy winds, rain or snow they will be grounded and people will have to use alternative systems.