Electric motors do produce heat. Feel a drone motor and you'll realize how hot it gets. Now, scale that up and heat scales up as well.
Yes, it would be better to have the numbers, but that does not mean we can't apply experience and make a judgement call. Again, I'd as you to think about the tremendous energy it takes to keep something aloft in a helo style vehicle, I don't think you appreciate just how much energy that is.
A truck also is an efficient way to take a large load of items from a distribution center to a delivery area. All the starting and stopping happens once the truck is in the delivery area, which can be several miles from the distribution center (aka post office). A drone would need to make a round trip to the distribution center for each item. Maybe a drone could carry two or three, but not a truckload. So you also spend energy on multiple round trips.
You don't get more EVs on the road if you give money to Tesla buyers who are going to buy anyhow. That is a bad policy. So I stand by my point, which also includes the fact that I don't want my money paying for rich people's transportation at all, if you are going to pay for someone's transportation I would much rather it be a low income person who needs help.
Drones would have to overcome the tremendous energy it takes to maintain lift with their efficiency. Have you ever seen what it takes to lift a single person for a few minutes using a helo style system? Those batteries could easily move 10 people an equivalent distance or more in a rolling vehicle. If you took the battery from an electric bike with a 2 mile range, how far do you think a drone could fly you with that?
They certainly are vague enough on the math. I suppose they could mean $30 for 24 buildings, then save $1M per building, but that makes a lot of rosy assumptions. When the details are purposely blurry, be skeptical as hell.
A 2 ton truck delivering an 8 ounce package is even more energy inefficient.
When does that happen? Trucks leave distribution centers full of packages and bring them to a remote delivery area where they are distributed. In only one trip all those packages are near their delivery destination.
There may be rare cases where a truck is rolled solely to deliver one small package. I suppose in those cases drones will be a better choice. Now on to the other 99.99% of deliveries.
Any why Tesla Batteries? There are other batteries out there (like Alevo) that cost less and are made to handle a greater amount of cycling for this very purpose. This is just a big PR 'look at how wonderful we are' boondoggle.
They'll probably get federal tax money.. that is what really pisses me off. Give my money to some person in need instead.
Low cost drones have been around for 1o years, and while they have niche uses and are a popular toy, they have not approached anything close to mobile phone adoption rates when in a similar period after they were introduced. We are talking many orders of magnitude in difference
Driving a 6000 lb. delivery truck from stop sign to stop sign to deliver a few envelopes?
Probably yes. The energy for a drone to deliver that truckload of envelopes is probably more than you think. Drones must not only stop and start, but they must lift as well, and maintain lift throughout the delivery path. Once a truck is rolling it takes very little energy to keep it rolling.
I distinguish between skeptics like Dyson and deniers. Deniers make firm false statements, and believe in a scientific conspiracy. Skeptics express themselves in less definite terms, and don't believe in a conspiracy. I'm not real impressed by Dyson's opinions here, but he's clearly a skeptic.
That puts you in the more reasonable category of folks at least willing to debate the topic. Unfortunately those that just scream "97%" and "settled" don't seem to have any more insight than those that just dismiss AGW completely. Get rid of both of those from the discussion and we might make some progress.
My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
I suppose it could have, but so could $10k spent on anything else, and the U.S. government spends a lot of $10ks on much less worthy priorities.
Anyone that can afford a Tesla doesn't need $10K from the taxpayers. And just because they do other stupid things with our money doesn't make this any better. Take the money given to 3 rich folks for their Tesla's and buy some poor person a LEAF. At least then I'll feel like my money is doing some good.
Unfortunately, when many hear skepticism they scream "denier!". Those idiots are not helping the cause. That the models are inaccurate is obvious to anyone paying attention. Modeling climate is extremely complicated, and we don't even fully understand all of the variables, inputs, and feedbacks. That certainly doesn't mean the science is wrong, it just has great uncertainty when it comes to predicting extent and impact. Doomsday predictions are as unscientific as denial.
They may believe by eliminating nudity that more advertisers will be willing to buy ads. More and more companies are reluctant to do anything that might get them on the non-PC list, including where they advertise.
A computer is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is multi functional no doubt, but that doesn't set it apart from other tools by definition. It is a useful tool for much more than science, and therefore it makes sense to educate all kids on how to use the tool. Not as important to teach all kids the technology behind the tool, but that would be a good element of any engineering curriculum.
Charging for time at the charger would not necessary reduce the demand, but may reduce the resentment and anger. Then again, if a person can't make it home because he chose the wrong vehicle for his needs, he should only be angry with himself.
That could work. You just need a system to know who is who.
It would be fairly straightforward to issue RFIDs to each driver to keep in the car, and to sense the time that car is at the charger and know who to charge to.
No assumptions. I am sorry you took it personally, but if you have ever seen how people act when free stuff is being given away, you would understand my point.
Slashdot Mirror
Electric motors do produce heat. Feel a drone motor and you'll realize how hot it gets. Now, scale that up and heat scales up as well.
Yes, it would be better to have the numbers, but that does not mean we can't apply experience and make a judgement call. Again, I'd as you to think about the tremendous energy it takes to keep something aloft in a helo style vehicle, I don't think you appreciate just how much energy that is.
A truck also is an efficient way to take a large load of items from a distribution center to a delivery area. All the starting and stopping happens once the truck is in the delivery area, which can be several miles from the distribution center (aka post office). A drone would need to make a round trip to the distribution center for each item. Maybe a drone could carry two or three, but not a truckload. So you also spend energy on multiple round trips.
You don't get more EVs on the road if you give money to Tesla buyers who are going to buy anyhow. That is a bad policy. So I stand by my point, which also includes the fact that I don't want my money paying for rich people's transportation at all, if you are going to pay for someone's transportation I would much rather it be a low income person who needs help.
You don't think they'll get huge tax gifts? If not, then more power to them.
Drones would have to overcome the tremendous energy it takes to maintain lift with their efficiency. Have you ever seen what it takes to lift a single person for a few minutes using a helo style system? Those batteries could easily move 10 people an equivalent distance or more in a rolling vehicle. If you took the battery from an electric bike with a 2 mile range, how far do you think a drone could fly you with that?
They certainly are vague enough on the math. I suppose they could mean $30 for 24 buildings, then save $1M per building, but that makes a lot of rosy assumptions. When the details are purposely blurry, be skeptical as hell.
A 2 ton truck delivering an 8 ounce package is even more energy inefficient.
When does that happen? Trucks leave distribution centers full of packages and bring them to a remote delivery area where they are distributed. In only one trip all those packages are near their delivery destination.
There may be rare cases where a truck is rolled solely to deliver one small package. I suppose in those cases drones will be a better choice. Now on to the other 99.99% of deliveries.
Any why Tesla Batteries? There are other batteries out there (like Alevo) that cost less and are made to handle a greater amount of cycling for this very purpose. This is just a big PR 'look at how wonderful we are' boondoggle.
They'll probably get federal tax money.. that is what really pisses me off. Give my money to some person in need instead.
I'm sure Orange County residents are fine with wise use of tax money. It will cost over 30 million to install, it might save up to a million per year.
How long is that battery life?
Drones are by no means the next cellphone.
Low cost drones have been around for 1o years, and while they have niche uses and are a popular toy, they have not approached anything close to mobile phone adoption rates when in a similar period after they were introduced. We are talking many orders of magnitude in difference
Inefficient compared to what?
Driving a 6000 lb. delivery truck from stop sign to stop sign to deliver a few envelopes?
Probably yes. The energy for a drone to deliver that truckload of envelopes is probably more than you think. Drones must not only stop and start, but they must lift as well, and maintain lift throughout the delivery path. Once a truck is rolling it takes very little energy to keep it rolling.
Helo style drones are highly energy inefficient for transportation. Once the greenies realize that, the party is over.
I distinguish between skeptics like Dyson and deniers. Deniers make firm false statements, and believe in a scientific conspiracy. Skeptics express themselves in less definite terms, and don't believe in a conspiracy. I'm not real impressed by Dyson's opinions here, but he's clearly a skeptic.
That puts you in the more reasonable category of folks at least willing to debate the topic. Unfortunately those that just scream "97%" and "settled" don't seem to have any more insight than those that just dismiss AGW completely. Get rid of both of those from the discussion and we might make some progress.
My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
I suppose it could have, but so could $10k spent on anything else, and the U.S. government spends a lot of $10ks on much less worthy priorities.
Anyone that can afford a Tesla doesn't need $10K from the taxpayers. And just because they do other stupid things with our money doesn't make this any better. Take the money given to 3 rich folks for their Tesla's and buy some poor person a LEAF. At least then I'll feel like my money is doing some good.
bacon=life
Unfortunately, when many hear skepticism they scream "denier!". Those idiots are not helping the cause. That the models are inaccurate is obvious to anyone paying attention. Modeling climate is extremely complicated, and we don't even fully understand all of the variables, inputs, and feedbacks. That certainly doesn't mean the science is wrong, it just has great uncertainty when it comes to predicting extent and impact. Doomsday predictions are as unscientific as denial.
How about fake vegetables made from meat? We can convert those vegans!
They may believe by eliminating nudity that more advertisers will be willing to buy ads. More and more companies are reluctant to do anything that might get them on the non-PC list, including where they advertise.
This should be put under the "hey look at how i can be a disruptive asshole" category.
Is calculator usage a science?
A computer is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is multi functional no doubt, but that doesn't set it apart from other tools by definition. It is a useful tool for much more than science, and therefore it makes sense to educate all kids on how to use the tool. Not as important to teach all kids the technology behind the tool, but that would be a good element of any engineering curriculum.
Charging for time at the charger would not necessary reduce the demand, but may reduce the resentment and anger. Then again, if a person can't make it home because he chose the wrong vehicle for his needs, he should only be angry with himself.
That could work. You just need a system to know who is who.
It would be fairly straightforward to issue RFIDs to each driver to keep in the car, and to sense the time that car is at the charger and know who to charge to.
Those certainly don't sound like the ideal circumstances for a pure EV owner.
No assumptions. I am sorry you took it personally, but if you have ever seen how people act when free stuff is being given away, you would understand my point.
We need legislation. We cannot allow the early bird to get the worm. Its an antiquated concept and it is not fair. It is clearly discriminatory.
Installing cables under sidewalks and paved parking lots is not cheap.