If that’s the case then the question is a good one—at what point does the infrastructure and maintenance savings get offset by the energy cost? However, there is also the inherent advantage of getting there faster; in many cases it is worth more to get a person or package from point A to point B quickly than slowly. My guess is that even robotic cars (which can safely go faster than human driven ones) probably won’t shave as much time off your commute as robotic planes.
Another benefit of flying is that the space utilized by drones is currently unused (compare that with the difficulties autonomous cars face with regulations… and those are cars, not small-sized transporter units considered unexpected by most car drivers)
It may be underused now, but not enough so to allow for a personal plane for everyone commuting to work, plus another billion drones delivering mail and whatnot. And air control often has to reroute or delay flights due to unexpected congestion or weather, despite space being “unused”.
Also, flight is already far more regulated than ground travel. It’s much easier and cheaper to get a driver’s license than a pilot’s license. Politically and socially, self-driving cars will be accepted much more easily than single-person aircraft, whether flown robotically or manually.
I was more surprised by the unusual lack of paternalism. In some countries at least, you’re not allowed to ride a motorcycle without a helmet (though it’s no more dangerous to others than riding it wearing a helmet), and flying a ultralight without much experience with it is, by my wild-ass guess, at least as dangerous to yourself as riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
I’m not so sure. Ultralights don’t go very fast or very high. You could certainly kill yourself on one, but a car isn’t going to hit you up in the sky.
Air mail already exists. Some people pay the premium for faster delivery. I don’t think price benefits from going electric, or robotic, would be significant enough to change the existing market incentives. The last-mile door to door mail delivery by road is quite efficient, with several deliveries daily by the private companies (UPS, DHL etc). Of course the situation is less good in less developed/urbanized/rich areas, but that is due to less demand, not so much because DHL couldn’t provide the same service there if demand existed.
Ditto for personal commutes to work. Robotic planes may be faster overall—although I would like to see evidence; someone who knows how existing aircraft are routed should comment on the plausibility of one-small-airplane-per-person doing a daily commute in a densely populated area. But since flight costs much more per distance traveled, people won’t pay the premium. Also, faster and cheaper ground travel (e.g. trains or metro vs. cars) has its place.
I think he meant less energy per unit distance, not per unit time.
If that’s the case then the question is a good one—at what point does the infrastructure and maintenance savings get offset by the energy cost? However, there is also the inherent advantage of getting there faster; in many cases it is worth more to get a person or package from point A to point B quickly than slowly. My guess is that even robotic cars (which can safely go faster than human driven ones) probably won’t shave as much time off your commute as robotic planes.
Another benefit of flying is that the space utilized by drones is currently unused (compare that with the difficulties autonomous cars face with regulations… and those are cars, not small-sized transporter units considered unexpected by most car drivers)
It may be underused now, but not enough so to allow for a personal plane for everyone commuting to work, plus another billion drones delivering mail and whatnot. And air control often has to reroute or delay flights due to unexpected congestion or weather, despite space being “unused”.
Also, flight is already far more regulated than ground travel. It’s much easier and cheaper to get a driver’s license than a pilot’s license. Politically and socially, self-driving cars will be accepted much more easily than single-person aircraft, whether flown robotically or manually.
You don’t need a license at all to fly ultralights.
I didn’t know that that was possible in some countries. I assumed unlicensed aviation was currently limited to powered paragliders. Thanks.
o.O
I think you’re also not allowed to fly them over inhabited areas, if that concerns you.
I was more surprised by the unusual lack of paternalism. In some countries at least, you’re not allowed to ride a motorcycle without a helmet (though it’s no more dangerous to others than riding it wearing a helmet), and flying a ultralight without much experience with it is, by my wild-ass guess, at least as dangerous to yourself as riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
I’m not so sure. Ultralights don’t go very fast or very high. You could certainly kill yourself on one, but a car isn’t going to hit you up in the sky.
Air mail already exists. Some people pay the premium for faster delivery. I don’t think price benefits from going electric, or robotic, would be significant enough to change the existing market incentives. The last-mile door to door mail delivery by road is quite efficient, with several deliveries daily by the private companies (UPS, DHL etc). Of course the situation is less good in less developed/urbanized/rich areas, but that is due to less demand, not so much because DHL couldn’t provide the same service there if demand existed.
Ditto for personal commutes to work. Robotic planes may be faster overall—although I would like to see evidence; someone who knows how existing aircraft are routed should comment on the plausibility of one-small-airplane-per-person doing a daily commute in a densely populated area. But since flight costs much more per distance traveled, people won’t pay the premium. Also, faster and cheaper ground travel (e.g. trains or metro vs. cars) has its place.