3 ms·

> Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great t

by nether 10y ago

> Flying is not a valid commute solution and never will be because of physics. All things equal, the energy requirements to change elevation will be too great to justify adoption. That only ensures that flying cars will always be more expensive than ground cars, not that per capita income will always be too low to have mass adoption of flying cars.

iaw 10y ago
> That only ensures that flying cars will always be more expensive than ground cars, not that per capita income will always be too low to have mass adoption of flying cars. True, but the economics of energy/housing/transit indicate that there never will be mass adoption if it's also the more expensive option.
- ben_w 10y ago
  Cost is not the only concern, if it was then all cars would be the most energy efficient possible and Hummers with similar fuel efficiency to small Cessna aircraft would never have been made.
  - iaw 10y ago
    The ownership cost of a small Cessna drastically exceeds that of a hummer (purchase price + certification + maintenance). I'll take your word that they have equivalent fuel efficiencies. Cost isn't a big deal when it's less than a 50% increase, we're talking 3-5x here. This is equivalent not to a Hummer but to a Ferrari, that's a difference in sale volume that makes a flying car unit unsustainable give the increased non-traditional expenses.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  > True, but the economics of energy/housing/transit indicate that there never will be mass adoption if it's also the more expensive option. That depends largely on any negative value that's charged against living in an undesirable location, and on the subjective value a person ascribes to living in a desired location. And that subjective value can remain constant, while the cost of energy and transit decrease, and the economic value created by the person increases. Yes, it would probably be economically more efficient to live in low-cost housing projects within a few minutes walk of the offices of megacorporations. But millions of people (76% of Americans, according to this 2009 survey: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf) choose to drive an single-occupant automobile to work, averaging a 25-minute commute each way. And few would give up their acre of land and private home to live in an apartment closer to work. If you could take a high-speed helicopter from Monterey to an office in Silicon Valley for $5 and a 15-minute flight, instead of hours of your time, or $500 in helicopter costs, would you really live in on-campus housing because it was more economically efficient? Yes, flying a helicopter for an hour takes a lot of energy: on the order of 1,000 kilowatts per hour. And yes, helicopters are really expensive and niche. But technology is constantly decreasing both the cost of that energy and the difficulty and operating expenses of flying machines.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    > on the order of 1,000 kilowatts per hour 1000 kW, or 1000 kWh per h. That's the beauty of P = Power = W/t = Energy / Time.
    - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
      I was trying to convert gallons of Jet A per hour into something comparable with battery packs which have capacity measured in kWh, and derped hard. Thanks for the correction.
  - iaw 10y ago
    My formal training is in mechanical engineering and economics. You are completely right about the gradual reduction in cost and increases in efficiency over time for all mechanical technology. There are two things I feel you neglect: a) These increases happen in parallel, meaning that as air vehicles get better so too do ground vehicles. Meaning it's unlikely for the relative advantage of cars to change with technology improvements. b) I can state the last sentence because of the physics and engineering fundamentals that go into ground and air vehicles. There are hard and fast limits to the physical world, air vehicles have to butt up against a lot more of them than ground vehicles do.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      As air and ground vehicles become less expensive, the real question is what happens to the difference between them.
    - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
      The point I was trying to make (rather obliquely, I admit) was that as mechanical technology improves the difference between variations ceases to matter. If air transport goes from $500 to $5, compared to ground transport making an even bigger drop from $5 to $0.01, people aren't necessarily going to choose ground over air. An infinitely more efficient $0 walking option exists in both cases. They're going to chose air because $5 isn't enough to care; their time is worth an order of magnitude more than the cost of the transport.
- zardo 10y ago
  The same economics driving everyone to live near work and ride bicycles?

by nether 10y ago

iaw 10y ago

> That only ensures that flying cars will always be more expensive than ground cars, not that per capita income will always be too low to have mass adoption of flying cars. True, but the economics of energy/housing/transit indicate that there never will be mass adoption if it's also the more expensive option.

ben_w 10y ago
Cost is not the only concern, if it was then all cars would be the most energy efficient possible and Hummers with similar fuel efficiency to small Cessna aircraft would never have been made.
- iaw 10y ago
  The ownership cost of a small Cessna drastically exceeds that of a hummer (purchase price + certification + maintenance). I'll take your word that they have equivalent fuel efficiencies. Cost isn't a big deal when it's less than a 50% increase, we're talking 3-5x here. This is equivalent not to a Hummer but to a Ferrari, that's a difference in sale volume that makes a flying car unit unsustainable give the increased non-traditional expenses.
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> True, but the economics of energy/housing/transit indicate that there never will be mass adoption if it's also the more expensive option. That depends largely on any negative value that's charged against living in an undesirable location, and on the subjective value a person ascribes to living in a desired location. And that subjective value can remain constant, while the cost of energy and transit decrease, and the economic value created by the person increases. Yes, it would probably be economically more efficient to live in low-cost housing projects within a few minutes walk of the offices of megacorporations. But millions of people (76% of Americans, according to this 2009 survey: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf) choose to drive an single-occupant automobile to work, averaging a 25-minute commute each way. And few would give up their acre of land and private home to live in an apartment closer to work. If you could take a high-speed helicopter from Monterey to an office in Silicon Valley for $5 and a 15-minute flight, instead of hours of your time, or $500 in helicopter costs, would you really live in on-campus housing because it was more economically efficient? Yes, flying a helicopter for an hour takes a lot of energy: on the order of 1,000 kilowatts per hour. And yes, helicopters are really expensive and niche. But technology is constantly decreasing both the cost of that energy and the difficulty and operating expenses of flying machines.
- FabHK 10y ago
  > on the order of 1,000 kilowatts per hour 1000 kW, or 1000 kWh per h. That's the beauty of P = Power = W/t = Energy / Time.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    I was trying to convert gallons of Jet A per hour into something comparable with battery packs which have capacity measured in kWh, and derped hard. Thanks for the correction.
- iaw 10y ago
  My formal training is in mechanical engineering and economics. You are completely right about the gradual reduction in cost and increases in efficiency over time for all mechanical technology. There are two things I feel you neglect: a) These increases happen in parallel, meaning that as air vehicles get better so too do ground vehicles. Meaning it's unlikely for the relative advantage of cars to change with technology improvements. b) I can state the last sentence because of the physics and engineering fundamentals that go into ground and air vehicles. There are hard and fast limits to the physical world, air vehicles have to butt up against a lot more of them than ground vehicles do.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    As air and ground vehicles become less expensive, the real question is what happens to the difference between them.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    The point I was trying to make (rather obliquely, I admit) was that as mechanical technology improves the difference between variations ceases to matter. If air transport goes from $500 to $5, compared to ground transport making an even bigger drop from $5 to $0.01, people aren't necessarily going to choose ground over air. An infinitely more efficient $0 walking option exists in both cases. They're going to chose air because $5 isn't enough to care; their time is worth an order of magnitude more than the cost of the transport.
zardo 10y ago
The same economics driving everyone to live near work and ride bicycles?