4 ms·

I kept seeing heavy-looking flying drones with nondescript propulsion method and thinking how much energy it takes keeping them hovering in the air.

by varjag 5y ago

Aeolun 5y ago
Imagining some serious improvement in battery capacity or drone propulsion tech in the next 20 years does not seem super far fetched, and this video is probably looking more at 100 year span.
- varjag 5y ago
  The gravity will remain the same in 100 years span so hauling agricultural loads with a drone will require same (rather enormous) energy expense. Since the video shows some tiny-ass wind turbines on generation side this is rather doubtful. (I do realize that am nitpicking on a marketing video here)
  - Animats 5y ago
    (I do realize that am nitpicking on a marketing video here) Yes, but it's a generic problem with "green" advertising. Sierra Club image of wind farm.[1] Real world wind farm.[2] Wind and solar started beating Big Oil when they became Big Wind and Big Solar. [1] https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/styles/flexslider_full/public/sierra/articles/big/Illo-green-wind-turbines-farm-SteveGraham.jpg https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/st... [2] https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/aerial-view-wind-turbines-spreading-over-desert-palm-springs-farm-generating-electricity-huge-array-gigantic-california-150527772.jpg https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/aerial-view-wind-turbines-sp...
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      This is mostly because we don’t have small wind farms everywhere. We have one really huge one in a central location. I feel like solarpunk leans more towards decentralization.
      - varjag 5y ago
        It's an issue with practicality: a smaller wind turbine requires a similar amount of maintenance as a huge one, while the latter converts the energy more efficiently due to greater rotor span. Then you are not going to build a sole turbine† in a middle of nowhere, because it requires a transformer /DC inverter and a connection to grid. These things are costly and best amortized over large farms. Same goes for maintenance: there's periodic maintenance for various systems and much of the cost is getting specialists and gear there and back. (†) There are cases when you'd use turbines of grid, like with remote mines/outposts but these are rather special.
- tremon 5y ago
  Regardless of the actual costs, it's still a waste of energy to keep something hovering in the air when it can be moved over land as well: keeping something floating in the air will always require active power, whereas keeping it on the ground can be done passively (a spring/suspension system). If we're serious about surviving the next 100 years, frivolous energy expenditure is not the way to go.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    By the time we harness 100% of our energy from the sun there will be little reason not to use it. It’ll just be wasted otherwise.

I kept seeing heavy-looking flying drones with nondescript propulsion method and thinking how much energy it takes keeping them hovering in the air.

by varjag 5y ago

I kept seeing heavy-looking flying drones with nondescript propulsion method and thinking how much energy it takes keeping them hovering in the air.

Aeolun 5y ago

Imagining some serious improvement in battery capacity or drone propulsion tech in the next 20 years does not seem super far fetched, and this video is probably looking more at 100 year span.

varjag 5y ago
The gravity will remain the same in 100 years span so hauling agricultural loads with a drone will require same (rather enormous) energy expense. Since the video shows some tiny-ass wind turbines on generation side this is rather doubtful. (I do realize that am nitpicking on a marketing video here)
- Animats 5y ago
  (I do realize that am nitpicking on a marketing video here) Yes, but it's a generic problem with "green" advertising. Sierra Club image of wind farm.[1] Real world wind farm.[2] Wind and solar started beating Big Oil when they became Big Wind and Big Solar. [1] https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/styles/flexslider_full/public/sierra/articles/big/Illo-green-wind-turbines-farm-SteveGraham.jpg https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/st... [2] https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/aerial-view-wind-turbines-spreading-over-desert-palm-springs-farm-generating-electricity-huge-array-gigantic-california-150527772.jpg https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/aerial-view-wind-turbines-sp...
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    This is mostly because we don’t have small wind farms everywhere. We have one really huge one in a central location. I feel like solarpunk leans more towards decentralization.
    - varjag 5y ago
      It's an issue with practicality: a smaller wind turbine requires a similar amount of maintenance as a huge one, while the latter converts the energy more efficiently due to greater rotor span. Then you are not going to build a sole turbine† in a middle of nowhere, because it requires a transformer /DC inverter and a connection to grid. These things are costly and best amortized over large farms. Same goes for maintenance: there's periodic maintenance for various systems and much of the cost is getting specialists and gear there and back. (†) There are cases when you'd use turbines of grid, like with remote mines/outposts but these are rather special.
tremon 5y ago
Regardless of the actual costs, it's still a waste of energy to keep something hovering in the air when it can be moved over land as well: keeping something floating in the air will always require active power, whereas keeping it on the ground can be done passively (a spring/suspension system). If we're serious about surviving the next 100 years, frivolous energy expenditure is not the way to go.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  By the time we harness 100% of our energy from the sun there will be little reason not to use it. It’ll just be wasted otherwise.