DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Could this mean the death of the commercial drone

BruddahMidds

Active Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
33
Reactions
24
Age
72
Location
Nancy, KY
I found this video on YouTube tonight and to me it sounds as though the commercial drone program is being dropped into the dumpster for the most part. The link to the video is below.

 
  • Like
Reactions: thispilothere
It seems the current start-up business model is to grab a load of VC cash, party hard, throw ideas at a wall, and hope something sticks. Doing a business cash flow model/analysis... not so much.

For drone-delivery to be viable, you've got to overcome relatively high running costs compared to payload, what must be horrific insurance costs, the logistics of mid- and long-range BVLOS, accurate destination landing, drone and package security, safety considerations, regulators, pressure from other airspace users, nutjobs with guns... There's no way this was going to viable for anything other than niche deliveries where urgency or a hard to reach location outweighs the pain; getting urgently needed medical supplies to site, mail deliveries to remote/island communities, that kind of thing.

As Meta4 says; there are *plenty* of other uses for drones besides delivery. Surveying (across dozens of fields/industries), other agricultural uses, film production, construction, S&R, police/military applications, are all areas where drones have proven themselves time and time again to be a hugely beneficial addition to the toolbox. There's a truck load of money to be made commercially from drones, but probably not so much from shipping random and, more importantly, often relatively low margin widgets to those members of Joe Public who can't wait a few extra hours/days for a land-based delivery.
 
It seems the current start-up business model is to grab a load of VC cash, party hard, throw ideas at a wall, and hope something sticks. Doing a business cash flow model/analysis... not so much.

For drone-delivery to be viable, you've got to overcome relatively high running costs compared to payload, what must be horrific insurance costs, the logistics of mid- and long-range BVLOS, accurate destination landing, drone and package security, safety considerations, regulators, pressure from other airspace users, nutjobs with guns... There's no way this was going to viable for anything other than niche deliveries where urgency or a hard to reach location outweighs the pain; getting urgently needed medical supplies to site, mail deliveries to remote/island communities, that kind of thing.

As Meta4 says; there are *plenty* of other uses for drones besides delivery. Surveying (across dozens of fields/industries), other agricultural uses, film production, construction, S&R, police/military applications, are all areas where drones have proven themselves time and time again to be a hugely beneficial addition to the toolbox. There's a truck load of money to be made commercially from drones, but probably not so much from shipping random and, more importantly, often relatively low margin widgets to those members of Joe Public who can't wait a few extra hours/days for a land-based delivery.
Agreed. I live in the “nuts with guns” area.
 
There are lots of other commercial uses for drones besides delivery.
I guess I should have been more specific and said commercial drone delivery service to the extent of Joe Normal getting actual deliveries to his door at a price he would be happy to pay.
 
If you watch the entire thing you'll see it's not saying it's a dead idea, only that the hype and thinking that the sky will be filled with thousands of drones delivering your socks from Amazon is. There are tons of logical and doable commercial drone uses, just not how we think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beermat
To me, commercial drone delivery is stupid, and insane!
There is sooo much that can go wrong, it just doesn’t make any logistical, nor public safety sense.
The liability of commercial drones would be crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ty Pilot
I found this video on YouTube tonight and to me it sounds as though the commercial drone program is being dropped into the dumpster for the most part. The link to the video is below.

The idea about "without fossil fuels" is a common misconception by many people. What they should say is "without fossil fuels in the immediate area." 62% of electricity in the US and 64.5% in the world, is generated with fossil fuels. All that is happening is that the pollution is being moved to another area. I wish more outlets would point that out instead feeding the misinformation about electrical power being fossil fuel free. It really depends on where you are...or more precisely, where they charge their drone. Speaking of delivery trucks, a lot of areas have trucks powered by CNG or LNG, UPS having the largest fleet. --just my 2 cents
 
To me, commercial drone delivery is stupid, and insane!
There is sooo much that can go wrong, it just doesn’t make any logistical, nor public safety sense.
The liability of commercial drones would be crazy.
Not being able to deliver to the porch, instead leaving the package out in the open for all the world, and porch pirates, to see, is another problem. Delivery to apartments. Like you said, there are plenty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kentucky Ranger
The idea about "without fossil fuels" is a common misconception by many people. What they should say is "without fossil fuels in the immediate area." 62% of electricity in the US and 64.5% in the world, is generated with fossil fuels. All that is happening is that the pollution is being moved to another area. I wish more outlets would point that out instead feeding the misinformation about electrical power being fossil fuel free. It really depends on where you are...or more precisely, where they charge their drone. Speaking of delivery trucks, a lot of areas have trucks powered by CNG or LNG, UPS having the largest fleet. --just my 2 cents

True, and I would hope that most intelligent people know that the electrical grid is powered by a mix of sources that still includes an awful lot of legacy fossil-fuels plants, even if they are being phased out and replaced with green, or at latest greener interim, alternatives over time. Simply switching off all the fossil fuels and dealing with the economic fallout and energy shortfalls that result isn't going to go over very well with the public as they huddle around whatever they can find to burn in order to keep warm and cook though (collectively generating a LOT of CO2 in the process), so we have to accept a transition period - and hope that it will be as short as possible.

Until that transition from fossil fuels to greener alternatives is completed we are going to have to accept an ever reducing rate of use of fossil fuels and, that said, it's a lot more efficient to do it at scale in large power plants than it is at the end point. An relatively modern oil-fired power plant, ideally fitted with at least some carbon capture systems, that is generating electricity to power a fleet of electric vehicles is going to produce a lot less pollution than refinining that oil down to automotive grade and burning it across an equivalent number of ICEs. Switching from a highly-polluting fossil fuel to a less-polluting one, while clear not ideal, is still better than nothing, and at least buys a little more time for the massive investments required in the electrical grid that will be needed to effectively end the use of fossil fuels.
 
The idea about "without fossil fuels" is a common misconception by many people.
One thing I've always wondered about electric automobiles is - what happens to all the depleted battery packs that won't hold a charge anymore.

If every automobile on Earth were electric right now, there would be tons old batteries daily. They have to be disposed of somehow.... or would they be recycled?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chappy and Ty Pilot
One thing I've always wondered about electric automobiles is - what happens to all the depleted battery packs that won't hold a charge anymore.

If every automobile on Earth were electric right now, there would be tons old batteries daily. They have to be disposed of somehow.... or would they be recycled?
There are a growing number of documentaries that show how destructive the mining for raw materials used to manufacture batteries are. The contents of those batteries are extremely toxic, so it no wonder that mining for the ingredients is also toxic. Not everyone has had the "honor" of living next to, or even relatively near, a giant strip mine for heavy metals. It devastates the countryside and leaves behind nothing short of an environment disaster.

Up to 90% of the materials in a battery can be recycled. That 10% is relatively minor at this point, but probably won't be once every car is electric. Plus, immense damage will be done just trying to get the materials for batteries to replace every fossil fuel car and truck. It's the classic d@mned if do, d@mned if we don't.

Even though CNG/LNG and propane are fossil fuels, they are so much cleaner than anything else we have right now, that it is a wonder more companies don't switch to that as an intermediate step. Having worked for a propane company in high school, I have plenty of experience working in and around vehicles running on propane. With the exception of hearing the gas flow into the engine, you would have no idea you're not being moved by gasoline or diesel. I realize that there are differences between propane and CNG, but they are not significant enough to shun one over the other. Neither is an ideal choice but seeing as how they are safe enough to burn in your house, burning them in a delivery truck outside isn't really going to be a huge problem.

My only point earlier is that saying drone delivery is going to reduce emissions isn't necessarily true. The emissions are still going to be somewhere and we're still going to need to mine for raw materials. And for those who live someplace where deliveries are made by trucks with CNG, it's most likely cleaner to have the product delivered by truck.
 
True, and I would hope that most intelligent people know that the electrical grid is powered by a mix of sources that still includes an awful lot of legacy fossil-fuels plants, even if they are being phased out and replaced with green, or at latest greener interim, alternatives over time. Simply switching off all the fossil fuels and dealing with the economic fallout and energy shortfalls that result isn't going to go over very well with the public as they huddle around whatever they can find to burn in order to keep warm and cook though (collectively generating a LOT of CO2 in the process), so we have to accept a transition period - and hope that it will be as short as possible.

Until that transition from fossil fuels to greener alternatives is completed we are going to have to accept an ever reducing rate of use of fossil fuels and, that said, it's a lot more efficient to do it at scale in large power plants than it is at the end point. An relatively modern oil-fired power plant, ideally fitted with at least some carbon capture systems, that is generating electricity to power a fleet of electric vehicles is going to produce a lot less pollution than refinining that oil down to automotive grade and burning it across an equivalent number of ICEs. Switching from a highly-polluting fossil fuel to a less-polluting one, while clear not ideal, is still better than nothing, and at least buys a little more time for the massive investments required in the electrical grid that will be needed to effectively end the use of fossil fuels.
I'm a big supporter of compressed gas, whether CNG/LNG or propane. Not an ideal, forever solution, but a great step to work on until better methods come online. Millions of homes burn them inside their kitchens and laundry rooms every day. Try that with traditional fuels.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,188
Messages
1,560,750
Members
160,156
Latest member
gplunk99