Author Correction: Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery

In the original version of this Article, the first sentence of the sixth paragraph of the “Comparing emissions” section, the Results originally incorrectly read as ‘In the base case, delivery of a small (0.5 kg) package with the small quadrotor drone has lower impacts than delivery by diesel truck,...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Joshuah K. Stolaroff, Constantine Samaras, Emma R. O’Neill, Alia Lubers, Alexandra S. Mitchell, Daniel Ceperley
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Nature Portfolio 2018
Materias:
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/f0e6e4c29ec54581a8dfd7a1bab8c385
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:f0e6e4c29ec54581a8dfd7a1bab8c385
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:f0e6e4c29ec54581a8dfd7a1bab8c3852021-12-02T16:49:24ZAuthor Correction: Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery10.1038/s41467-018-03457-92041-1723https://doaj.org/article/f0e6e4c29ec54581a8dfd7a1bab8c3852018-03-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03457-9https://doaj.org/toc/2041-1723In the original version of this Article, the first sentence of the sixth paragraph of the “Comparing emissions” section, the Results originally incorrectly read as ‘In the base case, delivery of a small (0.5 kg) package with the small quadrotor drone has lower impacts than delivery by diesel truck, ranging from a 59% reduction in GHGs in California, to a 17% reduction in Missouri’. The correct version states ‘54%’ instead of ‘59%’ and ‘23%’ instead of ‘17%’. The fourth sentence of the same paragraph originally incorrectly read as ‘In the base case, delivery of a medium-sized (8 kg) package has 17% lower GHGs than delivery by truck in California, is about equivalent to delivery trucks for the U.S. average electricity mix, but has 77% higher GHGs than truck delivery in Missouri, which has a carbon-intensive electricity grid’. The correct version states ‘In the base case, delivery of a medium-sized (8 kg) package has 9% lower GHGs than delivery by truck in California, is about 24% higher than delivery trucks for the U.S. average electricity mix, and has 50% higher GHGs than truck delivery in Missouri, which has a carbon-intensive electricity grid. The last sentence of the seventh paragraph of the same section originally incorrectly read as ‘Because of the importance of electricity used to power the octocopter, charging with low-carbon electricity of 200 g GHG/kWh can reduce delivered package GHGs by 34% compared to diesel trucks’. The correct version states ‘37%’ instead of ‘34%’. These errors have been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.Joshuah K. StolaroffConstantine SamarasEmma R. O’NeillAlia LubersAlexandra S. MitchellDaniel CeperleyNature PortfolioarticleScienceQENNature Communications, Vol 9, Iss 1, Pp 1-1 (2018)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Science
Q
spellingShingle Science
Q
Joshuah K. Stolaroff
Constantine Samaras
Emma R. O’Neill
Alia Lubers
Alexandra S. Mitchell
Daniel Ceperley
Author Correction: Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery
description In the original version of this Article, the first sentence of the sixth paragraph of the “Comparing emissions” section, the Results originally incorrectly read as ‘In the base case, delivery of a small (0.5 kg) package with the small quadrotor drone has lower impacts than delivery by diesel truck, ranging from a 59% reduction in GHGs in California, to a 17% reduction in Missouri’. The correct version states ‘54%’ instead of ‘59%’ and ‘23%’ instead of ‘17%’. The fourth sentence of the same paragraph originally incorrectly read as ‘In the base case, delivery of a medium-sized (8 kg) package has 17% lower GHGs than delivery by truck in California, is about equivalent to delivery trucks for the U.S. average electricity mix, but has 77% higher GHGs than truck delivery in Missouri, which has a carbon-intensive electricity grid’. The correct version states ‘In the base case, delivery of a medium-sized (8 kg) package has 9% lower GHGs than delivery by truck in California, is about 24% higher than delivery trucks for the U.S. average electricity mix, and has 50% higher GHGs than truck delivery in Missouri, which has a carbon-intensive electricity grid. The last sentence of the seventh paragraph of the same section originally incorrectly read as ‘Because of the importance of electricity used to power the octocopter, charging with low-carbon electricity of 200 g GHG/kWh can reduce delivered package GHGs by 34% compared to diesel trucks’. The correct version states ‘37%’ instead of ‘34%’. These errors have been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.
format article
author Joshuah K. Stolaroff
Constantine Samaras
Emma R. O’Neill
Alia Lubers
Alexandra S. Mitchell
Daniel Ceperley
author_facet Joshuah K. Stolaroff
Constantine Samaras
Emma R. O’Neill
Alia Lubers
Alexandra S. Mitchell
Daniel Ceperley
author_sort Joshuah K. Stolaroff
title Author Correction: Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery
title_short Author Correction: Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery
title_full Author Correction: Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery
title_fullStr Author Correction: Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery
title_full_unstemmed Author Correction: Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery
title_sort author correction: energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery
publisher Nature Portfolio
publishDate 2018
url https://doaj.org/article/f0e6e4c29ec54581a8dfd7a1bab8c385
work_keys_str_mv AT joshuahkstolaroff authorcorrectionenergyuseandlifecyclegreenhousegasemissionsofdronesforcommercialpackagedelivery
AT constantinesamaras authorcorrectionenergyuseandlifecyclegreenhousegasemissionsofdronesforcommercialpackagedelivery
AT emmaroneill authorcorrectionenergyuseandlifecyclegreenhousegasemissionsofdronesforcommercialpackagedelivery
AT alialubers authorcorrectionenergyuseandlifecyclegreenhousegasemissionsofdronesforcommercialpackagedelivery
AT alexandrasmitchell authorcorrectionenergyuseandlifecyclegreenhousegasemissionsofdronesforcommercialpackagedelivery
AT danielceperley authorcorrectionenergyuseandlifecyclegreenhousegasemissionsofdronesforcommercialpackagedelivery
_version_ 1718383371555438592