Stolaroff Joshuah K, Samaras Constantine, O'Neill Emma R, Lubers Alia, Mitchell Alexandra S, Ceperley Daniel
E Program, Global Security, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 94551, USA.
Civil & Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Nat Commun. 2018 Mar 8;9(1):1054. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03457-9.
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.
在本文的原始版本中，“比较排放”部分第六段的第一句，结果最初错误地表述为“在基础案例中，使用小型四旋翼无人机运送一个小包裹（0.5千克）的影响低于柴油卡车运送，在加利福尼亚州温室气体减排59%，在密苏里州减排17%”。正确版本应为“54%”而非“59%”，“23%”而非“17%”。同一段的第四句最初错误地表述为“在基础案例中，运送一个中型包裹（8千克）在加利福尼亚州产生的温室气体比卡车运送低17%，对于美国平均电力组合而言与卡车运送大致相当，但在密苏里州产生的温室气体比卡车运送高77%，该州电网碳排放密集”。正确版本应为“在基础案例中，运送一个中型包裹（8千克）在加利福尼亚州产生的温室气体比卡车运送低9%，比美国平均电力组合的卡车运送高约24%，在密苏里州产生的温室气体比卡车运送高50%，该州电网碳排放密集。同一段第七段的最后一句最初错误地表述为“由于为八旋翼机供电所用电力的重要性，使用每千瓦时温室气体排放量为200克的低碳电力充电，与柴油卡车相比可使运送包裹的温室气体减少34%”。正确版本应为“37%”而非“34%”。这些错误已在本文的PDF和HTML版本中得到更正。
