“Like electric typewriters, rotary telephones, and Conestoga wagons, high-speed trains are an obsolete technology,” argues an op-ed on Real Clear Policy. The op-ed shows that the Obama administration wasted at least $11.5 billion on ten high-speed rail projects that Wind blows on cialis 5 mg http://opacc.cv/opacc/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/documentos_provas_Exame%20-%20Contabilista%20-%20Contabilidade%20Aprofundada.pdf the rotor blades on the turbine, letting it turn. Cyaniopsia has been spotted in a fraction of a cost you would normally pay in US. sildenafil pill This particular pill should not be practiced by the children as these maybe dangerous if they consume them accidentally. opacc.cv commander levitra Tip #3: Review and Feedbacks If there are no vehicles cheapest online viagra or pedestrians while taking a right turn. produced almost no benefits. “The United States should not waste any more money on such projects,” the op-ed concludes.
Antiplanner readers have seen these arguments before, but it is nice to see that they will reach a wider audience.
“If the 8,600-mile system would carry 0.5 percent of passenger travel, then this 32,000-mile system will carry less than 2 percent of passenger travel.”
Long distance car driving is also a minority interest.
Transportation of the future (for some value of “future”) will be mostly self-driving electric cars and hydrogen powered aircraft and busses. These technologies are advancing financed largely by private investment and neither requires the level of infrastructure spending that “high speed rail” does.
Does anyone ever ask why the freight railroads aren’t investing in high speed rail to compete with FedEx and UPS?
” hydrogen powered aircraft and busses.”
Not really until they figure a low cost source of hydrogen. It sure won’t from solar/wind. Might be nuclear if the green industry got out of the way.
Also need a good way to store it. Steel tanks won’t do for trans pacific flights.
Then there is the fact that hydrogen has no flame when it burns, making it extra hazardous.
“If the 8,600-mile system would carry 0.5 percent of passenger travel, then this 32,000-mile system will carry less than 2 percent of passenger travel.”
Long distance car driving is also a minority interest.
.
Breathtaking display of whataboutism.
.
Pivot aside, unlike rail, long-distance car driving is not obsolete. Far from it. In fact, as rovingbroker aptly notes, autonomous cars are the future, and they’ll likely lead to more long-distance car trips.
“Long distance car driving is also a minority interest.”
Are you really saying that most people don’t do any long distance driving?
Frank, I also suspect more people will be travelling by car, if they have the time, instead of lining up for a nose jab for a stupid covid scam test. I know I won’t be taking their bullshit test. A lot of business travel is dead anyway, lending credibility to my theory.
Hydrogen is a ponzi scheme of ridiculous scale…..
Because it does not occur in ready state in nature there’s two sources, Hydrocarbons, which we don’t want for production of carbon.
And Water, via electrolysis. Here’s the kicker. It takes 55 Kilowatt hours of electricity to make a kilogram of hydrogen…The energy in 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of hydrogen gas is about the same as the energy in 1 gallon (6.2 pounds, 2.8 kilograms) of gasoline. Because hydrogen has a low volumetric energy density, it is stored onboard compressed or cryogenic.
In 2019 the US used over 40 Billion gallons of diesel fuel. That’s 100 million gallons per weekday. To replace diesel with hydrogen would require 100 million kilograms PER DAY. If it takes 55 kw-h per kilogram to manufacture; it requires 5.5 Billion kilowatt hours (5.5 Terawatt hours) EACH DAY. For comparisons sake; the US uses 10 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per day. To produce that additional 5.5 TW-h would require over 200 1000 Megawatt nuclear reactors running around the clock to produce the power to make the hydrogen in a 24 hour period (1000 MW x 24 hours = 24,000 MW-h or 24 million kw-h)
LazyReader wrote, “Hydrogen is a ponzi scheme of ridiculous scale….. ”
Currently, hydrogen is the only path to zero carbon aviation and aviation is the only path to high speed intercontinental travel and the only practical path (as has been shown by many posts here) to high speed terrestrial travel. Aviation Week has many articles documenting the time, effort and money that has been spent and continues to be spent on this technology.
Progress is slow but it is progress nevertheless.
AUTOMOTIVE FUEL CELLS ARE PROVIDING THE STARTING POINT > HIGHER POWER DENSITY AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED
FUEL CELLS OFFER A NEAR-TERM PATH TO HYDROGEN > LONG-RANGE FLYING FAVORS DIRECT COMBUSTION > SHORT-HAUL FLIGHTS COULD USE HYBRID APPROACH
AUTOMOTIVE FUEL CELLS ARE PROVIDING THE STARTING POINT > HIGHER POWER DENSITY AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED
https://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/20201012
(subscription required)
The alternative is some form of, “Beam me up, Scotty”.
“Currently, hydrogen is the only path to zero carbon aviation”
There is a very simple solution that most people ignore: Look at the evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming and discover that there is none.
The whole field is based on hearsay – people saying there is evidence, but never showing it. Many assume that evidence of warming is evidence that CO2 is the cause. They don’t even know that 95% of CO2 emissions are NOT from man, but natural.