Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a
scramjet
that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are
so limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an
aircraft that runs on anything but fossil fuels?

Take that blind optimism one step further and maybe anti-gravity will
get us all out of this.

We don't know how to create anti-gravity, but we do know how to make engines
that run on hydrogen. The engine in your car can almost certainly be
converted, just as it can be converted to run on natural gas (call your gas
company and ask them how much it will cost to do the conversion--this is
everyday technology--most gas companies run their own vehicles on natural
gas). The only problem is where to get the hydrogen, and electrolysis
using nuclear power plants to supply the electricity will work fine.

I prefer to do my speculating with parts and
pieces we have today. They need to be fine tuned and developed.

Hydrogen is a part and piece we have today. There's no magic there. Any
senior mechanical engineering student should be able to cobble together a
hydrogen-powered vehicle if you give him enough budget or access to a good
enough junk pile. You can fine tune and develop all you want to but the oil
will still run out. There is a finite amount of it and if any more is
being created it is being created at a very, very slow rate, slow enough
that lubricant for bicycle chains would probably use it up eventually if we
all quit using it for anything else.

If you see nothing wrong with squandering resources, finite as they may
be, than you're part of the problem.

If you think that finite resources can be made to last for all time by
economizing then you are the one who is part of the problem. The solution
is not to economize, the solution is to find ways to do whatever we want to
do without having those resources available.

Wishfully thinking that we'll
engineer our way out of whatever problem we create for ourselves is
irresponsible in my book.

Wishfully thinking that if we all make ourselves miserable the oil won't
ever run out is what is irresponsible.

I'm not expecting you to agree.

And you're right. I should have been more specific in my suggestion of a
railroad 'coast to coast' by adding a few thousand details which may
have explained in more detail of it is that makes up a railroad. I do
believe that others may have had some idea that 'the rail road' could
even include branch lines. My feeling is that you simply like to be
contrary. Then again, I could be wrong.

The simple fact is that nobody wants to ride trains. Even if you build your
railroad it will be empty most of the time unless you give it huge
government subsidies and operate it at an immense loss, thereby essentially
providing free transportation at taxpayer expense.

Amtrak operates a high speed train based on the French TGV technology
between Boston and New York. I thought about riding it once and it turned
out that the fare was higher than any airline for the same trip. What
makes you think that your miracle train will be cheaper?

And you talk about hydrogen being impractical? We've had trains for more
than two centuries--we know trains--and trains don't work for us anymore.
Why do you have so much trouble with that notion?

Maybe economic conditions will change in such a way tha trains become
practical again. When that happens then trains will become popular again.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)