"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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.

There's no technology involved in burning hydrogen - but /burning/ and
/using/ hydrogen are two different things.

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.

In as far as you've taken this, what you've said is absolutely true. I'll
assume that you're aware that the hydrogen atom is the smallest - and that
the hydrogen molecule (H2) is /so/ small that it can pass through the wall
of a tank made of nearly any material.

The challenge is not to build a hydrogen-fueled engine. The first challenge
is to build a safe gas tank and a safe gas station.

I'll also assume that you've had enough high school chemistry to know that
the hydrogen ion is "hungry" (chemically active). It "strongly prefers" to
bond with other elements. To produce hydrogen fuel, those bonds need to be
broken and the hydrogen isolated. Breaking the hydrogen bond will require
*at least* as much energy as will be made available in any use of hydrogen
as fuel.

What this means is that while hydrogen has potential as a means of storing
and/or transporting energy today's physicists, chemists, and engineers are
unable to develop hydrogen as a primary energy source. To do that, we'll
need a major scientific breakthrough. We may have that breakthrough with
fuel cells - but that's not "for sure" yet.

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.

This last sentance is one of the best points of the entire thread. I'd like
to suggest that the discussion should not be about who's right or wrong (or
about /who/ at all), but about what works and what doesn't. There are both
long-term and short-term aspects to this problem. Fitting all the pieces of
the problem on a time line would be hugely constructive - and would of
itself be a significant undertaking. Bickering over randomly selected pieces
doesn't seem to be moving us toward solutions...

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.

Well, we'll either have to design a solution, accidentally trip over a
solution, or do without a solution. My own opinion is that it'll probably
work best to be optimistic and at least attempt to design a solution. By so
doing, if we fail we'll at least maximize our chances to recognize a
solution if we accidentally trip over it - and it might not be too early to
begin serious thought about the third possibility...

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.

I'd rather travel by transporter beam if I'm in a hurry, or by sailboat if
I'm not. (-:

I don't mind riding in trains - so your "simple fact" isn't quite as simple
and absolute as you claimed.

We've done rail transport rather badly in the USA. The industry fell victim
first to bad management; and then to overregulation by a legislature who had
no understanding of the problems and which was fed misinformation (and
campaign funding) by special interest groups who weren't terribly concerned
about the well being of either railroads or the country.

Young people should understand that this behavior is not a new problem. The
story of the passing of Philadelphia's street car lines amounts to an
encapsulation of what happened to the entire rail industry, except that
labor unions played a very much more prominant role in the national story.

What remains should be considered "on life support". This life support is
terribly expensive - and I think the only reason the plug hasn't been pulled
is that a few key knowledgable folks know that at some point we're going to
need to re-awaken the patient and coax it back to health.

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?

Why should it be cheaper? In France the TGV costs more to ride than do the
other trains. The TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse or "high-speed train" to the
French, "Train Goes Voom!" to us) is especially clean, comfortable, safe,
and breathtakingly fast (and only stops at major cities.) Their other trains
seemed safe and reliable but not quite as spiffy and seemed to stop at every
town - and they cost less per km to ride than the TGV.

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.

Passenger trains don't work for us any more because we stopped allowing them
to work for us. If our need becomes sufficient, we have the option of
allowing them to work for us again - but it'll be expensive to restore all
of that infrastructure and undo all of the special interest legislative
damage.

--
Morris