4 ms·

We already have a safer and less expensive mode of transportation: air travel. Same speed, cheaper, exists today, no need to build tracks :)

cryptoz 10y ago
Air travel is a huge pollutant and is literally destroying ecosystems and life all across the planet Earth. Either airplanes need to get to 0 greenhouse gas emissions, or we need new types of long-distance and fast transportation. The hyperloop is a great concept because it can significantly reduce the demand for high-polluting air travel. There are other ways too, of course - hyperloop isn't some single savior for everything. But you cannot pitch airplanes as an alternative. They are not.
- atemerev 10y ago
  Even if you were right (air travel is insignificant pollutant contributor compared to, say, cars), you can't sell it on the open market. If air travel is more convenient and cheaper, you can't compete with cleaner technology unless it delivers value somewhere else.
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  Huge yes, but still only about 1-4% of total emissions. It's good to make inroads there, but I'm more worried about cars, power plants, etc. I think the biggest argument to make in favor of the hyperloop is ease of use, speed, and price. After all, maybe we'll have battery powered airplanes some day or maybe we'll just use gliders for shorter distances though maybe that wouldn't be as great for a reliable transport.
  - atemerev 10y ago
    Security checks will be the same, speed is lower, price is higher. No added value except novelty factor. I would rather hoped for suborbital passenger transportation. 10x improvement: delivered (and engineering-wise, about as hard as Hyperloop). People are meant to fly, not stay tethered to the Earth forever.
    - SapphireSun 10y ago
      I'm not convinced security would be the same. Amtrak is great with respect to the security inconvenience (nearly none). The trains might be more regular than flights, and the price? Who knows for now, it's a new technology (for something that barely exists).
      - atemerev 10y ago
        Imagine the consequences of blowing up a Hyperloop track segment. It will be the prime target of any terrorist group out there — hence the security.
        SapphireSun 10y ago
        Wouldn't the tunnels flooding with air slow down the cars? The survivors could decelerate to a stop and await rescue. I'm not convinced that it would be worse than a rail attack without more detail if precautions are designed in.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    1-4% sounds low. The figure I'm more familiar with is about 6% of global petroleum use. IndexMundi gives ~5 million barrels/day of jet fuel consumption, 2012. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=jet-fuel http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=jet-fuel That compares with 90 mbpd global petroleum consumption in 2012 (BP Annual Statistical Review, 2016) That's 5.5% of petroleum consumption, which is about 1/3 of total energy (BP, 2016). Carbon allocation is to petro, gas, and coal, so 2-4% of total CO2 emissions actually is about right. OK, you pass ;-)
    - SapphireSun 10y ago
      I did some googling beforehand, but I like your math better. ;)
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        I was going to disagree with you but talked myself out of it.
- vpribish 10y ago
  settle down, Cassadra. Air transportation is only around 2.5% of the CO2 emissions multiple sources, all from 2-5%, this seemed to be a mainstream representative: http://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/national-academies-sciences-engineering-and-medicine-release-commercial http://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/national-academies...
- mason240 10y ago
  Short term concerns. We will off of fossil fuels long before any ground based high speed transport between SF and LA can be built.
  - atemerev 10y ago
    No, we won't. Environmental concerns aside, there's enough for 100-150 years by current market/consumption rates. And nuclear energy (with closed cycle / fast breeder reactors) is possible for ~ million years given present consumption, including the ability to synthesize artificial fuel or making hydrogen fuel cells. And I am not even talking about fusion power.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Ocean has another 6 centuries of Methane Hydrates (at current rates). Japanese are already harvesting.
joering2 10y ago
...and once we hopefully eventually be done with TSA nightmarish setup, it will be still manageable in terms of time it takes not only to fly, but to depart and arrive. As of hyper-loop, even if, arguendo, it works; every other major type of transportation eventually failed. Trains do derail sometimes and planes do fell off the sky even if very rarely. I seen some pretty scary pictures in my life, and once seen a deadly car accident (head-on collision at 80mph) myself where you couldn't distinguish where the dashboard ends and actual human body begins, but I can't imagine how it would feel or look like when a body of tissue organs and blood crashes down after driving 780mph.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
Cheaper today? Absolutely! But if a Hyperloop were created the costs would continue to go down and speed would be faster than the typical 747. Seems like a worthwhile persuit though this first batch of companies mostly seem like a facade with most of them either not being possible or they're simply maglev.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Air travel has numerous externalities and shifted costs. It's also completely dependent, at present scales, on liquid hydrocarbon fuels, for which there's not yet a non-fossil-fuel alternative. Long-distance air travel can be pretty efficient, and compares favourably with personal auto travel -- you'll consume about as much fuel driving across the United States in a car as you would on a plane, and travel at about 1/10th the speed (though you'd also be free to stop and take in the scenery where you wanted). What ground-based alternatives to air travel offer most specifically is alternate modes of energy supply. A fixed-track system (conventional or high-speed rail, maglev, hyperloop) can have energy delivered electrically, meaning transport is divorced from fossil fuels. There's some disagreement in this thread of total CO2 emissions, which translate strongly to fuel consumption (burning a given mass of kerosene, a/k/a jet fuel, produces a fixed amount of CO2, no matter where you do it). The figure I've seen is about 6% of global emissions, and recently an 11% of US emissions figure (possibly a result of falling electricity emissions due to reductions of coal use, now that I think of it). I'm actually not a fan of Hyperloop -- similar systems were proposed in the 1970s, explored by RAND, and rejected on multiple bases. But a high-speed, ~300 kph wheeled rail connection between regional hubs in the US does seem quite sensible. It's working out well in Europe.
- atemerev 10y ago
  Here in Europe, railway travel is almost completely passé. When a plane ticket e.g. from Geneva to Barcelona can be bought for $40, trains really can't compete, at least between countries. They are slowly dying out on government subsidies.

cryptoz 10y ago

Air travel is a huge pollutant and is literally destroying ecosystems and life all across the planet Earth. Either airplanes need to get to 0 greenhouse gas emissions, or we need new types of long-distance and fast transportation. The hyperloop is a great concept because it can significantly reduce the demand for high-polluting air travel. There are other ways too, of course - hyperloop isn't some single savior for everything. But you cannot pitch airplanes as an alternative. They are not.

atemerev 10y ago
Even if you were right (air travel is insignificant pollutant contributor compared to, say, cars), you can't sell it on the open market. If air travel is more convenient and cheaper, you can't compete with cleaner technology unless it delivers value somewhere else.
SapphireSun 10y ago
Huge yes, but still only about 1-4% of total emissions. It's good to make inroads there, but I'm more worried about cars, power plants, etc. I think the biggest argument to make in favor of the hyperloop is ease of use, speed, and price. After all, maybe we'll have battery powered airplanes some day or maybe we'll just use gliders for shorter distances though maybe that wouldn't be as great for a reliable transport.
- atemerev 10y ago
  Security checks will be the same, speed is lower, price is higher. No added value except novelty factor. I would rather hoped for suborbital passenger transportation. 10x improvement: delivered (and engineering-wise, about as hard as Hyperloop). People are meant to fly, not stay tethered to the Earth forever.
  - SapphireSun 10y ago
    I'm not convinced security would be the same. Amtrak is great with respect to the security inconvenience (nearly none). The trains might be more regular than flights, and the price? Who knows for now, it's a new technology (for something that barely exists).
    - atemerev 10y ago
      Imagine the consequences of blowing up a Hyperloop track segment. It will be the prime target of any terrorist group out there — hence the security.
      - SapphireSun 10y ago
        Wouldn't the tunnels flooding with air slow down the cars? The survivors could decelerate to a stop and await rescue. I'm not convinced that it would be worse than a rail attack without more detail if precautions are designed in.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  1-4% sounds low. The figure I'm more familiar with is about 6% of global petroleum use. IndexMundi gives ~5 million barrels/day of jet fuel consumption, 2012. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=jet-fuel http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=jet-fuel That compares with 90 mbpd global petroleum consumption in 2012 (BP Annual Statistical Review, 2016) That's 5.5% of petroleum consumption, which is about 1/3 of total energy (BP, 2016). Carbon allocation is to petro, gas, and coal, so 2-4% of total CO2 emissions actually is about right. OK, you pass ;-)
  - SapphireSun 10y ago
    I did some googling beforehand, but I like your math better. ;)
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      I was going to disagree with you but talked myself out of it.
vpribish 10y ago
settle down, Cassadra. Air transportation is only around 2.5% of the CO2 emissions multiple sources, all from 2-5%, this seemed to be a mainstream representative: http://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/national-academies-sciences-engineering-and-medicine-release-commercial http://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/national-academies...
mason240 10y ago
Short term concerns. We will off of fossil fuels long before any ground based high speed transport between SF and LA can be built.
- atemerev 10y ago
  No, we won't. Environmental concerns aside, there's enough for 100-150 years by current market/consumption rates. And nuclear energy (with closed cycle / fast breeder reactors) is possible for ~ million years given present consumption, including the ability to synthesize artificial fuel or making hydrogen fuel cells. And I am not even talking about fusion power.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Ocean has another 6 centuries of Methane Hydrates (at current rates). Japanese are already harvesting.

joering2 10y ago

...and once we hopefully eventually be done with TSA nightmarish setup, it will be still manageable in terms of time it takes not only to fly, but to depart and arrive. As of hyper-loop, even if, arguendo, it works; every other major type of transportation eventually failed. Trains do derail sometimes and planes do fell off the sky even if very rarely. I seen some pretty scary pictures in my life, and once seen a deadly car accident (head-on collision at 80mph) myself where you couldn't distinguish where the dashboard ends and actual human body begins, but I can't imagine how it would feel or look like when a body of tissue organs and blood crashes down after driving 780mph.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

Cheaper today? Absolutely! But if a Hyperloop were created the costs would continue to go down and speed would be faster than the typical 747. Seems like a worthwhile persuit though this first batch of companies mostly seem like a facade with most of them either not being possible or they're simply maglev.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Air travel has numerous externalities and shifted costs. It's also completely dependent, at present scales, on liquid hydrocarbon fuels, for which there's not yet a non-fossil-fuel alternative. Long-distance air travel can be pretty efficient, and compares favourably with personal auto travel -- you'll consume about as much fuel driving across the United States in a car as you would on a plane, and travel at about 1/10th the speed (though you'd also be free to stop and take in the scenery where you wanted). What ground-based alternatives to air travel offer most specifically is alternate modes of energy supply. A fixed-track system (conventional or high-speed rail, maglev, hyperloop) can have energy delivered electrically, meaning transport is divorced from fossil fuels. There's some disagreement in this thread of total CO2 emissions, which translate strongly to fuel consumption (burning a given mass of kerosene, a/k/a jet fuel, produces a fixed amount of CO2, no matter where you do it). The figure I've seen is about 6% of global emissions, and recently an 11% of US emissions figure (possibly a result of falling electricity emissions due to reductions of coal use, now that I think of it). I'm actually not a fan of Hyperloop -- similar systems were proposed in the 1970s, explored by RAND, and rejected on multiple bases. But a high-speed, ~300 kph wheeled rail connection between regional hubs in the US does seem quite sensible. It's working out well in Europe.

atemerev 10y ago
Here in Europe, railway travel is almost completely passé. When a plane ticket e.g. from Geneva to Barcelona can be bought for $40, trains really can't compete, at least between countries. They are slowly dying out on government subsidies.