4 ms·

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 emi

by 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.

by cryptoz 10y ago

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.