4 ms·
That’s a bold Claim. What proof do you offer?
by iso947 6y ago
That’s a bold
Claim. What proof do you offer?
- nickff 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail for the costs side. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html for the drag side. There are also a huge number of fuel consumption, economic analysis, and environmental impact studies, but I am sure you can find those easily if you're interested.
- wpm 6y agoCHSR is like the worst case example of cost. That project is a disaster.
- nickff 6y agoI agree, but I see no reason to assume other states would be better. New York's subway cost spiral has been quite bad as well.
- Alupis 6y agoEvery contractor and their mother had their hand in the cookie jar. And every politician wanted a stop in their constituency town(s). This will not be any different nationally. It might actually be quite worse.
- ozzy6009 6y agoBased on this equation, shouldn't high speed trains consume less energy since they travel so much slower than planes (3x speed = 9x drag)?
- djsavvy 6y agoReally not sure whether the person you’re replying to is actually correct, but the air is a lot denser on the ground than at cruising altitude. That’ll have an effect on energy consumption that works in the other direction.
- iso947 6y agoOf course it’s not correct. A high speed train will use about 40kwh per 1000 people per mile A plane is about 5 tons an hour, or 10kg per 300 people per mile, so 30kg of jet fuel per 1000 people per mile, or 1.2GJ So a cruising a330 uses about 10 times the energy per passenger mile as an ICE high speed train. Clearly the comparison of polution caused it then affected by how green the electricity source is and the extra environmental impact of burning fuel in the high atmosphere.