3 ms·

The comparison to airlines is really insightful. I wonder if we could have a comparable article written in the 1960s wondering what the next revolution in tran

by badRNG 6y ago

The comparison to airlines is really insightful. I wonder if we could have a comparable article written in the 1960s wondering what the next revolution in transportation technology would be. Trains, cars, planes, next is hover cars? Space craft? With this example we have the benefit of hindsight and understand there isn't a new "automobile" right over the horizon.

tomjen3 6y ago
That is a dangerous way to look at it, because you risk missing the next big transportation device because it doesn't look like what you expect it to look like. What if the next thing you use to transport yourself to work is not a hovercar but Zoom (the online meeting app)?
mikestew 6y ago
Your list went from most efficient to least efficient, and finally to "my g-d, could we possibly burn any more resources just to get where we're going?". Meaning it went the wrong way. Which, because it's the 60s in the hypothetical example, is fitting. The next revolution is the quantum of transportation: the electric scooter. I jest, but only a little. It gets me to work just fine, gets me there in only five minutes more than the car, and I don't have to pedal. And I can power it with the 400W of solar panels on the roof of our RV. Seeing how fast one can dump fuel into an engine in 2020 isn't what I'd call a "revolution".
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  Space ships aren't necessarily less efficient than airplanes for intercontinental travel. Yes, they burn an incredible amount of fuel for a couple minutes, but then they can travel through space without using any fuel because there is no atmospheric drag. So in the end the fuel usage is comparable. Space ships also have the advantage that they can use "green" fuel, fuel that is synthesized from green energy, water and atmospheric CO2 rather than using fossil fuels. (Jet planes could also run on green fuel, but jet fuel is significantly more expensive to synthesize than hydrogen or methane). Methane and hydrogen rockets also burn much cleaner than jets. The fuel is almost pure, and the oxidizer is pure oxygen rather than air, so there is almost no sulfates, NOx or soot. Still pretty inefficient compared to an electric scooter, though. :)

by badRNG 6y ago

tomjen3 6y ago

That is a dangerous way to look at it, because you risk missing the next big transportation device because it doesn't look like what you expect it to look like. What if the next thing you use to transport yourself to work is not a hovercar but Zoom (the online meeting app)?

mikestew 6y ago

Your list went from most efficient to least efficient, and finally to "my g-d, could we possibly burn any more resources just to get where we're going?". Meaning it went the wrong way. Which, because it's the 60s in the hypothetical example, is fitting. The next revolution is the quantum of transportation: the electric scooter. I jest, but only a little. It gets me to work just fine, gets me there in only five minutes more than the car, and I don't have to pedal. And I can power it with the 400W of solar panels on the roof of our RV. Seeing how fast one can dump fuel into an engine in 2020 isn't what I'd call a "revolution".

bryanlarsen 6y ago
Space ships aren't necessarily less efficient than airplanes for intercontinental travel. Yes, they burn an incredible amount of fuel for a couple minutes, but then they can travel through space without using any fuel because there is no atmospheric drag. So in the end the fuel usage is comparable. Space ships also have the advantage that they can use "green" fuel, fuel that is synthesized from green energy, water and atmospheric CO2 rather than using fossil fuels. (Jet planes could also run on green fuel, but jet fuel is significantly more expensive to synthesize than hydrogen or methane). Methane and hydrogen rockets also burn much cleaner than jets. The fuel is almost pure, and the oxidizer is pure oxygen rather than air, so there is almost no sulfates, NOx or soot. Still pretty inefficient compared to an electric scooter, though. :)