When we run out of fossil fuels, how will we fly?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 26 2007, 12:38 AM) [snapback]468088[/snapback]</div>

I was talking about cars.

And I bet Europe, (which has England in it, right?) does exceed us in rain travel comfort and convenience.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 25 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]468067[/snapback]</div>

Now I would love to put my car on a the train and travel cross country and then have my car to drive around. They do this in Europe. I remember we put our rented car on the train and then went over the Alps. If I'm vacationing anyway I can budget the extra time to travel back and forth on the train. Plus I can nap or even get a sleeper if I'm going to travel for 12 hours. In fact, I'd do a red eye and travel most of it at night and sleep. Wake up in Georgia or Florida or New England, and start touring in my car. And while I would NEVER take my dog on a plane, I'll bet there's a way to take my dog on the train. So I could take my dog with me on my vacation.


Of course, he might just fly over on his own and meet me there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jun 25 2007, 09:20 PM) [snapback]468076[/snapback]</div>

The problem with this is that it might take more energy to eject the stuff far enough that it won't fall back than the energy it produced in the first place.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jun 25 2007, 09:32 PM) [snapback]468084[/snapback]</div>

The issue is not what we'd prefer. The issue is that fossil fuel is running out. Our present-day lifestyle is not sustainable. We have only two choices:

1. Adjust our lifestyle now to a sustainable form, which may mean abandoning inefficient forms of transportation and traveling a lot less and a bit slower; or

2. Continue as we are now until the fossil fuel runs out and our entire economy collapses, creating utter havoc and chaos.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 25 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]468101[/snapback]</div>

Rockets also accelerate faster than most people can handle. And solid fuel cannot be extinguished once it is ignited. It burns until it's all gone, which it why it's used in the booster phase, to get the rocket up to the desired velocity very quickly.

And it's probably made of fossil fuels.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jun 25 2007, 11:32 PM) [snapback]468084[/snapback]</div>

You can't judge trains by Amtrak. European and Asian train service is far superior and much faster. The trains do have A/C and cargo yields to passenger traffic. It's just that the U.S. has not invested in rail for decades but instead choose to spend our transportation funds on highways and airports.

 

More importantly, in proper countries (the UK is not included in that, apart from the new Eurostar line, alas), they have dedicated high-speed express lines to separate off the long-distance traffic. That's how the French have managed >350mph trains like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfDWtbioEM

Watch that and tell me what that's got in common with your Amtrak.

Of course that sort of speed is almost as environmentally irresponsible as flying...

 

A truly radical, would-never-fly-here (pun intended) plan that would cut our collective emissions significantly and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels would be to fully reinvest in our rail system, build a new high-speed rail down the east coast corridor, through the midwest and southwest, and linking with a west coast corridor... and then banning all non-emergency air travel between locations serviced by these rails within, say, 1000 miles.

 

Certainly Amtrak is no comparison with the European rail lines. They are outdone in everything except derailments - nobody does a good derailment like Amtrak!

The TGV has been operating for many years now. It can get you across France in only a few hours, for a little less than a plane ticket. But much less hassle, plus you can walk around on the train a little better than you can on a train.

Wired magazine has an article on high-speed rail travel and why it hasn't taken off in the US. Largely, it is due to the long distances. Europe is much more compact than the US, so it's more sensible to have these railways. People actually use them, largely due to convenience and the fact that when you consider the cost of gasoline and the toll for the highway, the train comes out on top.

I'd hate to have to take a boat across the pond, though. I go to France every other year and I just don't have it in me to take days to get there. Although maybe the jetlag would be less of a problem, so I guess there are SOME advantages.

 

The answer is in the early years of aviation; helium and hydrogen.

But not the way you might think. We use He-3 for energy generation and H as a storage medium.

Helium-3

(ed to fix broken link -- sIa)

Hydrogen as energy storage medium

You could use tidal generators for generation in some countries with long coastlines (like EnnZed), but I think we need an excuse to get into space... B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Jun 26 2007, 07:55 PM) [snapback]468572[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. High-speed rail hasn't taken off in the US because we haven't invested in it. We haven't even invested in slow speed passenger rail in 50 years. Congress keeps trying to cut off what little funding there is for Amtrak and expects it to be self sufficient. Funny that no one expect the highway system to be completely self sufficient. If you built a high-speed train in the US people would use it.

The cost of gas is another big issue. It is often less expensive to drive to a destination than to take a train or fly in the US. This is not the case in the EU. Time is also a big factor. I can take the train from Birmingham, AL to Raleigh, NC to visit my brother. It cost $89 per person and takes 22 hours with a change and layover at 4 am. Our I can drive and takes 10 hours and costs about $30 for everyone in the car. Which do you think I'll be doing?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Jun 26 2007, 07:55 PM) [snapback]468572[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. High-speed rail hasn't taken off in the US because we haven't invested in it. We haven't even invested in slow speed passenger rail in 50 years. Congress keeps trying to cut off what little funding there is for Amtrak and expects it to be self sufficient. Funny that no one expect the highway system to be completely self sufficient. If you built a high-speed train in the US people would use it.

The cost of gas is another big issue. It is often less expensive to drive to a destination than to take a train or fly in the US. This is not the case in the EU. Time is also a big factor. I can take the train from Birmingham, AL to Raleigh, NC to visit my brother. It cost $89 per person and takes 22 hours with a change and layover at 4 am. Our I can drive and takes 10 hours and costs about $30 for everyone in the car. Which do you think I'll be doing?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Jun 25 2007, 11:17 PM) [snapback]468034[/snapback]</div>

This is correct. Our political unwillingness to apply known technology to atomic energy has created the impression of unsolvable problems. Politicians have ridden the wave of public hysteria, but now we are all paying a price for it. I hope we can overcome these notions and get back on track.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 25 2007, 11:43 PM) [snapback]468127[/snapback]</div>

That's a brilliant pic, Godiva.

I propose that we develop sustainable ways of harnessing the gargantuan amount of energy that Señior Sol bathes us in every day. Then we could have our cake and eat it too (without choking on it).

I'm intrigued by the Nuclear issue. One question is how much "fuel" is left, what are the reserves? How many times can it be reprocessed? Why the hell haven't we done this in the past? Does France do a lot of the things that Richard mentioned in his post?

 

The U.S. used to have an extensive and efficient rail system. It's be systematically dismantled because of cheap gas.

Well, gas isn't cheap anymore.

One of the things we should be doing along with solar, wind, etc. is replacing our rail infrastucture. We should be starting that now looking toward the future when we are going to need rail.

(That was my significant other on "Beg or Bark" night.)

 

My wife and I have traveled from Paris France to Amsterdam in the Netherlands. 4 hours on the money. spent 8 hours there and played pool and drank Heinekens in the Bulldog coffeshop, walked around. Back to our hotel in Paris - 4 hours on the money, sleeping with the Air Conditioner on.

We also rode the Amtrak from the OC to Seattle. Talk about s-l-o-w!!! what a waste. I cannot remember how many hours it took. We spent the night in Seattle then jumped a cruise ship to southeast Alaska. Rode the Pacific Zephyr train home from Seattle eight days later. The view was nice and we saw a lot of hobos along the tracks boozin it up. But the rail system in France / Europe runs like a watch. This includes the subways all over Paris.(some of the subways are hybrids) We almost rode the chunnel to the UK.

Recently rode the Durango narrow guage rail to Silverton Colorado. Average speed was about 8 miles per hour, No air conditioners. Fast when you consider the train was built in the 1890's. The narrow guage in Chama New Mexico is also a nice trip.

I have ridden the Metrolink in Los Angeles, and that works pretty well. I hope they build a high speed rail to Las Vegas (the meadows / fertile lowlands in spanish) and make it cheaper than flying, although from Ontario Ca. it's only a 45 minute flight to Vegas....sweeet!

Nice pic of the Super Dog....looks fun....rrrrrr get the cat.

 

I was watching Modern Marvels on History channel, recorded it so I could finish watching it as it was late and I was tired, then the damned Tivo broke so now I cant see any of it! Anyway, this episode dealt with greenhouse gasses. The first was an oil field in Canada that pumps captured CO2 from a generating plant, pipes it to the oil field and injects it 4000 feet underground. The CO2 replaces the oil in the rock so they can pump it out, the CO2 staying in the ground, basically forever or until the ground 4000 feet down surfaces. The next one was a power plant in the southwest states, don't remember which, that takes the CO2 from their stacks and pipes it through tubes filled with cooling water and algae, then takes the algae and turns it into Bio Diesel, Ethanol, and protein food stocks for farm animals. The technology is out there to not use food stuffs for fuel, and with a twofold application can cut down on green house gas emissions at the same time. I think the ratio is one acre of algae farm per megawatt generated. When you consider the thousands of acres of useless land out there where nothing grows, a lot of CO2 can be converted into fuel, the only drawback being transmitting the power from nowhere to where it is needed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Jun 28 2007, 09:12 AM) [snapback]469385[/snapback]</div>

It's a 1040MW natural gas-fired powerplant in Arizona. I can't remember the name of the plant. A company called Greenfuels is behind the flue-gas to algae operation there. It's a pilot project. They were capturing something like 40% of the flue-gas, I think, for this test.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Jun 28 2007, 10:12 AM) [snapback]469385[/snapback]</div>

Check the History Channel. They often repeat programs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 25 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]468101[/snapback]</div>

Candle Wax.

 

Check greencarcongress.com:

Bio Jet Fuel Link

The military is spending tons of dough on this.