More Hydrogen to argue about

[Robert Haston]

I've read some articles on using nuclear energy to split water directly, either at very high heat
(900C) lower heat through a chemical reaction stairstep, or heat assisted electrolysis. These
promise greater efficiency than wasting the heat up cooling towers.

But my two cents is the inherent waste in producing liquid or gas fuels for private cars (which
consume half? their life cycle energy requirements in manufacture) which sit around 23 hours a day
will become unprofitable in a post fossil fuel world. The electric streetcar (which thanks to
microprocessors can be automated and shrunk to closely emulate cars) will take back much of urban
transportation. Push a few buttons on your cell phone and a personal streetcar of your choice pulls
up in front of you.

The good part is then you can charge all the costs of the vehicle directly, instead of expecting
someone who has already sunk 80% of his transportation investment into his private car to leave it
sit and take another mode. This will be a huge incentive to use the worlds most efficient (and only
proven sustainable) vehicle - the bike.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf70.htm

Have at it boys!

 

[Erl]

"Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But my two cents is the inherent waste in producing liquid or gas fuels for private cars (which
> consume half? their life cycle energy requirements in manufacture) which sit around 23 hours a day
> will become unprofitable in a post fossil fuel world. The electric streetcar (which thanks to
> microprocessors can be automated and shrunk to closely emulate cars) will take back much of urban
> transportation. Push a few buttons on your cell phone and a personal streetcar of your choice
> pulls up in front of you.
>
What you describe is a high-tech version of a very old idea -- it's a taxi.

New-fangled taxis will no sooner replace personal automobiles than the ones we have.

 

[Robert Haston]

Any real change in transportation will first require a massive infusion of logic onto our irrational
society. Sadly, I see no sign of this.

If I take a trip on my exercise machine (bike) I spend zero time or money on transit - therefore
instant and free transport.

Guy A pays a dollar and sits in a bus for 40 minutes reading the paper and his email. Guy B spends
45 cents a mile to drive his car over the same route, getting there in 20 minutes.

The average person sees this as "the car is twice as fast". The truth is (at $12 an hour) Guy A
worked 5 minutes to pay for his trip, and (excluding the brisk walks to and from the stop as valid
and essential exercise) dedicated none of his valuable time to transporting himself. Guy B worked 25
minutes to cover his auto costs.

Guy A lost a total of 5 minutes.

Guy B lost 25 minutes working to drive, plus 20 minutes driving to work.

Therefore, in this typical case, driving required a ninefold greater amount of overall time.

Yes, busses are subsidized, but on a per seat mile, they are subsidized far less than cars, which in
urban environments recieve up to a 100% subsidy in the form of free parking, etc. etc. Furhtermore,
accomodating all those cars makes the trips slower and longer. If you added subsidies to transit to
level the field, you would be paying people to ride the bus. Obviously the answer is to eliminate
auto subsidies, which will allow drastic reductions in transit subsidies.

But sadly, this would require our mental evolution.