MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: DegenerateDish on August 12, 2013, 09:29:16 PM
-
So, is Hyperloop a concept that might happen someday? Pretty amazing stuff to read.
-
I thought you misspelled hoopaloop. Where did that guy go? Seems like since Chicos has returned from his ban hoopaloop went into hiding. Weird. They must hate each other. Something about a fight after a backyard beer summit where Chicos gave hoop some tickets to Disney. They must've been used tickets and hoop left his money in Bloomington and couldn't get his children into Disney.
-
So, is Hyperloop a concept that might happen someday? Pretty amazing stuff to read.
I think it is an interesting idea. A very old idea actually. I do wonder about its feasibility on several levels, but the individuals involved are quite intelligent, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
My largest concern is scalability, conceptually I do not understand how the device would work with multiple cars (sleds, whatever you want to call them). With 28 individuals to a car, I'm not sure how many cars (if even possible with multiple cars) could occupy the same tube. In that regards, it would be greatly limiting as to how scalable the technology would be and thus vastly impractical
I'm sure this is something they looked into and have come up with some ideas.
edit: Just read their white paper. There design is different than what Rand/ET3 had been proposing. I misunderstood how they were dealing with actual air pressure in the tube. Looks quite feasible, how much it would cost is a completely different question.
-
I think it is an interesting idea. A very old idea actually. I do wonder about its feasibility on several levels, but the individuals involved are quite intelligent, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
My largest concern is scalability, conceptually I do not understand how the device would work with multiple cars (sleds, whatever you want to call them). With 28 individuals to a car, I'm not sure how many cars (if even possible with multiple cars) could occupy the same tube. In that regards, it would be greatly limiting as to how scalable the technology would be and thus vastly impractical
I'm sure this is something they looked into and have come up with some ideas.
edit: Just read their white paper. There design is different than what Rand/ET3 had been proposing. I misunderstood how they were dealing with actual air pressure in the tube. Looks quite feasible, how much it would cost is a completely different question.
In Musk's calculations it would cost about 1/10 of what is proposed for the "high speed" rail ($68 billion)... I believe around $6-7 billion. Totally reasonable.
edit: Here is a link to the pdf alpha proposal. http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf
-
Looks genius and practical. If we could put people on the moon with 1960s technology, we could build a hyperloop in 10 years if we really wanted to. Elon Musk is the Edison of our day.
Sadly, the most difficult thing about building this will be finding the political will to do so without people throwing around accusations of big government, and without the oil lobby pitching a fit.
LA to San Fran in 30 minutes.
LA to New York in 45 minutes.
Game changer.
-
Looks genius and practical. If we could put people on the moon with 1960s technology, we could build a hyperloop in 10 years if we really wanted to. Elon Musk is the Edison of our day.
Sadly, the most difficult thing about building this will be finding the political will to do so without people throwing around accusations of big government, and without the oil lobby pitching a fit.
LA to San Fran in 30 minutes.
LA to New York in 45 minutes.
Game changer.
Musk himself said longer trips = conventional air travel still makes more sense.
-
Looks genius and practical. If we could put people on the moon with 1960s technology, we could build a hyperloop in 10 years if we really wanted to. Elon Musk is the Edison of our day.
Sadly, the most difficult thing about building this will be finding the political will to do so without people throwing around accusations of big government, and without the oil lobby pitching a fit.
LA to San Fran in 30 minutes.
LA to New York in 45 minutes.
Game changer.
I don't understand where the LA to NYC in 45 minutes comes from. Even if you do a calculation where its only 2500 miles from NYC to LA, that is still over 3 hours at 800 mph... which the Hyperloop wouldn't approach. Musk has mentioned that any distance over 900 miles because prohibitively expensive compared to supersonic jet travel.
-
You guys are right. The 45 minutes thing came from an NPR report I was listening to but looking over the document it sounds like that was just conjecture.
Musk says that supersonic air travel would be preferable to the hyperloop for distances over 900 miles. However, that has not been available since 2003 and has never been available for intracontinental flights in North America. The hyperloop from LA to NYC would still be better than anything we currently have in place. It travels twice as fast as a conventional jet.
It would be cool to see something like this in place in the midwest, although I doubt it would happen. The LA to San Fran route satisfies an obvious need. The northeast corridor would work too but they already have high speed rail there.
Would be interesteting to see a hyperloop connecting KC-StL-Chi-MKE-MNP in a circle...it would be an actual loop
-
Hy-per-loooop!!!!
(http://www.lardlad.com/assets/episodes/season4/9f10-big.jpg)
-
In Musk's calculations it would cost about 1/10 of what is proposed for the "high speed" rail ($68 billion)... I believe around $6-7 billion. Totally reasonable.
edit: Here is a link to the pdf alpha proposal. http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf
I think once all the safety concerns and actual development costs get wrapped into it it would be substantially more than $6-7 billion. Even at that cost, he is looking at 6 million passengers per year at $20 a pop, that is $120 million per year, meaning it would take 50 years for a return on investment.
Cost is a major concern. Cheaper than rail, yes, if his cost estimates hold. There is a good reason though why Musk is making this open source.
edit: round trip is $40 so they estimate around 20 ish years. Still a losing proposition as the lifetime of the solar panels, batteries etc are far less than this.
-
Elon Musk is the Edison of our day.
More like Tony Stark (aka Iron Man)
-
This really is incredible. Could be a huge leap forward in transportation. You could have multiple loops up and down both coasts as well as throughout the midwest, eventually. Musk is no dummy. If someone can succeed with PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX (tbd), that's someone who could definitely succeed with Hyperloop. Oil lobby would be throwing a fit, but so would the airlines, Amtrak and possibly even big auto.
I think there is going to be a lot of political blowback as well. You think the state of California likes this idea? No way. If costs and speeds are true, then they are being absolutely embarrassed. And if I was a CA resident, I'd be furious my tax money was going to this other more expensive, slower project.
It's also incredible Musk is making it open source with no patents. It could literally be built by any entity. THat's awesome. I'm sure Musk has some sort of reason for doing so - perhaps because his solar panel company is successful and this thing would do well with solar panels, so he doesn't need the money from the actual train. I dunno. But if he really is so noble, it's a breath of fresh air from the majority of inventors/corporations.
-
This really is incredible. Could be a huge leap forward in transportation. You could have multiple loops up and down both coasts as well as throughout the midwest, eventually. Musk is no dummy. If someone can succeed with PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX (tbd), that's someone who could definitely succeed with Hyperloop. Oil lobby would be throwing a fit, but so would the airlines, Amtrak and possibly even big auto.
I think there is going to be a lot of political blowback as well. You think the state of California likes this idea? No way. If costs and speeds are true, then they are being absolutely embarrassed. And if I was a CA resident, I'd be furious my tax money was going to this other more expensive, slower project.
It's also incredible Musk is making it open source with no patents. It could literally be built by any entity. THat's awesome. I'm sure Musk has some sort of reason for doing so - perhaps because his solar panel company is successful and this thing would do well with solar panels, so he doesn't need the money from the actual train. I dunno. But if he really is so noble, it's a breath of fresh air from the majority of inventors/corporations.
Not incredible at all, the whole proposition from a profits standpoint is a loser. The power supplies, however, would entirely come from Musk property. Thus, if he can get someone else (likely the government) to buy into the idea, he can turn a nice profit, without investing in a losing proposition. Maybe others can find a way to make money off this.
As for the taxpayer money being wasted on rail? Remember that this technology is completely unproven on the length scales that he is proposing, thus a substantial amount of money (Billions) would still have to be spent to prove that it could actually work as described and to verify that all safety precautions are made. That process would take years (likely at least a decade to get past government regulations/safety). You then still have to build the thing.
So the government is investing in proven technology that can be built now. Is it a good idea, thats an entirely different debate and one that I don't want to get into.
-
Check out my hyperloop!
-
Check out my hyperloop!
Looks good, I would add Vegas, maybe Salt lake city.
-
All of this hyperloop stuff will be stone-age once scientists invent magic.
-
Check out my hyperloop!
I was instantly reminded of this
(http://www.theaveragegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TTRmap.jpg)
-
Check out my hyperloop!
At 800mph, a Hyperloop from the MKE to CHI would be 7 minutes. Boom.
-
At 800mph, a Hyperloop from the MKE to CHI would be 7 minutes. Boom.
That should help recruiting.
-
Looks good, I would add Vegas, maybe Salt lake city.
Vegas is included, direct routes to Phoenix and La.
-
This all sounds like a pipe dream to me.
-
I think once all the safety concerns and actual development costs get wrapped into it it would be substantially more than $6-7 billion. Even at that cost, he is looking at 6 million passengers per year at $20 a pop, that is $120 million per year, meaning it would take 50 years for a return on investment.
Cost is a major concern. Cheaper than rail, yes, if his cost estimates hold. There is a good reason though why Musk is making this open source.
edit: round trip is $40 so they estimate around 20 ish years. Still a losing proposition as the lifetime of the solar panels, batteries etc are far less than this.
I would think a $75 round-trip ticket would be a reasonable price. It is a 760 mile trip that would normally take 5.5 hours. You probably would spend that much on gas/parking anyways. You will also be cutting off 10 hours on your trip. The amtrak is $48 round trip from Chicago to Milwaukee. If they built one of these here, charged $60 round trip, and could get people there in 15 minutes I bet they would be packed.
-
I thought you misspelled hoopaloop. Where did that guy go? Seems like since Chicos has returned from his ban hoopaloop went into hiding. Weird. They must hate each other. Something about a fight after a backyard beer summit where Chicos gave hoop some tickets to Disney. They must've been used tickets and hoop left his money in Bloomington and couldn't get his children into Disney.
Don't forget, I must be BMA, too, since he's been gone. Or how about Trekyfoil (who is deceased now), or how about Brad Forester...lots of people have been here and left, weird. Weird. So weird.
-
I'm more concerned about the high rate of speed.
And I'm
In California, so I'm more concerned about the lack of planning. LA to SF in 30 min is enticing but it's going to cross private land and Eco-sensitive territories.
But by the time this thing becomes a reality, teleportation or flying cars will probably have been invented.
-
So, is Hyperloop a concept that might happen someday? Pretty amazing stuff to read.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/could-the-hyperloop-really-cost-6-billion-critics-say-no/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/16/elon-musk-hyperloop-going-nowhere
-
Musk is a big dreamer with big bucks. It is a pipe dream (ha!), but it DID spark conversation.
-
Musk is a big dreamer with big bucks. It is a pipe dream (ha!), but it DID spark conversation.
I tire of him...Tesla cars all over the place here in So. Cal...nice car, but more cost than it is worth. He speaks and people fall over themselves sometimes. He's a rich guy making electric cars for rich people...electric cars that have the same carbon footprint as a gasoline car. It's pretty funny to watch.
-
I tire of him...Tesla cars all over the place here in So. Cal...nice car, but more cost than it is worth. He speaks and people fall over themselves sometimes. He's a rich guy making electric cars for rich people...electric cars that have the same carbon footprint as a gasoline car. It's pretty funny to watch.
The price will come down. It already is. In 5 years the price difference will be negligle between an electric car and a gas. The Volt can already be had for under 30k.
Tesla made a very smart choice to enter the luxury market. If you are going to charge 40-70k for a car, it better damn well be nice. And its worked for them. They are turning profits.
You are right about the carbon footprint...for now. The key is if you get a green grid (solar, wind, nuclear, even natural gas is a relatively clean fuel and by far the most plentiful out of these choices) - then the carbon footprint decreases dramaticaly.
You gotta start somewhere Chicos. You can laugh at it. But its not like you can just turn our country's 100 year dependence on oil upside down overnight.
-
The price will come down. It already is. In 5 years the price difference will be negligle between an electric car and a gas. The Volt can already be had for under 30k.
Tesla made a very smart choice to enter the luxury market. If you are going to charge 40-70k for a car, it better damn well be nice. And its worked for them. They are turning profits.
You are right about the carbon footprint...for now. The key is if you get a green grid (solar, wind, nuclear, even natural gas is a relatively clean fuel and by far the most plentiful out of these choices) - then the carbon footprint decreases dramaticaly.
You gotta start somewhere Chicos. You can laugh at it. But its not like you can just turn our country's 100 year dependence on oil upside down overnight.
We have more oil reserves in this country with shale than all of the Middle East combined. Shame we choose to rely elsewhere for our needs. I'm the son of a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist so was educated on this stuff since a young pup.
As for the other stuff, you'll be happy to know that I have 17 solar panels being installed on my roof come next week. I'm not against renewable at all, I'm against people thinking that these "clean" cars or "clean" sources of energy are clean. Hardly, in fact often WORSE than what we have. People aren't capable of seeing the big picture sometimes and understanding what it takes to produce that electricity, what goes into the batteries, where are the batteries disposed of, the mining for said components like lithium...all come at a cost both short term and long term. That's really my point...we have a lot of jugheads out here on the coast puffing their chest on how green they are, but in reality they are pretty ignorant to not even understand that currently they are actually less green than everyone else. The irony is totally lost on them.
As for the costs of the Volt and others, that's consumer costs. They are still unprofitable and will be for some time as subsidies galore are fueling things now. I see where GM just had to slash prices again just to move those cars.
-
As I see it, the auto industry serves as a barometer for individual demand for cleaner energies. Sure, Musk and Tesla are over-deified given the relatively negligible environmental benefits of gas vs. electric cars, but i think thats a product of the relative helplessness individuals feel to effect energy policy. Solar panels take a huge upfront investment - props btw Chicos - and the more affordable opportunity cost of an electric car is a way to try to make a difference.
Regarding US oil reserves - 60 percent of US oil consumption already comes from domestic production. 28 percent of what is imported comes from Canada with another 10 percent from Mexico. So while we definitely do import from Saudi Arabia, etc., its not like it makes up a lion's share of domestic usage. I've always wished Congress could come up with some sort of compromise tying expansion of domestic production to support for turning the grid over to renewable energy. Using current domestic production as a baseline, for every additional barrel derived from US lands, $__ goes toward renewable energy expansion. I understand there are a lot of kinks that would need to be worked out, the subsidy rate and the destination for the funds chief among them, but at least it would satisfy the call for increasing domestic production and would hopefully create some momentum for increasing renewable's production share.
-
Why would you tie domestic production increases to "turning the grid over" to renewables? The fact is sometimes the sun doesn't shine and sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Until there is sufficient technology to store this energy during times of high wind and high solar peaks the grid will always and inevitably need a baseline of energy from sources such as nuclear, coal, nat gas. The reason those methods are used is simple, reliability and cost. When renewables are more cost effective I would fully endorse them, but that also includes eliminating the subsidies currently required to prop them up.
-
Why would you tie domestic production increases to "turning the grid over" to renewables? The fact is sometimes the sun doesn't shine and sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Until there is sufficient technology to store this energy during times of high wind and high solar peaks the grid will always and inevitably need a baseline of energy from sources such as nuclear, coal, nat gas. The reason those methods are used is simple, reliability and cost. When renewables are more cost effective I would fully endorse them, but that also includes eliminating the subsidies currently required to prop them up.
Cuz renewables are the only thing the government subsidizes... Nope no corporate welfare for oil companies at all
-
Cuz renewables are the only thing the government subsidizes... Nope no corporate welfare for oil companies at all
Good thing the "oil" companies aren't producing renewables ::)
-
Why would you tie domestic production increases to "turning the grid over" to renewables? The fact is sometimes the sun doesn't shine and sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Until there is sufficient technology to store this energy during times of high wind and high solar peaks the grid will always and inevitably need a baseline of energy from sources such as nuclear, coal, nat gas. The reason those methods are used is simple, reliability and cost. When renewables are more cost effective I would fully endorse them, but that also includes eliminating the subsidies currently required to prop them up.
Because I think it would be a terrible waste to expand domestic oil production with no semblance of a plan to get away from those fuels. Its a situation just begging for responsible compromise. The system we have now took public-private partnership over the past seventy-five years to grow to the behemoth that it is today; now, it drowns out any potential competitors. To claim that energy generation and transmission resembles a "free" market where any competitor survives or dies on its own merit was never, and is not currently true. That's not even meant to be a criticism of the public support that the modern day fossil fuel grid has received - its meant to point out that demanding any alternative energy survive through entirely private investment isnt reflective of how energy policy is or ever has been forged. When fossil fuel energy generation is expanded, its "infrastructure." When there's talk of turning that generation over to renewables, its "big government" or "corporate welfare." That's a sad dissonance.
Tying domestic fossil fuel production to alternative energy expansion is a compromise that will actually benefit fossil fuel producers more than anyone. It could essentially be drawn up as a forced investment program whereby the oil companies themselves retain rights in the alternative energy technologies that are developed. After all, as Chicos pointed out, they might be best positioned from an R and D standpoint to bring alternative energy technologies to market. It permits the oil companies to profit from increased domestic fossil fuel production while simultaneously wrapping its arms around the alternatives market. Given the carrot of increased profits from drilling domestically, thats just about the most gentle stick you'll ever see.
-
We have more oil reserves in this country with shale than all of the Middle East combined. Shame we choose to rely elsewhere for our needs. I'm the son of a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist so was educated on this stuff since a young pup.
As for the other stuff, you'll be happy to know that I have 17 solar panels being installed on my roof come next week. I'm not against renewable at all, I'm against people thinking that these "clean" cars or "clean" sources of energy are clean. Hardly, in fact often WORSE than what we have. People aren't capable of seeing the big picture sometimes and understanding what it takes to produce that electricity, what goes into the batteries, where are the batteries disposed of, the mining for said components like lithium...all come at a cost both short term and long term. That's really my point...we have a lot of jugheads out here on the coast puffing their chest on how green they are, but in reality they are pretty ignorant to not even understand that currently they are actually less green than everyone else. The irony is totally lost on them.
As for the costs of the Volt and others, that's consumer costs. They are still unprofitable and will be for some time as subsidies galore are fueling things now. I see where GM just had to slash prices again just to move those cars.
I do completely agree with you.. Alternative sources of energy are not clean as it seems to be...There are many factors which needs to be considered before using them.
-
I do completely agree with you.. Alternative sources of energy are not clean as it seems to be...There are many factors which needs to be considered before using them.
Wow... this necro has "campaign intern" written all over it.
-
Additional food for thought
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/26/autos/tesla-funding/ (http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/26/autos/tesla-funding/)
-
Oil oil everywhere. My dad is giggling somewhere, he would tell the Peak Oil people they were completely off their rockers. He was right....of course as a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist he knew better than most.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fracking-is-turning-the-us-into-a-bigger-oil-producer-than-saudi-arabia-9185133.html
-
Oil oil everywhere. My dad is giggling somewhere, he would tell the Peak Oil people they were completely off their rockers. He was right....of course as a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist he knew better than most.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fracking-is-turning-the-us-into-a-bigger-oil-producer-than-saudi-arabia-9185133.html
I completely agree with you that most things that are talked about as being "green" are indeed not "green", similarly GMO foods aren't going to kill you are harm you (there affect on biodiversity is a completely different issue), but that does not make fracking a good idea either.
That's like saying, all these fad diets aren't really very good for you and all these healthy people following them aren't that healthy…so I'm going to go ahead and mainline bacon grease into my blood stream.
-
Doesn't the peak oil theory just state that at some point we will have pumped 50% of the oil in existence.
From mineralwebs.com:
One of the weaknesses of the peak oil theory is that it can’t really be used to determine when the peak will occur. Many years after the fact it will be obvious, but the theory does little to predict the future. This means that nobody really knows when oil will peak.
So if it's true we won't know......until we know. New use of old technology like fracking is keeping oil pumping at highs, but who's to say that's not temporary?
-
I completely agree with you that most things that are talked about as being "green" are indeed not "green", similarly GMO foods aren't going to kill you are harm you (there affect on biodiversity is a completely different issue), but that does not make fracking a good idea either.
That's like saying, all these fad diets aren't really very good for you and all these healthy people following them aren't that healthy…so I'm going to go ahead and mainline bacon grease into my blood stream.
you can do that? tell me more.
-
Oil oil everywhere. My dad is giggling somewhere, he would tell the Peak Oil people they were completely off their rockers. He was right....of course as a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist he knew better than most.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fracking-is-turning-the-us-into-a-bigger-oil-producer-than-saudi-arabia-9185133.html
So you trust geologists/physicists, but not meteorologists/climatologists?
Which other sciences are for real ;D
-
Oil oil everywhere. My dad is giggling somewhere, he would tell the Peak Oil people they were completely off their rockers. He was right....of course as a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist he knew better
Used to sail the Channel Islands with a petroleum engineer who lectured around the world. He used to say that as best he could figure oil was still being made and impending limit was nonsense. By the way, oil seeps out of the ground everywhere in Cal. Including under the ocean. Not uncommon to have to use something to get it off your feet after a beach walk.
-
Used to sail the Channel Islands with a petroleum engineer who lectured around the world. He used to say that as best he could figure oil was still being made and impending limit was nonsense. By the way, oil seeps out of the ground everywhere in Cal. Including under the ocean. Not uncommon to have to use something to get it off your feet after a beach walk.
While it is not an infinite source, oil is surely still being formed underground. Same forces still at work - although we are using it much quicker than it is being formed. But it will almost certainly last longer than we have been told.
-
There's also the abiotic oil theory that according to the abiogenic hypothesis, petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. Thus oil will just keep seaping out. I only hear dof it because it was tied into a Steve Berry novel.
-
So you trust geologists/physicists, but not meteorologists/climatologists?
Which other sciences are for real ;D
Calling a meteorologist or climatologist a "scientist" is tantamount to calling a chiropractor a "doctor." Sure, it may be regarded as technically correct, but come on... even dentists won't let them sit at their table at the doctors' country club.
Meteorology and climatology more closely resemble astrology than they do geology.
-
Calling a meteorologist or climatologist a "scientist" is tantamount to calling a chiropractor a "doctor." Sure, it may be regarded as technically correct, but come on... even dentists won't let them sit at their table at the doctors' country club.
Meteorology and climatology more closely resemble astrology than they do geology.
Ah.....right ::)
-
you can do that? tell me more.
The trick is that bacon grease really isn't that soluble and is quite viscous, so you need to dilute it in something first. Dimethyl Sulfoxide is a good choice, can usually be found at a pharmacy. I recommend a 5% DMSO, 90% water, 5% bacon grease mixture.
Disclaimer: The above paragraph is not to be taken seriously. Only a licensed medical practitioner should do any bacon grease injections…and even then they should lose their damn license.
-
Calling a meteorologist or climatologist a "scientist" is tantamount to calling a chiropractor a "doctor." Sure, it may be regarded as technically correct, but come on... even dentists won't let them sit at their table at the doctors' country club.
Meteorology and climatology more closely resemble astrology than they do geology.
Except for the fact that 99.9% of the rest of the scientific community accepts their findings. Benny, do you have your PhD in climatology? I think I'll go with the actual scientists in this debate, thanks.
The only people who discount the science of climatology are not scientists, or they are one of the handful who are bankrolled by right-wing interest groups.
-
Except for the fact that 99.9% of the rest of the scientific community accepts their findings. Benny, do you have your PhD in climatology? I think I'll go with the actual scientists in this debate, thanks.
The only people who discount the science of climatology are not scientists, or they are one of the handful who are bankrolled by right-wing interest groups.
Listen... I'm not making a political statement here. I'm simply sharing the observation that a) climatology and meteorology generally have not attracted the best and brightest of the scientific world, and b) anyone who advocates one side or the other is a lemming at best. Frankly, both sides of the table have completely butchered their arguments on climate change as it pertains to what can be factually, and statistically, supported. For example, there is some truth in your 99.9% "acceptance" statement, but elaborate on what "findings" are actually being "accepted" and it paints a very different picture than the one being implied. On the flip side, there are people who will accept the statistical findings that the earth is warming, yet blindly attribute it to cyclical changes while completely rejecting any possibility of influence by humans (e.g. "we had an ice age once, so of course it's getting warmer... that doesn't mean my SUV has anything to do with it"). Neither side is correct when it comes to climate change... there are still questions that have to be answered before there can be anything close to a true consensus.
All of this is just a long way of expressing that, in my opinion, had guys like Enrico Fermi decided to take up climatology instead, we probably would have had that consensus by now.
-
Listen... I'm not making a political statement here. I'm simply sharing the observation that a) climatology and meteorology generally have not attracted the best and brightest of the scientific world, and b) anyone who advocates one side or the other is a lemming at best. Frankly, both sides of the table have completely butchered their arguments on climate change as it pertains to what can be factually, and statistically, supported. For example, there is some truth in your 99.9% "acceptance" statement, but elaborate on what "findings" are actually being "accepted" and it paints a very different picture than the one being implied. On the flip side, there are people who will accept the statistical findings that the earth is warming, yet blindly attribute it to cyclical changes while completely rejecting any possibility of influence by humans (e.g. "we had an ice age once, so of course it's getting warmer... that doesn't mean my SUV has anything to do with it"). Neither side is correct when it comes to climate change... there are still questions that have to be answered before there can be anything close to a true consensus.
All of this is just a long way of expressing that, in my opinion, had guys like Enrico Fermi decided to take up climatology instead, we probably would have had that consensus by now.
Fair enough. I think I misread your original statement.
-
All of this is just a long way of expressing that, in my opinion, had guys like Enrico Fermi decided to take up climatology instead, we probably would have had that consensus by now.
I just can't read the name Enrico without thinking about "Hey it's Enrico Palazzo!" from the Naked Gun.
-
Quick update...becoming a reality (demo, at least) less than 3 years after the original announcement and the OP asking if this could ever happen.
Musk is the Edison of our time.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/11/477645103/elon-musks-hyperloop-dream-is-about-to-have-its-1st-public-demo
-
Looks good, I would add Vegas, maybe Salt lake city.
When I first heard about the Hyperloop, Los Angeles to Vegas was the first route I thought of. It would be awesome.
-
All of this is just a long way of expressing that, in my opinion, had guys like Enrico Fermi decided to take up climatology instead, we probably would have had that consensus by now.
Don't be silly, Benny.
He would just be called an extremist.
-
Don't be silly, Benny.
He would just be called an extremist.
I was under the impression that most hippies already do consider Fermi an extremist.
-
When I first heard about the Hyperloop, Los Angeles to Vegas was the first route I thought of. It would be awesome.
How about DC to Leavenworth.
-
Hyperloop or Hoopaloop?
-
Hyperloop or Hoopaloop?
Hoopaloop's main terminal is in Chico, CA.
-
Hoopaloop's main terminal is in Chico, CA.
With stops at Disneyland and Beer Summits
-
Propelled by lots of hot air.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8b/bb/99/8bbb99e2a9630bd878d07a146591c7d9.jpg)
-
We have more oil reserves in this country with shale than all of the Middle East combined. Shame we choose to rely elsewhere for our needs. I'm the son of a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist so was educated on this stuff since a young pup.
As for the other stuff, you'll be happy to know that I have 17 solar panels being installed on my roof come next week. I'm not against renewable at all, I'm against people thinking that these "clean" cars or "clean" sources of energy are clean. Hardly, in fact often WORSE than what we have. People aren't capable of seeing the big picture sometimes and understanding what it takes to produce that electricity, what goes into the batteries, where are the batteries disposed of, the mining for said components like lithium...all come at a cost both short term and long term. That's really my point...we have a lot of jugheads out here on the coast puffing their chest on how green they are, but in reality they are pretty ignorant to not even understand that currently they are actually less green than everyone else. The irony is totally lost on them.
As for the costs of the Volt and others, that's consumer costs. They are still unprofitable and will be for some time as subsidies galore are fueling things now. I see where GM just had to slash prices again just to move those cars.
Cliffs notes for those in a time crunch: "There's no shortage of oil, and I know this because of my dad, but I am using clean energy, but clean energy isn't clean, and other people are dumb."
-
Cliffs notes for those in a time crunch: "There's no shortage of oil, and I know this because of my dad, but I am using clean energy, but clean energy isn't clean, and other people are dumb."
Almost. No such thing as clean energy. Many people are dumb. We have massive oil reserves. I'm using solar panels to save money.
-
Almost. No such thing as clean energy. Many people are dumb. We have massive oil reserves. I'm using solar panels to save money.
Heavily subsidized by the gov't, by the way.
-
Heavily subsidized by the gov't, by the way.
For some, but I didn't get a tax break benefit
-
For some, but I didn't get a tax break benefit
You get a certificate payment (or rebate), don't you? It may not be coming from the gov't's pocket, but it's coming from the gov't's hands (that are taking from someone else's pockets).
-
You get a certificate payment (or rebate), don't you? It may not be coming from the gov't's pocket, but it's coming from the gov't's hands (that are taking from someone else's pockets).
That's what I'm saying...I didn't get anything, but the company I lease from does...they get the tax subsidy. Believe me, I'm not arguing with you at all about the subsidy going to someone....absolutely positively does. Hell, one could argue that because of the subsidy they are getting they can price the lease at an affordable rate, but I'd have to see the numbers to validate that.
I'm a believe in solar, though it is inefficient as hell, and I say that from someone that lives in a part of the country where it is sunny the majority of the time.
-
When I first heard about the Hyperloop, Los Angeles to Vegas was the first route I thought of. It would be awesome.
Saw this article:
http://marketmadhouse.com/why-cargo-containers-could-be-the-real-secret-to-hyperloops-success/
maybe the hyperloop system will work better for freight than passenger travel.
-
Saw this article:
http://marketmadhouse.com/why-cargo-containers-could-be-the-real-secret-to-hyperloops-success/
maybe the hyperloop system will work better for freight than passenger travel.
I think that's the initial roll out, if cargo gets vaporized no one really cares. There is a reason the aviation industry started with mail/freight
-
Technology is cool
https://youtu.be/MU4LTv_eNgQ
-
I'd like that between LA and Vegas, yes.
-
As a former Amtrak executive, I have the following concerns:
1) Does the technology really work? Go back and look at the problems with Acela. It weighed too much. It cracked too often. Amtrakis trying to get rid of it now. What makes you think the railroad that brought you Acela and politically motivated long-distance rail travel can do this right?
2) what's the real cost? If an investor says $1.00 and the government is involved, expect it to cost $5.00. And expect the political compromises in the routing to require a hyperloop from Milwaukee to Chicago via Houston and San Diego.
3) I can hardy wait for the NIMBYs to get this one. A hyperlook? In my neighborhood? Forget it! If they can't get All Aboard Florida done on existing right of way, no way this will get done.
-
As a former Amtrak executive, I have the following concerns:
1) Does the technology really work? Go back and look at the problems with Acela. It weighed too much. It cracked too often. Amtrakis trying to get rid of it now. What makes you think the railroad that brought you Acela and politically motivated long-distance rail travel can do this right?
2) what's the real cost? If an investor says $1.00 and the government is involved, expect it to cost $5.00. And expect the political compromises in the routing to require a hyperloop from Milwaukee to Chicago via Houston and San Diego.
3) I can hardy wait for the NIMBYs to get this one. A hyperlook? In my neighborhood? Forget it! If they can't get All Aboard Florida done on existing right of way, no way this will get done.
You need to actually look into this before coming up with these types of questions. You can mostly answer them with the internet... especially #3.
-
You need to actually look into this before coming up with these types of questions. You can mostly answer them with the internet... especially #3.
Oh and if it is on the Internet, it must be accurate!
Has to be or the Internet cops will detain me and make me watch DePaul basketball "highlights" from the last three years!
-
I will say that it does seem really, really expensive and that's its application in the US would be quite limited. Trains work better in other parts of the world because of density issues, both between population centers and within population centers.
-
You need to actually look into this before coming up with these types of questions. You can mostly answer them with the internet... especially #3.
I think his response is fitting for a "former Amtrak executive" commenting on the Hyperloop.
-
If you'd have actually bothered to do ANY reading, you'd have noticed that the hyperloop is expected to travel along existing interstate highway corridors.
Instead, you acted like a former Amtrak executive.
-
I think his response is fitting for a "former Amtrak executive" commenting on the Hyperloop.
As I was posting my reply to him, you beat me to the snark by seconds.
-
As I was posting my reply to him, you beat me to the snark by seconds.
Finishing earlier than others is my forte.
-
Finishing earlier than others is my forte.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-15wVWVo3bzw/UmgZgF7VE5I/AAAAAAAAACg/XfvZEjUQQho/s400/tumblr_mqu4dtx6Yi1sdqk10o1_500.gif)
-
If you'd have actually bothered to do ANY reading, you'd have noticed that the hyperloop is expected to travel along existing interstate highway corridors.
Which isn't exactly a given either. Many of these corridors are pretty full and rights of way can be expensive.
-
Which isn't exactly a given either. Many of these corridors are pretty full and rights of way can be expensive.
Elevated or buried has been floated
-
The players that are probably best in position to implement this are Union Pacific, CSX, and the rest of the rails. They already have rail lines, extremely sophisticated logistics systems, integration with international shipping hubs/ports/etc., and I still think that the hyperloop technology will be more effective freight system than commuter/interstate personal travel system.
-
Elevated or buried has been floated
Which are both quite expensive.
The thing about Musk is he is a big thinking guy. Big ideas using big technology. However, none of it has been profitable right? The guy gets the benefit of the doubt because of his previous success, but that success mostly was due to the opposite of big technology.
-
Which are both quite expensive.
In part, that's why he started this company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boring_Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boring_Company)
-
In part, that's why he started this company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boring_Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boring_Company)
That sounds like a dull company.
-
But seriously, is Elon Musk just doing all of this to bilk venture investors out of their fortunes? Seriously, what major advances in building tunnels is this company actually going to accomplish?
-
But seriously, is Elon Musk just doing all of this to bilk venture investors out of their fortunes? Seriously, what major advances in building tunnels is this company actually going to accomplish?
The less flashy IP generated by his companies alone is worth what investors are paying. For every moonshot effort he's making there is small and unheralded innovations that are generated (even if the project/company is a failure) which have a myriad of applications that advance society in subtler ways. A lot of people don't realize that Musk leases out some of the technology to other companies to deploy in their products, including to Google.
Similar concept, Milwaukee Tool is a rapidly growing company, and while their tools are good/popular they actually generate a lot of their revenue from leasing battery technology to their competitors because Milwaukee Tool got there first with a patent.
But to be fair to your point, Musk is largely a salesman.
-
But seriously, is Elon Musk just doing all of this to bilk venture investors out of their fortunes? Seriously, what major advances in building tunnels is this company actually going to accomplish?
20/200 vision. Elon Musk might be nothing more than the Bob Lang of the next technological revolution. And that's a very good thing for the rest of us.
-
The less flashy IP generated by his companies alone is worth what investors are paying. For every moonshot effort he's making there is small and unheralded innovations that are generated (even if the project/company is a failure) which have a myriad of applications that advance society in subtler ways. A lot of people don't realize that Musk leases out some of the technology to other companies to deploy in their products, including to Google.
Similar concept, Milwaukee Tool is a rapidly growing company, and while their tools are good/popular they actually generate a lot of their revenue from leasing battery technology to their competitors because Milwaukee Tool got there first with a patent.
But to be fair to your point, Musk is largely a salesman.
20/200 vision. Elon Musk might be nothing more than the Bob Lang of the next technological revolution. And that's a very good thing for the rest of us.
Yeah thanks. These are good points.
-
RIP Hyperloop
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-67801235
-
Done in by the requirement to turn corners.
-
Should have seen this coming when Branson took Virgin off the name as a preemptive CYA move.
-
Should have seen it coming when Elon admitted the whole idea was an attempt to distract CA from moving forward with high speed rail
-
Should have seen it coming when Elon admitted the whole idea was an attempt to distract CA from moving forward with high speed rail
The genius is playing chess while the rest of us are playing checkers.