Germany gets contracts for american highspeed train system

[Pommer]

gas and oil is the past. The times of everyone owning a car are over. That's a fact. If USA does not start changing in that problem, then you face massive problems in the future.

Erik
When you make a profound statement then follow that statement with “That is a fact”, that just screams for a source. Do you have a credible source? If you do please share it with us.

Are you seriously asking for a source for to support the idea that oil and gas are finite resources?

 

[Sketcher]

Are you seriously asking for a source for to support the idea that oil and gas are finite resources?

It's one thing to say that they're finite resources. It's another to say that the automobile is going to die or soon be marginalized.

 

[Sketcher]

Agreed. Are we not running a gasoline subsidy, however?

Ugh. Probably.

 

[Pommer]

It's one thing to say that they're finite resources. It's another to say that the automobile is going to die or soon be marginalized.

Agreed.

The petroleum based automobile will, in thirty years' time, be the province of only the super-rich.

I regard 30 years as "soon".

No, I do not have documentation to back this up.
Let us agree to meet in 2040 and see if'n I'm anywheres near right.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Your earlier post mentioned high-speed trains so I looked up high speed trains. The source for my post of 160mph is reprinted below

High-speed rail (HSR) is a type of passenger rail transport that operates significantly faster than the normal speed of rail traffic. Specific definitions by the European Union include 200 km/h (120 mph) for upgraded track and 250 km/h (160 mph) or faster for new track
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail


I looked up ICE 3 and found that these trains are only licensed to travel at 205 mph (see reference source below). So even at 205 mph my travel time by train would be almost 22 hours at top speed with no stops. If you took into consideration that there will be stops and that the trains will not be going 205 mph all the way you are looking at around 25- 30 hours travel time. That is still close to 3 times as slow as airplane travel.

The design goal of the ICE 3 (Class 403) was to create a higher-powered, lighter train than its predecessors. This was achieved by distributing its 16 traction motors underneath the whole train. The train is licensed for 330 km/h (205 mph) and has reached 368 km/h (228.68 mph) on trial runs. On regular InterCityExpress services they run at up to 300 km/h (186 mph), the maximum design speed of German high-speed lines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_3

For long distances in America your trains do not come close in travel time when compared to airplanes.

If I was travelling from London to Athens, I would fly, but if I was travelling from London to Paris, I would more than likely take the train. Just because you would be better off flying on your very long trip is no reason to write off the entire concept of long-distance high speed trains.

 

[RETS]

gas and oil is the past.

Rapidly becoming a thing of the past, yes. Not yet the past. There are still no higher yield energy sources that do not require comparatively more energy to create. Thus the push to get off of oil based fuels is extremely premature.

The times of evryone owning a car are over. Thats a fact. If USA does not start changing in that problem, then you face massive problems in the future.

Actually... In much of Europe, car sales have indeed declined. Elsewhere, however, auto sales have climbed.

Granted, I could only give so many examples, but there you go.

 

[DeathMagus]

Rapidly becoming a thing of the past, yes. Not yet the past. There are still no higher yield energy sources that do not require comparatively more energy to create. Thus the push to get off of oil based fuels is extremely premature.

Extremely premature? You don't want to wait to develop alternatives until the current setup is a fiscal liability - you want to have those alternatives developed before it's a problem, to keep the transition smooth.

 

[Sketcher]

Agreed.

The petroleum based automobile will, in thirty years' time, be the province of only the super-rich.

I regard 30 years as "soon".

No, I do not have documentation to back this up.
Let us agree to meet in 2040 and see if'n I'm anywheres near right.

Right, and we have until about then to get good cars which use an alternate type of fuel.

 

[RETS]

Extremely premature? You don't want to wait to develop alternatives until the current setup is a fiscal liability - you want to have those alternatives developed before it's a problem, to keep the transition smooth.

DM, read it again.

The push to get off of oil based fuels is extremely premature. I said nothing about pushing to develop alternative fuels. You cannot very well stop using something that does work for something that might not- Or won't.

 

[JoyHelpingHands]

USA want build a highspeed train system and it looks like we got the contract.. Thats a billion $ contract. German corporations like Siemens, Krupp and the Deutsche Bahn will build up the entire railway system including several ICE trains. The ICE will be modified for our US customer.
It will be a modified version of our ICE 3 system.

Thats good news. Both of us will profit.

We earn a good contract and you guys get the best product you can get.

I think it would be a good idea... if done properly. The gas prices here are pretty ridiculous, and I personally think it would save us money and maybe even put some of these gas companies in their place.

 

[DeathMagus]

DM, read it again.

The push to get off of oil based fuels is extremely premature. I said nothing about pushing to develop alternative fuels. You cannot very well stop using something that does work for something that might not- Or won't.

There currently is no comprehensive push to get most of the country off of oil-based fuels, because there is nowhere to go, and everyone knows it. The current push is to develop long-term, comprehensive energy alternatives, and shifting over to alternatives what energy sources we can is merely a stalling tactic toward that end.

 

[RETS]

There currently is no comprehensive push to get most of the country off of oil-based fuels, because there is nowhere to go, and everyone knows it. The current push is to develop long-term, comprehensive energy alternatives, and shifting over to alternatives what energy sources we can is merely a stalling tactic toward that end.

As I said, thorium could solve all of this. Too bad there aren't enough gutsy people to push it through.

However, I do want to point out that while the "push" away from oil is not out there and in your face, it is taking place. Why do you think the government has demanded that all gasoline carry a minimum percentage of ethanol? Mind you, this move was done without consent from the American people, or even a question in their minds as to what we, the drivers, wanted.

I am all for getting off of oil. I would like nothing more than to watch OPEC crash and burn as their number one customer stops entirely. However, the change over must be done intelligently; and ethanol? Not an intelligent move, even as an example.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Reply by AR Cosc
If I was travelling from London to Athens, I would fly, but if I was travelling from London to Paris, I would more than likely take the train. Just because you would be better off flying on your very long trip is no reason to write off the entire concept of long-distance high speed trains.

I never said “…to write off the entire concept of long-distance high speed trains.” What I said was:
For long distances in America your trains do not come close in travel time when compared to airplanes.

Frankly I would rather travel by high speed train than airplane for long distances if the train travel time was closer to the airplane travel time. America has not totally embraced high speed train and Americans are a pretty smart bunch regardless of what some people say.

If we had trains that traveled at 350 to 400 mph I think some Americans would switch from airplane to train for long distance travel, I know I would.

 

[DeathMagus]

As I said, thorium could solve all of this. Too bad there aren't enough gutsy people to push it through.

I agree. Ask just about anyone who's against nuclear power to list three nuclear power problems, and they'll only ever be able to name two - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The latter was the result of worthless plant design and poorly trained technicians. The former, while indeed an accident, was entirely contained - precisely the way the facility was designed.

However, I do want to point out that while the "push" away from oil is not out there and in your face, it is taking place. Why do you think the government has demanded that all gasoline carry a minimum percentage of ethanol? Mind you, this move was done without consent from the American people, or even a question in their minds as to what we, the drivers, wanted.

Potato, potato - I think we're fundamentally in agreement here, so I won't press the point.

I am all for getting off of oil. I would like nothing more than to watch OPEC crash and burn as their number one customer stops entirely. However, the change over must be done intelligently; and ethanol? Not an intelligent move, even as an example.

Absolutely not.

 

[Rik]

Lived in Europe (Germany and Italy) for almost 13 years now and personally I like the convenience of the trains here. the ICE and Eurostar trains are particularly good. My issue with them is that over the past several years the ticket prices have gone up so much that it's actually a lot cheaper to drive in most cases. If you want people to take the train for environmental purposes or simply to reduce automobile or air traffic for instance, you've got to make it more cost effective. I seldom take the train anymore because it's gotten so expensive.

 

[ErikSteiner]

you can regulate that with taxes.

 

[Goodtry]

you can regulate that with taxes.

OR when collapsing oil supplies drive the cost of driving interstate up to hundreds of dollars. One way or another its gonna happen.

 

[chaz345]

OR when collapsing oil supplies drive the cost of driving interstate up to hundreds of dollars. One way or another its gonna happen.

The difference being one does it artificially and immediately whereas the other allows time for workable alternative technology to be developed and deployed.

 

[Ar Cosc]

The difference being one does it artificially and immediately whereas the other allows time for workable alternative technology to be developed and deployed.

Except by the time the markets realise oil has crashed, it'll be too late to develop the new technologies in time to avoid a massive economic disaster, not to mention the environmental consequences.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Except by the time the markets realise oil has crashed, it'll be too late to develop the new technologies in time to avoid a massive economic disaster, not to mention the environmental consequences.

Doubt it. The cost-benefit curves will converge at some point and alternatives will be developed. I really doubt it will be a sudden collapse of deposits. As the supply decreases, the cost will rise. It won't happen over night.