|
Originally Posted by j2simpso
(Post 31719074)
Perhaps this Wendover video can answer it:
https://youtu.be/fwjwePe-HmA Putting aside cost I suspect many on this forum would argue flying commercially in most cases is more environmentally friendly than some of the coal and diesel trains operating. |
Originally Posted by third_wave
(Post 31732342)
This is a very lazy way of thinking. Without the demand from you (and others who have purchased tickets on the flight) the flight would not exist. You are indisputably responsible for 1/n (adjust slightly either direction based on class of service) of the emissions generated by a passenger jet when you purchase a ticket.
Originally Posted by bitterproffit
(Post 31732413)
Netherlands trains are zero carbon emissions as all the energy required to run trains in Netherlands is 100% wind power generated.
|
For those of you who have the capacity to think logically.....
Price is a good proxy for cost Cost is a good proxy for total carbon footprint. Robbing Peter to pay Paul by running trains on wind power means someone else has to use fossil fuel. Aggregate energy consumption and production capacity are the only thing that matters. Ignoring this and artificially allocating a particular energy source to trains only serves a political purpose and results in reduced efficiency and an overall aggregate increase in CO2 output. |
Originally Posted by 5khours
(Post 31752164)
For those of you who have the capacity to think logically.....
Price is a good proxy for cost Cost is a good proxy for total carbon footprint. Robbing Peter to pay Paul by running trains on wind power means someone else has to use fossil fuel. Aggregate energy consumption and production capacity are the only thing that matters. Ignoring this and artificially allocating a particular energy source to trains only serves a political purpose and results in reduced efficiency and an overall aggregate increase in CO2 output. Cost of a purchased item is not a proxy for total carbon foot print related to the purchased item. To get to the above-quote's fourth paragraph using a sound and valid logical argument requires a different approach than being built upon a merit-weak claim about price of a purchased item being a proxy for cost and about cost of a purchased item being a proxy for the purchased item's carbon footprint. The ticket sellers for my domestic and international train travel don't price differently based on fuel source used. And my ticket sellers for domestic and international flights have their prices all over the place in such a way that even the correlation to distance traveled on a given ticket using a given fuel source is not very strong. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31753404)
Price is not a reliable proxy for cost in industries whose relevant marketplace has come with a history of suppliers who got buried in the graveyard or managed to be the the walking dead (courtesy of bankruptcy laws, M&A games, government assistance/subsidies, or other resuscitation/rescue efforts by others).
Cost of a purchased item is not a proxy for total carbon foot print related to the purchased item. To get to the above-quote's fourth paragraph using a sound and valid logical argument requires a different approach than being built upon a merit-weak claim about price of a purchased item being a proxy for cost and about cost of a purchased item being a proxy for the purchased item's carbon footprint. The ticket sellers for my domestic and international train travel don't price differently based on fuel source used. And my ticket sellers for domestic and international flights have their prices all over the place in such a way that even the correlation to distance traveled on a given ticket using a given fuel source is not very strong. |
Originally Posted by 5khours
(Post 31755888)
As I said, the post was intended for a specific audience :)
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31759630)
i am part of that specific audience, which is why I indicated that the claims relied upon by in that post (of yours) were weak in merit and thereby failed to provide for a logical argument with a sound and valid conclusion arising from it.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt (but I have to say the use of lexical gobbledygook like “merit-weak" makes me suspicious :)) and further assuming you are polite and have a good sense of humor, I would make the following points. 1. You need to look at average price (in industries where price discrimination is prevalent individual prices can vary greatly.) 2. Of course there are exceptions (especially where governments are involved and are subsidizing costs,) which is why I said a “good proxy” and not a "perfect proxy.” (The political and chattering classes thrive by extrapolating exceptions to challenge the validity of existing models and systems.) 3. Your references to fuel sources and distance traveled make me think you are only considering incremental/variable carbon emissions. This is not the right analytical approach. You have to consider life-cycle carbon costs. 4. Even if you just look at variable costs (and carbon emissions,) the analysis is not that easy. Planes get more efficient over longer distances (up to a point), whereas long distance trains needs to be faster and... energy used by high speed trains is primarily to overcome drag which varies with the cube of the velocity. Further the bulk of passenger travel is short distance so if you really are interested in reducing variable carbon emissions from travel, the focus should be on shifting from short distance car travel to buses or commuter trains. 5. Energy is mostly fungible. Allocating specific energy sources (wind) to specific uses (trains) is an accounting gimmick that may fool the public but does nothing to reduce aggregate carbon emissions, and in fact the artificial (non-market) allocation probably reduces overall economic efficiency resulting in increased carbon output.... and it distracts policy makers and the public from understanding the problem and finding real solutions. The only way to significantly reduce emissions is to reduce overall consumption of everything (including travel) and/or to change the aggregate fuel mix for energy. All that said, I love trains.... but that's just a personal preference, the sweet spot where long distance trains actually make sense from a cost/energy perspective is very limited. |
Originally Posted by 5khours
(Post 31760842)
All that said, I love trains.... but that's just a personal preference, the sweet spot where long distance trains actually make sense from a cost/energy perspective is very limited.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...4c247ef704.jpg |
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger
(Post 31844584)
Depends on where you are.Very recently I had a morning meeting in Gifu, Japan (a bit out of Nagoya) and I had no issues meeting my next client at 4pm in downtown Sendai, 750 km (470mi) away, using the train (Hikari + Hayabusa) with speeds like this... Much as I like flying, this would have been quite a feat to achieve in the air....
|
Western Europe is another (though shinkansen speeds are rarely, if ever achieved), China seems to have put an incredible amount of HSR into reality - I could very well see it work in parts of India and if the respective governments could ever agree on the KL-SIN. Why not Seoul-Busan, etc, etc, etc
|
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger
(Post 31845544)
Western Europe is another (though shinkansen speeds are rarely, if ever achieved), China seems to have put an incredible amount of HSR into reality - I could very well see it work in parts of India and if the respective governments could ever agree on the KL-SIN. Why not Seoul-Busan, etc, etc, etc
Also, it's important to note that the carbon footprint (and cost) for HSR is front-loaded during the infrastructure construction period.... exactly what you do not want if there is an immediate need to reduce carbon emissions. HSR almost always increases economic output and travel. So even in the rare topographies where the substitution effect reduces the lifecycle carbon output per passenger mile traveled, the increased output and travel result in a net and very large increase in carbon emissions. Developing countries are a sightly different case because right of ways on relatively flat land where population density is high can be acquired relatively cheaply (especially with an autocratic government.) In the developed world the only affordable right of ways are in areas where there is little population (i.e. no traffic) or where the cost (and carbon footprint) of infrastructure construction (think tunnels and bridges) becomes spectacularly high. If people are really concerned about reducing carbon output (and not just virtue signaling or political advantage,) then the focus for carbon conscious travel absolutely should be to get people to reduce their short distance automobile travel, and this probably means buses. I love train travel, but if I'm rationale and honest and I'm not going to try to justify my personal preferences with some make believe story about the environmental benefits of HSR. |
Originally Posted by 5khours
(Post 31845172)
Don't disagree. The Japan Pacific corridor is one of the very sweet spots on the planet where high speed trains work.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31847020)
Weren't there people who said it was going to be an expensive boondoggle that Japan didn't need?
|
Originally Posted by 5khours
(Post 31846856)
Nope. You need a very peculiar population distribution. I.e. a narrow corridor between 250 and 750 km in length with a population of 50+ million. Less than 250km and people will drive. More than 750km and people will fly. The cost (in both dollars and carbon) of HSR is primarily in the infrastructure. Without sufficient traffic, HSR is neither economical nor environmental. At peak periods, the Tokkaido Line in Japan moves 25k pax/hr (1,323 pax/train x 12 trains per hour) in each direction. This is roughly 10x the potential traffic on the Washington - NYC route.
This maybe true in the US, but if you noticed, I didn't mention the US - a weird place in more than one way. I would question the lower limit of 250km you mention - even 150km center to center is (much) more lucrative in 45 minutes vs 2 hrs. Heck, going to our company HQ (170km) I prefer the train vs driving - and it's not even a "real" HSR. I can get breakfast, read the morning papers and possibly nap a bit vs. 2-2,5hrs on the road. The upper limit is arguably at roughly where you say it is - though the 60mins trek to and from the airport + the 60-90 mins one is supposed to waste there might push it even higher. Among the places I mentioned the HSR is in place in many places in Western Europe (France, Spain, Germany, Benelux) - e.g Barcelona-Madrid or Paris-Lyon pairs definitely has less than 50m population (each) There's a HSR line even between Helsinki (metro-HEL population - 1m) and St Pete (pop 5m) (and another one from St Pete to Moscow). These might not push the Japanese and Chinese speed records, but at 200-250 km/h are very, very competitive and useful. (and yes, the Tōkaido line is just amazing with its 5 minute frequencies - it's more frequent than the city bus here :)) |
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger
(Post 31847838)
This maybe true in the US, but if you noticed, I didn't mention the US - a weird place in more than one way.
I would question the lower limit of 250km you mention - even 150km center to center is (much) more lucrative in 45 minutes vs 2 hrs. Heck, going to our company HQ (170km) I prefer the train vs driving - and it's not even a "real" HSR. I can get breakfast, read the morning papers and possibly nap a bit vs. 2-2,5hrs on the road. The upper limit is arguably at roughly where you say it is - though the 60mins trek to and from the airport + the 60-90 mins one is supposed to waste there might push it even higher. Among the places I mentioned the HSR is in place in many places in Western Europe (France, Spain, Germany, Benelux) - e.g Barcelona-Madrid or Paris-Lyon pairs definitely has less than 50m population (each) There's a HSR line even between Helsinki (metro-HEL population - 1m) and St Pete (pop 5m) (and another one from St Pete to Moscow). These might not push the Japanese and Chinese speed records, but at 200-250 km/h are very, very competitive and useful. These lines have and are getting built for mostly political reasons. (and yes, the Tōkaido line is just amazing with its 5 minute frequencies - it's more frequent than the city bus here :)) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:33 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.