patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Would be far less. Less energy costs, less maintenance (no moving parts), no
need for auto insurance, no need for multiple vehicles per household. The same
vehicle can be used by the entire family since it can drive dad/mom to work then
pick up the kids. Maglifts would be way the hell cheaper in the long run.

For real? Build more trains?

Do you really think with our current environmental regulations (let alone lack of money) we could build new tracks in our lifetimes?

We are not Europe. Our country is far too big and spreadout to rely on trains for mass transit. Does your plan require Chinese style relocations to move the icky country and suburb folks into the rotten cities run by unions and liberals?

Better to invest all that money into a fleet of electric or natural gas burning buses and taxis.

indigenous says

You have not disproved anything. The numbers I read say that wind power is not viable. You say otherwise yet won't produce numbers that indicate I should reconsider my thinking.

Of course its viable. Take a trip out to Norcal and I'll drive you around the huge wind farms out here. Last time I looked those blades were still turning and still making electricity. So what do you think they're doing? Were they stuck in the ground as pretty decorations?

edvard2 says

Of course its viable.

What do you base that opinion on?

indigenous says

What do you base that opinion on?

The FACT that there are wind turbines at this very moment as I am writing this spinning and producing electricity. If they were not "viable", then they wouldn't be doing that.... would they? Yes. Or no.

edvard2 says

The FACT that there are wind turbines at this very moment as I am writing this spinning and producing electricity. If they were not "viable", then they wouldn't be doing that.... would they? Yes. Or no.

Not necessarily, investment might come from individuals who would not invest more as the return was not there. Government investment or subsidies make things possible that are not viable. Once the investment is made of course they are going to continue to operate but what is the time frame for payback? Spain for instance has gotten into huge trouble subsidizing alternative energy. Because it does not have genuine value.

indigenous says

Not necessarily, investment might come from individuals who would not invest more as the return was not there. Government investment or subsidies make things possible that are not viable. Once the investment is made of course they are going to continue to operate but what is the time frame for payback? Spain for instance has gotten into huge trouble subsidizing alternative energy. Because it does not have genuine value.

The government has invested in just about every single energy-generating system in this country. Hydroelectric Dams, nuclear power plants, Natural gas plants, solar and wind farms... you name it. Not all of those have been totally successful, and that goes for all of those forms I previously mentioned. If we're going to talk about government subsidies then what about the billions of dollars worth of tax breaks the Government gives to oil producers every year? So I fail to see your argument here: Take your pick. Every single energy form has its own level of failure and risk built in.

edvard2 says

The government has invested in just about every single energy-generating system in this country.

True, but the sucess rate is infinitely lower with government because the people making the decisions are politicians who only care about votes.

edvard2 says

If we're going to talk about government subsidies then what about the billions of dollars worth of tax breaks the Government gives to oil producers every year?

Yup cronyism especially with ADM and ethanol.

indigenous says

True, but the sucess rate is infinitely lower with government because the people making the decisions are politicians who only care about votes.

Actually... that wouldn't be correct. During the 2012 elections, there was much ballyhooying over Solyndra and so forth, and thus came the assertion that government shouldn't be in the business of investing in companies on part of the Romney campaign. There was a study done during that period that showed that no- as a matter of fact when the investments of those made by the government were compared to investments made by private investors, in the long run government investments have a higher success rate. I'm not trying to say that I necessarily love the idea of the government investing in companies, but its not really a valid point to claim their success rates are lower because they aren't.

But to think about this further, the government has always been an investor in some sort of business. Think about the military. From day one we've been providing business and investment dollars to various defense contractors. Most any new program, whether it be for the development of new aircraft, ships, or missiles requires an enormous amount of up-front initial funding for research and development. Not all of those projects are successful. For example there was a program in the late 50's to develop a jet-powered hovering saucer. The project was immensely expensive and ultimately a failure.

edvard2 says

There was a study done during that period that showed that no- as a matter of fact when the investments of those made by the government were compared to investments made by private investors, in the long run government investments have a higher success rate.

Show me the study, I don't believe it.

edvard2 says

But to think about this further, the government has always been an investor in some sort of business. Think about the military.

That is not a business. Of course it is crony capitalism, but the truth is these guys have a huge incentive to start wars.

indigenous says

Show me the study, I don't believe it.

Sure. Here's an interesting link that more or less says the same things I just repeated:
http://thefutureforum.org/economics/doe-green-investment-portfolio-is-this-government-qua-private-equity-investor-receiving-fair-criticism/

indigenous says

That is not a business. Of course it is crony capitalism, but the truth is these guys have a huge incentive to start wars.

Of course its a "business" ( plural) Don't believe it? Take a stroll through any historical navy ship, like maybe a WW2 aircraft carrier. Take a look around guess what? You'll find name brands that would be familiar to any household. Pretty much all military equipment is made from parts, components, and then of course the builder themselves whom represent an unfathomable amount of private companies. And why is spending money on defense automatically deemed "Cronyism"? Would you rather we have no military at all? That doesn't go for the military either, but also the freeways you drive to work on, the schools kids go to, and so on. All of those things took money and investments from the state or national government.

Dan8267 says

Feel free to show me why the technology is impossible or would not have the advantages I've shown in other threads.

If we can have supercomputers with GPS, high-res 3D cameras, broad-band wireless communications, and endless extensibility that fit in the palm of our hands, we can get technology proved back in the 1950s to work on an industrial scale.

Maybe I'm not seeing your vision here. It sounds like you are proposing an elevated set of tracks upon which car and bus sized pods transport freight and passengers:

OK:

#1 - Technology: As of yet there are no superconducting magnets which can operate at summer in Phoenix temperatures or even winter in Minneapolis temperatures. Last I heard superconducting magnets STILL needed liquid nitrogen temperatures to operate. Maintaining such a nationwide network of superconducting magnets at such temperatures alone is crazytalk.

#2 Energy: Assuming regular electromagnets would be needed to perform the levitation, can you show that the energy needed to levitate such a vehicle would be less than at least the friction generated by our current rail system?

#3 Materials: Can you also show we have enough metal to even build such a national network? Keep in mind the loads needed to simultaneously levitate AND propel thousands of vehicles even on minor through fares. You will need to include multiple lanes, and roads to every location currently served by conventional roads.

#4 Maintenance: You claim an advantage here and overall I can see it - to a point. How would you propose to divert traffic during maintenance or in an emergency? Currently a car can switch lanes ad infinitum but tracked vehicles are very limited in this regard.

#5 NIMBYism. Elevated platforms block views and would be considered eyesores by people with money. How do you propose to convince rich people to go along with this idea when there is no clear benefit to them but significant drawbacks?

#6 Space. Where would such a network go? In cities there is no space for such a proposal without destroying the current road system. What is your solution here?

#2 -

edvard2 says

Sure. Here's an interesting link that more or less says the same things I just repeated:

http://thefutureforum.org/economics/doe-green-investment-portfolio-is-this-government-qua-private-equity-investor-receiving-fair-criticism/

I only have time to scan it. Basically iI disagree with the premise. As by definition government changes the market by making money available that would not be made available by free market investment.

Of course the same companies built war machines duh

But as Eisenhower warned we now have the Military–industrial complex that did not exist before WWll. It has economic ramifications.

New Renter says

#5 NIMBYism. Elevated platforms block views and would be considered eyesores by
people with money. How do you propose to convince rich people to go along with
this idea when there is no clear benefit to them but significant drawbacks?

This issue alone is why building new train lines is madness.

Unless we are going to conduct mass relocations of the people and businesses closer to the cities and train stations, how are these people going to get where they are going?

We would have to completely change our society to make this work. But Obama seems up to the challenge - at least with his rhetoric of "fundamentally changing America".

Just more stupid central planning by utopian libs stuck in 18th century thinking.

indigenous says

Basically iI disagree with the premise. As by definition government changes the market by making money available that would not be made available by free market investment.

Of course the same companies built war machines duh

But as Eisenhower warned we now have the Military–industrial complex that did not exist before WWll. It has economic ramifications.

Ok, then we will have to agree to disagree, which is fine. As far as the government making money available at their whim, well perhaps show me a government that hasn't in some way manipulated either their currency, or their economic affairs. Many of the Asian economic powers over the past 50+ years basically got their way embedded heavily into our economy by grossly manipulating their currency among other practices. For example, in the not so distant past the US made the lion's share of the personal electronics on the market. Everything from radios, TV's, stereos, you name it. At one point some of those electronics manufactures where the largest companies on earth. As of now they are just about all gone or former shadows of themselves because cheap competition and a manipulated Japanese Yen that kept their currency valued drastically lower than the dollar made it impossible for American firms to compete and so they either shipped off all their labor or simply went out of business. So in that regard currency manipulation worked very well for the Japanese economy.

In regards to Eisenhower's comments, well I do not disagree with his sentiment. But I believe I am going to guess that you would at least agree that we do need an active military. As such that requires government investment. As such therein lies the question of the efficacy of that investment but it is an investment just the same.

socal2 says

Unless we are going to conduct mass relocations of the people and businesses closer to the cities and train stations, how are these people going to get where they are going?

In certain areas I think high-speed rail would make a lot of sense. Particularly on the highly populated coasts.

For example, in the Bay Area we are about an hour to an hour and a half from Sacramento by freeway. On bad traffic days that can be even worse. Thus its way too far for the average commuter to drive to and from every day for work. But... what if you could take a train from SF to Sac? Or vice-versa? That would have some clear benefits. For starters, you can buy a pretty nice house in Sacramento for around $250k or so, or about 50%-60% less than the same home in the Bay Area. Imagine if this train could get you to your job in SF or somewhere in the Bay Area in say- 30-40 minutes? Then it would suddenly become much more viable to work in the Bay Area, and live in Sacramento and not have to pay out the nose either.

Another area: The entire eastern seaboard in the Northeast. It too suffers the same problems where the large job areas are extremely costly places to live in buy a house in. But what if a high speed train could get you to suburbs located far out where the prices could be lower?

Of course I realize that the unforeseen could happen and that instant availability of shorter commutes to further away places could then mean instant ballooning of those home prices within the train's reach. But to me its simply stupid that we as a country have managed to squish like 75% of the professional jobs to large and very costly metro areas on the coasts when a drive across the country shows you most of it is totally vacant. All that room for people to live and not done so because we all "Have" to live close to work only because our cars can't get us far away fast enough to make things less competitive.

socal2 says

New Renter says

#5 NIMBYism. Elevated platforms block views and would be considered eyesores by

people with money. How do you propose to convince rich people to go along with

this idea when there is no clear benefit to them but significant drawbacks?

This issue alone is why building new train lines is madness.

Unless we are going to conduct mass relocations of the people and businesses closer to the cities and train stations, how are these people going to get where they are going?

We would have to completely change our society to make this work. But Obama seems up to the challenge - at least with his rhetoric of "fundamentally changing America".

Just more stupid central planning by utopian libs stuck in 18th century thinking.

I like the idea of high speed trains as an alternative to airlines France and Japan have done well with theirs. But tracked vehicles as personal transportation? I REALLY don't see that working.

Self driving plug-in biodiesel and/or natural gas electric hybrids IMO are a lot more doable.

edvard2 says

But... what if you could take a train from SF to Sac? Or vice-versa?

You can but its not high speed:

http://www.capitolcorridor.org/

indigenous says

Except that that invesment is not real value and does not create anything valuable to the society.

That point can be debated. Semiconductors. Computers. Nuclear power, Nuclear medicine, and other related to it. The un-told thousands of new materials developed for NASA. These are some of the many things that were developed mostly for military purposes. Entire industries got their start this way. You think about the fact that we got a man on the moon starting with hardly any of the materials we needed to start with in the space of about nine years and that possibly represents the fastest and single largest growth in technology in human history.

I am not by any means a cheerleader for war. But the emphasis on various military expenditures have led to an enormous amount of the everyday things we use on a daily basis. Including the computer I type this on, and the cell phone sitting on my desk.

edvard2 says

For example, in the Bay Area we are about an hour to an hour and a half from
Sacramento by freeway. On bad traffic days that can be even worse. Thus its way
too far for the average commuter to drive to and from every day for work. But...
what if you could take a train from SF to Sac? Or vice-versa? That would have
some clear benefits.

I just don't think we could ever build new tracks in California with all of the competing environmental and NIMBY constituents. Jerry Brown can't even convince the luddites to build the water tunnel at the delta to keep life needed water resources flowing to our massive population. That project alone has been held up for decades.

Just imagine when a stretch of new tracks comes up against the white tailed rat or some other endangered species? The whole project would be a trainwreck - pun intended.

It would be much smarter and much cheaper to invest in a fleet of clean powered buses and build more carpool lanes on the existing freeways to shuttle people between cities.

socal2 says

It would be much smarter and much cheaper to invest in a fleet of clean powered buses and build more carpool lanes on the existing freeways to shuttle people between cities.

what is wrong with the free market approach of computer driven cars in effect making the freeway into a train?

indigenous says

socal2
says

It would be much smarter and much cheaper to invest in a fleet of clean
powered buses and build more carpool lanes on the existing freeways to shuttle
people between cities.

what is wrong with the free market approach of computer driven cars in effect
making the freeway into a train?

I'm cool with that.

We already have thousands and thousands of miles of existing roads and freeways that we can upgrade at a fraction of the cost of building a new high-speed train line to support rich folks who want to play on their iPads while they commute between the City and their big homes out in the suburbs.

Our population size is stabilizing and more and more people will be able to telecommute which will reduce the stress on our existing freeways. No need to spend what precious little money we have to pander to a small segment of people living in Blue States like California or the New York/DC corridor.

indigenous says

Fine than let the free market prove it out.

The free market would have never created the Highway Transportation System even though that is critical to our economy.

The free market gives you creations that take little effort like crappy smart phone apps. The free market does not do large infrastructure projects, however necessary or important.

Furthermore, the free market only advances projects that profit a few people, not everyone. Whenever everyone profits from a project, no one in the free markets wants to fund the project. It's a dilemma.

The free market is good for some things, not every thing.

socal2 says

For real? Build more trains?

Personal maglifts aren't trains. They are hover cars without wheels, driven by a smart highway, owned by individuals, and private transportation. Thinks 21st century car that will never crash, pollute, or burn a drop of oil.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

For real? Build more trains?

Personal maglifts aren't trains. They are hover cars without wheels, driven by a smart highway, owned by individuals, and private transportation. Thinks 21st century car that will never crash, pollute, or burn a drop of oil.

Well heck - if we can get all Scifi, why not hold out for clean burning personal flying cars (drones) and avoid having to retrofit all of our existing roads?

Thought I read that one of the Pizza chains are experimenting with drone delivery pizzas. Won't be long before we all have our personal drones to fly us around.

Dan8267 says

The free market would have never created the Highway Transportation System even though that is critical to our economy.

And it would never have built the bridge to nowhere. Dan8267 says

The free market gives you creations that take little effort like crappy smart phone apps.

He says with great disdain. The reality is that the standard of living of the world was created by the free market. Think about it: The cell phone, the internet (spare me the darpa bs), telephone, radio, computer, airplane, laser, ad infinitum.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, the free market only advances projects that profit a few people, not everyone.

Not true people today live like kings of yesterday. The focal point is that you have to produce something that others want in order to get them to exchange with you which consequently raises every bodies standard of living.

Dan8267 says

The free market is good for some things, not every thing.

With very few exceptions mostly in the area of defense.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

For real? Build more trains?

Personal maglifts aren't trains. They are hover cars without wheels, driven by a smart highway, owned by individuals, and private transportation. Thinks 21st century car that will never crash, pollute, or burn a drop of oil.

Oil no. Coal or natural gas, probably.

New Renter says

OK

#1 and #2 and #3

Yes, some technology will have to be developed. Consider that a great way to stimulate the economy, create jobs that are useful, and end the depression. Much better than bailing out banks and increasing unemployment benefits.

Permanent magnets would be used to life the vehicles. Artificial permanent magnets if necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future you could use a 3D printer to print artificial magnets.

I doubt that lack of technology will prevent us from building a maglift highway. Just look at what's going on already…

http://phys.org/news68475451.html
http://ens-newswire.com/2012/06/05/volkswagen-creates-maglev-hover-car/
http://www.automoblog.net/2012/10/06/maglev-cars/

Political will and transitioning the current infrastructure to a new one will be the biggest challenge, but even that can be done in phases with both infrastructures living side by side, or more precisely, the new on top of the old.

#4

The maglift roads would be built in 3D above existing lanes. Over time, drivers switch from ground cars to maglift cars, possibly by driving their ground car into a maglift car. Maglifts travel at 100 mph in inner city vs 20 mph for ground cars, so people have incentive to switch at least for the majority of their commute.

Emergency vehicles can continue to use the far less congested ground roads. Eventually, only emergency vehicles and pedestrians (cyclists included) use the ground roads.

#5

That's political will. Tough cookies to the rich snobs who think the maglift roads are eyesores. They can get use to it or move to the country. If they bitch, threaten them with a wealth tax.

#6

No additional surface area is needed as the maglift roads would be above the ground roads. Building in three dimensions allows us to add additional lanes without slowing down or obstructing traffic.

socal2 says

I just don't think we could ever build new tracks in California with all of the competing environmental and NIMBY constituents.

THIS is in fact the largest obstacle. I just love all the "Limousine Liberals" in these wealthy enclaves whom are big time cheerleaders for all things environmentally friendly unless it happens in their own neighborhood.indigenous says

what is wrong with the free market approach of computer driven cars in effect making the freeway into a train?

What would be wrong would be that in order for a high speed system of personal, self-driven cars, well first of all you'd have to get rid of 100's of millions of non-self-driving cars all at once. That ain't gunna' happen. Second of all, for a such a system to work would require a high degree of centrally-controlled coordination: Everyone would have to follow the exact same standards as even slight deviation would cause accidents. That would mean.... government intervention in place where there was none before. That too will never fly. Hence why trains are a more realistic proposition.

New Renter says

Oil no. Coal or natural gas, probably.

Yes, electric isn't enough to stop pollution since we need to generate electricity cleanly. However, there is no clean energy solution that doesn't use electricity at its core. Electricity is the currency of energy.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

For real? Build more trains?

Personal maglifts aren't trains. They are hover cars without wheels, driven by a smart highway, owned by individuals, and private transportation. Thinks 21st century car that will never crash, pollute, or burn a drop of oil.

So how about it Dan, Do you have solutions to the issues I've raised? Or are you taking business advice from these guys?

Edit, damn, you posted just before me.

indigenous says

With very few exceptions mostly in the area of defense.

There are literally an infinite number of things that the free market cannot do well. If that is your definition of few...

http://www.freemarketfailures.com/

Also, a truly free market cannot exist along side corporations. By their very nature, corporations make the market not free.

Almost everyone who advocates the free market as a utopia would be horrified if a free market were to actually be established as economic profits would plummet and people would have to actually work for a living instead of rent seeking.

New Renter says

Do you have solutions to the issues I've raised?

Be more specific. I thought I had address all the issues you brought up. Naturally the details will have to be worked out as such a project is done, but that's true for everything.

Dan8267 says

No additional surface area is needed as the maglift roads would be above the
ground roads. Building in three dimensions allows us to add additional lanes
without slowing down or obstructing traffic.

Ever been to California?

Unlike flat and open Florida, we have tons of hills, mountains, rivers and ravines that will require building new tunnels, bridges etc.

Most of our California freeways are already maxed out with their easements with no median, so building an elevated road above existing roads will involve girders and supports outside the existing easements involving MASSIVE construction and eminent domain issues.

There are so many smarter, cheaper and faster solutions than relying on this expensive and antiquated thinking.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Do you have solutions to the issues I've raised?

Be more specific. I thought I had address all the issues you brought up. Naturally the details will have to be worked out as such a project is done, but that's true for everything.

Dan8267 says

There are literally an infinite number of things that the free market cannot do well. If that is your definition of few...

http://www.freemarketfailures.com/

Where the fuck is the infinite?

Dan8267 says

Also, a truly free market cannot exist along side corporations. By their very nature, corporations make the market not free.

Not true, you are thinking of monopolies, which there is no such thing save government.

Dan8267 says

Almost everyone who advocates the free market as a utopia would be horrified if a free market were to actually be established as economic profits would plummet and people would have to actually work for a living instead of rent seeking.

I would say they would be horrified by the dystopian state that would result from what you advocate.

BTW Somalia is not a free market it is an anarchy.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

OK

#1 and #2 and #3

Yes, some technology will have to be developed. Consider that a great way to stimulate the economy, create jobs that are useful, and end the depression. Much better than bailing out banks and increasing unemployment benefits.

Permanent magnets would be used to life the vehicles. Artificial permanent magnets if necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future you could use a 3D printer to print artificial magnets.

I doubt that lack of technology will prevent us from building a maglift highway. Just look at what's going on already…

http://phys.org/news68475451.html
http://ens-newswire.com/2012/06/05/volkswagen-creates-maglev-hover-car/
http://www.automoblog.net/2012/10/06/maglev-cars/

Cool! Mr Garrison already invented this though:

All fun aside how much power it it talking to levitate that thing? Would permanent magnets be up to the job, especially when loaded down with freight?

Political will and transitioning the current infrastructure to a new one will be the biggest challenge, but even that can be done in phases with both infrastructures living side by side, or more precisely, the new on top of the old.

#4

The maglift roads would be built in 3D above existing lanes. Over time, drivers switch from ground cars to maglift cars, possibly by driving their ground car into a maglift car. Maglifts travel at 100 mph in inner city vs 20 mph for ground cars, so people have incentive to switch at least for the majority of their commute.

Couple of problems with that idea. Building elevated maglev tracks above existing roads will create havoc on said roads for at least a decade. What about tunnels and overpasses? Obscure rural roads?

Emergency vehicles can continue to use the far less congested ground roads. Eventually, only emergency vehicles and pedestrians (cyclists included) use the ground roads.

#5

That's political will. Tough cookies to the rich snobs who think the maglift roads are eyesores. They can get use to it or move to the country. If they bitch, threaten them with a wealth tax.

Riiiight...Good luck with that.

#6

No additional surface area is needed as the maglift roads would be above the ground roads. Building in three dimensions allows us to add additional lanes without slowing down or obstructing traffic.

Stacked thoroughfares aren't the best solution:

Oakland 1989

Kobe 1995

Sure you can argue better engineering would have prevented it, no argument there. I'm sure the engineers who designed THESE structures had confidence in them as well.