T1B

KC Scott wrote:Huge Oil fields in the Bakken ND Shale / Eagleford TX and Marcellus PA and newly discovered Utica bed in Ohio.

May not totally eliminate need for foreign oil but could put a serious dent in it

Shale is a pipe dream for now. Frakking takes a metric shit ton of water and that is something that just isn't there in North Dakota or southwest Texas. It just isn't practical in anything other than a proof of concept scale now.

Cuda wrote:

Mikey wrote:That could be, and it depends on how you parse the statistics.

No it doesn't. Airline travel dwarfs all other forms in terms of passenger miles, and automobiles come in a strong second. Considering their extremely low actual passenger mile, the fact that any form of rail travel is anywhere close to automobiles in fatalities makes train travel dangerous as fuck.

But trains are about twice as fuel efficient as airline travel, in terms of passenger miles per gallon.

No, they're not. It' not even fucking close.

Do you even try to make sense?

Bizzarofelice wrote: That being said, I'm not a fan of spending fat federal dollars on mass transit that might shave 40 minutes off a trip.

part of the issue is giving people who can't afford any sort of commute at all access to transportation.

Mikey wrote:

Cuda wrote:

Mikey wrote:That could be, and it depends on how you parse the statistics.

No it doesn't. Airline travel dwarfs all other forms in terms of passenger miles, and automobiles come in a strong second. Considering their extremely low actual passenger mile, the fact that any form of rail travel is anywhere close to automobiles in fatalities makes train travel dangerous as fuck.

But trains are about twice as fuel efficient as airline travel, in terms of passenger miles per gallon.

No, they're not. It' not even fucking close.

Do you even try to make sense?

Read more slowly so you can understand:

Trains can move more freight per mile/per gallon of fuel than airplanes- that's why air freight is more expensive than rail freight, however there are a "metric shit ton" (to quote somebody here) more airplanes than there are locomotives and millions more people travelling millions more passeger miles per day on airplanes than on trains of all kinds which means in addition to being infinitely safer, air travel is also much more fuel efficient than rail travel- which, by the fucking way, also makes travel on UnitedContinentalDeltaSouthwest less expensive than travel on Amfuckingtrak.

You really might want to check on that before spouting your ignorance.

you might just want to go fuck yourself, moron

88 wrote:Cudes could be right. This ought to be Google-able.

That ought to be archive-able

It obviously depends on how full the trains (and planes) are but from what I've seen, on average, passenger rail transportation and commercial air transportation in the US are almost equal on a passenger miles per gallon basis. In the northeast corridor, where trains are generally full, rail transportation gets about twice the PMPG. I won't try to confuse Cuda with actual numbers, though, his head might turn to liquid and mess up the carpet.

That CAN'T be true. I DON'T WANT it to be true.

sin,
cudes

Bizzarofelice wrote:so you're saying the Chinese economy has plateaued?

Yes.

other developing countries that were third world toilets two decades ago are now starting to drive. demand on oil will grow.

They are going to drop right back into the toilet. Who is going to buy their shit?

I think the train/plane mileage depends on a few things. Trains are heavy. It takes a lotta BTUs to get one over a mountain. Carrying passengers from LA to Denver is gonna take a shit ton of these BTUs. Not sure if it will be a metric or english tons. Trains running along the densely populated and pretty near flat, U&R corridor would do much better. Once you get all that mass rolling it really doesn't take much to keep it rolling. The fact that these lines are electrified helps also since the power company makes it's BTUs cheaper than exxon does with diesel.

Airplanes don't much give a fukk how bumpy the ground is under them. i would think that the mileage per traveler on the LA to denver run would be fairly close.

So, in the reasonably near future, I think we'll see decent HSR along the east coast, particularly the U&R. We'll also see it in the midwest from cleveland to chicago. But don't hold your breath for a SF to denver route. Flying over all those bumps makes more sense.

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:so you're saying the Chinese economy has plateaued?

Yes.

other developing countries that were third world toilets two decades ago are now starting to drive. demand on oil will grow.

They are going to drop right back into the toilet. Who is going to buy their shit?

a republican talking about demand? true bipartisanship is possible.

Posting from LAX on the way back home from Phuket.

Love the discussion about HSR. Just as a note I am a fan of trains and will ride them just for sh!t's and grins.

First thing we have to do is make sure we separate inter city rail from commuter rail. Those two things don't exist in the same discussion. There will not be HSR in commuter circles for at least 100 years or until there is a new invention that changes the game. Sorry Coog's you will be driving to Beaumont for the rest of your working years.

I just don't see HSR happening here anywhere in the US in the next 50 years. Not even in the Northeast. Why, because the current rails in place can't handle it. True HSR will require all new track on a new right away. Amtrak has the Acela on the NE corridor today, but it is limited to it's top speeds between NYC and Boston to two short stretches in RI and MA due to all the commuter traffic and the amount of curves in the track. Between NYC and Boston the rails have curves that total more than 4000 degrees. That is more than 11 full circles. High speed rail needs long stretches of straight track to get to its highest speeds.

So that means all new right of way. That alone kills HSR. Remember well over 90% of todays rails were laid on ground that the RR's didn't have to pay to acquire. Cities and governments gave the land away to lure the tracks back in the 1800's.

Two rail projects that I am familiar with are both struggling. Austin just started a commuter line that runs from Leander to Downtown, with dedicated connections to the state government offices and to UT, the largest downtown employers. This project was over existing freight tracks and in a city where green is embraced by more than most any other cities. Problem is no one is riding it. Why? Everyone has an excuse but at the end of the day it has been a huge waste of money.

The other is in Houston where the citizens are fighting a new route. Not I'm my backyard is tough to overcome.

You are a fucking traitor to our profession

Left Seater wrote:First thing we have to do is make sure we separate inter city rail from commuter rail. Those two things don't exist in the same discussion. There will not be HSR in commuter circles for at least 100 years or until there is a new invention that changes the game. Sorry Coog's you will be driving to Beaumont for the rest of your working years.

I wouldn't rule out the possbility of the two existing on the same line. It would by no means be a utopic system, but I wouldn't rule out the idea of people commuting from city to city if it were a viable option. Currently, you can't really live in one city and work in another and still raise a family properly. A maglev system would allow that to happen IMO.

I just don't see HSR happening here anywhere in the US in the next 50 years. Not even in the Northeast. Why, because the current rails in place can't handle it. True HSR will require all new track on a new right away. Amtrak has the Acela on the NE corridor today, but it is limited to it's top speeds between NYC and Boston to two short stretches in RI and MA due to all the commuter traffic and the amount of curves in the track. Between NYC and Boston the rails have curves that total more than 4000 degrees. That is more than 11 full circles. High speed rail needs long stretches of straight track to get to its highest speeds.

Yes, this is why we need to upgrade the entire railroad infastructure. Not now, of course, but sometime down the line.

KC Scott wrote: It was amazing to watch, mainly beacuse all the stock pundits have been screaming about the explosion of the chinese middle class and their ravenous consumer growth. It increasingly looks like none of them have actually been there and that their Govt has just been financing a commercial real estate bubble - and not sure bubble is the right word beacuse there is no demand.

Based on what? Planned cities are a mainstay in socialist countries, nothings changed in that regard for almost a hundred years. The spooky music was a nice touch but not sure how much stock I'd put in the video.
Applying traditional market rules on Chinese economy seems silly to me, predicting bubbles, etc, it's a hybrid, it exists neither here nor there. It's important to remember a great deal of the economy isn't reliant on private investors but instead the Party and the state, things are less likely to be volatile, they're institutions, unlike the risks available to the average Bernie Goldfarb.
As I understand it, most financiers stay away from China, Russia, there is no real way of verifying any information but sheer size of population ensures that they're a force that'll out-strip anyone else.

Phibes, you're omitting one glaring concern with China's situation. Their demgraphic will dramtically change over the next 30 years due to the one child per couple law that was put in place 30 years ago.

Right now, their workforce (and most populous age group) is in the prime of their years. But when that demographic starts getting older and China doesn't have to numbers to replace those workers, they're in trouble. Not only that, they will face a major influx of people who are in need of healthcare.

The 'One Child' directive came about from a situation, it doesn't exist in perpetuity. I'm fairly sure a directive can be changed depending on the situation.

Dr_Phibes wrote:The 'One Child' directive came about from a situation, it doesn't exist in perpetuity. I'm fairly sure a directive can be changed depending on the situation.

Yes, but when you have a gaping hole in numbers to an entire generation, it can create new issues in areas beyond a depleting workforce. In a few years, young men will outnumber the women by 20-30 million when they want to start dating. What will that do to China's social scene? It's just one of many concerns when you have a demographic transformation as big as this.

You're right, China can correct the One Child directive, but it doesn't change the fact that 300 million more people will be turning 60 than people turning 30.

There you go again, imposing a western model, your own unique situation and its problems on someone else. It's habitual.

Dr_Phibes wrote:There you go again, imposing a western model, your own unique situation and its problems on someone else. It's habitual.

That isn't the case at all. I'm just giving you raw data. China is now the #1 manufacturer in the world and they will begin to distance themselves from everyone else because of demand and their willingness to ignore any and all environmental risks. All those jobs will need bodies to perform the work. At a certain point in time, they won't have the adequate number of bodies to continue the growth. It will become stagnant or begin to regress before it can move forward again.

Dr_Phibes wrote:...but sheer size of population ensures that they're a force that'll out-strip anyone else.

Pure rubbish. China is 150 million wealthy and upper middle class people in prosperous coastal enclaves sitting on top of more than 900 million dung farming, iron age peasants. It's a fucking powder keg. China always implodes.

Go Coogs' wrote:Their demgraphic will dramtically change over the next 30 years due to the one child per couple law that was put in place 30 years ago.

Their demographic has already changed. Males are being being overselected. I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong.

smackaholic wrote:I think the train/plane mileage depends on a few things. Trains are heavy. It takes a lotta BTUs to get one over a mountain. Carrying passengers from LA to Denver is gonna take a shit ton of these BTUs. Not sure if it will be a metric or english tons. Trains running along the densely populated and pretty near flat, U&R corridor would do much better. Once you get all that mass rolling it really doesn't take much to keep it rolling. The fact that these lines are electrified helps also since the power company makes it's BTUs cheaper than exxon does with diesel.

Airplanes don't much give a fukk how bumpy the ground is under them. i would think that the mileage per traveler on the LA to denver run would be fairly close.

So, in the reasonably near future, I think we'll see decent HSR along the east coast, particularly the U&R. We'll also see it in the midwest from cleveland to chicago. But don't hold your breath for a SF to denver route. Flying over all those bumps makes more sense.

How much does a 747 weigh? You don't think it takes a shit ton of Btus to get a 747 up to 36,000 feet? I'd imagine that there's also quite a bit of drag at 500 knots, even at altitude.

Cuda wrote:You are a fucking traitor to our profession

Left Seater is a real estate agent?

Papa Willie wrote:No. We don't need a high-speed railway system.

1. We're fucking BROKE.
2. Those fuckers are easy to fuck up. Little gangs and negroes would put bananas on the railroad, and at 300 mph, it would vaporize them.
3. We're fucking BROKE.

How are your GED classes going, Fatspray?

88 wrote:It is Google-able, and Mikey is barely right. Sorry Cudes:

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml

If you click on Table 2.14, you get an Excel spreadsheet that provides the Btu per passenger-mile for air and various forms of passenger rail. In 2009, air was 2,901 Btu per passenger-mile and rail ranged from 2,435 Btu per passenger-mile for Intercity Amtrak to 2,812 Btu per passenger-mile for commuter rail.

You do realize that airplanes and trains don't use the same kind of fuel, don't you? And that airplanes tend to go a bit faster than trains- like about 8 to 10 times faster on average? Comparing BTU output between them is like comparing apples to orange spray paint.

More interesting, the energy cost of air travel has been rapidly and steadily decreasing at a much greater rate since 1970 as compared to rail travel. It may be the case that within a few short years, air travel will be more efficient than rail travel. Whodathunkit?

It's already more efficient than train travel, dumbfuck, that's why the thousands of airliners that fly from place to place every day are full, and the dozens of trains that run each week arent.

Cuda wrote:
Comparing BTU output between them is like comparing apples to orange spray paint.

Who's comparing Btu output?

Do you even know that a Btu is?

OK, the BTU's produced by the particular fuel(s).

nothing changes.

happy now, fuckface?

Cuda wrote:OK, the BTU's produced by the particular fuel(s).

...are almost exactly the same, between diesel and kerosene or naptha (jet fuel).


Want to keep trying?

Hey, look! Another thread where Cuddles is exposed for being the ignorant cunt he is. Post another Obama trainwreck photo or compare blacks to primates, it seems that's all your able to do.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Hey, look! Another thread where Cuddles is exposed for being the ignorant cunt he is. Post another Obama trainwreck photo or compare blacks to primates, it seems that's all your able to do.

I think he's cute when he starts getting spun up.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Hey, look! Another thread where Cuddles is exposed for being the ignorant cunt he is. Post another Obama trainwreck photo or compare blacks to primates, it seems that's all your able to do.

I can also use correct english.

Cuda wrote: I can also use correct english.

Priceless.

Mikey wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I think the train/plane mileage depends on a few things. Trains are heavy. It takes a lotta BTUs to get one over a mountain. Carrying passengers from LA to Denver is gonna take a shit ton of these BTUs. Not sure if it will be a metric or english tons. Trains running along the densely populated and pretty near flat, U&R corridor would do much better. Once you get all that mass rolling it really doesn't take much to keep it rolling. The fact that these lines are electrified helps also since the power company makes it's BTUs cheaper than exxon does with diesel.

Airplanes don't much give a fukk how bumpy the ground is under them. i would think that the mileage per traveler on the LA to denver run would be fairly close.

So, in the reasonably near future, I think we'll see decent HSR along the east coast, particularly the U&R. We'll also see it in the midwest from cleveland to chicago. But don't hold your breath for a SF to denver route. Flying over all those bumps makes more sense.

How much does a 747 weigh? You don't think it takes a shit ton of Btus to get a 747 up to 36,000 feet? I'd imagine that there's also quite a bit of drag at 500 knots, even at altitude.

Yes, 747s do weigh a fair number of shit tons. The point I was making is that rail's efficiency advantage, and sorry cuddles, but it is a sizable one, is lessened a fair bit when the trip involves lots of bumps. That 747 doesn't much care about topography. It gets to 36K feet and stays there. Another fairly sizable factor is direction. The average ride from chicago to connecticut is a lot quicker than connecticut to chicago. Something to do with a 150 mph westerly breeze way up there where g0d lives.

88 wrote:

Cuda wrote:You do realize that airplanes and trains don't use the same kind of fuel, don't you? And that airplanes tend to go a bit faster than trains- like about 8 to 10 times faster on average? Comparing BTU output between them is like comparing apples to orange spray paint.

Cudes, at the risk... ah, fuck it. Dude, that ^^^^ is some stupid shit. A Btu is a convenient way to compare the energy efficiency of different forms of travel, which utilize different fuels. The comparison could have been in kWh or Joules or just about any other standard unit of measure. Read up a bit, amigo:

http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/units.html

No one is comparing "BTU output", which makes no sense. The data I provided compares the amount of energy consumed by the various forms of travel per passenger per mile of travel, which is a measure of efficiency.

Cuda wrote:It's already more efficient than train travel, dumbfuck, that's why the thousands of airliners that fly from place to place every day are full, and the dozens of trains that run each week arent.

You are confusing convenience and personal preference with efficiency. It is cheaper for me to walk to work, but I choose not to do it because it takes longer and I'm fucking lazy.

I particularly liked dr science's statement that jet fuel and diesel were completely different, not that it was relevant. diesel and jp4/5/any other number is pretty much identical.

smackaholic wrote: I particularly liked dr science's statement that jet fuel and diesel were completely different, not that it was relevant. diesel and jp4/5/any other number is pretty much identical.

God damn, I say God DAMN, boy, you're a whole lot smarter than I ever gave ya credit for.

Mikey wrote:

smackaholic wrote: I particularly liked dr science's statement that jet fuel and diesel were completely different, not that it was relevant. diesel and jp4/5/any other number is pretty much identical.

God damn, I say God DAMN, boy, you're a whole lot smarter than I ever gave ya credit for.

A turnip's a whole lot smarter than I've ever been given credit for being, 'round these parts.

Looks like we get to toss cuddles on my list, huh?

You need a list too, mikey. How's about a things fatter than mikey list?

I'll start.

uhhhhh......geee, this is tough.

ucunt's guns?

is fat the same thing as HUGE?

smackaholic wrote: You need a list too, mikey. How's about a things fatter than mikey list?

smackaholic

Papa Willie wrote:I can draw pictures of puppets on the wall with my own shit

You and AnaNg need to open up your own gallery.