The future of transport

[Zoe]

I thought I'd start a new thread rather than continue the discussion on the TV licence thread.

With the current issues of climate change and peak oil, it's clear that we can't rely on fossil fuels for much longer, the question though what is the best solution?

Rail transport certainly has a major part to play here, currently air is preferred by many people but unless a new method of propusion for aircraft is developed then it could some day no longer be an option. There is debate over if High Speed Lines should take priority over improving existing infrastructure. If air was no longer an option then would lower journey times be such a priority?

Electrification is also a key step but still relies on fossil fuels to generate the power in many cases and this would have to change.

As for road transport, electric cars are available now but the range is too limited for it to be practical for anything other than city driving. This doesn't seem likely to be improved any time soon. Hydrogen is another option but the issue here is the energy it takes to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and again at this time it would rely on fossil fuels. However the advantage is that existig car engines could be converted to run on Hydrogen in the medium term before fuel cells arrive.

The other option would be for people to just not travel and to go back to how things were in the 19th century. Some people may see thing is a good thing.

 

[gordonthemoron]

all the above, plus bicycle, walking, ships

 

[Zoe]

ships

These actually have the highest emissions of all.

 

[Dai.]

Ships are a no go area at the moment.

When it comes to long distance, the Electric Car is coming along nicely but Electric Rail is really the way forward in my opinion.

When it comes to rural travel, you're either stuck with an Electric Car or a Bicycle. Personally, the bicycle is what I'd go for.

 

[gordonthemoron]

ships with either nuclear reactors or sails

 

[Zoe]

the Electric Car is coming along nicely

Electric cars still have a long way to go before they are viable for long distance travel.

 

[Dai.]

ships with either nuclear reactors or sails

Both are very unreliable at the moment. Nuclear reactors can be very dangerous.

Electric cars still have a long way to go before they are viable for long distance travel.

As I said, they are coming along nicely - we've a while to go before we need them yet and the newest ones are really taking shape. With Nissan and Renault testing out several designs.

 

[Zoe]

As I said, they are coming along nicely - we've a while to go before we need them yet and the newest ones are really taking shape. With Nissan and Renault testing out several designs.

Yes but these are only going to be useful for city driving. I can't people driving from London to Edinburgh in one any time soon.

 

[ainsworth74]

Both are very unreliable at the moment. Nuclear reactors can be very dangerous.

The US navy has clocked up millions of miles of sailing with reactors and have yet to suffer an accident (touch wood). The RN and French also operate nuclear subs with no accidents. There have also been nuclear cargo ships operated by the US that also served with no accidents. I think to suggest that naval nuclear reactors are unreliable is inaccurate, as for dangerous perhaps but as I've said in the west (Russia and China I wouldn't go near with a barge pole) we have a lot of experience of using them and have yet to have an accident.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't people driving from London to Edinburgh in one any time soon.

How many people drive from London to Edinburgh!?

 

[Zoe]

How many people drive from London to Edinburgh!?

Quite a few but the point was that range needs to be improved quite a bit for electric casrs to be useful for long journeys.

 

[ainsworth74]

Quite a few but the point was that range needs to be improved quite a bit for electric casrs to be useful for long journeys.

Blimey there really are crazy people, I wouldn't drive from where I live to London, let alone from somewhere like Edinburgh (or vice versa).

Anyway give it time and I'm sure we will see at some point in the next 10 years cars with a range sufficient to travel several hundred miles on one charge.

 

[generalvegitable]

Quite a few but the point was that range needs to be improved quite a bit for electric casrs to be useful for long journeys.

do we really need the range? with wireless charging technology, we could embed a wireless charging station in the road surface of major roads or car parking spaces or even your driveway at home, meaning that battery powered electric cars could be more economically viable than even a car using hydrogen fuel cells, because you wouldn't need to pull over and fill up a tank with a highly explosive liquid (in this case highly compressed hydrogen). obviously the technology would need to be developed more before it is universally adopted. I would have a rough guess of 20 -30 years before the technology is ready to be used

 

[Zoe]

This all involves time though when solutions are needed now.

 

[Kneedown]

This all involves time though when solutions are needed now.

Like it or not, rolling electrification of the railways, powered by new nuclear power stations is the only answer.
Fossil fuels are also dangerous. Remember that oil terminal that went up a few years back? I'll grant you though that the effects won't be as long term or wide ranging as if a nuclear plant went up. Fortunately i can think of only two instances where there has been a major incident at a nuclear power station, Three mile Island and Chernobyl. I'm sure someone will remind me of any other incidents.

 

[Zoe]

Like it or not, rolling electrification of the railways, powered by new nuclear power stations is the only answer.

As I said though, this is going to take time. Why not use renewable energy sources rather than nuclear?

 

[TGV]

As I said though, this is going to take time. Why not use renewable energy sources rather than nuclear?

Demand and land use are two reasons that immediately spring to mind.

 

[SS4]

Most renewable sources are transient - you can't use wind turbines where there is no wind.

Electrification is the way to go even if, for now, we have to generate it with fossil fuel. Electric motors are more efficient than their hydrocarbon counterparts and the train has less fuel and hence mass to carry which saves fuel.

edit: also NIMBYs - look at the fuss kicked up re:HS2

 

[Dennis]

For as long as I can remember (stretching back to the early seventies) there have been worries about car usage and the potential for oil supplies to become depleted. Forty years on, motorists still insist on taking a ton and a half of metal with them everywhere they go - how irresponsible. Let's hope this 'greenest ever government' stays on the fuel duty escalator and also increases th VED differentials across the bands.

On a broader front; electrification would seem to be the way forward, both road vehicles (where technology is rapidly improving) and rail - the wider range of fuels and 'renewables' makes this an almost inevitable trend.

On the subject on electric road vehicles - did anyone else ever gaze in wonder at fairground dodgems when they were younger; imagine some key city streets with a coarse wire mesh above and loads of nippy little single seaters whizzing about......more fun than Boris bikes.

 

[ainsworth74]

As I said though, this is going to take time. Why not use renewable energy sources rather than nuclear?

What's the rush? We have time we're not going to run out of oil tomorrow, perhaps in ten years or so, but by which there will be solutions. As for renewable's, there all well and good but we will never be able to meet the demand for energy just through them. We need nuclear power (and hopefully fusion at some point).

Fortunately i can think of only two instances where there has been a major incident at a nuclear power station, Three mile Island and Chernobyl. I'm sure someone will remind me of any other incidents.

There have been a few others, we had one The Windscale fire and the Russians have had at least one more other than Chernobyl I think, but that might not have been a reactor like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

 

[Zoe]

What's the rush? We have time we're not going to run out of oil tomorrow, perhaps in ten years or so, but by which there will be solutions.

Oil may not run out but if some of the people I've had conversations with are to be believed, the time left to save the planet is very short.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oil may not run out but if some of the people I've had conversations with are to be believed, the time left to save the planet is very short.

That assumes you believe in human caused climate change.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Oil will not run out overnight. The main issue comes when supply cannot fuel demand and shortfalls begin to occur. Don't forget that we currently have good supplies of high quality oil. This provides a very high ratio of energy returned against energy invested. Lower quality oils produce lower ratios. AFAIK no alternative fuels or renewable energy sources produce anywhere near the same ratios (although solar could be an exception).

Bearing in mind the output energy v that which is invested we will probably require a combination of different energy sources to maintain the levels of energy generation we require.

I think it's clear though that electric is the future. We just need to get the right ratios. With regards to the electric car. If we as a society adopt the battery option is there enough lithium in the world to create all the batteries required to replace fossil fuelled cars in the world to battery powered ones?

 

[Bevan Price]

I think it's clear though that electric is the future. We just need to get the right ratios. With regards to the electric car. If we as a society adopt the battery option is there enough lithium in the world to create all the batteries required to replace fossil fuelled cars in the world to battery powered ones?

Lithium is not exactly common, but nowhere near as uncommon as gold or platinum, etc.
By the way, if you ever have a leaking Lithium battery, keep it away from water - the reaction can be a bit violent (although not as bad as sodium plus water). This reactivity of lithium also means it takes a lot of energy to get lithium metal from the minerals that contain it.

Bevan

 

[Zoe]

One issue often overlooked though is self-driving cars. If some reports are to be believed they will be available in the near future and the effect of this would likely reduce the demand on public transport. Just think, you are in London and phone up a number to call a car. One arrives, you get in select Edinburgh as destination and press the start button and then just sit back and let the car drive you there. Door to door personal transport with none of the risks associated with driving.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I think long distance travel is going to be most interesting. I can't see heavier than air transport being viable for much longer for anything but orbital and sub orbital (half way around the world) flights. I imagine we could see more use of lighter than air (airships) and actual ships. Both could be nuclear powered, and the latter could use sails too. Fully sailed ships with small auxilliary engines could definitly become popular for none time sensitive transport. As for high speed transport then I think vacume maglev could be the solution. Beyond the initial building costs of the long distance tunnels (for example across the atlantic) it would be very cost effective. With no air resistance and no friction, once trains were up to speed it the only energy needed would be to levitate them, and a big chunk of the energy from acceleration could be recovered during braking. Maintaining the tunnels at near vacume would not be hard, their size would mean massive amounts of air would need to enter before it became a problem. Building trains to withstand vacume is not hard at all, the pressure difference is not that much really. Since weight wouldn't be an issue, they could be built a lot stronger than aircraft anyway, so pressurisation/depressurisation cycles would not be a problem, and because it's all in tunnel, no windows.

 

[flymo]

The Earth's climate has been changing since the Earth was born several billion years ago and, guess what, it will continue to change for the next billion or so. Humans have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. This is a natural phenomenon. Al Gore doesn't know what the heck he is talking about [not for the first time]

Oil reserves are OK for the next 200 years or so and even then, more reserves will be found. Don't believe what the oil companies tell you, they only say this to push up the price of crude.

The Earth is still coming out of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, so why wouldn't the climate change. Every 13 years on average, which ties into the solar max & min, the climate of the Earth has extremes. 1947, 1963, 1976, 1989, 2002 - all had extremes of weather and I wager that 2015/6 will be worse than in recent years. Other planets being in conjunction or opposition during the solar max or min will vary the results. by a year or two.

You can't change physics or history - there has been several ice ages and there will be several more.

Climate change is not man made - it is a natural phenomenon

 

[Zoe]

Climate change is not man made - it is a natural phenomenon

The University of East Anglia would not agree with you.

 

[flymo]

The University of East Anglia would not agree with you.

The laws of physics do.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The laws of physics do.

And which laws specifically?

 

[flymo]

All weather and climate is and always has been subject to the laws of physics. Do you not agree?

As an edit, the tides too!, and they are governed by the moon, some 240,000 miles away!!