Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

6h vs 18h for a trip are two different universes. Sleeper trains are cool and all but a shorter ride is better.


It is time but also energy. At 1000kph a train (at sea level) has massively more drag than an a380 at altitude. Even on electric, these things may have a greater carbon and financial cost than proponants want to admit.


An electric train can have near-zero carbon footprint, because electricity can be generated from nuclear fuel, sunlight, wind.

An electric airliner is still unattainable. Synthesizing jet fuel using electricity is of course possible, but must be massively less efficient than using that electricity directly in electric motors with efficiency > 0.95 and recuperative braking.

The carbon footprint of building the railway, likely with massive amounts of concrete to use to support the rails, and the steel for the rails (to say nothing of maglev infrastructure) — that's going to be huge. Building a pair of airports should be much less expensive.


Gonna have to ask you for a cite on that one. Climbing costs energy, as does lift. Piston engines and electric both get better mileage than turbines.

I could see it for a 13 hour flight, maybe. Train tracks don't cross the Pacific, though.


No way. You can't even compare this to US car culture. A combustion engine for every single individual emits way more carbon.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: