But at least with trains we’re not accelerating the death of the planet
A mag lev train doing 500+mph is going to need a lot more energy than a normal train. It will probably be less than the plane but I’m thinking it won’t be as much less as you might think.
Thae train is also doing those speeds at sea level vs the plane doing them at 35,000ft or higher, where there’s less than 1/4 the atmosphere to fight.
Edit: for the record I’m in favor of more trains but I don’t think these will be that much better than planes with both in cruise, however, they both have different situations where they’re more suited with some overlap.
Trains don’t leave exhaust in the upper parts of the atmosphere, though, and depending on how the electricity was created, it could be neither did its energy source—though I suppose there’s no avoiding that manufacturing any kind of plant and the train itself did cause emissions.
@flux@QuinceDaPence Concrete and steel (for stations, track, etc) matter. So does the electricity used to maintain stations, not just propel the train. So lifecycle emissions of a train are immensely complicated, plus then you get into how to route a new rail line without destroying too many ecosystems.
Even so, clean electricity is the easy bit compared to making planes clean. More trains please.
One of those crashing while going “faster than an airplane” would seem more catastrophic than an airplane crashing.
Are these bullet trains safer than planes or as dangerous as regular trains?
Do you know how much maintenance and regulation goes into airplane management? All those regulations have been written blood.
Japan’s bullet trains have famously never had a fatal crash in it’s 59 year history.
This cannot be said of their conventional trains.
These also have less probability of crashing than commercial airplanes.
Uh… Considering the Transrapid’s fatal crash and it’s very few operating hours, I can’t imagine that to be true.
Trains derail on occasion. Planes crash on occasion. But at least with trains we’re not accelerating the death of the planet
A mag lev train doing 500+mph is going to need a lot more energy than a normal train. It will probably be less than the plane but I’m thinking it won’t be as much less as you might think.
Thae train is also doing those speeds at sea level vs the plane doing them at 35,000ft or higher, where there’s less than 1/4 the atmosphere to fight.
Edit: for the record I’m in favor of more trains but I don’t think these will be that much better than planes with both in cruise, however, they both have different situations where they’re more suited with some overlap.
Trains don’t leave exhaust in the upper parts of the atmosphere, though, and depending on how the electricity was created, it could be neither did its energy source—though I suppose there’s no avoiding that manufacturing any kind of plant and the train itself did cause emissions.
@flux @QuinceDaPence Concrete and steel (for stations, track, etc) matter. So does the electricity used to maintain stations, not just propel the train. So lifecycle emissions of a train are immensely complicated, plus then you get into how to route a new rail line without destroying too many ecosystems.
Even so, clean electricity is the easy bit compared to making planes clean. More trains please.
As far as I am aware no country on earth is CO2 neutral, so for these trains the emissions are still positive.