Message Areas - "Could Voyager save Amtrak?"

Train-Sim.Com Message Areas

"Could Voyager save Amtrak?"

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Previous Topic | Next Topic Conferences General (Protected) Original message
Matt Vince (107 posts)
Feb-14-02, 07:55 AM (EST) "Could Voyager save Amtrak?" I know little about US railroads, but it is clear to me that Amtrak is running a 90mph (maximum) service, with only NEC services permitted to run faster. If the US wants higher speed trains over upgraded or new lines, then a bit of European experience is neccesary. Two BUILT AND IN SERVICE train designs to run these services spring to mind. Siemen's ICT-VT (Details: http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/ice/ict-d.html Photos: http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/de/diesel/dmu/605/pix.html) is one, capable of 125mph (200km/h) and can tilt round corners, and Bombardier's Voyager (used by Virgin trains, details: http://www.bombardier.com/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_6_7.html Photos: http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/gb/diesel/demu/220/pix.html) capable again of 125mph. These are diesel multiple units, the Voyager has engines in all vehicles producing 3000hp for a four car unit (750hp diesel in each car). Is that enough for the USA? Voyagers can be run in multiple (ie 8 car units or more).
I'd like to see an American-ised Voyager in Amtrak service. I travelled on one in the UK yesterday and they really GO! Going from Birmingham to Reading, we were 10 minutes behind schedule at Coventry (~10 miles from Birmingham), and 1 minute early arriving at Reading. If that doesnt say something about the Voyager, then I don't know what does.
America! Buy Voyager or the ICT-VT!Matt Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Table of Contents

Subject Author Message Date ID RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? rcp27 Feb-14-02 1 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? buzzbenz Feb-15-02 2 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? Kuchinator Feb-15-02 3 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? jtr1962 Feb-17-02 4 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? Matt Vince Feb-18-02 5 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? jerseycentral Feb-18-02 6 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? jtr1962 Feb-19-02 7 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-19-02 9 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? Matt Vince Feb-19-02 10 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? rcp27 Feb-19-02 11 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-19-02 12 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? Lone_Gunman_SG Feb-20-02 16 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? kevarc Feb-19-02 8 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? jtr1962 Feb-20-02 13 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? buffy500 Feb-20-02 14 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? rcp27 Feb-20-02 15 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? jtr1962 Feb-21-02 17 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? buffy500 Feb-21-02 18 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-21-02 19 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-21-02 20 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? buffy500 Feb-21-02 21 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? TAfan Feb-21-02 22 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? buffy500 Feb-21-02 23 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-21-02 24 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? buffy500 Feb-21-02 25 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-21-02 27 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-21-02 28 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-21-02 29 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? TAfan Feb-21-02 32 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-21-02 33 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? TAfan Feb-21-02 34 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? chucksc Feb-21-02 26 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? TAfan Feb-21-02 30 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? buffy500 Feb-21-02 31 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? jtr1962 Feb-22-02 36 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? darkrose Feb-22-02 37 RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak? jtr1962 Feb-22-02 35

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Messages in this topic
rcp27 (30 posts)
Feb-14-02, 08:41 AM (EST) 1. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" just an update, the "super voyager" on order by Virgin trains is a 5 car tilt fitted version of the ordinary voyager currently in service. Midland Mainline have just anounced an order for Voyager based trains in 4 car and 9 car variations. As the power is distributed throughout the train, the performance of these will be the same as the current virgin Voyager units. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
buzzbenz (448 posts)
Feb-15-02, 04:02 PM (EST) 2. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" The problem ain't the trains, it's the tracks! For example, here in middle America, there is a project going on to re-vamp the St. Louis - Chicago line that Amtrak runs on. This will permit the speed limit to be upped from 79 to 100, and it will still use the existing trains.------ BUZZ ------

----- "Power for You" ----- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Kuchinator (649 posts)
Feb-15-02, 11:33 PM (EST) 3. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" another problem is money, dont think amtrak could afford those. and i dont think there is a single stretch of the NEC that can accomadate sustained speeds which the voyager operates at.
-Christopher-

Visit My Aviation Photo Gallery Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jtr1962 (57 posts)
Feb-17-02, 01:51 AM (EST) 4. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" The reason why Amtrak can't compete effectively with cars and airplanes in most areas of the USA is exactly what you suggest-lack of speed. The problem is that most of the track in the United States is non-CTC. Under Federal law, speeds over 79 mph are prohibited without CTC. Another problem is that Amtrak doesn't own most of the track it runs on, so it is a less than welcome guest of the freight railroads. There does need to be serious investment in railway infrastructure in this country by the government, including building completely new electrified high-speed lines in heavily traveled corridors. I still don't see why CTC can't be installed on the majority of track in the meantime, though. This doesn't seem like a huge investment, especially in light of the billions recently given to the airlines, which represent an environmentally disastrous and less safe way to travel than trains. While TGV speeds are out on existing trackage, I think most railroads can be upgraded to run in the 100 to 125 mph range, other than those in mountainous regions with tight curves. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Matt Vince (107 posts)
Feb-18-02, 07:53 AM (EST) 5. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" I dont see why satelite communication technology cant be used to almost eliminate 'dark territory'. Combine it with GPS and there may be the way to do it. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jerseycentral (695 posts)
Feb-18-02, 09:47 PM (EST) 6. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" the NEC's main limiting factor is the use of low-tension catenary, it's unsually low voltage (11kVAC instead of 22kVAC), and the tight track arrangement. the Acela can go MUCH faster than 150MPH, but right now it only goes 150MPH on a few miles of track. the rest is limited to max 135 MPH. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jtr1962 (57 posts)
Feb-19-02, 05:14 AM (EST) 7. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Acela reached 168 mph in tests. Because the train had to be designed for FRA crashworthiness standards, it's too heavy and there are some truck hunting problems at high speeds. Nonetheless, I'm sure with a little tweaking it could do 165 mph in service. Of course, the NEC catenary isn't up to it, as you mentioned. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-19-02, 09:45 AM (EST) 9. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" OK lets get the NEC speeds thing correct....
The NEC above or "East of New Haven" (the correct way to referr to it) is all brand spanking new constant tension wiring and is 25KV 60hz.... So the only speed restrictions there are the turns and bridges of the 150 year old track alignment even though the track itself is all 200lb welded rail on concrete ties. Even so sprints to 150 are allowed up there and most of it is run in excess of 100mph.... (big exception is the part that passes through New London and over the Thames River - as that makes a 90 degree turn and goes through a station almost looks like street running... but there is no other place to put the tracks there about a 3 mile stretch). Between New Haven and New York you are restricted to 80mph because of 2 things; one the catenary is the PRR low tension type (which is what replaced the even older completely worn out New Haven Triangular type in the 70s and 80s) (Another Penn Central and ConRail technical triumph)and the very close spacing of the tracks, which was ok for steamers and wood coaches when it was laid out right after the civil war, and stations in this stretch which was the original New Haven Electrified Zone and was the first long distance Mainline Electrification and is over 100 years old) Note; that line realignment is impossible here as it passes through some very expensive real estate.... The close track spacing has always precluded the use of tilting mechanisms on this stretch of track (not just on the current Acela but on all previous attempts to use it by the NH, PC and CR)The low tension wire would limit higher speeds anyway but for most of this stretch the top speed is 79mph and the average speed is often lower due to curve restrictions and close station spacing... This is primarily a commuter zone with very high traffic density and operates like one... Think of the MBTA, METRA, LIRR and NJT northern lines as other examples.
Below NY the old PRR mainline's track is all 200lb concrete welded rail and the primary speed restriction is the older Non-Constant (more accurate than low tension as it is high tension) Tension Wiring which limits speeds to 135mph. Since Acela Exp. is only allowed to run 150mph in service by the FRA this is not a huge deal if you are looking on where to spend very limited capital dollars and the smart business thing to do would be convert to constant tension as maintenace becomes necessary.So unless we want to put in an entirely new right of way like the French did for the TGVs what you see is what you get for now.....------Chuck Schneider---------

-----"Power for You"------- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Matt Vince (107 posts)
Feb-19-02, 10:39 AM (EST) 10. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" I feel sorry for you guys, that on one corridor you have a multitude of differing standards in power supply, catenary and rail spacing. Fortunatly some countries (and I don't mean to be smug here but I include Britain, my home country) have managed to standardise on at least OHL power. We have 25kv 50Hz AC for overhead, and 600-850V DC (the voltage varies depending on where you are and how many trains are running there, but nominally 750V) for 3rd Rail. All OHLE (OverHead Line Equipment) is high tension, suitable for 125mph, even though lots of it is over 30 years old. The new lines built (like the Channel Tunnel Rail Link) use 25kV 50Hz AC, because this provides sufficient power for trains running at 300km/h. In and around the Benelux countries there are no less than FOUR voltages used, with OHLE (France - 25kV 50Hz AC and 1.5kV DC, Belgium - 3kV DC, Netherlands 1.5kV DC, Germany 15kV 16 2/3Hz AC) and quad-voltage locos had to be built to work between these countries.Since the Voyager/Super Voyager is a diesel unit, naturally these problems will not be as compounding.Matt
guy who wants the British Government to build new rail lines for high speed! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
rcp27 (30 posts)
Feb-19-02, 11:45 AM (EST) 11. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Though before the West Coast Mainline electrification in Britain, in the '60s, it had been decided BR would standardise on 1500 V dc overhead outside of the Southern (3rd rail). The Liverpool Street (London suburban into Essex) and Woodhead route were electrified to 1500 V dc, but later converted to 25 kV or closed. Of course then there is the London Underground 3rd/4th rail 630 V dc system, the Docklands light rail under contact 750 V dc 3rd rail, the Tyne and Wear Metro at 1500 V dc, the Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham and Croydon tram systems all at 750 V dc overhead. I don't recall what the Glasgow underground uses, but that isn't standard track gauge. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-19-02, 12:47 PM (EST) 12. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" >I feel sorry for you guys,
>that on one corridor you
>have a multitude of differing
>standards in power supply, catenary
>and rail spacing. Maybe WE could get the Germans to Bomb the $hit out of our railroads so that they need rebuilding (Wait Wait isn't that what Congress has been doing for the last 30 years altho at a slower pace?? LOL) and while we are at it nationalize them so that one bureaucrat sitting in Washington can set and enforce standards. Pesky thing, Free Enterprise! LOL! The real problem was that it was originally too ssuccessfull and the railroads got them selves into regulatory trouble and were so successfull financially that the various government entities taxed the $hit out of them... Unfortunately this is all 100 year old history and the politicians still haven't learned to take their hands out of our pockets once they are there, Even when there is no longer any money to give them! Lets see the Airlines pay property tax on the airways or airports! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Lone_Gunman_SG (75 posts)
Feb-20-02, 05:21 PM (EST) 16. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" If im thinking right, It may not be possible to use satellites for communication because in any "dark territory" the canyons and cliffs hamper communications. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
kevarc (270 posts)
Feb-19-02, 09:34 AM (EST) 8. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" It cracks me up that they do not want to spent hardly any money for trains verses the billions that are spent on roads and airports. Esp the comment that the railroads are mostly private companies, ah what are the airlines and the trucking companies.
As fara as Amtrack ever earning money, when it wqas created by Nixon everyone knew that that would never happen, they just publicaly said that so it would sound good while privately that knew better, and basically the lie has just kept snowballing out of control.Kevin Arceneaux Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jtr1962 (57 posts)
Feb-20-02, 00:35 AM (EST) 13. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" I would love to see billions invested in railroads as well, but until you reduce the influence that the big oil and airline lobbies have on members of both major political parties, this is never going to happen. The sad fact is we'll have to have a few more events like 9/11 before the Congress and the general public finally understand that cars, planes, and burning fossil fuel are not the way to go. Regarding Voyager, it would work on non-electrified lines where we could raise the speed limit after installing CTC, but I would prefer that most of the US railway system be electrified eventually so that we can use non-fossil fuel power sources to run our trains. Even though they are far more efficient than cars, trucks, or planes, diesel locomotives still pollute the air and contribute to global warming. Besides eliminating pollution, electrification allows faster acceleration and scheduling as a side benefit. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
buffy500 (24 posts)
Feb-20-02, 10:18 AM (EST) 14. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Would I be be correct in thinking that Electricity does not grow on trees ?
The use of electricity surely only moves the pollution from where its being used to where its being created ?
I know the US does generate a significant amount of power from DAM and wind power, I bet its a pretty small % compared to the fossil fuel burning power stations ? Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
rcp27 (30 posts)
Feb-20-02, 11:17 AM (EST) 15. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" First of all, modern fixed power stations burning natural gas are twice as efficient as diesel engines at generating electricity. Second of all, exhaust controls on power stations are much more advanced so that they do not release oxides of sulphur or nitrogen, or particluates into the atmosphere, all of which are harmful to human health or the environment or both. Thirdly, a locomotive powered by electricity carries less weight per unit power than a diesel locomotive. This means that for a given performanc, an electric train is lighter than a diesel train, so it uses less power.I can't speak directly for the US, but in Britain, coal accounts for a little under 1/2 the electrcicity generated, natural gas about a fifth, nuclear another fifth, with the remaining 10% being made up by various renewable sources such as wind. Britain doesn't have the geography to alow large scale hydroelectric power, though parts of North America do, and significant amounts of power are generated by this means. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jtr1962 (57 posts)
Feb-21-02, 03:58 AM (EST) 17. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" France and Japan both generate ~70% of their electricity from nuclear power. The US can and should build more nuclear power plants in isolated areas, as well as take advantage of the huge potential to generate electricity using the abundant sunshine in desert regions. Even using fossil fuel, a power plant will produce less pollution per kw-hr than a diesel locomotive since it is feasible to install more pollution control devices. Of course, my view is that we should stop using fossil fuel as soon as possible. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
buffy500 (24 posts)
Feb-21-02, 05:39 AM (EST) 18. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" So, just to get this straight, you consider the use of nuclear power to be the clean option ?
I don't know a whole bunch about the subject, but I'm fairly sure that in the longer term this is not a good idea. It may give clean energy for the 20-40 years or so that the power station is in operation, but isn't there now a lot of concern about what the hell you do when you've finished with a) the fuel rods, and more importantly the disused power station ? You can't just did a big hole, line it in thick concrete and bury the thing can you ?I guess that as I only intend to be around for another 60 years max, why should I really care ? But for people who might have kids or Grandkids I'm not sure this is desirable.I would have thought that the fact that the US (to my knowledge) has avoided signing pretty much any world wide pollution agreement is an indication that it's not high up on your list of priorities. I'm sure I read somewhere that the US on its own produces something like 40% of all the airbourne pollution in the world ? So the fitting of air scrubbing devices would appear to an unlikley option to US industry.(Before anyone flames me to death for any anti-american views, I'd like to say that these are just my personal views, and
a) I work for Big Blue
b) I love the US, and its people who generally are much more welcoming than the British
c) I do plan to try and move there (just wait until the economy improves a bit I think)) Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-21-02, 07:21 AM (EST) 19. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" >So, just to get this straight,
>you consider the use of
>nuclear power to be the
>clean option ? IT IS! JUST ASK THE FRENCH WHO GET OVER 50% OF THEIR ELECTRICITY FROM IT.... EVERY ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGY GENERATES "POLLUTION" OF ONE TYPE OR ANOTHER. EVEN HYDRO! IT CHANGES THE MICRO-CLIMATE IN THE AREAS WHERE THE DAMNS ARE LOCATED. FYI THE COLORADO RIVER USED TO RUN ALL THE WAY TO THE BAJA IN MEXICO. NOW IT IS A DESOLATE MUD FLAT WHERE IT USED TO COME OUT! THE PROBLEM IS HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE SIDE EFFECTS (POLLUTION) OF WHATEVER TECHNOLOGY YOU USE!>I don't know a whole bunch
>about the subject, but I'm
>fairly sure that in the
>longer term this is not
>a good idea. It may
>give clean energy for the
>20-40 years or so that
>the power station is in
>operation, but isn't there now
>a lot of concern about
>what the hell you do
>when you've finished with a)
>the fuel rods, and more
>importantly the disused power station
>? You can't just did
>a big hole, line it
>in thick concrete and bury
>the thing can you ?
>
BASICALLY YES! AND THE PLANT LIFE IS MORE LIKE 100 YEARS (LIKE A COAL PLANT)(THEY CAN BE AND ARE REFUELED)(THE ONLY REASON THEY GET SHUTDOWN OVER HERE IS BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRO-NAZIS NOT BECAUSE OF PLANT AGE OR "RUNNING OUT" OF FUEL)
>
>I guess that as I only
>intend to be around for
>another 60 years max, why
>should I really care ?
>But for people who might
>have kids or Grandkids I'm
>not sure this is desirable.
>
>
>I would have thought that the
>fact that the US (to
>my knowledge) has avoided signing
>pretty much any world wide
>pollution agreement is an indication
>that it's not high up
>on your list of priorities. ACTUALLY IT IS! THE PROBLEM AS WE (OR AT LEAST OUR CURRENT ADMINISTRATION) SEE IT IS THAT WE ARE EXPECTED TO CUT OUR INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION AND ECONOMY UBT INDIA AND CHINA TO NAME JUST TWO ARE EXEMPT! IF THERE IS PAIN WE FEEL IT SHOULD BE SHARED BY EVERYONE EQUALLY. IN OTHER WORDS IF THE GOAL IS A 10% REDUCTION IN NOX OR CO2 THEN EVERYBODY, NO EXCEPTION, SHOULD CUT 10%.>I'm sure I read somewhere
>that the US on its
>own produces something like 40%
>of all the airbourne pollution
>in the world ? So
>the fitting of air scrubbing
>devices would appear to an
>unlikley option to US industry. YOU'VE BEEN READING TOO MANY GREENPEACE COMIC BOOKS! LOL!
WE HAVE STRINGINT EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES NOW AND HAVE FOR OVER A DECADE IN MOST OF THE COUNTRY (HERE IN THE DC SUBURBS WHERE I LIVE)! I CAN'T GET A CAR REGISTERED IF IT DOESN'T PASS EMISSIONS INSPECTION. OUR COAL FIRED PLANTS HAVE BEEN FITTED WITH SCRUBBERS FOR YEARS.. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE 40% OF POLLUTION NUMBER COMES FROM BUT THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE! HAVE YOU BEEN TO INDIA OR CHINA OR RUSSIA LATELY?
>
>
>(Before anyone flames me to death
>for any anti-american views, I'd
>like to say that these
>are just my personal views,
>and
>a) I work for Big Blue
>
>b) I love the US, and
>its people who generally are
>much more welcoming than the
>British
>c) I do plan to try
>and move there (just wait
>until the economy improves a
>bit I think)) OK NO FLAME JUST MY OPINIONS! I'M ALSO NOT SHOUTING BUT TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT I AM SAYING BY PUTTING IT IN CAPS!------Chuck Schneider---------

-----"Power for You"------- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-21-02, 08:47 AM (EST) 20. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Just to clarify what I said above....
IMHO, it is ok or even important to reduce emissions. But everyone (Including the 3rd world countries) must reduce emissions across the board. It does no good to damage the US economy if we can't even effect a slowing of the rate of polution in say China, India, Brazil or Russia to name a few....
If we are going to have a treaty on Global Warming or Environmental "Improvement" then lets have one that applies equally to all. If what we are trying to do is redistribute wealth or "punish" the United States for being an industrial success than that's ok too, as long as that is what we are negotiating! What got Kyoto (and by extention Al Gore) into trouble with the Congress and most of the people in this country (No matter what the Tree Huggers say they are a vocal minority but still a minority) was that the Kyoto treaty was percieved, because of the uneveness of its "quotas", as "social engineering" under the guise of "helping the environment"!------Chuck Schneider---------
BTW delete the NALW logo under my signature on the above post as I am speaking strictly for myself on this!
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
buffy500 (24 posts)
Feb-21-02, 09:38 AM (EST) 21. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" I'm by no means a tree hugger, and I would agree with you, that everybody and that means EVERYBODY should be subject to the same limits and goals, I guess the reason some countries are not included is for money reasons...ie they could not afford to fit any cleaning gear to thier industry.
Which I understand (If you have people starving to death you are not going to worry about some smoke) but guess is not really fair. But on the otherside of the coin, I think that some people in other countries would think that a country that could afford it and had the technical ability should possibly consider doing all it could to ensure it was contributing as much as it could to improving the situation (by that I don't mean paying for 3rd world countries to clean up)I think that I'm going to leave it at that because while your response was reasoned and controlled I've seen lots of threads go 'off the rails' (pun inteded) due a discussion being side tracked into a slanging match between people from differing countries, and also its probably clear I don't really know what i'm talking about ! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
TAfan (289 posts)
Feb-21-02, 09:39 AM (EST) 22. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" >I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE
>40% OF POLLUTION NUMBER COMES
>FROM BUT THAT IS ABSOLUTELY
>UNTRUE! HAVE YOU BEEN TO
>INDIA OR CHINA OR RUSSIA
>LATELY? Um, I read something similar referring to greenhouse gases - 25% of the world's CO2 emissions, and if my memory serves me correctly it was higher for sulphurous gases, or something like that. Sadly it wasn't a greenpeace comic (they're only good for a nice bonfire) but a proper, informed magazine along the lines of National Geographic (which it wasn't, but it was something similar - I just wish I could remember what it was for definite).The US might not chuck out as much pollution overall as say china, but on a basis of pollution produced and energy consumed per person, no other country comes close. And (although this is just from memory) Dubya Bush's refusal to sign Kyoto brought international condemnation from virtually every other nation, including your long-term friends and allies, the British. If everyone should have to cut emissions, then the US as the largest western economic power should lead by example. Two wrongs do not make a right. NB: Not a flame either, just setting the facts straight. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
buffy500 (24 posts)
Feb-21-02, 10:10 AM (EST) 23. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Well I'm glad I wasn't making it up ! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-21-02, 11:45 AM (EST) 24. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Again if we cut then everyone should cut.....
The people in China as a general rule are not starving! The decision to not cut pollution is a decision by their unelected government!
Along the same vein why should I lower my standard of living or put my fellow Americans out of work UNILATERALLY.... The CO2 is a function of having automobiles.... I want to see you take them away from the average american as they are an integral part of our life style... and have been improved.... MY Jeep Grand Cherokee gets better gas milage by far than my 1976 Ford country squire did in 1976 and produces a tiny fraction of the emissions the old flivver did. Is it a 50 mpg econobox? No! I can afford more and I typically only drive about 12k miles a year.... Speaking of 50mpg econoboxes does anyone remember the Trabant or the Yugo or assorted Fiats with over 50K miles on them?????? My wifes Mazda MX3 is over 6 years old and has over 80K miles on it and it must meet the same emissions standards as my brand new jeep....
My point is that we are doing something... and there is no reason for us to destroy our economy or life style while other countries have no obligation to do anything.... Again when they have the same obligations I'm sure we will do it.....
------Chuck Schneider---------
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
buffy500 (24 posts)
Feb-21-02, 11:49 AM (EST) 25. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" LAST EDITED ON Feb-21-02 AT 11:57 AM (EST)Well look what post came back to the top of the pile again.....
http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/968.htmlSome interesting reading in there... which to be honest does nothing to dispell the rest of the worlds view (ie outside the US) that your country does not actaully really give a damn about enviromental issues, or if it does, only if it does not actually effect the US. (For instance paying money to other countries to buy thier emissions rights)
Some interesing qoutes...>My daily driver is an '85 Diplomat with all the emissions BS >removed and placed in the garbage, where it BELONGS! The day I >gotta drive some little tinny, whiny, 4-cylinder POS to work >and back is the day I start taking the train or bus to work!and more interestingly..>As I whip around Town in and out of Traffic in my 2001 Jeep >Grand Cherokee Limited V-8.....Now Chuck thats not really the most polution freindly vehicle is it ? Surely they do have paved roads in your town do they not ?>I get 21MPG empty! But what if it did cost me that much? It >ain't no skin off your hind end pal! Well no its not, but at 21mpg you are using twice as much fuel (therefore more polution) as I am in my piece of ##### 2 ltr Audi, which almost certainly bets the arse out of your tank in every performance way.Kind of ironic that the rest of the world can manage with "4-cylinder POS" cars but you guys can't ?So you can stand there and moan at 3rd world countries for polution while insisting you need cars twice the size and capacity than anyone else.And someone else in that post mentioned his impressive200HP 3.8L V6 - ooooh so huge V6 engines, that produce chickenshit output ! My Motor bike has a 600c engine, and thats about 110HP at the rear wheel.Again going back to my car, 2 ltr and produces in excess of 100hp, so whos wasting fuel now ? Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-21-02, 12:35 PM (EST) 27. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Do you understand humor? I was making a joke in that thread....
and so was the guy with the 85 Diplomat! I think its called Satire!
Since I go up into the Hills of Central Pa or occasionally to Upstate NY and sometimes drive on Non Roads or poor roads or snow covered Roads the Jeep makes perfect sense to me.... Besides its my money. I earned it and in a free society I can spend it as I wish.... I'm not passing judgement on what you drive... That's Just my choice! If Gas goes up to $2.00/gal I'll probably minimize my driving in the Jeep. You'll note the other car in my family is an econobox....
And yes I do dislike Tree Huggers because I dislike almost all evangilists.... In my experiences the Eco-Taliban is just as close minded single dimensional as the "real" Taliban.... The world is grey not black and white.... If you are happy on your motor scooter than Great! I'm happy for you... Just not my cup of tea! And while economics might make me retire my jeep some one whining at me about global warning on the one hand and saying the 3rd world is exempt from the same rules on the other hand won't! Talk about out of context!
------Chuck Schneider---------

-----"Power for You"------- Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-21-02, 12:42 PM (EST) 28. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Oh BTW, in case you haven't noticed, Kyoto is dead and until a "Fair" treaty is negotiated there won't be any other... Does that mean all Americans are running down to the junk yards to get all those rusted out 1947 Hupmobile Straight 8s back on the road? No! We are continuing to purchase vehicles and operate vehicles that conform to our current environmental standards including a CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) number in excess of 20 mpg which is double what it was 15years ago... BTW those standards are higher than the ones, if any, in force in Brazil, China, India and Mexico to name a few.....P.S. My jeep routinely gets around 20mpg on the highway now that it is broken in.... City stop and go traffic is much lower but still better than the highway number the old Ford Esquire got 25 years ago....And the buying energy credits deal was heavily supported by Enron! Remember them? If they were for it than by extention it was crooked! ------Chuck Schneider---------
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-21-02, 12:51 PM (EST) 29. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Also Buffy (I'm on a roll here! LOL!)
If your AUDI is over about 5 years old and bought in Europe it has no pollution control devices on it as the Germans resisted even Unleaded Gas up until about then (after they noticed the trees dieing alongside the AutoBahn)
If that's the case then lets hook them up to a pollution inspection machine and you might be surprised to note that my 4.7 litre, overhead cam, All electronic controls, Fly by wire Mercedes designed (Jeep is part of Daimler-Chrysler) V8 does in fact emit fewer pollutants than your 2 litre Audi.... And OBTW the engine, only assembled in Germany, is sold all over europe... I'm sure they guys who by their groceries off their Daimler Benz pay checks would be happy to hear you knocking their products! LOL!PS. I love this discussion very informative, lots of good arguments and no body is getting personal, yet!
------Chuck Schneider---------
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
TAfan (289 posts)
Feb-21-02, 02:32 PM (EST) 32. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" >If your AUDI is over about
>5 years old and bought
>in Europe it has no
>pollution control devices on it Well, to use my six year old Ford as an example (which could have been built at plants in Essex (the Dagenham plant), Germany, or Spain) it has a catalytic converter, and one of the smoothest, cleanest, most efficient engines available in Europe.And lets not forget that it was General Motors that falsified lab test results in the first place. Lead has never been necessary in petrol. Alternatives have always been available, but GM had "other interests" in mind when designing engines at the beginning of the last century.>If that's the case then lets
>hook them up to a
>pollution inspection machine and you
>might be surprised to note
>that my 4.7 litre, overhead
>cam, All electronic controls, Fly
>by wire Mercedes designed
>(Jeep is part of Daimler-Chrysler)
>V8 does in fact emit
>fewer pollutants than your 2
>litre Audi.... And OBTW the Again, depends how you define pollution. Sorry if this isn't actually the case, but I was taught that everything that comes out of an exhaust is pollution of some sort, so the less of it the better. And there is no way a 4.7 V8 produces less exhaust gases overall than a 2.0 litre 4-pot motor.Also, European emissions controls have been constant for some time now, at a significantly stricter level than the United States, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter. (Well, AFAIK it's anywhere in teh world - I'm principally comparing it to the US and Japan!)>engine, only assembled in Germany,
>is sold all over europe...
>I'm sure they guys who
>by their groceries off their
>Daimler Benz pay checks would
>be happy to hear you
>knocking their products! LOL! Well, I'm a car nut, and this is news to me. Are you sure about this?!! AFAIK, Mercedes' Stuttgart plant builds Mercs, nothing else. They tried to build the M-class in America and import it to Europe, but build quality was so bad they had to switch the production for the European market to an alternative source (not sure whether it was back to Germany or not). And if it is indeed built in Germany, that does not mean it is built to the same specifications and state of tune as the lumps built for export to the states.The problem lies in the fact that although huge engined cars are on sale in Europe, they are rare and the preserve of the very wealthy; whereas in America, everyone's got one.>PS. I love this discussion very
>informative, lots of good arguments
>and no body is getting
>personal, yet! I agree whole heartedly!!! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-21-02, 08:54 PM (EST) 33. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?"
>And lets not forget that it
>was General Motors that falsified
>lab test results in the
>first place. Lead has never
>been necessary in petrol. Alternatives
>have always been available, but
>GM had "other interests" in
>mind when designing engines at
>the beginning of the last
>century.
>If you mean in 1900/01 which was the beginning of the last century then I don't think they even new what pollution was except maybe gas emitted by a horse.... First I ever heard that GM lied about that! Where did you get your information?
>>If that's the case then lets
>>hook them up to a
>>pollution inspection machine and you
>>might be surprised to note
>>that my 4.7 litre, overhead
>>cam, All electronic controls, Fly
>>by wire Mercedes designed
>>(Jeep is part of Daimler-Chrysler)
>>V8 does in fact emit
>>fewer pollutants than your 2
>>litre Audi.... And OBTW the
>
>Again, depends how you define pollution.
>Sorry if this isn't actually
>the case, but I was
>taught that everything that comes
>out of an exhaust is
>pollution of some sort, so
>the less of it the
>better. And there is no
>way a 4.7 V8 produces
>less exhaust gases overall than
>a 2.0 litre 4-pot motor.
>By your definition you are a polluter... Every thing emits something... What you are trying to control is the "harmful emissions".... CO2 in and of itself is not harmful... The destruction of the Rain Forest in Brazil which is the worlds largest CO2 sink by aboriginies doing slash and burn agriculture is harmfull.... ANd as I understand the science a much more egregious act!>
>Also, European emissions controls have been
>constant for some time now,
>at a significantly stricter level
>than the United States, or
>anywhere else in the world,
>for that matter. (Well, AFAIK
>it's anywhere in teh world
>- I'm principally comparing it
>to the US and Japan!)
>
And ours have been trying to get better and I would probably challenge your statement that Europe has the highest standards.... If they do they must not enforcement.... About 18 months ago I was in Berlin on business and still saw a lot of Trabants running around.... You could not license them anywhere in the United States.... >
>>engine, only assembled in Germany,
>>is sold all over europe...
>>I'm sure they guys who
>>by their groceries off their
>>Daimler Benz pay checks would
>>be happy to hear you
>>knocking their products! LOL!
>
>Well, I'm a car nut, and
>this is news to me.
>Are you sure about this?!! I mis-spoke here! What I meant to say is that the Engine/Transmission (a 5 speed automatic) was designed in Germany and assembled both in the US and Germany! > AFAIK, Mercedes' Stuttgart plant
>builds Mercs, nothing else. They
>tried to build the M-class
>in America and import it
>to Europe, but build quality
>was so bad they had
>to switch the production for
>the European market to an
>alternative source (not sure whether
>it was back to Germany
>or not).
Absolutely not true... at least not in the last 10 years... you've been reading too much Lexus propaganda (Or Euro Snobism) ... D-C has no extra factory capacity here (they are running flat out and have been building a plant in Mexico to increase capacity for PT Cruisers)
And if it
>is indeed built in Germany,
>that does not mean it
>is built to the same
>specifications and state of tune
>as the lumps built for
>export to the states.
>
See my statement about Euro-Snobism (a term fairly common here in the states when some European tries to tell us what is wrong with America while ignoring the general tide of imigration from Europe to America not the other way) above...
This statement by you about the lumps built for export to the states does nothing for the discussion and in fact borders on trolling!
Maybe I'm wrong here but BMW assembles cars here in the states and exports them elsewhere in the world.... Where are they on the Car - Richter Quality Scale.... Especially compared to your Ford (good old european brand that).....>The problem lies in the fact
>that although huge engined cars
>are on sale in Europe,
>they are rare and the
>preserve of the very wealthy;
>whereas in America, everyone's got
>one. Possibly you should move here.... It appears to me that we have a higher standard of living that you are jealous of.... If you do please don't tell us why Europe is more advanced after you get here! LOL!>
>>PS. I love this discussion very
>>informative, lots of good arguments
>>and no body is getting
>>personal, yet!
>
>I agree whole heartedly!!!

Still pretty Stimulating!
------Chuck Schneider---------
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
TAfan (289 posts)
Feb-21-02, 10:10 PM (EST) 34. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" >emitted by a horse.... First
>I ever heard that GM
>lied about that! Where did
>you get your information? A respected weekly car magazine called "Autocar" in the UK.>By your definition you are a
>polluter... Every thing emits something... Hey, sure I am. I drive a car too. And although I'm no saint, I don't drive a car with an engine that is oversized. >What you are trying to
>control is the "harmful emissions"....
>CO2 in and of itself
>is not harmful... The destruction
>of the Rain Forest in
>Brazil which is the worlds
>largest CO2 sink by aboriginies
>doing slash and burn agriculture
>is harmfull.... ANd as I
>understand the science a much
>more egregious act! This is true, but what way is there of controlling it? None. Which is in complete contrast to the nature of the automotive world.>And ours have been trying to
>get better and I would
>probably challenge your statement that
>Europe has the highest standards.... Sorry, I don't have any concrete proof. But I did read it in an article last year, the jist of which was that manufacturers were getting p*ssed off at the ever increasing European emmissions regs, as they already had to spend more making European cars meet regs than anywhere else. And yes, it did include that statistics of what is permitted and what isn't, but I doubt I have the article lying around anywhere any more. So you'll just have to take my word for it... hehe >If they do they must
>not enforcement.... About 18 months
>ago I was in Berlin
>on business and still saw
>a lot of Trabants running
>around.... You could not license
>them anywhere in the United
>States.... Good point, and to answer it I will assume that licensing reglations in Germany are similar to those in the UK. In the UK there is an MOT test - once a car is three years old, it must be inspected every year for road-worthiness. If the car was initially registered after a certain date, this test includes emmissions checks. If it's too old, it's doesn't. This way, the vast majority of cars are emmissions controlled, but classic cars can still be run. Although I hope you agree with me in that those Trabants need to be gotten off the roads and into museums asap!! >I mis-spoke here! What I meant
>to say is that the
>Engine/Transmission (a 5 speed automatic)
>was designed in Germany and
>assembled both in the US
>and Germany! Yep, that does indeed sound more likely! >Absolutely not true... at least not
>in the last 10 years...
>you've been reading too much
>Lexus propaganda (Or Euro Snobism)
>... D-C has no extra
>factory capacity here (they are
>running flat out and have
>been building a plant in
>Mexico to increase capacity for
>PT Cruisers) Um, Lexus is Japanese. And the luxury arm of Toyota. The M-class, upon it's initial european launch, was sourced from Alabama. Like I said, this wasn't for long as the US-built M-class was, sadly, universally derided by the UK motoring press for it's poor standard of build.> This statement by you about
>the lumps built for export
>to the states does nothing
>for the discussion and in
>fact borders on trolling! Sorry, I don't see how that borders on trolling! You originally said that the engines for US Jeeps were built in Germany, and although you since said you didn't actually mean that, I was just pointing out that if it were true (after all, I don't work for M-B and can only know the information that is made available to the public), then it is not uncommon for parts to be built differently depending on which export market they are intended for. As an example, I immediately think of Japanese sports cars, which require different engine programming, and new manifolds and exhausts, to meet European emmissions regs. Sadly they lose quite a few bhp in the process >Maybe I'm wrong here but BMW
>assembles cars here in the
>states and exports them elsewhere
>in the world.... Where are
>they on the Car -
>Richter Quality Scale.... Especially compared
>to your Ford (good old
>european brand that)..... I agree, BMWs are high quality cars. I don't know anything about BMs manufacturing in the US, but since one of BMWs largest factories in the world is in Vietnam, I don't see why they would pay more US labour rates to export cars from the US when they can export cars for a fraction of the cost from Vietnam. Again, I've really no idea about BMW on this - it is just my speculation.>Possibly you should move here.... It
>appears to me that we
>have a higher standard of
>living that you are jealous
>of.... If you do please
>don't tell us why Europe
>is more advanced after you
>get here! LOL! Haha, believe me, if I lived in the States I would most definitely buy a European car! European engineering + American cheap gas + a car fanatic (me!) = perfection!! >>>PS. I love this discussion very
>>>informative, lots of good arguments
>>>and no body is getting
>>>personal, yet!
>>
>>I agree whole heartedly!!!
>
>Still pretty Stimulating! Yup, sure is! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
chucksc (1044 posts)
Feb-21-02, 11:59 AM (EST) 26. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Again China and India and Brazil and Mexico have over all higher pollution levels than the United States... It is my understanding that more CO2 is released into the year from Slash/Burn agriculture in the Amazon than in 1/2 the US.....
Plus it destroys Rain Forest which is one of the engine(s) for producing oxygen for the environment......
I think you said percapita????? If that is correct and I don't dipute that (don't have the report in front of me),The reason might very well be that the US' typical personal transportation is an automobile not a Goat Cart or Camel. Also our population centers are much more dispersed than Europes' so it is no where as easy to go inter-city by mass transportation except in the North East Corridor. Also we did not have to rebuild our economy or infrastructure after world war 2 so we had a running start on personal transportation... Our good luck their bad luck... In spite of all that Japan reportedly has terrible pollution problems in their cities (According to National Geo. they even equip. traffic police with Oxygen masks - something we aren't even close to having to do in the US) and according to my readings still had less stringent pollution requirements under Kyoto than the US.... Face it, it was seen as a bad treaty that unfairly punshes the US. Even Dubya has said he is for a treaty.... Only he wants it to be fair.... same standards for every one....
You know there is a price for industrialization and I think this is part of it... IMHO, We could solve the whole thing by reverting to a Hunter/Gatherer civilization.... Unfortunately some 90% of the worlds population would starve to death under those circumstances... If certain countries don't want pollution controlls in order to grow their economies, ostensibly to feed their people (and I have doubts about that given the corrupt regimes in place in some of those places) Then So Be it! But, they don't get to criticise the US! End of Story!
------Chuck Schneider---------
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
TAfan (289 posts)
Feb-21-02, 02:12 PM (EST) 30. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" >Again China and India and Brazil
>and Mexico have over all
>higher pollution levels than the
>United States... It is my Depends how you define "pollution". If you include the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, then there is a slight flaw in your logic... The States emits 25% of all the worlds carbon dioxide. If China, India, Brazil and Mexico all produce more, does this mean that all five countries together produce at least 125% of the worlds pollution?!!>me),The reason might very well
>be that the US' typical
>personal transportation is an automobile
>not a Goat Cart or True, but neither are Europe's or Japan's. The point is that as far as automobile pollution is concerned, the bigger the engine the more fuel it burns and the more waste gases it produces. And the states is the land of the pointlessly oversized engine. >Also we did not have
>to rebuild our economy or
>infrastructure after world war 2
>so we had a running
>start on personal transportation... Our
>good luck their bad luck... Woah! Stop the press! I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I read it as suggesting that the US approach to transportation is actually better than Europe's? Sorry, but that just makes me laugh! Oops, I forgot the reasoned argument. Which is simply: how can driving everywhere (when you;re not stuck in traffic) in three or four or five litre cars be better than the integrated approach of plane, train, light rail, and car that is prevalent in Europe?
>In spite of all that
>Japan reportedly has terrible pollution
>problems in their cities (According
>to National Geo. they even
>equip. traffic police with Oxygen
>masks - something we aren't
>even close to having to
>do in the US) and Aussie police also have filter-masks, and they're hardly a polluting nation, are they? It just depends on the standard of air quality that is deemed tolerable.>Face it, it was seen
>as a bad treaty that
>unfairly punshes the US. Even Well, I don't know the exact (or even loose) terms of the treaty, so I won't contest this. But if you mean punishment in that the US has to meet criteria that other, larger countries don't, then surely that is the responsibility of a highly developed economically powerful nation where the populace enjoy a high standard of living with many luxuries. You say that the people of these exempt countries are hardly starving, but neither are they driving around in oversized cars, or running air conditioners excessively in their homes, or entirely consuming foodstuffs prepackaged in plastic and cardboard, or leaving computers and televisions switched on for no real reason. Th epoint is, they don't have half of that stuff in the first place.You asked why America should suffer and have Americans out of work while other countries remain unaffected, and I'll simply point you to the statistics. A quarter of the world's pollutants from a fraction of the world's population, a society which considers 20mpg to be good (actually, it's not - it's appalling!!), and refusing to make any concessions in the interests of future generations. As I studied environmental chemistry at university, I'll say this: it may take a good few years yet before it becomes more apparent, but the energy-intensive American lifestyle & culture, with it's pre-conceptions and taking-for-granted of such things as large cars, air travel, ever-so-cheap gas and electricity, etc, is simply not sustainable, both in terms of pollution and consumption of natural resources. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
buffy500 (24 posts)
Feb-21-02, 02:21 PM (EST) 31. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" The fact we got this without this thread exploding is impressive...The Audi is a '92 but does have a Cat and runs on Unleaded from the start.
I would admit the bike is not really sensible transport, but its fun !You talked about if Gas prices went to $2.00 per gallon, I've bought gas at that price in CA last year
And if you paid the price we pay for a gallon, you'd probably reconsider and drive the econbox a whole lot more. I think it works out to about $4.50 a gallon !! Ouch.I would also agree that you will never be able to remove Americans from cars, unless you live in a major city then the public transport is not up to it, and the distances way way to big.When you do public transport you do it well.
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jtr1962 (57 posts)
Feb-22-02, 07:10 AM (EST) 36. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" >I would admit the bike is
>not really sensible transport, but
>its fun !
A bike is sensible for distances of 1 to 20 miles(depending upon the physical condition of the rider), and is widely used in Third World countries. It would be much more sensible if we could cheaply mass produce the highly streamlined human powered vehicles that set speed records of over 75 mph. An average rider could probably maintain 30 mph without much exertion, and a fit one 40 to 45. Add a dedicated lane and you have a non-polluting form of transport suitable for trips of 10 to 20 miles for most people. Since the vehicle is enclosed by the aerodynamic cover, none of the problems of the rider getting wet when it rains exist. Of course you'll still need mechanized transportation, but 10 to 20 miles covers a large percentage of trips people make, and most people could do with a bit a exercise, anyway. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
darkrose (9 posts)
Feb-22-02, 08:14 AM (EST) 37. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?"
Besides potential 'melt downs' there is the storage of the 'spent' fuel issue that right now there's no place save for at the power plants themselves. For me and probably the typical American 2,000 metric tons of 'spent' fuel a year being stored at power plants is a heck of a lot to store no matter that it can be safely stored there for a hundred years. After 9-11, just how safe is 'safe' to anyone? Granted, I am no expert on the exact nature of how the spent fuel is stored at the power plants, but the sheer volume being stored is staggering to my mind. The Yuccan Mountain repository won't be ready to take in anything until 2010. Until those kinds of issues are really taken care of and well underway, I say hold off building ANY new nuclear power plants in the US.http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/Waste/waste-2.cfm
DarkRose Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jtr1962 (57 posts)
Feb-22-02, 06:59 AM (EST) 35. "RE: Could Voyager save Amtrak?" Nuclear power is cleaner than burning anything. Regarding waste disposal, it is a problem, but one that would have been solved already if we generated more of our power by this method. Some proposals include burying the radioactive material deep underground and glassifying it to reduce the concentration of radioactive materials. The fact is a nuclear accident has a potential to harm you while burning fossil fuel definitely does harm you a little at a time. Why do you think there has been an increase in a whole host of different types of cancers? An ideal power source would be solar energy or fusion. Solar energy is getting cheaper, and eventually will be price competitive, but only makes sense in an area getting sunshine a large percentage of the time. Fusion so far remains the stuff of dreams. In the absence of abundant hydroelectric, wind, or solar resources, nuclear is probably the best option from a pollution standpoint.I'll agree with you that the US produces more pollution per capita than anyone else, but the Kyoto treaty was fundamentally unfair in that Third World nations were exempt from it's restrictions. We definitely need to reduce emissions of all types, including especially CO2, but it must be done by everyone. That being said, the US should take drastic steps to curtail it's output of airborne pollutants, and politicians should not be influenced by oil, auto, and airline lobbyists. Cars getting 80 mpg and more are easily possible, but will not be built unless the auto industry is forced to by government regulation. Exempting SUVs from fuel economy rules because they are classified as "trucks" is just plain wrong. We can and should stop building horizontally, and encourage migration to cities, in order to have more people using public transportation. We should definitely build a nationwide TGV-type network to eliminate the use of airliners and automobiles for long-distance domestic travel. We should get over our national "nuclear phobia", build large numbers of standardized nuclear power plants in isolated areas, and shut down coal-fired and oil-fired plants. You can set aside a parcel of land in a very remote, dig a very deep hole, and bury the nuclear waste there.Just for the record, I don't own a car and walk, bike, or take public transit nearly everywhere I go, so I'm certainly not contributing a whole lot to the pollution problem. I know I'm a relative rarity here, but I'm sure there are others like me. I'm also fortunate enough to live in a city(New York) that has an excellent public transportation system. Third World countries have a golden opportunity not to make the same mistake made by the US and much of the Western world, namely becoming dependent upon the automobile and the airplane. New cities in these countries can and should be built with the high population densities that make rail transport feasible, and high-speed rail or maglev should be used instead of airliners for longer distances. The best way to run maglev, and truly take advantage of it's much higher speed potential, is in an underground tube with most of the air removed. Speeds of thousands of mph are possible by doing so, compared to maybe 350 mph in the open atmosphere, and land does not have to be cleared for a tunnel. I think for distances up to about 600 miles, high-speed rail can be time-competitive with airliners, and for longer distances the "maglev in a tube" concept will be far faster. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic