A top to bottom look at green energy

Reisender wrote:
I hate the term green power. Some forms of power generation produce less pollution than others. Moving to natural gas in the interim is an improvement over coal.

The wind power and bird kill thing is a myth. The Brits have replaced much of their coal power with wind.

Ice cars and EV's both are made out of aluminum, steel, plastic etc. Is there more mining involved in an ICE than an EV?

All forms of transportation pollute. Vehicles without tailpipes contribute less to air pollution and poor air quality then vehicles with tail pipes. Important in big cities.

Local solar generation will play a significant role in powering vehicles. The average commute takes 6- 8 KW in an EV. Daytime charging with covered solar parking areas can look after significant amounts of the power needed to power EV's.

The resistance to EV's will fade away as more people test drive them.

I don't believe there is a real need to legislate light cars and trucks off the market...even though it is happening all over the world. In 20 years, no one is going to want a clunky stinky high maintenance vehicle that can't be fueled at home.

In 20 years there will be a lot less gas stations in the world. Every single day there are about 3000 new vehicles hitting the road without gas tanks. That will be 6000 a day in two years...and so on and so on.

All the above JMHO.

Cheers.

Those high speed trains need something called "Rails". I am all for those trains as long as the rails do not come within earshot of my home, which makes me just like every other person on the planet.
California is the perfect example of why trains will never work. The state started a bullet train project to link LA with San Francisco in 2008. It is now $80 Billion dollars (that's an 8 followed by 10 zeros) over budget on the first segment which will run from Bakersfield to Merced (two garden spots if I do say so myself). They plan to complete that 171 mile first segment in 2028, meaning they are completing 8.5 miles a year. If that was the pace of building the transcontinental railroad (1912 miles, started in 1863) your grandchildren could have witnessed the driving of the golden spike in 2088. They have not obtained the necessary land in either LA or San Francisco (of course land is cheap in those areas, so that won't be a budgetary concern).

And that is only the rail line costs. On top of that you need to build out terminals, parking lots, interconnected transportation from the hubs etc. The bullet train is only going to get you from point A to point B, not the billions of destinations in between and beyond.

Going to the train hub is going to be no different than going to the airport. You will still need to have security checkpoints, loading and unloading procedures, baggage handling etc. The trains will need to be serviced and cleaned between runs. It will basically be flying without leaving the ground with all the hassles that entails with all the added costs of railways versus free sky.