CKA Forums

Green Technology is Going to Win
Page 6 of 6

Author:  DrCaleb [ Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Green Technology is Going to Win

BeaverFever wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:

Make up your mind. Do you want me to read deeper meanings into sentences that are absolutely clear, or do you want me to try to pan for nuggets of wisdom where you didn't intend any?

And yes. That's exactly what you did. By not seeing the hidden meaning in "I’m 41, I think I’ll see petrochemicals become a secondary energy source during my lifetime. ", I must not be smart enough for university was a pretty lame attempt at an insult. Git gud scrub.

If you didn't make your meaning clear in that sentence, own it Beave. Dragging this out for a couple more pages isn't going to make that sentence look any more factual. And I'm perfectly willing to drag this out for a few more pages, just to prolong the discomfort. :twisted:

You missed my point. The comment about university was not an insult to imply you’re not educated, it was to state that I don’t believe you couldn’t figure out what was meant by “petrochemical”.

And the difference is . . . .?

I know exactly what 'petrochemicals' are, from my University chemistry courses and working 10 years in the Oilsands. They are not sources of energy, as you stated.

BeaverFever wrote:
Interestingly, in a post where you claim to be wholly incapable of making any sort of inference if so much as one word is slightly off the correct technical term, you then chose to make a huge inference about the subtext of my comments

Interestingly, it was you who wanted me to read subtext into your posts, when I told you I don't do that. You discovered the reason why.

BeaverFever wrote:
I maintain my original position, which is you knew what I meant to say but instead of correcting me that ‘petrochemical’ is not the correct term for oil and gas, you played dumb and now you’re just doubling down to save face when even though you lost none to begin with.

I maintain my original position, and declare that I don't read subtext into anyone's posts, and I don't write any into mine.

BeaverFever wrote:
I like you Dr. C, I don’t really want to argue with you especially over something so silly. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

It's not silly Beave, it's important. It's something you do quite often. You meant something, your wrote something else. Admit it, and move on. Perhaps you can grow from it.

Author:  rickc [ Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Green Technology is Going to Win

Douwe wrote:

I believe in my post that I named the region between Boston and Washington as the obvious choice for high speed rail. I've got no idea why it wasn't done years ago given the fact that Europe has clearly shown the advantage of the system.

Also measuring the speed of rail against aircraft does not tell the whole story. Getting to and from airports is a major slowdown. Rail gets passengers downtown to downtown with a minimum of lost time. In fact if you check travel times in Europe using Google you will find that rail compares very well with air travel. Paris to Rome, for example claims 90 minutes for travel between the two points by plane, but if you add on three or four hours for airport navigation the advantage shrinks. And on shorter distances like Paris to Marseille the time is almost the same. I recall an episode of Top Gear in which the three stooges raced one another from London to some place in Northern Italy (I forget which city) each using a different mode of transport (car, plane, and train) and they all came in within a few minutes of one another.

As for acquiring land for rail I guess you would have to ask the Europeans how they do it. I don't expect it would be difficult given that rail lines already exist. I believe for whatever reasons the US missed the boat on high speed rail.

In any case I am not going to worry about just one aspect of green technology. You can argue about high speed rail all you want, but it takes nothing away from the other half dozen or so advantages green tech has over conventional technology.

Hey don't get me wrong. I am not against high speed rail. I was merely pointing out its shortcomings when it comes to coast to coast travel. The old time vs. money situation that plagues us all. I did a little research and found out that the U.S. currently has a couple of high speed rail lines. I am a little surprised that these did not arrive with a little more fanfare than they did. The first one is along the northeast corridor that we were both proponents of. It is called the Acela Express. It has a top speed of 150 MPH, but only in certain areas. As I assumed, existing infrastructure was an impediment in the rail line maintaining its highest speeds. The route from Boston to Washington D.C. averages 70 MPH. Here is an interesting article about the rail line. It discusses the time vs. money theme. The author states that a one way ticket from New York to Washington cost $259 for business class, and $375 for first class (I can fly round trip from the west coast to the east coast cheaper than that). The regular line cost $49 and takes 50 minutes longer. That is the line I would be using. ... ress-train

The second high speed line is in Florida. Florida makes sense. It is a very long state with major population centers. As the 3rd largest state by population, their roads are always crowded. Flying from city to city in Florida can be very expensive as well. This story has a Canadian theme as well as Bombardier Transportation was supposed to build the line. It also ties in nicely with the topic of government vs. private enterprise. The government was supposed to build the line but dropped the ball. Private enterprise ended up with the job. ... d_Corridor ... ne-virgin#

Page 6 of 6 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©