Slashdot Mirror
Hyperloop One Reveals Its Plans For Connecting Europe (engadget.com)
Hyperloop One has revealed its plans for connecting Europe via its Hyperloop transportation system that can move passengers/cargo at airlines speeds for a fraction of the cost of air travel. The company is currently considering nine potential routes in Europe, "running from a 90km hop to connect Estonia and Finland, through to a 1,991km pan-German route," reports Engadget. "The UK [...] gets three proposes routes: one to connect its Northern Cities, one to connect the North and South, and one to connect Scotland with Wales." From the report: Several of the routes, including ones between Estonia and Finland, Corsica to Sardinia and Spain -- Morocco, all cross bodies of water. The company has, on several occasions, spoke of its love of tunnels, and plans to use them extensively in construction. Although rather than using tunneling machines, which can be slow, submerged box tunnels or archimedes bridges may be cheaper and faster to build. CNBC notes that the proposals for Europe connect more than 75 million people in 44 cities, spanning 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles).
One assumes that all 75 million people aren't traveling from Estonia to Finland at the same time.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yeah, as much as I like the idea of a hyperloop, and new ways to transport people, I think the main issue of hyperloop is right now that its an unproven technology. There isn't a single track in operation around the globe. No info about how expensive it all is, etc. Of course, operating one track is considerably more expensive per rail km than operating many tracks, due to economics of scale, but you can't just give a company that has nothing but concepts billions of dollars/euros to deploy a technology that hasn't even a working prototype. I mean I'm not saying that hyperloop is a bad idea and that it will never work, but I'm neither sure of hyperloop working so well that it should be deployed.
As an Engineer, I see always see the problems....
- Thousands of sliding expansion joints that need to remain vacuum tight.
- The psychology of being subjected to movement with no visual reference (vomit tube)
- The problem of escaping people from a vacuum tube when something breaks. This would probably require uuuuge isolation valves every few km, and escape points closer than this, with emergency air infiltration systems, which then has to emergency break other pods who are then stuck in long queues with limited air, in battery powered coffins.
- Long term maintenance: esp of underground parts requiring building a tunnel in a tunnel.
- High capital cost of a complex pod requiring compressors, life support (aircon and air), batteries, recharging systems.
- Being not much faster than a bullet train of much higher capacity, and slower than an aircraft.
- Energy is becoming cheaper, so the main advantage of hyperloop is somewhat dulled.
I'm sure other can add more
46137
Just like any other snake-oil salesman.
As an Engineer, I always see solutions to problems.
As a physicist, I know engineers are not smart enough realize how stupid they are.
The hyper loop will never be cheaper than air travel or rail.
I was watching some of the original Mission Impossible episodes recently, and recalling my thoughts on watching them when they were first aired.
Some of them required tiny TV cameras hidden in (for example) a brooch worn by the female lead, and I remember thinking at the time how preposterous that was. The technological problems of getting a videcon that small, the lenses necessary, the power supply to generate the HV necessary for the tube, all the tube or transistor amplifiers, and the dry-cell battery needed to power it for several hours - complete fantasy!
And of course nowadays these devices are on eBay for $10.
You may not see the solutions to the problems today, but you really can't predict what will be possible tomorrow.
There's a difference between physically impossible and technologically impossible.
Basically, you're wrong.
1) The UK has not left the EU yet, even though article 58 has been triggered.
2) The 'voice' the UK and other countries have are only opinions relating to topics that the EU parliament have decided to discuss and have ultimate authority to decide even with opposition of all countries.
3) Any changes that require a modification to a treaty needs to be ratified by all countries unanimously, which rarely happens.
4) A citizen has no proper recourse in the EU parliamentary system to remove a bad power (voting or otherwise). They are separated to the point that EU citizens have no powers and there is a lack of sufficient checks and balances.
In summary, the EU in it's current state is no democratic and as far as voice goes, it doesn't really do much as can has been seen by the EU parliament video streams repeatedly.
In comparison Switzerland and Norway do not receive EU mandates in their directives for laws to be implemented in their country... Taking the above scenario into account, the process is technically undemocratic. They are only requirements for trade and compatible relations. Trying to twist that into saying that the UK would have less sovereign control over it's own laws is ludicrous.
What source did you even use to get this information? You've displayed such terrible insight, it astounds me.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.