We need to use HIGH voltage DC at about the same voltage as your house is now, forget about going "low voltage" DC.
No, we don't.
120v AC will kick you off of it if you touch exposed wires.
120v DC will cause you to clamp down if you grab onto a wire or device that electrocutes you, and worse still, it'll kill you at much lower voltages than AC.
Um, no, it's exactly the opposite situation. Both AC and DC can shock and kill at high enough voltages, but AC is what you cannot let go of and DC is what usually bumps you off. DC induces all your muscles to contract at the same time all at once which cause a quick jerk which often disconnects the victim, AC has the effect of pulsating all the muscles, which incapacitates the victim but not inducing one big jerk. The rule of thumb is that AC is about twice as lethal at the same current/voltage over DC.
I understand your confusion though. Most DC people are exposed to runs in the 5-48 volt range because this is what modern electronics usually use internally. Officially 48 volts is "dangerous" and "lethal" but in reality is not usually going to hurt you if you happen to cross it. However, the real dangerous stuff that is DC usually runs in the thousands of volts (A Tube TV 9K to 25K) or a radio amplifier (600V to 2.5Kv) which will kill you pretty quick if you become the path to ground. Normal 110V in your home usually takes awhile to kill you.
It's kind of amusing though to go back though the history of Edison/Westinghouse (DC/AC) debate. Edison used this problem of AC "grabbing" people over DC's safety to his advantage. He called electrocution "being Westinghoused" for a reason and electrocuted an elephant in a now famous film to make his point. Brilliant PR move, but a bad idea for electricity distribution.
Where there are increased dangers of using DC over AC, electrocution is actually one of the dangers that is reduced.
I think Tesla needs to go back to school. At low voltage, you can only push so many Watts before you run into resistance and heat issues. The higher the voltage, the more Watts you can push through the same size wire. This is why the car industry is moving towards 24 volt systems, because 12 volt systems max out at about 1.5KW's An ex. At 12 volts, my whats-a-ma-giger wants to consume 500 watts. for that much power, I will need to push ~"42" AMPS! Ho boy! Now that's an instant electrical fire! Now lets say my device runs on 110 volts and still consumes 500 watts. That's roughly about 5 amps we need to push (pull) down the line. Perfectly safe with standard house hold wiring.
So far, so good... Your understanding of electricity is fine so far...
And a second thing. DC requires MUCH THICKER CABLING at the same voltages and amperage than AC does. This is because you don't push the electrons in only one direction with AC, you push them back and forth and they never have to run all the way down the line leading to less long distance loss, and loss as heat. That is why we use AC. Could anyone imagine the size a DC cable would need to be at those high voltages?!
Um.. Not exactly true. DC requires thicker cabling because it is usually lower voltage and higher current (as you stated above). The flow of electrons changing directions is NOT an issue. The average current flow for the same power is the same, and it doesn't matter if it's AC or DC. In fact, AC might be argued to be a bit less efficient because you have to add all the reactive components to the AC current flow. Induction motors present high inductive (current lagging) loads, which means that there is actually MORE current flowing for the same power transfer in AC. Electrical engineers call this the "power factor" and it describes why Volts X Amps doesn't always equal power transferred (In fact it rarely does for anything but pure resistive loads.) So AC wires end up a bit larger for the same load...
Now what IS a problem for DC is protection of circuits. DC has a tendency to arc over when you try and turn it off, where AC doesn't do this as much by virtue of the fact that it's actually OFF (zero voltage and current) 120 times a second. There is a certain amount of inductance in any DC circuit that can sustain the current by generating some high voltage spikes as the magnetic field collapses. This increased arcing causes switch contacts to wear out faster and sometimes can be enough to sustain the circuit's current, though it's been turned off. Arcs are really hot too, so they can cause fires. But there are ways to deal with this (separating contacts by greater distances and opening them faster, or arresting the arc using capacitors).
So you are on the right track, but not correct on that last bit..
We need to use HIGH voltage DC at about the same voltage as your house is now, forget about going "low voltage" DC. MOST things in your home will run JUST FINE on DC with a few notable exceptions. AC induction motors will NOT work, nor will anything that involves an old fashioned transformer, but most modern electronics with switching power supplies work great on anywhere between about 90V to 200V DC without modification. Most switching power supplies just convert the AC into DC right up front and won't know the difference. So, all you do is provide inverters for the things you cannot easily change (like for your appliances) and just feed DC to the rest of the stuff that doesn't care. What you DON'T do is go to low voltage DC and suggesting this is just crazy talk. Why?
1. Most stuff just works on high voltage DC as discussed above. Most switching power supplies simply don't know or care about AC or DC and due to their efficiency switching power supplies are used in almost everything electronic.
2. It's easier (and more efficient) to use high voltage DC for charging the batteries. All you need is a rectifier to convert that 220 into about 250V DC and charge the batteries, which is about as simple and efficient as it comes.
3. It's easer (and more efficient) to make an inverter that uses high voltage DC as input. It's pretty easy to just flip the current one way then the other to get AC sufficient to run most induction motors and transformer powered devices.
4. It's more efficient to use higher voltage in terms of wire size because IxR losses are less for the same power transfer. Chances are the same wires you have now will be fine, but if you go to low voltage (say 13.8V like in your car) you are going to need bigger conductors to avoid the voltage drops over long high current runs. Use higher voltage and lower current, and stick with the wires you have.
5. Current battery technology for EV's and hybrids uses about 200V DC to start with, so there are less modifications to the technology when adapting to a home use. If we stick with a common battery pack voltage it will increase the economies of scale in their production and allow the use of old automobile packs that have reduced capacity as power storage in homes where the size and weight of the battery is less important. If you go low voltage, you either have to convert the 200V down to 12 or 48 (and incur the conversion loss) or modify the battery pack to operate at the lower voltage.
I know that traditional DC systems run at multiples of 12 Volts because they are usually built on Lead-Acid batteries and that much equipment is commercially available that uses 12 and 48 volts based on this. But going to 12 or 48 volts is not the right answer. It's really just the traditional solution based on past thinking and limitations. Running 200V DC is a more viable and long term solution that will work fine with a lot of existing AC equipment, plus is compatible with a ready source of batteries which are commercially available (and if purchased used, pretty cheap).
So, NO, we DON'T want to start using low voltage DC... We want to use HIGH voltage DC.
The total number of nuclear weapons is in decline. They take a number of warheads out of service because they are old and replace them with fewer, more modern models which are "better" in some ways (more accurate, more yield, lighter, what have you). Overall there are fewer warheads. That's how.
And you sir are painting with a wide brush. Bad people do BAD things, one cannot deny that, but in China, the government selectively chooses not to enforce its laws and allows bad people to do bad things. So you now claim that ALL people do bad things because a few have in the past? Or, to put it another way, capitalism is bad because it is abused in China? Capitalism has its problems, but as a method for generating wealth and lifting the standard of living for the majority, it cannot be beat. And it certainly cannot be beat by a government program...
IF you want the full integrated experience, you got to stay with one vendor.... You know how this game is played, at least until the EU forces you to unbundle...
You have more than one choice... Perhaps one wired choice is all you have, but there are other providers out there. I'm guessing they are more expensive and likely lower bandwidth, but you have choices.
Now, if you where *really* in the boonies, 10 miles from anywhere like where I grew up in South West Missouri, THEN, we had 2 viable broadband choices. A marginal Cell Phone based provider using a cell tower about 10 miles away or the Hughes satellite option which has broadband bandwidth and really long latency.
But I'm saying that for the VAST majority of people in the USA, broadband is available, usually from multiple vendors. I don't think we really have a huge broad band problem. Yea, there are places you won't get wired service, but the number of people who live in these areas is pretty limited.
China may be an emerging capitalistic economy, but they are very much un-capitalistic in their governance. That they choose to ignore the environment and don't care about the health and safety of their workforce is NOT what we have here in the USA and we never will.
But China is NOT an argument for government control, because China's government has absolute control, they simply do not care. China's quest is for power, economic and military, and they will use any means to improve their position, including allowing the worst abuse and environmental harm as long as it gets them what they want. You see, China is literally at war already, so lives and environment don't matter.
China's problems stem from government, not capitalism.... Capitalism is just one of the tools they are using to further their goals, but you can bet they will stop it as soon as it doesn't do that for them anymore.
Really? What is the point of that? I need 240V @ 60Hz, 24/7, about 200 amps worth at any given time. Exactly that; nothing else.
Quite so, however in the "free market" of Texas retail electric providers there are multiple rate plans to choose from. Do you wan electricity from windmills? They have a rate for that.. Do you want to pay for "time of use rates" so you can get nights and weekends nearly free? They have rates for that. How about a fixed rate for a known term or one monthly bill that never changes.... Yep, they have rates for that. How it gets delivered? Never going to change.
"broadband infrastructure development"
Is that still actually going on? I thought we sort of standardized on gigabit fiber. That should hold everyone for a long time, no?
Maybe, maybe not, but how will you finance getting fiber put into houses where the nearest infrastructure is 10 miles away?
Look, I have two current options for a wired internet connection where I live. There is a cable system and a fiber system. Then there are the multitude of wireless options. Seems to me that broadband (i.e. 1 Mbps or more) is pretty much ubiquitous for the bulk of the population of the united states. It is available NOW for the vast majority. How this is somehow twisted into a "problem" is beyond me...
However, we solved this kind of problem for rural electricity and telephone within the last 100 years without having government own the infrastructure or controlling it's development directly, and I suggest that if we insist on "fixing" this problem that we use the same techniques. They worked before.
Why change it now... Seems to be working fairly well to me...
Oh? You don't think so?
Well, I have TWO separate options for 100Mbps internet connections at my home, one from Time Warner Cable and the other from Verizon FIOS. PLUS, I have at least four wireless carriers that offer 1Mbps service (or better) if I choose to use them (and a whole host of WiFi based ISP's if my memory is correct). I seem to have a LOT of choices actually...
If you think the government is cheaper, you are sadly mistaken. Even with profit built into the equation, government is never going to be cheaper, better, faster. Now, you might be able to make your internet bill cheaper, but overall it will cost more for government to run this than a private company. The difference between what you pay and the actual cost will just come out of some other place, parks, roads, garbage pickup, police, fire or it will drive up your taxes.
There ARE some things that only government can do, but providing infrastructure for internet connections is not on that list in my book. Hiring police and fire departments, maintaining parks and roads IS on that list, but building and management of telecommunications infrastructure is not.
Right.... Look, I have a 25/25Mbps connection to my ISP and it comes over a connection that is fully capable of doing 10 Gig if Verizon really wanted it too. As it is, they offer 250Mbps using the existing hardware, which is more capacity that the bulk of the world has available. Not to mention that the local cable company ALSO offers service, up to 100Mbps which would enter my home on a different bit of infrastructure. I have two choices which offer service up to 100Mbps. This doesn't sound too shabby to me.
I also have mobile internet service which covers the majority of the USA and gives me 1Mbps service (usually) just about anyplace I've been, except perhaps on some camping trips where internet wasn't necessary...
So you somehow think the USA is second rate on internet connectivity? Perhaps, but what we do have isn't that bad..
I don't here many saying it's not *possible* only that it is not practical and cost effective.
Sure, you want automated trains, we can do that, but remember that our rail road system is a patch work of private and public companies which runs on a regulation scheme that was largely fleshed out before the turn of the 20th century (over 100 years ago). Plus, the incentive for automation by the rail roads would be largely cost, unless the regulations are forcing them into it. The salaries of the engineer and conductor on a train are a pittance compared to the total operating costs of the train, so there is little incentive to automate. Just keep the human in the loop, it's cheaper in the short term. Rail Roads run on razor thin margins... So profit today is very important.
The reason we are having this "camera" discussion is more about political points than actually trying to help the system get safer. Cameras won't help anything, except the political fortunes of those suggesting them. The vast majority of fatal accidents involving trains will never be prevented by cameras OR automation because they have to do with vehicles being on the tracks at crossings when the train arrives. You might have great video of the accident, or get the breaks applied a few milliseconds sooner with automation, but neither will prevent people getting killed..
A light rail system is a whole different ball game from the common rail system. Sure, if you could build a whole new system that only had automated trains on it, automation would be easy because you could purpose build the automation systems into your infrastructure.
However, in this case, the problem is pretty complex and where I think it *could* be automated with sufficient effort and cost, I seriously doubt it's going to be cost effective. Railroads run on razor thin margins as it is, with huge equipment and infrastructure maintenance costs, so I don't think they want to fund this. Paying some guy to "drive" is not a huge cost overall, and if it lets them keep their existing infrastructure and limp along for now, that's what they will do.
SO.. Unless they mandate this by regulation, the railroads won't step up and do it on their own. It's not like the transition from steam to diesel where there was a huge gain in operating costs and efficiency and a huge drop in manpower needed. When it was real profit, they couldn't build locomotives fast enough.
Because the engineer's salary is a pittance compared to the automation costs and the liability risks of turning hundreds of tones of vehicle loos on the public roadways. Railroads have already gone to great lengths to reduce their labor costs already. They are already down to TWO persons on a freight train running from Point to Point, and I don't see them really gaining from removing another one.... Passenger trains will ALWAYS have at least some employees on them....
This isn't about passenger safety, it's about doing *something* that can get you political points. "See! Look, I supported the placemen of video cameras in ALL trains for the safety of all involved!" Never mind that video cameras don't really add all that much information about what the engineer actually did or why they did it, and in the vast majority of fatal accidents in which trains are involved would provide exactly ZERO help to investigators into the cause of an accident.
It would be better to have a video camera that recorded what the engineer sees than one that records what they do if you ask me. But I can tell you what the video will show in about 99% of fatal accidents... Vehicle is on the tracks and the train cannot stop in time to keep from hitting it. If you where looking at the engineer's actions it would be put the breaks full on an retard the throttle, and possibly turning on the sander, brace for impact.
Interesting but you forgot some stuff... Often trains travel without being able to stop within the distance the engineer can see, so putting all the above in some kind of complex system still doesn't prevent the most common accidents. There is no way you can keep some nutty driver from parking a bus full of people on the tracks or some crazy gravel truck trying to beat the train across the crossing.
People are acting like the automatic enforcement of speed limits is going to fix the main source of train accidents, and it's simply not. Yea, it might keep trains from coming off the tracks in a turn once and awhile, but this is a tiny fraction of accidents.
Slashdot Mirror
We need to use HIGH voltage DC at about the same voltage as your house is now, forget about going "low voltage" DC.
No, we don't.
120v AC will kick you off of it if you touch exposed wires.
120v DC will cause you to clamp down if you grab onto a wire or device that electrocutes you, and worse still, it'll kill you at much lower voltages than AC.
Um, no, it's exactly the opposite situation. Both AC and DC can shock and kill at high enough voltages, but AC is what you cannot let go of and DC is what usually bumps you off. DC induces all your muscles to contract at the same time all at once which cause a quick jerk which often disconnects the victim, AC has the effect of pulsating all the muscles, which incapacitates the victim but not inducing one big jerk. The rule of thumb is that AC is about twice as lethal at the same current/voltage over DC.
I understand your confusion though. Most DC people are exposed to runs in the 5-48 volt range because this is what modern electronics usually use internally. Officially 48 volts is "dangerous" and "lethal" but in reality is not usually going to hurt you if you happen to cross it. However, the real dangerous stuff that is DC usually runs in the thousands of volts (A Tube TV 9K to 25K) or a radio amplifier (600V to 2.5Kv) which will kill you pretty quick if you become the path to ground. Normal 110V in your home usually takes awhile to kill you.
It's kind of amusing though to go back though the history of Edison/Westinghouse (DC/AC) debate. Edison used this problem of AC "grabbing" people over DC's safety to his advantage. He called electrocution "being Westinghoused" for a reason and electrocuted an elephant in a now famous film to make his point. Brilliant PR move, but a bad idea for electricity distribution.
Where there are increased dangers of using DC over AC, electrocution is actually one of the dangers that is reduced.
Less voltage = less eff. More voltage = more eff.
0.o
I think Tesla needs to go back to school. At low voltage, you can only push so many Watts before you run into resistance and heat issues. The higher the voltage, the more Watts you can push through the same size wire. This is why the car industry is moving towards 24 volt systems, because 12 volt systems max out at about 1.5KW's An ex. At 12 volts, my whats-a-ma-giger wants to consume 500 watts. for that much power, I will need to push ~"42" AMPS! Ho boy! Now that's an instant electrical fire! Now lets say my device runs on 110 volts and still consumes 500 watts. That's roughly about 5 amps we need to push (pull) down the line. Perfectly safe with standard house hold wiring.
So far, so good... Your understanding of electricity is fine so far...
And a second thing. DC requires MUCH THICKER CABLING at the same voltages and amperage than AC does. This is because you don't push the electrons in only one direction with AC, you push them back and forth and they never have to run all the way down the line leading to less long distance loss, and loss as heat. That is why we use AC. Could anyone imagine the size a DC cable would need to be at those high voltages?!
Um.. Not exactly true. DC requires thicker cabling because it is usually lower voltage and higher current (as you stated above). The flow of electrons changing directions is NOT an issue. The average current flow for the same power is the same, and it doesn't matter if it's AC or DC. In fact, AC might be argued to be a bit less efficient because you have to add all the reactive components to the AC current flow. Induction motors present high inductive (current lagging) loads, which means that there is actually MORE current flowing for the same power transfer in AC. Electrical engineers call this the "power factor" and it describes why Volts X Amps doesn't always equal power transferred (In fact it rarely does for anything but pure resistive loads.) So AC wires end up a bit larger for the same load...
Now what IS a problem for DC is protection of circuits. DC has a tendency to arc over when you try and turn it off, where AC doesn't do this as much by virtue of the fact that it's actually OFF (zero voltage and current) 120 times a second. There is a certain amount of inductance in any DC circuit that can sustain the current by generating some high voltage spikes as the magnetic field collapses. This increased arcing causes switch contacts to wear out faster and sometimes can be enough to sustain the circuit's current, though it's been turned off. Arcs are really hot too, so they can cause fires. But there are ways to deal with this (separating contacts by greater distances and opening them faster, or arresting the arc using capacitors).
So you are on the right track, but not correct on that last bit..
We need to use HIGH voltage DC at about the same voltage as your house is now, forget about going "low voltage" DC. MOST things in your home will run JUST FINE on DC with a few notable exceptions. AC induction motors will NOT work, nor will anything that involves an old fashioned transformer, but most modern electronics with switching power supplies work great on anywhere between about 90V to 200V DC without modification. Most switching power supplies just convert the AC into DC right up front and won't know the difference. So, all you do is provide inverters for the things you cannot easily change (like for your appliances) and just feed DC to the rest of the stuff that doesn't care. What you DON'T do is go to low voltage DC and suggesting this is just crazy talk. Why?
1. Most stuff just works on high voltage DC as discussed above. Most switching power supplies simply don't know or care about AC or DC and due to their efficiency switching power supplies are used in almost everything electronic.
2. It's easier (and more efficient) to use high voltage DC for charging the batteries. All you need is a rectifier to convert that 220 into about 250V DC and charge the batteries, which is about as simple and efficient as it comes.
3. It's easer (and more efficient) to make an inverter that uses high voltage DC as input. It's pretty easy to just flip the current one way then the other to get AC sufficient to run most induction motors and transformer powered devices.
4. It's more efficient to use higher voltage in terms of wire size because IxR losses are less for the same power transfer. Chances are the same wires you have now will be fine, but if you go to low voltage (say 13.8V like in your car) you are going to need bigger conductors to avoid the voltage drops over long high current runs. Use higher voltage and lower current, and stick with the wires you have.
5. Current battery technology for EV's and hybrids uses about 200V DC to start with, so there are less modifications to the technology when adapting to a home use. If we stick with a common battery pack voltage it will increase the economies of scale in their production and allow the use of old automobile packs that have reduced capacity as power storage in homes where the size and weight of the battery is less important. If you go low voltage, you either have to convert the 200V down to 12 or 48 (and incur the conversion loss) or modify the battery pack to operate at the lower voltage.
I know that traditional DC systems run at multiples of 12 Volts because they are usually built on Lead-Acid batteries and that much equipment is commercially available that uses 12 and 48 volts based on this. But going to 12 or 48 volts is not the right answer. It's really just the traditional solution based on past thinking and limitations. Running 200V DC is a more viable and long term solution that will work fine with a lot of existing AC equipment, plus is compatible with a ready source of batteries which are commercially available (and if purchased used, pretty cheap).
So, NO, we DON'T want to start using low voltage DC... We want to use HIGH voltage DC.
Whish that would work for the 2nd law of thermodynamics.... No THAT would be something...
Relativity requres that nothing can move through space as fast as light (c).
Not correct - light moves through space as fast as light. Nothing can move faster.
I've seen rumors that did....
I want the last 5 minutes back please.
Not until you violate the cosmic speed limit and go back in time..
But, you will find at least one for the vast majority of people.. Often more than one.
That's not to say there is viable competition everywhere, Only that broadband access is not really a serious problem.
The total number of nuclear weapons is in decline. They take a number of warheads out of service because they are old and replace them with fewer, more modern models which are "better" in some ways (more accurate, more yield, lighter, what have you). Overall there are fewer warheads. That's how.
And you sir are painting with a wide brush. Bad people do BAD things, one cannot deny that, but in China, the government selectively chooses not to enforce its laws and allows bad people to do bad things. So you now claim that ALL people do bad things because a few have in the past? Or, to put it another way, capitalism is bad because it is abused in China? Capitalism has its problems, but as a method for generating wealth and lifting the standard of living for the majority, it cannot be beat. And it certainly cannot be beat by a government program...
IF you want the full integrated experience, you got to stay with one vendor.... You know how this game is played, at least until the EU forces you to unbundle...
Was that Dolby B or C? Or.... The dreaded professional A format? DBX was better if you ask me. Oh wait, Hang on, I need to go clean my 8 Track...
How much you want to bet they just embedded the old media player?
You have more than one choice... Perhaps one wired choice is all you have, but there are other providers out there. I'm guessing they are more expensive and likely lower bandwidth, but you have choices.
Now, if you where *really* in the boonies, 10 miles from anywhere like where I grew up in South West Missouri, THEN, we had 2 viable broadband choices. A marginal Cell Phone based provider using a cell tower about 10 miles away or the Hughes satellite option which has broadband bandwidth and really long latency.
But I'm saying that for the VAST majority of people in the USA, broadband is available, usually from multiple vendors. I don't think we really have a huge broad band problem. Yea, there are places you won't get wired service, but the number of people who live in these areas is pretty limited.
At least as much as I do and I've been coding in C++ for about 20 years...
Now get off my lawn!
Seriously, Know enough to satisfy the intervener, how much is that? Who knows.... So go for as much as you can...
Really? Are we thinking about the same country?
China may be an emerging capitalistic economy, but they are very much un-capitalistic in their governance. That they choose to ignore the environment and don't care about the health and safety of their workforce is NOT what we have here in the USA and we never will.
But China is NOT an argument for government control, because China's government has absolute control, they simply do not care. China's quest is for power, economic and military, and they will use any means to improve their position, including allowing the worst abuse and environmental harm as long as it gets them what they want. You see, China is literally at war already, so lives and environment don't matter.
China's problems stem from government, not capitalism.... Capitalism is just one of the tools they are using to further their goals, but you can bet they will stop it as soon as it doesn't do that for them anymore.
"but offer varying rate plans and terms"
Really? What is the point of that? I need 240V @ 60Hz, 24/7, about 200 amps worth at any given time. Exactly that; nothing else.
Quite so, however in the "free market" of Texas retail electric providers there are multiple rate plans to choose from. Do you wan electricity from windmills? They have a rate for that.. Do you want to pay for "time of use rates" so you can get nights and weekends nearly free? They have rates for that. How about a fixed rate for a known term or one monthly bill that never changes.... Yep, they have rates for that. How it gets delivered? Never going to change.
"broadband infrastructure development"
Is that still actually going on? I thought we sort of standardized on gigabit fiber. That should hold everyone for a long time, no?
Maybe, maybe not, but how will you finance getting fiber put into houses where the nearest infrastructure is 10 miles away?
Look, I have two current options for a wired internet connection where I live. There is a cable system and a fiber system. Then there are the multitude of wireless options. Seems to me that broadband (i.e. 1 Mbps or more) is pretty much ubiquitous for the bulk of the population of the united states. It is available NOW for the vast majority. How this is somehow twisted into a "problem" is beyond me...
However, we solved this kind of problem for rural electricity and telephone within the last 100 years without having government own the infrastructure or controlling it's development directly, and I suggest that if we insist on "fixing" this problem that we use the same techniques. They worked before.
Why change it now... Seems to be working fairly well to me...
Oh? You don't think so?
Well, I have TWO separate options for 100Mbps internet connections at my home, one from Time Warner Cable and the other from Verizon FIOS. PLUS, I have at least four wireless carriers that offer 1Mbps service (or better) if I choose to use them (and a whole host of WiFi based ISP's if my memory is correct). I seem to have a LOT of choices actually...
So what problem are you thinking we have?
If you think the government is cheaper, you are sadly mistaken. Even with profit built into the equation, government is never going to be cheaper, better, faster. Now, you might be able to make your internet bill cheaper, but overall it will cost more for government to run this than a private company. The difference between what you pay and the actual cost will just come out of some other place, parks, roads, garbage pickup, police, fire or it will drive up your taxes.
There ARE some things that only government can do, but providing infrastructure for internet connections is not on that list in my book. Hiring police and fire departments, maintaining parks and roads IS on that list, but building and management of telecommunications infrastructure is not.
Right.... Look, I have a 25/25Mbps connection to my ISP and it comes over a connection that is fully capable of doing 10 Gig if Verizon really wanted it too. As it is, they offer 250Mbps using the existing hardware, which is more capacity that the bulk of the world has available. Not to mention that the local cable company ALSO offers service, up to 100Mbps which would enter my home on a different bit of infrastructure. I have two choices which offer service up to 100Mbps. This doesn't sound too shabby to me.
I also have mobile internet service which covers the majority of the USA and gives me 1Mbps service (usually) just about anyplace I've been, except perhaps on some camping trips where internet wasn't necessary...
So you somehow think the USA is second rate on internet connectivity? Perhaps, but what we do have isn't that bad..
I don't here many saying it's not *possible* only that it is not practical and cost effective.
Sure, you want automated trains, we can do that, but remember that our rail road system is a patch work of private and public companies which runs on a regulation scheme that was largely fleshed out before the turn of the 20th century (over 100 years ago). Plus, the incentive for automation by the rail roads would be largely cost, unless the regulations are forcing them into it. The salaries of the engineer and conductor on a train are a pittance compared to the total operating costs of the train, so there is little incentive to automate. Just keep the human in the loop, it's cheaper in the short term. Rail Roads run on razor thin margins... So profit today is very important.
The reason we are having this "camera" discussion is more about political points than actually trying to help the system get safer. Cameras won't help anything, except the political fortunes of those suggesting them. The vast majority of fatal accidents involving trains will never be prevented by cameras OR automation because they have to do with vehicles being on the tracks at crossings when the train arrives. You might have great video of the accident, or get the breaks applied a few milliseconds sooner with automation, but neither will prevent people getting killed..
A light rail system is a whole different ball game from the common rail system. Sure, if you could build a whole new system that only had automated trains on it, automation would be easy because you could purpose build the automation systems into your infrastructure.
However, in this case, the problem is pretty complex and where I think it *could* be automated with sufficient effort and cost, I seriously doubt it's going to be cost effective. Railroads run on razor thin margins as it is, with huge equipment and infrastructure maintenance costs, so I don't think they want to fund this. Paying some guy to "drive" is not a huge cost overall, and if it lets them keep their existing infrastructure and limp along for now, that's what they will do.
SO.. Unless they mandate this by regulation, the railroads won't step up and do it on their own. It's not like the transition from steam to diesel where there was a huge gain in operating costs and efficiency and a huge drop in manpower needed. When it was real profit, they couldn't build locomotives fast enough.
Because the engineer's salary is a pittance compared to the automation costs and the liability risks of turning hundreds of tones of vehicle loos on the public roadways. Railroads have already gone to great lengths to reduce their labor costs already. They are already down to TWO persons on a freight train running from Point to Point, and I don't see them really gaining from removing another one.... Passenger trains will ALWAYS have at least some employees on them....
This isn't about passenger safety, it's about doing *something* that can get you political points. "See! Look, I supported the placemen of video cameras in ALL trains for the safety of all involved!" Never mind that video cameras don't really add all that much information about what the engineer actually did or why they did it, and in the vast majority of fatal accidents in which trains are involved would provide exactly ZERO help to investigators into the cause of an accident.
It would be better to have a video camera that recorded what the engineer sees than one that records what they do if you ask me. But I can tell you what the video will show in about 99% of fatal accidents... Vehicle is on the tracks and the train cannot stop in time to keep from hitting it. If you where looking at the engineer's actions it would be put the breaks full on an retard the throttle, and possibly turning on the sander, brace for impact.
But, but... Google can drive a car you know.....
Interesting but you forgot some stuff... Often trains travel without being able to stop within the distance the engineer can see, so putting all the above in some kind of complex system still doesn't prevent the most common accidents. There is no way you can keep some nutty driver from parking a bus full of people on the tracks or some crazy gravel truck trying to beat the train across the crossing.
People are acting like the automatic enforcement of speed limits is going to fix the main source of train accidents, and it's simply not. Yea, it might keep trains from coming off the tracks in a turn once and awhile, but this is a tiny fraction of accidents.
Brings up a fun question... do Amtrak trains carry something similar to an aircraft in-flight recorder?
Yes, yes they do.