THE FUTURE OF TRA/N/SPORTATION

Yes it sounds plausible. Trains have only been around for ~200 years, cars for half that, it's not set in stone.

Cities could easily put in the infrastructure to host charging loops and have cars go from charge point to charge point with no batteries, only supercapacitors.

I hate air travel so DGAF about their demise.

>>1026189
>This book argue that while future cars will need to run on electric power, no battery can replace gasoline’s high energy density.
LOL no, that's never going to work. The amount of infrastructure you'd have to install to make it work would run into the trillions, and it wouldn't be practical or even feasible for it to reach everywhere it needs to reach. Necessity is the mother of invention; better battery technologies are being created even as we speak. I also personally suspect that the energy industry has been buying up new technologies and sitting on them, perhaps for decades, waiting for the right time to maximize their profits, after of course fossil fuels and other 'traditional' energy sources are played out, so they can maintain their dominance of the global energy market. People will always want personal vehicles, and personal vehicles will always need to be able to go anywhere, and under their own power. Therefore being tied to a public electric grid just isn't practical, except for mass transit in urban settings.

Now, here in the U.S., at least for the next 4 years, we'll be stuck with a loudmouthed fat lying asshole who, with the backing of the GOP, will try to turn back the clock 50 years and put us back into being dependent on fossil fuels, raping the land (even the national parks system I'm imagining) and screw the consequences to the environment. We'll have fatasses in their equally fatass SUVs that get 10mpg filling up 30 gallon tanks for $0.99 per gallon. Wouldn't at all be surprised if they abolish the use of catalytic converters and smog controls and bring back leaded gasoline, too. If you live here in the U.S., I'd worry more about the NEAR-TERM future of transportation (and everything else!) and less about the FAR-TERM future.

>>1026198
>I hate air travel so DGAF about their demise.
LOL without air travel we would still likely be living in little more than agrarian subsistence-farming societies with no high-tech.

>>1026206
>without air travel we would still likely be living in little more than agrarian subsistence-farming societies with no high-tech.
uhh, no

>>1026206
As pessimistic as this post is - I agree.

Until gasoline gets so expensive as to be unaffordable, not much is going to change. Our global dependence on oil for transport is a massive tragedy of the commons and even if a few countries or localities change their habits, the global economy is going to keep demanding oil until it's practically impossible to afford.

>>1026206
>LOL without air travel we would still likely be living in little more than agrarian subsistence-farming societies with no high-tech.
LOL

Definitely not personal pods.

>>1026198
>I hate air travel so DGAF about their demise.
You're an outlier in economic terms. Long-haul travel (especially intercontinental) will continue to be by air as it makes a lot of sense to do that in terms of OVERALL efficiency. There'll probably be a lot less mid-range and short-range air though; not none, but less.

>>1026189
the entire US economy is rigged on oil. we went off the gold standard but we're basically on the oil standard. since '73 OPEC has traded exclusively in US dollars, which effectively stabilizes the value of the dollar against the price of oil

this is why the US is always at war in the middle east and why we need Israel to be our ally in the region. but anyway

so >>1026215
what that guy said with a vengeance.

.... Randomly saw a comment on 2ch, that said why would small European countries lole Switzerland, Austria or Slovenia even have their own airlines? They can simply build a high speed rail line to like Germany and that will be more than sufficient.

>>1029600
uneducated post

>>1026189
I don't get why we have to reinvent the wheel with this shit. It seems to me that whole argument is based on wanting to have your cake and eat it too: We want to be ecological and modern and whatnot, but still drive our cars everywhere. FUCK NO

Just reduce car use to the bare minimum, this isn't at all complicated, you just need all kinds of restrictions and to significantly expand intercity rail and bus lines, you can electrify the buses with trolleywires. Partly you can pay for this with all kinds of new taxes on car use.

Air travel can be made unnecessary on many shorter overland routes by a combination of HSR (where it's viable) and overnight sleeper trains. Again, if you simply have enough restrictions and taxes on air travel these other modes will be competitive by themselves.

To varying degrees Europe is already doing this, and the results are very promising. You just have to go full throttle with these concepts and give a big middle finger to the auto and oil industries who are constantly blocking this.

>>1029600
Simply looking at our present use of oil, it seems like the use of petroleum products will stay strong for a long time. But there's so many other factors:
1) Solar and wind energy now cost less than oil and their prices are expected to drop even further:
2) Self-driving cars will be more like a gimmick for the average driver. However, that same automation will have a huge impact on interstate trucking. Companies are having difficulty hiring enough drivers and whatever new system they come up with might not involve oil.
3) If there's enough available cheap energy derived from renewable sources, then some of the systems that are currently being developed to make synthetic fuels like hydrogen might become cost efficient. Why go to all the trouble of drilling, pumping, transporting, and refining if you don't have to?

Changes in energy consumption don't come from government edicts or cartels. They come from new technologies and economics. In short, don't bet on oil.

>>1032099
Other sources of hydrocarbons (synthetic, bifuel) will translate well in the oil infrastructure. A matter of time.
Would betting on electricity for synthetic fuels be a high hope. Thermal will have better efficiency now. Nuclear and the quiet solar thermal.

File: 680_HSReffic.jpg (30KB, 680x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 680x480px

>>1026189
>What's the future of the transportation system, in your country and in general?

I can telly you how the present looks like. In places like Europe where gas is already expensive.

>Thus, they argue that for intercity travel, cars would be replaced by vehicles directly connected to the gird, like trams/streetcars or trolleybuses (for intracity travel, they propose would be done by high speed rail.

There are trams and buses running on electricity. Also commuter rail and high speed rail. There are also rapid bus services between cities. People also travel by car. Inside cities bicycles and electric bicycles are very popular.

> Air travel would sadly decline except for certain intercontinental routes).

Air travel is cheap and popular as well. People travel more then ever. I guess this will not chance in future.


We will not run out of oil within your lifetime. It will just slowly become more expensive. Luckily we got decades to adapt.

>>1026189
Theres no way modern shipping will survive an oil crisis.

>>1035029
oil crisis damage aviation more than shipping ...

>>1026189
More intercities will use bike delivery so they dont have to pay for gas

More intercities will use ebikes to dilute the number of bikers. This will drive biker wage down. But real bikers will manage to win as long as the human body is morr efficent then ebikes.

Longboat cargo ebikes are hardest to steer but easiest to clear. Longbikes with integral racks will be big as well. Dont expect anyone to do the obvious and motorize lhts tho.

Eventually all innercity delivery will be done by electric vehicles out of economic convience - esp with the right laws to guide it

>>1035238
>intercities delivery
>bike
????

>>1032092
>Air travel can be made unnecessary on many shorter overland routes by a combination of HSR (where it's viable) and overnight sleeper trains. Again, if you simply have enough restrictions and taxes on air travel these other modes will be competitive by themselves.

>To varying degrees Europe is already doing this


All European rail companies have killed or are in the process of killing their sleeper cars services.

I would know because i do bike touring and favor sleeper cars over air travel to bring my bike in the country i want to tour. It's becoming impossible.

>>1035265
Europe is too small and the marginal part of its high speed rail is too underdeveloped. In ideal situation a passenger should be able to ride from Lisbon to Moscow by high speed rail with 10-15 hours, and that would not require sleeper train service. Note that currently passengers prefer plane over train when wtrain journey time exceed 4 hours, but the critical poibt should move upward if energy price is to be increased massively or new, cheap non-fossil energy source cannot be used on plane

>>1035048
They're both fucked.

File: 1477616251963.png (342KB, 432x464px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 432x464px

>>1026206
1. that's all retarded
2. your salty tears are delicious
3. kys