Originally Posted by
Mobile 155
If we play the game out who will be paying for all of the HSR projects? A politician that raises taxes to support something people aren’t willing to pay for will be in office for one term. Isn’t the plan to power the HSR with electricity?
We we have been told in California that the electric grid is stressed and are to to expect brown out every summer. Renewable energy isn’t up to the task yet and it may be years before it is , if ever. More nuclear is a possible solution but you run into the same NIMBY resistance to that. So electricity is generated by petrochemical power plants. Would we then be expected to build more of these plants?
Would we we need to increase taxes for both the HSR projects and build more power plants?
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
At least with EVs the customer buys the rolling stock. The customer can decide on an econobox or a luxury car. If the customer still has the option on flying would that not cut into HSR profits?
Putting 500 people in 10 train cars in a line so only the lead car/locomotive has to punch through the air and the rest follow through the 'tunnel' without the rolling resistance of tires on pavement is MUCH more energy efficient than lots of EVs driving separately down a highway with tires and no rails.
Nevertheless, EVs do get better mpg-equivalence than combustion-motorized cars, so there is a little improvement there, but still pales in comparison to buses, which are not as efficient driving separately than they would be drafting each other in close sequence as 'bus-trains,' which in turn are not as efficient as train-cars on rails.
Also, starting and stopping cause inefficiency, though regenerative braking recoups some of that energy, the way slowing down by coasting uphill allows you to recoup your energy for free by coasting down the other side of the hill.