Lensman Apr 27, 2019

Caveat: Before I respond to this off-topic joke, I want to make it clear that I'm not a big fan of expending a great deal of time or money to build high speed rail. I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze. If anything, I'd prefer that we spend the money on commuter rail. But really, I'd rather we not spend the money at all. That said, and against my better judgement, I have to respond to say that the joke is incorrect in several aspects: 1. The least obvious, but most contradictory, is that "environmental groups" (as you call them) *are* concerned about the "dirty fuels" (as you call them) that are being used to generate the "clean electricity" (as you call it). Are you saying that environmental groups aren't advocating for generating electricity from renewable sources? This basic flaw in the argument actually totally undermines it's humor. Even if the underlying misinformation weren't false, the statement at its face is false. Weird. 2. Most obvious is the fact that "environmental groups" (as you call them) *are* advocating for the conversion of electricity generation to renewable sources. Does this not factor in? Is doing two things to solve a problem too complicated? Hmm. 3. In my post, I outline how using a non-renewable-fuel plant, combined cycle natural gas, is more efficient than directly using diesel to generate electricity in a diesel-electric train. Is more-efficient not a partway solution? 3. As more and more of the U.S. electricity supply converts over to wind and solar, electricity *will* become cleaner and cleaner. Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecasts that 50% of the U.S. electricity supply will be provided by wind and solar by 2050. It also notes that natural gas will replace coal and provide 40% of the U.S. electricity supply, replacing the 27% of electricity that coal currently provides. Note that all this replacement is driving by purely economic reasons. Also note that gas and renewables are "cleaner" (your term) than coal. My only disappointment is that BNEF predicts the retirement of most of the U.S. nuclear fleet by 2050. At any rate, I'm not sure how your post relates to my post answering @DisneyCane's question. I also list the high speed rail systems that use overhead electric catenary systems to deliver power and how for high speed passenger rail, this is more efficient because it saves weight. High speed (electric) trains weren't developed because they were less polluting, they were developed because they can be faster. (Read this quickly because I'm pretty sure it will be deleted because I think the moderators will decide that it's off-topic to the Brightline diesel-electric service between MCO and WDW)