Quote:
Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL
so they're shooting for around a thousandth of an atmosphere. that's not that high of a vacuum, but if you're evacuating a tube that's hundreds of miles long you have to have LOTS of pumps pumping continuously. that's a huge power draw. plus the structural concerns associated with pressure differentials.
anyway, i have no doubt they can build it. the question is, is it more practical than high speed trains? or does it offer a substantial-enough leap in efficiency to justify the infrastructure costs? maybe so, but i'm skeptical.
|
I agree they will need to add the pumping load to the energy calculations, and balance that against the reduced cost of air friction.
However, if they can use that energy investment to reach speeds like 600-700 MPH, now you can compete with more airplanes on the long end, and more cars on the short end. And airplanes and cars are not very energy efficient.
HSR is a much tougher competitor when it comes to energy-efficiency. But the point is if the higher speeds lead to a lot more airplane and car replacement, the net energy efficiency gains could be a lot higher, even if it doesn't beat HSR itself.