this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
275 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59421 readers
2842 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (21 children)

Trains are easy and they're easily electrified already. So putting solar on the trains won't have any advantage.

Rails are the difficult part of railways. They never seem to put them between my house and my work. They've put something called a road in between instead.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (20 children)

I presume they meant to put in railway infrastructure.

Railways cost so much less than one highway, we could have a system basically from home to work.
(eg smol trams to a midway se station to high-speed trains)

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

Is that true in California? Caltrain is costing $5.15 billion per mile.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Caltrian is not California High Speed Rail

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok? The point is that rail development is expensive and like an order of magnitude the cost of Aptera. Ideally we could do both but they shouldn’t be put into the same bucket.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No it's not, railway infrastructure comes at a fraction of a cost of highways, the maintenance alone, all the tires, fuel, insurance, etc of cars, even the environment impact (in like the area they cover/destroy) is minute.

All that costs, somebody has to pay.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Really? So we can install thousands of miles of rail for under a billion dollars? Let’s do it!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

For raw resources sure, its properties acquisition that gets expensive. You still have to pay even with imminent domain and thats not getting into legal battles and the like. But at least in my neck of the woods I wish they could acquire the old industrial rails and use them for transport for workers.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)