BBC seek feedback on "future travel"

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:05:24 +0100, Tim Day
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

get over there and remind them bicycles exist.

"Some sort of 'courtesy' microchip implanted into car
drivers brains, so they do not attempt to treat non-car road
users (pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) as an obstacle to be
ignored, driven through or intimidated out of the way."

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Simon Brooke wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

We'll see what the BBC make of that!

"oooh look, another of those weirdo treehuggers" is my
projection :-(

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Simon Brooke said:

The world is running out of cheap energy, fast. Fuel cells
are not a solution to this, nor is hydrogen; the energy has
to come from somewhere.

If anyone gets fusion working, hydrogen could be a useful
way of transporting the energy. Yes, I know, cheap
plentiful fusion power isn't any closer than it was
supposed to be 20 or 30 years ago, but we are talking about
hypothetical future innovations. Building huge great solar
powered things in sunny climates and shipping hydrogen
elsewhere might work too, or offshore windfarms might run
electrolysis plants in place and pipe hydrogen ashore
instead of having electricity cables.

Quoted message said:

Future transport is going to involve a lot more pedal
cycles, and a lot more sailing ships. They probably won't
look much like old pedal cycles or sailing ships, because
they will exploit modern understanding of structures and
modern materials; but that's what they'll be.

We're also going to see a lot less travel altogether. Very
few people will commute further than they can walk (because
the cost will be prohibitive)

Don't these two paragraphs contradict each other? If there
are a lot of pedal cycles, commuting will mostly be
restricted to cycling distance not walking distance.

in message <[email hidden]>, Alan Braggins

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

The world is running out of cheap energy, fast. Fuel cells
are not a solution to this, nor is hydrogen; the energy
has to come from somewhere.

If anyone gets fusion working, hydrogen could be a useful
way of transporting the energy. Yes, I know, cheap
plentiful fusion power isn't any closer than it was
supposed to be 20 or 30 years ago, but we are talking
about hypothetical future innovations.

Sure. And if anyone starts mining the moon we'll have
infinite supplies of wensleydale cheese. Don't hold
your breath.

Quoted message said:

Building huge great solar powered things in sunny
climates and shipping hydrogen elsewhere might work too,
or offshore windfarms might run electrolysis plants in
place and pipe hydrogen ashore instead of having
electricity cables.

This might work. But how many square metres of solar panel
in the Sahara desert add up to the energy cost of one
commuter's car? I know the Sahara has a lot of surface area,
so in principle it could possibly be done. But producing all
those solar panels has an energy cost, too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Future transport is going to involve a lot more pedal
cycles, and a lot more sailing ships. They probably won't
look much like old pedal cycles or sailing ships, because
they will exploit modern understanding of structures and
modern materials; but that's what they'll be.

We're also going to see a lot less travel altogether. Very
few people will commute further than they can walk
(because the cost will be prohibitive)

Don't these two paragraphs contradict each other? If there
are a lot of pedal cycles, commuting will mostly be
restricted to cycling distance not walking distance.

I just find it hard to believe that for office type jobs,
commuting will continue at all. Working from home is just so
much more efficient and convenient. As people get used to
telecommunications I think the office will more or less die.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but
that's care in the community for you. -- Ben Evans

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Simon Brooke wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

We'll see what the BBC make of that!

"oooh look, another of those weirdo treehuggers" is my
projection :-(

Spotted! :-)

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

[ This .sig subject to change without notice
]

Simon Brooke said:

Alan Braggins said:

Building huge great solar powered things in sunny
climates and shipping hydrogen elsewhere might work too,
or offshore windfarms might run electrolysis plants in
place and pipe hydrogen ashore instead of having
electricity cables.

This might work. But how many square metres of solar panel
in the Sahara desert add up to the energy cost of one
commuter's car? I know the Sahara has a lot of surface
area, so in principle it could possibly be done. But
producing all those solar panels has an energy cost, too.

It wouldn't necessarily be PV panels. There are options like
solar chimneys with turbines in, or arrays of mirrors
powering steam boilers (with water pumped from the sea,
freshwater condensate being used for irrigation). ww-ww-Open ↗
w.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm?news_id=6774 says the
Mohave desert in California currently has 354MW from nine
solar plants, but it doesn't say what area they have.
wentworth.nsw.gov.ausolartowerOpen ↗ suggests 200MW
from a solar tower with collector with radius of 3.5 km
(10,000 hectares, 38 million square metres. So you could fit
thousands in the Sahara, if you had the $700 million to
build each one (presumably $ Australian on a .gov.au site).

All of which has energy costs too of course. Numbers will
depend on efficiency which depends on how much handwaving of
"future innovations" you want to allow.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't these two paragraphs contradict each other? If
there are a lot of pedal cycles, commuting will mostly be
restricted to cycling distance not walking distance.

I just find it hard to believe that for office type jobs,
commuting will continue at all. Working from home is just
so much more efficient and convenient. As people get used
to telecommunications I think the office will more or
less die.

Lots of people work in not-offices too. Employment patterns
will change as energy costs do of course, but if
manufacturing industry totally collapses, a lot of office
jobs will cease to exist too. If everyone at my current
office had to bike to work, we'd lose very few people. If
they had to walk, it would be far more. A certain amount of
telecommuting does happen already.

In article <i0otj1-
[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I just find it hard to believe that for office type jobs,
commuting will continue at all. Working from home is just
so much more efficient and convenient. As people get used
to telecommunications I think the office will more or
less die.

Speaking as a home worker, I'm always greatful for an
excuse to go into the office, it's nice to work with people
next to you, instead of on the end of IM or an internal ng.
Even though we have a vertual tea room on our internal ng
server, it can't replace actually going and making a cuppa
with a college.

I think you might be right though (in fact Ihope you are, my
job is directly linked to telecommuting!)
--
.paul

if at first you don't succeed... skydiving is probably not
the sport for you