CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving. A few years ago I had a holiday in Italy with a stopover
in Switzerland. Because of severe traffic problems we arrived at Ebbsfleet
station only 10 minutes before the departure of the Eurostar train to
Paris. We got through all embarkation procedure in nine minutes and were on
the platform when the train arrived. Try doing that at an airport.
High speed train coaches are much more pleasant than the cabins of
airliners. You can move around easily, there are large windows so you can
look at the scenery (or lack of scenery while you’re in the channel
tunnel).
Changing trains at Paris was a much less stressful experience than
airport transfers. And very much better than a transfer at Paris Charles de
Gaul airport, the worst airport I’ve ever been to. Arriving in Venice by
train where you the station entrance opens on to the Grand Canal is far
superior to flying to the nearby airport.

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the destination.. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 (not including the cost of the tickets) assuming they ever have reason to ride it at all.

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the destination.. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they never have reason to ride it at all.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:12:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

Now I'm glad we didn't. With the U.S. sliding into developing world
territory, becoming a has-been country, much of our scientific
infrastructure will be wasted. Better to see large projects like this
located in countries that have a future.

Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA
wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the
wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...ing-for-califo
rnias-over-budget-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF
but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much
of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment, but not
your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant
experience than flying or driving.

Pity the US isn't capable of building any high speed trains, only
dumping billions into welfare projects for unions that will never be
completed, and nobody will ride if they are.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:42:10 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 18 January 2019 10:15:29 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:12:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

Now I'm glad we didn't. With the U.S. sliding into developing
world territory, becoming a has-been country, much of our
scientific infrastructure will be wasted. Better to see large
projects like this located in countries that have a future.

The greenloons have already begun crying about it in Europe,
that the money could be spent instead on plants to such C02 out
of the air, that kind of thing. Speaking of sliding toward
being part of the "Third World."

We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific
infrastructure to build carbon sequestration systems and other
systems to minimize the impact of global warming.

Only if there's enough money to do both. People smarter than you (and
who isn't, you being a Chris and all) are skeptical that's the case.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Friday, 18 January 2019 10:15:29 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:12:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

Now I'm glad we didn't. With the U.S. sliding into developing world
territory, becoming a has-been country, much of our scientific
infrastructure will be wasted. Better to see large projects like this
located in countries that have a future.

The greenloons have already begun crying about it in Europe, that the money could be spent instead on plants to such C02 out of the air, that kind of thing. Speaking of sliding toward being part of the "Third World."

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:42:10 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 18 January 2019 10:15:29 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:12:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

Now I'm glad we didn't. With the U.S. sliding into developing world
territory, becoming a has-been country, much of our scientific
infrastructure will be wasted. Better to see large projects like this
located in countries that have a future.

The greenloons have already begun crying about it in Europe, that the money could be spent instead on plants to such C02 out of the air, that kind of thing. Speaking of sliding toward being part of the "Third World."

We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific infrastructure to
build carbon sequestration systems and other systems to minimize the
impact of global warming.