Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Bloomberg Originals" channel.

That company was founded in 2016 by engineering students who won part of Musks competition, they now are in the planning stage of building a 3km test track (the one you saw in this video was the first one build in Europe btw, however small it may be, you aren't going for a massive one to start you development), they are now getting the permits for it. At this moment that company has grown to around 50 employees if I am correct and several large bussiness partners.
33
There are plenty of high speed trains and the EU expects/plans this to double in the EU (from the +--3000-3500km now to 7000km in around 10-15 years). Hyperloop companies don't only operate in the US.
26
Elon also likes to sometimes just promote/throw out some ideas, especially those that might complement his existing companies (like the boring company). He probably is now just waiting to see how it plays it. As it is he btw has already enough on his plate with SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink and the Boring company.
12
@dogwalker666 The same was said about planes in the past, so we'll see. I believe mass transit will be necessary for it to be successful anyway.
7
@dogwalker666 If hyperloop is successfull (which we don't know now), it certainly would be used.
6
In 20 years most road transport and much of sea transport will either be electrified or use green fuel, oil will by then mostly be used for things like the petrochemical industry. Don't underestimate how fast a transition can happen. By 2025 EV's are expected to reach price parity with fossil fuel cars. Renewables already are less expensive than most other forms of power generation. Their main drawback is variability and the consequent system costs (back-up plants, storage, grid infrastructure, ...), but grid storage should be lowered enough around 2030-2035 to make renewables+storage competitive with almost any other power generation source.
4
@foxfire5235 Rail is most definitely not cheaper than shipping. Yes it is around 2-3 times faster, but most trade between (for example) EU and china is not time sensitive, if it is, often it will be shipped by air. In most cases the reduced cost is more than worth the extra time. Hell, shipping companies even often operate at reduced speed, just to save some on fuel and costs. If time was of great importance they wouldn't do this. The difference in scale is just too big. The 'hidden' cost of a navy is irrevelevant, countries would still have navies anyway, whether trade goes on land or by sea. the train is 14.85km long! And which train might this be? Since the longest operational trains are around 4km long, never has a train even breached 10km length for so far I know. A train is limited in length by many different factors: traction, couplings, curves, gradients, braking, ... And this is just the technical reasons. From a logistic perspective it isn't really interesting to have really long trains, overall they don't provide much added benefit and can even have a negative outcome.
3
@equinox2584 An idea that he stole? Revived maybe yes, but it is not stolen. And no, he just doesn't have time, he is alreadt too busy revolutionaring the space industry, pushing EV's, neurological development and tunnel boring (and just to make sure, I am not saying he is doing all the engineering etc. himself, but he is managing it all). He just doesn't have time to keep creating new companies/ventures for every idea he has/likes/revives.
3
@t.1000. They have both usually as a safety matter. I don't think there is a large wind turbine like this without brakes anywhere.
3
increasing military spenditure isn't going to anything against isis attacks on US soil, unless ofcourse the military is being used inside the US for normal security jobs, but I think that was not the case. In order to increase the safety of US citizens against terror attacks, the police, fbi, ... budgets should be increased not the military.
2
@brianmorris3290 Actually there is quite a lot of material that can withstand it. This kind of low pressure isn't anything new really. And the size of the system in length doesn't matter in regards to the vacuum, it is the diameter that counts. There already is a test tunnel of 1km used for a university competition hosted by The boring company (due to Elon Musk), and several hyperloop companies are now in the planning stage (like permits) for longer testtracks, they wouldn't be if they hadn't figured out how to make it.
2
C caymer Labor costs are higher? Really? Average cost in the Netherlands for farmers is around 23 dollars an hour, this means an 8 hour day costs 183 dollar. The average wage in the US for farmers is 11 dollars, or twice as low. Quit talking bullshit. In this video they said that the dutch use around half their land for farming (they too have protected grounds like the US and ofcourse need to live there), in the US the land used for farming is around 44% of the total landmass, or not much different from the Netherlands. Sure the US might focus more on livestock, but maybe this is exactly the reason why they need to innovate their farming, to optimise their land use, afterall much of their grown food is also used to feed the lifestock.
2
@kennordsfan1494 For oecd countries 55% of the oil demand is for road transport or electricity generation, around 13,6% was used for the petrochemicals and the remaining 31% wasn't specified, but there are likely savings possible here too. Reducing oil usage to 25% of current consumption is definitely be doable. In the US in 2020 66% of petroleum consumption was for transport, 28% for industrial, 3% residential, 2% commercial and 1% for electric power. So saying that 60% is for the petrochemical industry is just plain wrong.
2
Most hyperloop companies don't even exist 5-6 years. That is nothing for something like this. Hyperloop, even if successfull, will not be really around for anothe 10-15 years, and this would be just for the first lines.
2
@1sydman1 Wind turbines? I believe it was worldwide something like 500k-1million, for comparison, yearly several billion birds die in total.
2
@Nickle314 There has been a measurable rise in global temperature, so global warming isn't wrong. However this doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere, for example melting ice can cause more colder water to be brought to the US east coast, causing harsher winters. That there is a rise in global temperature isn't disputed in the scientific community.
2
I think it was the next 7-8 combined, but still way too much though
1
Rail is not really a one time investment, its maintenance also costs a lot of money.
1
@Trevor_Austin Yeah, but a submarine is a lot bigger in diameter. The larger the diameter the higher the force on it. A much smaller tube can get away with a much thinner hull.
1
@ThePrashu31 Which one?
1
@bademoxy I don't know Ontario's green plan, so without more information I can't comment on it, but costing 8 times more than nuclear is ridiculous, either you are using way too cheap numbers for nuclear or Ontario must have started the transition really hard several years ago when renewables were still much more expensive. After looking into it, it indeed looks like Ontario was just really early. By 2015 they had 9% renewable, by 2018 10%, 7% being wind. Now lets look at how the prices evolved, in 2009 (when Ontario launched the GEA) wind LCOE was around 135$/MWh, for solar 359$/MWh. In 2015 it was 55$/MWh and 64$/MWh respectively and in 2018 42$/MWh and 43$/MWh (large installations and for solar prices might be higher in Ontario). Considering this Ontario just installed "a lot" of renewables at a time when its prices was still very high. And the installed capacity isn't becoming cheaper overtime, only newly installed capacity. So all the renewables installed before 2015 will remain costly for their +-25 year lifespan, at best being drowned out by more cheaper generation in the coming years. As for nuclear, which prices did you use? Those from the old powerplants or actual new figures?
1
@jcmazrizona No, the infrastructure isn't far far away, the only thing really missing is storage, which by 2030 is expected to be cheap enough for renewable+storage to be competitive with most other generation methods. As for nuclear, that has over time only increased in cost, current new nuclear plants in the west are rated at something like 60-70$/MWh when construction finishes, while renewables are rated at around 40$/MWh (large scale) and still falling, though much slower now than in the past years, probably going to truly flatten out at around 10-25$/MWh by 2040. Now, overal system costs for renewables are still more expensive once you get to more than +-25-30% renewable, but that is between 25-100% more, definitely doable to get down enough by 2030-2035
1
@PersonOfInterestnet The hyperloop would be more in competition with high speed rail and planes though, not necessarily cars (though maybe a bit).
1
Nuclear is not making a comeback, even your reporting here makes that clear. There is only more talk again about it, which isn't at all the same. The only way for it to comeback is if the costs of the large powerplants really decrease or is SMR's life up to the hype, something that isn't clear yet and might very will prove to be wrong.
1
@ArawnOfAnnwn The case is that it might replace planes on continental routes (being faster in travel and easier to use as a commuter). Theoretically if adopted in scale it can also be used to transfer cargo over large distances, taking away some train/truck cargo over long distances. Moreover it could help with things like expensive housing near large cities, since you could have commuters travel from much further away suburban area's to the cities in a much smaller time. Possibly even have people change work to a different city (like from Brussels to Paris, or LA to SF) without having to also move to a new home. There are many possible applications for hyperloop transport, the main question is whether it will be economical compared to the competition it will need to replace.
1
@ArawnOfAnnwn The difference would/should be that hyperloop would actually be faster than planes, the ones you mentioned aren't (maglev due to the higher air pressure at ground level).
1
@ArawnOfAnnwn I am not saying it will, I am saying that would be part of the goal/competition. Ofcourse it won't replace planes that need to cross bodies of water even if it is successful.
1
Problem with that is the security it will need. For a large datafarm, I guess it can be worth it, but overall decentralised SMR sites are likely not viable. Maybe forming large sites of many SMR's might be a solution, but then the question is if you're not better of using the advantage of scale and just standarize the large nuclear plants instead.
1
@albertawildcat3164 It is better to do 250 times 12 divided by 52 to get an accurate per week estimation. With 4 weeks per month you only get 48 weeks in a year, instead of 52.
1
@albertawildcat3164 What is minimal savings? An EV? If so then yes, at this time an EV isn't financially much better unless you could buy it at a similar price of ICE cars (price parity is expected around 2025), then it does save quite a lot overall (not just fuel). It also depends where you live, in Europe for example the gas prices are rather high (though electricity prices are higher too), so you could possibly save more there, in the US with low gas prices maybe less, unless he has access to cheap electricity.
1
@dogman2387 Renewables + grid storage are currently indeed cheaper than nuclear, however it is expected that around 2035 that combination will be cheaper than nuclear. So if you decide to build a new nuclear powerplant now, it will start operation around the same time it will have to compete with a cheaper just as reliable source.
1
@WinterXR7 Solar panels can be placed on roofs, parking lots (US has a lot of untapped potential here with their car centric design) and even combined with farms (agrovoltaics). This latest can even boost crop growth in more arid regions by providing some extra protection against the sun.
1
@1sydman1 Neither do the deaths caused by glass, cats, pollution, ... need to occur. Are we going to give all that up? Are we going back to medieval times? Maybe even prehistoric times? Many more birds die due to fossil fuel than wind turbines for the record. And in Germany they are testing systems that can see when birds are near and can shut down the wind turbines when really necessary, or at least slow them down a bit.
1