Why aren't there plans for solar railways?

[hootinholler]

Just wondering. I mean Belgians have one, why can't we?



It seems to me that if we used the railbeds to build a humongous elevated solar panel array and ran trains underneath it it would be a big win.

Jobs, transportation, infrastructure, all at once.

There should be a line From Miami to L.A. via Atlanta, New Orleans, Huston, Las Vegas.

Too Socialistic? I bet it would cost less than Apollo did.

:shrug:

-Hoot

[Sherman A1]

1. But, I don't want to go to the Sun!

Seriously I think it's a great idea.

[hootinholler]

4. Well, the train would be in the shade. n/t

[mysuzuki2]

9. it could only run at night.

[elleng]

2. Why? HUMONGOUS!

:hi:

[hootinholler]

5. Ok, I'll never use the word again

If it gets built.

;)

:hi:

[gateley]

3. Why can't we have ANY kind of high speed rail? Europe and Asia have it!

We are so embarrassingly backward at times!

Kind of a country-wide version of Seattle. Here, people seem to refuse to acknowledge that Seattle isn't a small city any more and we've been trying for years to get rail, but we end up adding another HOV lane. :eyes: We have incredible gridlock so apparently the decision makers don't make the same commutes the rest of us do. It seems like that nationally. We don't need high-speed rail, we don't need solar, we don't need... Or if we DO, we trot out some half-baked "advancement" that is STILL decades behind other countries'. Crazy.

[RC]

6. Why don't we have High Speed Rail?

Because 3rd world countries do not need it. Our rulers know that it would be a waste of money to build. To many Living Wage jobs to build and maintain it.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. You nailed it. Same thing for high-speed internet. That's only

for up-and-coming countries like South Korea & Finland.

[BadgerKid]

7. Solar panels on roofs and highway medians

would be interesting.

[Sherman A1]

10. And parking lots

just think of the amount of solar that could be created by covering the parking at a large strip center or mall. It would also be nice to provide cover for shoppers to and from their cars, reduce some of the "heat island" effect that asphalt creates and help to make that same asphalt last longer.

[deminks]

11. Why? Because Big Oil would lose too much money.

and their lobbyists would lose their jobs, so solar is a job killer, see? and everyone knows big oil is a job creator and a person, so stifling their business is a violation of their first amendment rights. So, we are just gonna have to extend our bipartisan hand to them and apologize for thinking about solar. /sarcasm off.

[Posteritatis]

12. Everything these days is a NIMBY issue, sadly. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. It's a possibility; but it would be easier to maintain them in large arrays on the ground

As The Guardian article points out, the two mile stretch was going to be roofed anyway, to protect the lines from falling trees and branches; so they put solar panels on the roof. But they've only done it for that stretch. On the whole, building and maintaining a long, thin line of solar panels takes more work than a more rectangular array, that could also be at ground level. The USA isn't short of land that solar panels could be put on.

As for the general concept of a brand new transcontinental high speed line - well, yes, you do have to get a bit socialistic to do it - you have to obtain the land to do it on, and that means a lot of compulsory purchases by the government. And you have to balance the political cost of that (or financial, if you offer lots of money as compensation) against the gain. Rail works well over short and medium distances in populated areas, where the benefits of drawing traffic away from roads can be shown to benefit both the rail users and the remaining road users, and where it can compete on time with aircraft (with their longer times to load and unload, and their need for airports outside urban areas). Over thousands of miles, especially over sparsely populated areas like the American west, high speed rail may not be worth it.