 
     |
| Is it something in the air ? (Page 2/20) |
|
MidEngineManiac
|
SEP 23, 08:36 PM
|
|
He aint trying very hard.
|
|
|
|
Cheeper2keeper
|
SEP 23, 09:53 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I can think of basic systems engineering reasons for singling out the trucks that serve container ship ports and rail yards for a first wave of freight truck electrification.
|
|
You really are a simpleminded little child aren't you?
Your "basic systems engineering" mind never once conceived of actually placing rail lines inside shipping ports, in a manner that has been done all over the world for over a century.
If only you were a small fraction as smart as you believe yourself to be.
 [This message has been edited by Cheeper2keeper (edited 09-23-2022).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
SEP 24, 04:45 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Cheeper2keeper:
You really are a simpleminded little child aren't you? |
|
Aren't you the same little ant I pissed away from the porcelain rim and into the flush bowl the other day?
I'm not the most fastidious of housekeepers.
Now for anyone else who might be reading along, I've been connecting my remarks in this thread to a scenario that already exists. It's the Siemens Mobility eHighway demonstration project in Carson, California. The last update on it that I have seen is from January 31, 2018. I'd like more current information on it, but I would have to do more searching online.
"First U.S. eHighway Launched In California By Siemens"
Mark Kane for InsideEVs; January 31, 2018.
https://insideevs.com/news/...lifornia-by-siemens/
This article has text, photo images and a diagram, and a 3-minute YouTube video.
Here is another (similar) YouTube video (just under 4 minutes) that was posted as the "Siemens eHighway Animation, Port Application."
It must be from articles and videos like these that I have the idea of setting up an electrified roadway of this kind as a connecting route for trucks to move freight from a container ship port to a nearby rail yard, and vice versa.
If MidEngineManiac (he started this thread) were to peruse either of these relatively brief YouTube videos, he would see how this modernized overhead electrification system for trucks takes the old city trolley systems that he remembers to a new level of flexibility and sophistication.
As far as Cheaper2keeper, he should stop taking stupid pills. What a dumb-ass comment from him, that I quoted at the start of this post.
If you already have a container ship port and a rail yard that are connected by a public roadway with diesel-powered trucks moving freight in both directions, from ship to rail and rail to ship, how do you "de-carbonize", as a way to reduce the greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions? I think this must be a not uncommon scenario in the United States, because otherwise, I don't think it would have already been "living rent free in my head" when I decided to "go big" with this thread.
Yeah, you could build new railroad tracks and have the freight trains go directly into the container ship port. But is that the most feasible of improvements? The most cost-effective option over the not so many years in the future that planners in the United States have to work with?
The connecting public roadway is already in place. Where would you put the new railroad tracks? Is there room for it alongside the roadway? Maybe not. Maybe you'd have to acquire and demolish whatever structures are already there, alongside the roadway. How feasible is that?
Do you just replace the public roadway with new railroad trucks? Besides the trucks, there are also passenger cars that are moving through the area on this roadway. What would become of the passenger car traffic? With the Siemens eHighway system, all of that passenger car traffic is still served by the same roadway.
Cheaper2keeper ought to electrify his brain, because lately, whenever he comes online here to post his asinine trolling of me (a new thing on this forum), his brain isn't working worth s**t.
The other day, on another thread, he called me a "manky little muppet." For now, and for at least this one message, I've decided simply to respond in kind. But if he keeps it up, with more of the same childish insults and trash talk that he's been posting for my attention, I may take it up with the forum moderator. (I've had some recent success, in that way.)
Cheaper2keeper needs to address whatever topics are being discussed more directly, and keep his opinions about other forum members out of the conversations.
Really.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-24-2022).]
|
|
|
|
WonderBoy
|
SEP 24, 08:18 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
...
As far as Cheaper2keeper, he should stop taking stupid pills. What a dumb-ass comment from him, that I quoted at the start of this post.
If you already have a container ship port and a rail yard that are connected by a public roadway with diesel-powered trucks moving freight in both directions, from ship to rail and rail to ship, how do you "de-carbonize", as a way to reduce the greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions? I think this must be a not uncommon scenario in the United States, because otherwise, I don't think it would have already been in my mind when I decided to "go big" with this thread. |
|
You've got K-Marx on your mind.
Also, how do you know that poster is a "him". Practice what your K-Marx party tpreaches.
Your idea of "go big", causes inflation to rise and retirements to shrink.
| quote | | Yeah, you could build new railroad tracks and have the freight trains go directly into the container ship port. But is that the most feasible improvement? The most cost-effective over the years in the future that planners in the United States have to work with? |
|
Who are these planners, hmm? Masons? Illuminati? Enlightenati?
Those who have a hard-on for fully automated communism with fully automated outcomes with a 65% reduction in population? Who needs all this transportation of goods when less will be around and less goods to be used? Your state of commiefornificatya have been poor planners of most cost-effective methods. Everything you K-Marx shoppers do bring costs up, ON EVERYTHING!
| quote | | The connecting public roadway is already in place. Where would you put the new railroad tracks? Is there room for it alongside the roadway? Maybe not. Maybe you'd have to acquire and demolish whatever structures are already there, alongside the roadway. How feasible is that? |
|
Hasn't stopped big gov from doing it before. Ask the tools that run your s(t)inking state that love short distance rail projects that they need to keep getting more money from the federal teet (from other states tax payers) to spend due to over budgeting, FRAUD and elitist back scratching.
| quote | Cheaper2keeper ought to electrify his brain, because lately, whenever he comes online here to post his asinine trolling of me (a new thing on this forum), his brain isn't working worth s**t.
The other day, on another thread, he called me a "manky little muppet." For now, and for at least this one message, I've decided simply to respond in kind. But if he keeps it up, with more of the same childish insults and trash talk that he's been posting for my attention, I may take it up with the forum moderator. (I've had some recent success, in that way.)
Cheaper2keeper needs to address whatever topics are being discussed more directly, and keep his opinions about other forum members out of the conversations.
Really.
|
|
Whambulance
Whambulance
I hear the Whambulance.
Typical.
C2K pointed out that many high traffic shipping ports already have rails onsite that then go to big railyards, then switched to another train to a destination and so on till reaching closest railyard of final destination that then goes by truck, and YOU/IT couldn't handle it. You want the entire WORLD to be just like an Amazon warehouse, little robotic carts moving goodies from point A to point B/C/D-Z. You watched Minority Report/iRobot/West World/Total Recall (2012)/WEF/TED talks in your basement and start thinking:
This is what we need, FULLY AUTOMATED TRANSPORTATION of goods and carbon based lifeforms. Hidden track guides in roads for autonomous vehicles to follow. NOW NOW NOW, no waiting, I want it NOW. And we'll USE the power of Authoritarian Government to Dictate to private business and citizens to make it so. 2030 or bust. We all gonna die... again.
You're an intolerable KNOW-IT-ALL that gets little bits of info on various topics from the inet. You're NO engineer, you just play one behind your stained keyboard. Nor are many of those in (s)elected office. They mostly hire outside consultants and contractors from the private sector to bring most of their looney wet-dream fantasies to life.
Back away from your keyboard, go out and get one of those burritos with special THC sauce and chill out. Or get something from one of your MANY local sidewalk occupying tent encampment feces throwers.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
SEP 24, 08:59 AM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by WonderBoy: |
|
NO.
If Cheaper2keeper wanted to bring up the idea that there could be railroad tracks going directly into the container ship ports, as he says there are in other countries, that's all he had to do. What he said in the personal way (about me) was 100 percent stupid on his part. Completely uncalled for.
Did you take the time to read my last message (before this one) with care? The message I started by quoting Cheaper2keeper. The message that you (WonderBoy) have just been analyzing.
I "Read-o-Meter'd" my message. The time that an average reader would need to read all the way through it with care.
THREE MINUTES.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-24-2022).]
|
|
|
|
Raydar
|
SEP 24, 01:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
WonderBoy
|
SEP 24, 03:40 PM
|
|
Many of the comments were exactly what I was thinking. Charge during the day? That is peak grid usage time. Charge at work? I'm sure the employers are more than willing to foot the bill for that, unless big green D-evil gov using its dictator boot forces more private enterprise to comply.
I'm all for alternatives, when it happens gradually. What's going on now, is a massive worldwide control/power grab. Anyone looking to do something this fast is either crazy or downright stupid.
Anyone remember in the 90's when green power saving was added to computers? 200/300watt power supplies for a pentium with an 8mb early 3d accelerator card. Now? 700-1200watts. Yet I never hear a darn thing about that consumption. You've also got data centers popping up all over the US/world with 1000's of 24/7 365 servers/nas running. Can't forget the backup mega fossil fuel generators. Tech gets a free pass. Why? Because it will be what will fully control every aspect of what lives the elites see fit to inhabit this planet.
|
|
|
|
Cheeper2keeper
|
SEP 24, 05:36 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I may take it up with the forum moderator. (I've had some recent success, in that way.)
|
|
My God, what astounding arrogance. You are actually boasting that you can manipulate Mr. Pennock to do your personal bidding.
I'm sure he will be pleased to know that the manky little "systems engineering" muppet considers him to be his puppet.
You are to be commended for your personal efficiency though. Combining such an epic amount of arrogance and ignorance into one small package.
|
|
|
|
Valkrie9
|
SEP 25, 12:54 AM
|
|
No more Blah ! Blah ! Blah !
Blowing Hot Air, lol Al Gore too, the flim flam man.
Why, if it wasn't for Otto's engine, we all would be following oxen tail, like back in the 19th century.
Otto Engine - Diesel Engine
Back to burning wood and coal to heat homes and drive industry, to weaken the economy into depression.
Luddites of the 21st century, calling for disarmament too, no more nukes !
You just try to recover reparations from Al Gore, compensation for loss of assets and jobs.
The dawn of the industrial revolution, what made the victories over totalitarianism possible, and why today their minions advocate disarmament.
Steamships of the Crimean War coal fired.
Without power, without energy, a nation will collapse.
What is in the water, is a Seven-Per-Cent Solution
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
SEP 25, 01:23 AM
|
|
Back by popular demand, for an encore presentation... The Siemens video (just under 4 minutes) that was posted on YouTube on May 2, 2016 as the "Siemens eHighway Animation, Port Application."
Siemens. Brings to mind the notable TV pitchman of years past, Vince Shlomi, hawking the ShamWow cleaning cloths...
"And you know the Germans always make good stuff."
I'm kind of a "sucker" for the Siemens overhead road electrification technology, because it gave rise to that very captivating YouTube animation. But is it ready for "prime time"..? Is there going to be any carryover from that demonstration project that I posted previously in this thread?
"First U.S. eHighway Launched In California By Siemens"
Mark Kane for InsideEVs; January 31, 2018.
https://insideevs.com/news/...lifornia-by-siemens/
That report is from January 31, 2018.
The only clue that I've turned up is from the (California) South Coast Air Quality Management District's 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. This document, dated May 12, 2022, has a section about the possibilities for overhead power lines (catenary lines) to provide electrified road corridors for cargo trucks.
| quote | Control Measures EGM-01, MOB-02A, MOB-02B, MOB-06 and MOB-07 could potentially encourage the use [of] overhead power lines (catenary lines) to provide electricity. The areas affected by the proposed zero emission and low NOx control measures that could result in the installation of catenary lines are expected to be located in commercial, industrial areas, and along existing Initial Study Chapter 2–Environmental Checklist 2022 AQMP 2-7 May 2022 truck and rail transportation corridors.
The truck and rail corridors likely to be involved are primarily associated with rail yards and intermodal facilities in industrial zones within Southern California. Examples of these areas include, but are not limited to, the Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, and industrial areas in and around container transfer facilities near the Terminal Island Freeway, along the Alameda Corridor, as well as inland rail yards near downtown Los Angeles.
The nearest scenic highway to either of the Ports, the cargo transfer facilities serving the Ports, along the Alameda Corridor, or the inland rail yards, would be Route 2 (Angeles Crest Scenic Byway) near La Canada/Flintridge, in the northeastern portion of Los Angeles County. It is approximately 14 miles from the northern terminus of the Alameda Corridor and the rail yards downtown to the most southern portion of Route 2.
The Ports, the Alameda Corridor and downtown rail yards are not visible from Route 2 due to the distance, presence of numerous large buildings of downtown Los Angeles, and the intervening topography (hills and mountains) between downtown Los Angeles and the beginning of Route 2 near La Canada/Flintridge.
The nearest roadway eligible for State scenic highway designation, to either of the Ports, the cargo transfer facilities serving the ports, along the Alameda Corridor, or the downtown rail yards, would be Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway at State Route 19 – Lakewood Boulevard, in Long Beach) in the southernmost portion of Los Angeles County. It is approximately five miles from the cargo transfer facilities serving the Ports to the intersection of State Route 19 and Route 1 where it becomes eligible to become a State scenic highway.
The potential locations for catenary overhead power lines (near the Ports’ facilities, transportation corridors and rail yards) would not be visible to Route 1 at State Route 19 due to the numerous structures and topography between the two locations. |
|
(California) South Coast Air Quality Management District "2022 Air Quality Management Plan"; May 12, 2022.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/de...p-nopis.pdf?sfvrsn=8[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-25-2022).]
|
|
|
|