Monday, March 4, 2019

Presenting without comment something that should have been presented with comment in that NYT hyperloop article.

From A Real Tube Carrying Dreams of 600-M.P.H. Transit by Eric Taub [emphasis added]

All three companies contend that because of energy cost advantages over other forms of transportation, a system will be able to break even in a decade after full-scale operations begin. Not only will commuters be able to get from place to place faster, but doing so will allow people to comfortably live far from their work, giving access to educational, cultural and health services normally out of reach.

From the John A Volpe National Transportation Systems Center's  Hyperloop Commercial Feasibility Analysis

2.1.6 Energy consumption

“Hyperloop Alpha” emphasizes that the hyperloop technology will be completely solar powered. However, maglev and HSR are also electric and could in theory also be solar powered. Focusing on the amount of energy required, HT found that for most routes hyperloop would be 2 to 3 times more energy efficient than air on a passenger mile basis; however, maglev and HSR also use 1/3 the energy of air on a passenger mile basis. The emphasis on solar power tends to obscure the fact that no technology is entirely clean because there is energy consumed in manufacture and construction of the technology.


  1. I live in Kansas City and apparently there is some sort of effort to build a hyper-loop between St. Louis and KC. In fact there is an organization called Missouri Hyperloop. You'll be happy to know that according to this article Virgin Hyperloop has solved feasibility issues and moved on to the ergonomics of the project.

    1. Wow...

      "With the feasibility of a high-speed Missouri Hyperloop route connecting Kansas City to St. Louis in about 30 minutes now established, the conversation has shifted tracks to ergonomics, said Diana Zhou."