Indeed, below 100km / h, it is the mass, with the starts / acceleration, which makes the consumption: small light vehicles solve the problem well, taking up less space.
Above 100km / h, speed necessary only for long journeys, it is the friction of the air which prevails, whether on road, on rail or in the air.
The answer is simple and old: let's make a tube, kept under vacuum, and the problem is solved.
A large project has existed in Switzerland for a long time:
http://www.swissmetro.ch/fr
But started on the idea of an underground tunnel, it would require large investments.
Why not do it in a simple tube? I had raised the idea in another thread, of course immediately meeting visceral criticism rather than thoughtful argument.
However, the first calculations show that the energy gain is obvious: let's take a tube 1m in diameter and 100km long.
Lower it to 10mbar of residual pressure, i.e. reduce the pressure and friction by a factor of 100, this would cost around 110kWh.
This energy corresponds to the gain on the friction of less than 3 vehicles traveling at the speed of a highway:
- we gain at the same time on the friction of the air,
- on rolling friction (metal wheel on upper or lower rail while being pessimistic, even maglev),
- and on the disappearance of non-useful stops, by the use of small vehicles automatically routed to their destination.
Without counting the gain on construction.
I am not the only one to defend this simple idea, which turns out to be old and shared:
http://www.et3.com/index.asp
Astonishing that this idea of common sense does not make more noise (normal, it is the isolation of the vacuum
) in the media: no more heavy motorways or TGV lines. Tubes on poles would cost less than any rural road, but would allow traffic at 600km / h for less energy than a car at 100km / h ...
We can put solar panels on the tubes to power the transport and the entire electrical network.
