On Sep 16, 12:42 am, Tony Polson  wrote:
> "Richard W. Jones"  wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 16, 12:19=A0am, Tony Polson  wrote:
> >> darkprince66  wrote:
>
> >> >And if you can agree with the rest of
> >> >the world just for once, and concede that it is going to become
> >> >scarcer and eventually run out, what exactly do you suggest that we
> >> >use to power the trains in the future?
>
> >> Well, it won't be uranium, because that will run out before the oil. =A0
>
> >> And it won't be wind power, because the experience of the country with
> >> the world's largest programme of installing wind turbines has found
> >> that its carbon emissions from electricity generation have actually
> >> gone *up*. =A0Worrying, eh?
>
> >> So if the trains are going to be electric, they will have to be
> >> powered by Russian gas, which is far less secure politically than oil
> >> from the world market, or by coal, which produces twice the CO2
> >> emissions of gas for the same amount of power generated.
>
> >> Meanwhile, all the considerable amount of wasted energy from
> >> electricity generation will go to heat up the sky. =A0;-)
>
> >... and that answers the question how, exactly?
>
> It doesn't answer the question, the whole point being that rail
> electrification poses rather more questions than it provides answers.

Rather like you, it seems.