Thursday, November 24, 2011



I could never state anything as well as he has.

Monday, November 7, 2011

An open letter stating concerns with the current path of progress the Government is taking in pursuing high-speed rail.

Dear USHSR, I am curious why we would need to rebuild our existing train tracks to replace them with high-speed trains like Acela. I see that is runs on the same grade as the rest of Amtrak, and as a temporary push why couldn't the United States government pay an initial cost to replace the existing trains with new trains as a temporary fix and then use the generated revenue to build new tracks that would connect America's major cities that currently do not have access? From a political angle this might make sense for two reasons, 1. We would show Americans outside the already liberal Northeast how fast they really are, and 2. It would give undebatable proof that when given access Americans will use the train to go around the country when it is competitive, which Amtrak really isn't today. When I look at how AMTRAK is currently set up, it was designed to fail. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Kentucky all have no access to their capital cities to AMTRAK. Las Vegas, Nashville, Green Bay, has no connection. No wonder Americans don't use AMTRAK as a primary way to travel on rail, it doesn't go where they want to go, and it doesn't get them to where it does go in a timely manner. The second problem is easy to fix, we have Acela approved by DOT (amazingly) and we need copies of that train to be used on the existing track. The increased revenue will give enough money to build more tracks to the cities I just mentioned which will bring in more revenue, and create more routes that will give people a way that is cost-competitive and, more importantly, time-competitive to get around America. I completely agree we need more tracks, but I don't understand why we are building them where we already have the tracks we need, like between Bakersfield and Fresno. It seems like a ploy from some lobbyists to slow down the process. Sincerely, Matthew Stidham

Sunday, November 6, 2011

How to Make Electric/Fuel Cell hybrid cars the Cheapest Vehicle In a Very Short Time

There is a lot of discussion in America about electric and fuel cell cars, and the reason why they are not doing well always comes down to only three valid arguments, 1. There are not enough stations, 2. Electricity is too expensive The other arguments are about fuel cells which question their efficiency and safety, but they are already the dominant choice for people in Iceland who invested in the infrastructure 10 years ago and are now energy independent which nullifies all of these injected concerns from the powerful oil lobby who own a large stake the majority of our media. (source: with Click and Clack the Tappitt Brothers from Car Talk) There is no reason on earth why fuel cell cars cannot be made hybrids with an electric function, just like hybrid cars that use gasoline. They will increase the distance you can go on a single fill-up which will save the consumer money and stops to charge. There is also no reason why these fuel cell hybrid cars cannot be plug-in cars from the beginning, if you can just plug it into the grid when you are at home then except for a few cases you might never need to fill up on hydrogen if you are a short commuter if you plug in at work and at home, that will save money and more importantly, TIME. Now I get to the two major issues with implementation which are the only reasons we do not already have these already. We do not have hydrogen fuel stations across America. This would be really easy to fix. If we gave a 50% tax break to every owner and worker of an individual gas station who implement this technology for one year only we can have the infrastructure across the country in every major city quickly, save money that goes to OPEC, and have more money to spend on things that make a positive difference in the national economy. People LOVE TAX BREAKS. We could speed it up by making it so that if a corporation that has gas stations (Chevron, Shell, Costco, etc.) installs these in every single station of theirs across the country the people who work for and own the company will all receive 50% tax breaks. This will make tax revenue go down slightly, but the amount of money overall that people will be spending on other things besides gasoline will be massive. The only other issue, electricity is too expensive is because of what we get our electricity from. In the Pacific Northwest we get our energy from hydroelectric and we have the cheapest electricity in the world. In the Midwest they get their electricity from coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, and their electricity is a lot more expensive. This is not a correlation, this is a causation. Every part of the world has a way to get cheap renewable electricity, solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric, geothermal, these are all useful and completely inexpensive tools to get cheap, reliable electricity. The current technology which is being developed has a ways to go so far, but it is close to being competitive with oil, and once this happens we need to have the market so that we can quickly use this great technology.