NationStates Jolt Archive

For the first time, a boat has crossed the Atlantic Ocean using only solar power! At a breakneck speed of 7 KPH(4.3 MPH), this boat travelled 5000km in just 30 days! It visits NYC in May, might be interesting to go see.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070203/capt.sge.otp06.030207205403.photo00.photo.default-512x341.jpg

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070203/sc_afp/switzerlandenergysolar)

GENEVA (AFP) - A Swiss-made catamaran has become the first solar-powered boat to cross the Atlantic after reaching the French Caribbean island of Martinique, the boat's owners said.

Sun21 reached Martinique's Le Marin harbour at 3:00 pm (1900 GMT) on Friday, 63 days after leaving the Spanish port of Chipiona near Cadiz, the Transatlantic21 partnership said on its website.

The 14 metre (46 feet) boat largely followed the historic route sailed by explorer Christopher Columbus on the first known maritime crossing of the Atlantic in the 15th century, making its last stopover in the Canary Islands.

The catamaran covered the final 5,000 kilometre (3,100 miles) non-stop leg in 30 days.

Crew member Martin Vosseler said the feat was aimed at "sending a clear signal about the arrival of the age of solar power," following a cry of alarm launched by a UN panel of scientists about the impact of climate change.

The eight person crew said the 60 square metres of solar panels fuelling Sun21 allowed them to travel up to 198 kilometres (123 miles) a day.

"There's hardly any vibration, the solar panels provide us with shade and, unlike a sailing boat, we make good headway even when there's no wind," crewmember Beat von Scarpatetti said on his blog.

Sun21 will next head to New York via several Caribbean islands and Miami, aiming to dock in Manhattan in May.

Wow, not bad for a solar-powered ship.

Solar power will have an important role in future sea transportation and shipping.

It can reduce the amount of fuel oil needed to make these kinds of trips, thereby cutting down on the sulfur and other pollutants produced from transatlantic shipping. Of course, that's a long step from a catamaran but even integrating small amounts of solar power on to ships today could have a moderately positive effect.

Pretty cool either way.

Solar power will have an important role in future sea transportation and shipping.

It can reduce the amount of fuel oil needed to make these kinds of trips, thereby cutting down on the sulfur and other pollutants produced from transatlantic shipping. Of course, that's a long step from a catamaran but even integrating small amounts of solar power on to ships today could have a moderately positive effect.

Pretty cool either way.

Plus, it could lower gas prices for vehicle users due to more supply :p .

Plus, it could lower gas prices for vehicle users due to more supply :p .

True. A barrel of oil saved is a barrel of oil saved, no matter where those savings come from.

They have to work on the speed. Boats are slow, but this is still pretty slow.

Well, thats a long time. I hope i'll actually be able to bring bottled water along.

I'd die before I got there. 30 days is just two long at sea for me.

gee a boat that size might be better served with wind power.

gee a boat that size might be better served with wind power.

Solar sail? I imagine you could do it if you used thin-film solar on the sail and used both to power the ship.

For the first time, a boat has crossed the Atlantic Ocean using only solar power! At a breakneck speed of 7 KPH(4.3 MPH), this boat travelled 5000km in just 30 days! It visits NYC in May, might be interesting to go see.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070203/capt.sge.otp06.030207205403.photo00.photo.default-512x341.jpg

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070203/sc_afp/switzerlandenergysolar)

Kewl.

Does anybody else think that that’s just stupid when a sail good old fashioned sail would have done the job faster, I mean wind power is a renewable resource that’s been tried and tested on the oceans for millennia????

Does anybody else think that that’s just stupid when a sail good old fashioned sail would have done the job faster, I mean wind power is a renewable resource that’s been tried and tested on the oceans for millennia????

Problem is, wind alone isn't enough for big ships. If we want our cargo ships to run on alternative energy, we're going to need to utilize all of our resources; a combination of solar and wind technology provides a lot more power than either one alone.

Plus, I think it's just meant to show that solar power is reliable on long-distance journeys.

Problem is, wind alone isn't enough for big ships. If we want our cargo ships to run on alternative energy, we're going to need to utilize all of our resources; a combination of solar and wind technology provides a lot more power than either one alone.

Plus, I think it's just meant to show that solar power is reliable on long-distance journeys.

And it gets the ball rolling...you need to start somewhere...

And fossil fuel consumption by boat motor is far worse than an equivalent sized wheeled vehicle, and is really terrible at the super tanker size.

Good for them. Good for the world.

Not to mention that wind is variable, and in certain parts of the ocean, very unreliable. An unpowered ship caught in a doldrum can take an awfully long time getting out again.

But solar, or a combination of solar and sail can provide much more reliable progress.

And then there are more long-term applications. Not all ocean going vessels are just going here-to-there. For ships that may be out at sea for months with no particular destination, or ships by which speed isn't always a factor, it can provide pretty constant power.

For instance: The U.S. Navy's concept missile ship. It's duties would basically require it to travel to a particular regional 'hotspot' and remain more or less in one place for months at a time. Solar might be an excellent way of providing power for the crew without relying on constant resupplies of fuel.

Finally, what about mobile solar power arrays? Imagine a large interconnected 'city' of solar rafts that can be moved(albeit slowly) to position themselves along the coastline where power is needed most, or to avoid dangerous weather.

Good God! That is the worst idea in the history of forever!

Okay so I'm being a tad bit harsh but 30 days for an inter-continental trip will never cut it. In case you didn't notice there are already fast, clean, strong ships sailing the seventeen seas. They're powered by the breakdown of nuclei and are very safe. Oh and did I mention they can move much faster than that P.O.S? Why haven't we striven to build more you might ask. Well the answer is unwarranted fear. You see some people see a couple of movies with horribly inaccurate depictions of radiation poisoning or nuclear war and think that all nuclear power is bad and we should just bury our heads in the sand and ignore the applications of the atom.

Solar power might be good as a supplimental source of electricity, you might be able to cover large sections of Nevada with them or something like that, but they will never, never be a primary power source because they just can't pump out enough juice. Remember 6 ping pong tables worth for a car; how many do you think a luxury cruiser will need?

Okay so I'm being a tad bit harsh but 30 days for an inter-continental trip will never cut it. In case you didn't notice there are already fast, clean, strong ships sailing the seventeen seas. They're powered by the breakdown of nuclei and are very safe. Oh and did I mention they can move much faster than that P.O.S? Why haven't we striven to build more you might ask. Well the answer is unwarranted fear. You see some people see a couple of movies with horribly inaccurate depictions of radiation poisoning or nuclear war and think that all nuclear power is bad and we should just bury our heads in the sand and ignore the applications of the atom.

Wind and solar power should be used where possible, but it's also true that nuclear power is very useful. The only downside, of course, is cost; it would be extremely expensive to license and build a container ship that runs on nuclear power, whereas a conventional tanker could be outfitted with solar and wind technology and be able to run on a minimal amount of fossil fuels.

Nuclear is an excellent source of power, but the lingering fears and real risks surrounding it make it a difficult choice for propulsion.

Solar power might be good as a supplimental source of electricity, you might be able to cover large sections of Nevada with them or something like that, but they will never, never be a primary power source because they just can't pump out enough juice. Remember 6 ping pong tables worth for a car; how many do you think a luxury cruiser will need?

But that is with technology as it exists today; in the past year, in fact the past few months, there have been a number of major increases in the efficiency of solar cells. Combine this with thin-film technology, and you can produce a lot of power. Not to mention the panels are getting cheaper as manufacturing improves...solar is going to be big, possibly even more than wind.

Instead of thinking of solar panels as rigid PV, imagine the car or tanker ship being covered in thin-film solar that weighs very little and generates large amounts of electricity. Even better, they can be applied to virtually any surfaces.

But that is with technology as it exists today; in the past year, in fact the past few months, there have been a number of major increases in the efficiency of solar cells. Combine this with thin-film technology, and you can produce a lot of power. Not to mention the panels are getting cheaper as manufacturing improves...solar is going to be big, possibly even more than wind.
*Sigh* A good engineer never, never counts on a breakthrough even if it's very likely to occur. You always have to plan as though that breakthrough or development will never happen to give yourself breathing room. Every good engineer is conservative, at least on paper.

Instead of thinking of solar panels as rigid PV, imagine the car or tanker ship being covered in thin-film solar that weighs very little and generates large amounts of electricity. Even better, they can be applied to virtually any surfaces.
Surface area is surface area. And have you ever been to Minnesota during winter? Do you have any idea the ammount of punishment we put our cars through ever year? How filthy or rusted they can get from all the salt and sand we have to spread on the roads? How cold it can get here? In case you didn't notice electricity is horribly inefficient at heating. I know you'd like it so that it would only backup a gas engine but still...

*snip*

A serious post by LG? The world is coming to an end! :p

But seriously, a solar panel floating city would probably require significant advances in ship building technology I think, particularly since you need to ensure that the stresses on the vessel won't break the arrays when underway in medium or greater swells.

Unless you're using retrofitted vessels.

*Sigh* A good engineer never, never counts on a breakthrough even if it's very likely to occur. You always have to plan as though that breakthrough or development will never happen to give yourself breathing room. Every good engineer is conservative, at least on paper.

Well, of course. That's why companies aren't rushing to produce solar-powered vehicles or appliances; it may end up going in a completely different direction, leaving you with a product that is ill-suited to the market and costing you a fortune.

Surface area is surface area. And have you ever been to Minnesota during winter? Do you have any idea the ammount of punishment we put our cars through ever year? How filthy or rusted they can get from all the salt and sand we have to spread on the roads? How cold it can get here? In case you didn't notice electricity is horribly inefficient at heating. I know you'd like it so that it would only backup a gas engine but still...

Solar power is pretty much going to be used solely for power generation, especially in the southwest; anything else is going to be backup or support power since it just requires too much surface area relative to the vehicles themselves.

And natural gas for heating doesn't really need to be replaced; we could first produce the gas from coal and eventually from biofuels. It's a clean fuel that doesn't produce too much CO2 or other pollutants; if you produce the natural gas alongside biofuels, you can automatically offset it by using the CO2 in the process. You could even use geothermal to produce heat for large, permanent buildings, like factories and offices, that can afford the high installation cost.

If anything, turning our coal in to natural gas and then using it is a lot better for the environment than burning it as coal.

A deployable solar array to recharge the batteries of an electric car is much more feasible.

But back to ships: Wind is going to be the way. Rotary masts powering standard submerged screws can be very efficient, even in a light wind, and don't care about wind direction.

But using a set of panels to power the onboard electronics seems to me a very good idea.

How filthy or rusted they can get from all the salt and sand we have to spread on the roads? How cold it can get here?

Less so than on Mars. Those rovers are still going strong.

it may end up going in a completely different direction, leaving you with a product that is ill-suited to the market and costing you a fortune.
Oh, like what happened to the EV1?

Solar power is pretty much going to be used solely for power generation, especially in the southwest; anything else is going to be backup or support power since it just requires too much surface area relative to the vehicles themselves.
Thank you for paraphrasing me, I really like talking to mirrors.

And natural gas for heating doesn't really need to be replaced; we could first produce the gas from coal and eventually from biofuels. It's a clean fuel that doesn't produce too much CO2 or other pollutants; if you produce the natural gas alongside biofuels, you can automatically offset it by using the CO2 in the process. You could even use geothermal to produce heat for large, permanent buildings, like factories and offices, that can afford the high installation cost.
Getting gas from coal takes energy and produces waste. Biofuels consume more energy than they produce at present and you have to plan on technology not really advancing so you're ready for anything. Geothermal only works at hotspots and it tends to cool them over time. And let's not forget that money only represents materials and labor so the more money something costs the more materials and/or labor it will require.

If anything, turning our coal in to natural gas and then using it is a lot better for the environment than burning it as coal.
Except that takes power and produces waste carbon (which is really good for the green stuff that gobbles it up) and everyone seems to think that'll destroy the world. You can't just remove excess atoms from the equation.

Personally I'll rejoice when the first CLOSED-CYCLE GASEOUS CORE FISSION / NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKET AKA "Nuclear Lightbulb" jet makes a couple of loops around the world just to prove it can be done. Similar to an open gas core fission rocket, but the uranium plasma is confined in a fused quartz chamber. The good news is that there is no uranium escaping in the exhaust. The bad news is that the exhaust velocity is halved. Jets consume a lot of fuel and only having to refuel every few years as oposed to every few hundred miles would be awfully nice. And it'd be clean.

Looks like the big issue is about big ships.

Here's an idea: let's get everything we can on railroads. Bering tunnel = goods going on rails from Europe to America via Transiberian! Gibraltar tunnel = from Europe to Africa! An eastern-african railway, from South Africa through the Lake Victoria to the Nile valley, direct to the Mediterranean! A railway between Europe and India through Turkey and Iran!

...geez, I'm a megalomaniac railway fan, ain't I?

What this really shows is how impossible it is to use solar power for must useful applications. Solar power simply can't produce the wattage necessary for this kind of work, it can only power electronics and things. Solar power proponents imagine that a huge solar panel will automatically power everything they need because it's big, and they are biased because they think solar power is so cool. (Using wind power is a similar story.)

If you look on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power you will find that the maximum average power that the Earth gets from the sun is 125-375 W/m^2. We will use the upper range for this to give solar energy as much of a benifit of doubt as we can.

Googling the largest cargo ship gets us the Emma Maersk http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/telstarlogistics/2006/11/the_largest_con.html
which links to this fact sheet:
http://www.maersk.com/NR/rdonlyres/53C3A206-24BD-4290-9FE9-417971C4A710/0/EmmaM%C3%83%C2%A6rskL203FactSheetUK.pdf

It gives the length and width of the ship as 387 meters and 56 meters. A surface area of 21672 square meters. We will assume that the entire top has solar panels, despite the obvious problems this would have if they ever wanted to load or unload cargo again. Unless there was some sort of roll out solar mat, but I digress.

This gives us a total of 8127 kW (note the kilo, the previous units have been in watts.)

Returning to the fact sheet we can see the engines the Maersk uses:
An 80,000 kW diesel propulsion engine.

and for electricity:
5 diesel generators combining to 20,700 kW
and a steam turbine that runs off the maine exhaust (so probably no additional pollution) for 8,500 kW

If you add these together you get 109200 kW.

So completely layering this ship in solar panels, at tremendous expense, and totally interfering with the ability of this ship to unload cargo. Panels which we assumed would get the very upper range of solar radiation, which we in turn assumed would be converted to electricity at 100% efficiency (rather than the 15% current, even 30% would be pretty optimistic for near-future technology) gave us under 7.5% of the power output required by this ship.

Looks like the big issue is about big ships.

Here's an idea: let's get everything we can on railroads. Bering tunnel = goods going on rails from Europe to America via Transiberian! Gibraltar tunnel = from Europe to Africa! An eastern-african railway, from South Africa through the Lake Victoria to the Nile valley, direct to the Mediterranean! A railway between Europe and India through Turkey and Iran!

...geez, I'm a megalomaniac railway fan, ain't I?

I love railroads also! I want to go from Scotland to China by railroad one day.


Solar power will help and gets better daily. It will definitely do something to offset other fuel use and it takes time and research and you have to start somewhere.

The problem with railroads is that they can't be run over plate breaks. When the plates move enough it kinda ruins the rails. And trains do take a lot of energy to run, not as much as an ocean liner but still more than a car or a truck and are limited to where they can go by the rails while cars and trucks are not.

The problem with railroads is that they can't be run over plate breaks. When the plates move enough it kinda ruins the rails. And trains do take a lot of energy to run, not as much as an ocean liner but still more than a car or a truck and are limited to where they can go by the rails while cars and trucks are not.

I am quite certain trains go over fault lines frequently.

The problem with railroads is that they can't be run over plate breaks. When the plates move enough it kinda ruins the rails. And trains do take a lot of energy to run, not as much as an ocean liner but still more than a car or a truck and are limited to where they can go by the rails while cars and trucks are not.

In terms of energy relative to the amount of freight they carry, trains are significantly more efficient than trucks. The only drawback is that they can't travel off of the rail lines; other than that, they're superior to trucks in virtually all ways.

And cars are pretty much the most wasteful form of transportation on Earth unless you're carpooling or driving an incredibly efficient vehicle.

I am quite certain trains go over fault lines frequently.

A fault line isn't a plate break - most of them are side effects of breaks. Faults only move when the pressure builds up to unsustainable levels - true breaks move more or less continuously.

A fault line isn't a plate break - most of them are side effects of breaks. Faults only move when the pressure builds up to unsustainable levels - true breaks move more or less continuously.

Still...most of the movement is down below.

Still...most of the movement is down below.

Sure. But it would only take an inch or so of movement to buckle a track.

Sure. But it would only take an inch or so of movement to buckle a track.
Exactly. In other words, every year or so the track would have to be shut down and a section of track removed and replaced with a slightly longer segment. That may seem like a minor inconvience to you but you have to consider that these super-long-distance trains would need to move really damn fast to get where they're going in a reasonable amount of time and not having to worry about external conditions makes this a hell of a lot easier so the track would more than likely be inside a long tube, probably vacuum sealed to eliminate any drag on the train and increase its speed. That added to the cost of just building a track that long, keeping it in working order, making and doing the same for the trains, and every other expense involved in operating a railroad adds up fast. AmTrack has never to my knowledge shown a profit. Nobody rides the train anymore for primary long-distance travel. They take planes or drive. Planes and motor vehicles are much more flexible than trains. That is why they succeed now while trains don't. What we should be doing now is focusing on making those modes of transit more efficient without sacrificing performance.

For jets there is the possibility of clean nuclear thermal ramjets, you just have to keep the fission fuel from coming in direct contact with the air and so avoid the problem of the fuel being eroded and exiting the engine as fallout.

With ships its even easier. There are already small nuclear reactors of ships today. Just assign a naval crew to the reactor to ensure security and proper care and you're set.

And I have outlined more than once how to use coal emissions to increase crop yeilds and eliminate any environmental impact it could have.

You are right about one thing, Sel Appa, you do need to start somewhere. But it's also important to know where to start, what to use now and what still needs work.

With ships its even easier. There are already small nuclear reactors of ships today. Just assign a naval crew to the reactor to ensure security and proper care and you're set.

You are aware that freighter ships get hijacked every now and then by pirates along places like the Straits of Malacca. It might take a more organized band to do it, but black market uranium would probably be worth more than the whole cargo of the ship.

I used to live in California, 10 miles away from the San Andreas fault. I can assure you that both train tracks (and freeways) can cross the fault line no problem. They do not need to be replaced every year, as fault lines do not move that much, and they are flexible enough (both tracks and freeways, which I assume are less flexible than train tracks) to handly small movements without a problem.

Of course a powerful Earthquake would lead to damages that need to be repaired, but that just comes with the area. If you think that cars are impervious to Earthquakes you should look at the destroyed freeways from the Japanese Earthquake about a decade ago, and the Northridge earthquake.

I am not sure why you say that trains are failures, they move tons of goods in America every single day, and are quite good at it.

I used to live in California, 10 miles away from the San Andreas fault. I can assure you that both train tracks (and freeways) can cross the fault line no problem. They do not need to be replaced every year, as fault lines do not move that much, and they are flexible enough (both tracks and freeways, which I assume are less flexible than train tracks) to handly small movements without a problem.

Of course a powerful Earthquake would lead to damages that need to be repaired, but that just comes with the area. If you think that cars are impervious to Earthquakes you should look at the destroyed freeways from the Japanese Earthquake about a decade ago, and the Northridge earthquake.

I am not sure why you say that trains are failures, they move tons of goods in America every single day, and are quite good at it.
A fault line is not a plate break. Fault lines or simply faults are planar rock fractures which show evidence of relative movement.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plates_tect2_en.svg) is a map of the different plates and where they're going. South America and Africa are moving apart at an average of 5.7 cm per year. Pretty much every other plate is moving around a inch or more every year. That is why you can never run a train from North America to Europe or Asia, South America or Africa.

And I don't think AmTrack has ever shown a profit. If I'm wrong please highlight the year(s) when it did.

A fault line is not a plate break. Fault lines or simply faults are planar rock fractures which show evidence of relative movement.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plates_tect2_en.svg) is a map of the different plates and where they're going. South America and Africa are moving apart at an average of 5.7 cm per year. Pretty much every other plate is moving around a inch or more every year. That is why you can never run a train from North America to Europe or Asia, South America or Africa.

The San Andreas fault is on the map you posted, it is the intersection between The Pacific Plate and The North American plate in Southern California. There is tectonic drift there, the coast of California is very slowly going northward. This does not matter to rail traffic (same as with a freeway) and there are trains that cross many of these faults (such as the San Andreas fault). They are able to do this because 1. The ground moves slowly. and 2. you don't have to bolt the train tracks down right on the very edge of the fault, so that the 2 inches of iron is holding the continents together. You can instead allow a loose fit at the point of the fault, so that the movement of an inch (or whatever) a year happens even over 20 feet of track, this is something than can be kept up for years.

It is true that San Andreas doesn't have particularly fast movement, even for tectonic plates, but the point still stands. Bridges move in the wind, and shift with the weight they carry, Towers also sway in the wind, metal expands with heat, making cracking and groaning sounds on ships, and causing some problems with finishing the Arch at St. Louis. Constructions are full of slight motion, and structures have tolerances for those.

As I said they are vulnerable to Earthquakes, when these faults can move several feet, but trust me, people living in these areas accept that an occasional Earthquake may necessitate some repairs.

And I don't think AmTrack has ever shown a profit. If I'm wrong please highlight the year(s) when it did.

You are right, Amtrack is not very profitable. But Amtrak is an inneficient government subsidized passenger rail company. As opposed to cargo companies, preferably private ones which actually have a motivation to earn money.

"The four largest U.S. railways (Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX and Norfolk Southern) all reported profits of over $1 billion in 2005"

from Wikipedia's Rail Transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport)

The ground does not move much except during an earthquake. The miles of rock dampen virtually all movement. If they didn't, you'd have giant fissures wherever th plates move apart. Also, by your theories, when one plate subducts another, the land on the subducting onee should start dropping down, but it really has never done so.

Amtrak isn't profitable because Americans are selfish and insist on using their own cars, mhic grossly pollute, smell, and inevitably will have some problem on virtually all vacations. It also isn't promoted much. It's yet another thing that could alleviate our energy issues. I love trains! *hugs Brio pieces* :fluffle:

You are right, Amtrack is not very profitable. But Amtrak is an inneficient government subsidized passenger rail company. As opposed to cargo companies, preferably private ones which actually have a motivation to earn money.
And what did I say? Nobody rides the train anymore. I didn't say they aren't used to move freight but it is a fact that nobody uses trains for primary long-distance travel anymore.

Sel Appa, the reason you don't see giant fissures where plates are moving apart is because liquid rock is rising up to fill the gap. And they can form big ol' rifts in the ground like the Álfagjá rift valley in southwest Iceland, the boundary of the Eurasian and North American continental tectonic plates. And the reason the land on the subducting plate wouldn't drop is because the other plate would rise up forming mountains. And this is getting a little off topic. The point is that the track could get damaged over time and would need to be periodically adjusted and have more serious repairs after a quake, that it would be really damn expensive to lay a really long track and that trains are confined to tracks while other vehicles are not.

You can love trains all you want but they're not a very flexible mode of transit. Dunkelien was right, AmTrack isn't profitable because it is an inneficient government subsidized passenger rail company. It has nothing to do with the selfish tendencies of some Americans. My car does not smell nor pollute any more than the average motor vehicle. It has never given me any problems because I do take care of it which is more than I can say about most drivers.

And as for Non Aligned States comment, that's why I said a US soldiers should run and guard the engine room.

Now let's try to keep this on the topic of solar power and it's potnetial applications on the water.

The "inefficient government subsidized" portion of Amtrak is a much larger reason for it's debt than the "passenger" portion. Passenger trains are used fairly successfully in the north-eastern part of the United States, and are quite successful in other countries as well. Europe has a well developed line, and many parts of Asia and India have it.

Passenger trains are not as popular in the U.S. as they are elsewhere because of low gas prices in the U.S. (compared to anywhere else in the world, except for maybe the Middle East, and people in the U.S. have enough money to buy cars (unlike in much of Asia and India). This is not a trains vs. cars issue, it is a private vs. public transportation issue. Compare the number of people who use buses to travel (an appreciable distance, not inside a city) compared to the number of people who use trains.

If anyone wanted to post about solar power and ships I'm sure they would, but I think that my previous post on solar power in ocean travel, with math and sources to back it up, has made people reluctant to post again on that issue.

And what did I say? Nobody rides the train anymore. I didn't say they aren't used to move freight but it is a fact that nobody uses trains for primary long-distance travel anymore.

Sel Appa, the reason you don't see giant fissures where plates are moving apart is because liquid rock is rising up to fill the gap. And they can form big ol' rifts in the ground like the Álfagjá rift valley in southwest Iceland, the boundary of the Eurasian and North American continental tectonic plates. And the reason the land on the subducting plate wouldn't drop is because the other plate would rise up forming mountains. And this is getting a little off topic. The point is that the track could get damaged over time and would need to be periodically adjusted and have more serious repairs after a quake, that it would be really damn expensive to lay a really long track and that trains are confined to tracks while other vehicles are not.

You can love trains all you want but they're not a very flexible mode of transit. Dunkelien was right, AmTrack isn't profitable because it is an inneficient government subsidized passenger rail company. It has nothing to do with the selfish tendencies of some Americans. My car does not smell nor pollute any more than the average motor vehicle. It has never given me any problems because I do take care of it which is more than I can say about most drivers.

And as for Non Aligned States comment, that's why I said a US soldiers should run and guard the engine room.

Now let's try to keep this on the topic of solar power and it's potnetial applications on the water.

Mountains are caused by plates ramming into each other.
Plenty of train tracks go over plate bondaries without problems. Same with buildings. Ground doesn't just move because the plate far below are. The movement is heavily dampened. The upper crust sort of floats on the plates.