lo_pak

回復 53# peter236

Natural gas is good. However, it requires a lot of initial investment on building "HUGH" facilities to store them and they can't be big... Supplying by the Russia is a bit of a headache, you can tell by the Europe experience...

BTW, if the technology of utlitizing those "flammable ice" is feasible, that would be another great source. Again, disputes along the offshore area with surrounding nations are problematic...

mcjohnjohn

Peter since you are here, a lot of people expect you to reply this thread.
mukmuk2 發表於 2010-9-30 15:04

其實, 我唔係好明點解有大陸人o係香港既商場隨地大便都要Peter 去澄清...
雖然Peter 好明顯係一個Pro-China 既人, 但人地隨地大便都應該唔關佢事law.

mcjohnjohn

I do not think there is a city in the world that "most" people in that city would take transit or walk.
mukmuk2 發表於 2010-9-30 15:07

Hong Kong.

lo_pak

回復 58# peter236

Shanghai track length = 420km
NYC track length = 1,355km

lo_pak

回復 45# peter236

The map shown is the distribution of "particulate matter" with length +/- 2.5um, the so-called PM2.5 - the smallest particle size that would trap in our breathing system.

There are different sizes of sand in the desert, probably the one in Sahara and Saudi Arabia are finer than those in Australia...

mcjohnjohn

We just like to hear what Peter can say to defend action like this.
mukmuk2 發表於 2010-9-30 15:27

我以為大家想Peter 出黎清理d 大便, 所以就千呼萬喚佢出黎law.
而家Peter 仔擺明唔為呢件事defend, 咁有乜問題? 點解好似非要佢出黎不可咁架? 玩批鬥咩...

peter236

回復  peter236

Shanghai track length = 420km
NYC track length = 1,355km
lo_pak 發表於 2010-9-29 23:18

Source: wikipedia
Shanghai route length = 420km
NYC route length = 369km

Shanghai's route length is 420km, but the NYC track length is 1,355km. So the two figures are different things. Track length is always a few times more than route length. Shanghai's track length should still be longer than NYC.

Also:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/shanghai-now-the-worlds-longest-metro.html