SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the everybody-should-pay-their-fair-share dept.
On Saturday, November 16th, around 282,000 people blocked roads and highways all over France. The protesters, nicknamed the gillets jaunes after the yellow warning vests they wore, had organized through Facebook. Their beef: the increase in environmental taxes on gasoline, on top of a number of other tax increases.
We don't disagree with having to pay more to help act for the environment and fight climate change, was the general opinion, but why should it be only the little folks who have to pay while the elite can easily grin and bear it -- why not tax also all that heavy fuel burned by aeroplanes and tanker ships?
The action, which persisted throughout the day, resulted in over 100 wounded and one tragic death when a mother driving her child to hospital panicked.
The protesters do have a point. While media and politics rightly, if very, very much belatedly, are warning about climate change, the alternatives proposed clearly are not to be taken seriously.
The hard choices we need to face apparently come down to cities investing in smart cameras to fine visitors based on production year and type of their automobile. Public transport investing will come, but not to the countryside where car/ride sharing, Uber and similar services simply are not viable; Tesla and relatives are on another price planet for ordinary people.
As to the EU's emission trading system (ETS) that should drive industry to climate change action: news broke on the same day as the gillets jaunes actions that Britain -- on the verge of leaving the EU -- is one of the biggest net exporters of such credits: Britain had 900 million of these credits too much, for the years 2013-2015 alone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:03PM (4 children)
> including jet fuel
The physics of aircraft separate them from other vehicles -- they require enormous power to take off and then have much lower power requirements at cruise. Does anyone have a way to calculate the fuel savings if takeoffs were catapult assisted (as on aircraft carriers?) As soon as some of the power for acceleration is provided from the ground, the plane can carry less fuel, and have somewhat smaller engines, all in a "virtuous circle". And that full power launch could be handled by a clean stationary power source.
Note that I'm not proposing the same violent acceleration required for a carrier launch! A commercial aircraft take-off assist could approximate the same length as current take-off runs. It might be economical to accelerate a bit harder and hold the plane on the ground longer before rotation, so that the initial part of the flight would be a "zoom climb".
No cables or hooks either, those would require extra trained staff and be safety/maintenance issues. Instead, use a moving carriage that cradles the tires and drags the plane forward. The forces on the landing gear would be similar to braking forces (but reversed). Under the runway is a maglev and linear motor to support and propel the carriage.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:20PM
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:08PM
> The physics of aircraft separate them from other vehicles -- they require enormous power to take off and then have much lower power requirements at cruise.
How so? That is how pretty much every single vehicle works. They require far more power to accelerate then they do to keep going at a steady state. If you don't believe me, set the consumption display on your vehicle. I've done in on mine. Under acceleration onto the motorway I've seen my consumption go up to 45l/100km (5.2MPG), but when I reach the cruise speed it drops to ~8l/100km (~29mpg).
A change in velocity requires energy input, in a steady state you only need energy input to overcome frictional losses (hence, in a perfect vacuum, you would not need any extra energy input unless you want to change velocity).
As for the rest of your idea, it sounds over-complicated and error prone, not to mention a maintenance headache. Aircraft carriers have to have such catapults to overcome the lack of runway length, and they are a massive PITA they would not bother with if it wasn't for the length restriction.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:28PM
LOL at catapult takeoffs. You'll see old people dropping dead routinely. You'll see younger people dropping dead as well, just less often. If you fly, keep an eye on your fellow passengers. You'll see signs of anxiety among them, with our "regular" takeoffs now. Subject those people to 2 or 3 gravities at takeoff, and they'll fall like flies.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 19 2018, @02:16AM
Catapult launch for commercial aircraft, great idea, don't see it happening anywhere. Meanwhile, for the next 20 years, you can buy a ticket to emit more CO2 from your share of jet fuel than your car will emit all year, for the low low price of $329 round trip, cross country.
🌻🌻 [google.com]