Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

argusmedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 265 posts

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#221

Post by dharmab »

tpmx wrote: post #100
dharmab wrote: post #11

A relevant video examining the potential alternatives to jet fuel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_BK7PRugK4 A TL;DW is that biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment than standard fuels. Hydrogen is not yet viable, and would require entirely new aircraft designs. Electricity will likely never be viable for all but the smallest low-range aircraft. E-fuels (fuel made using carbon capture) is not yet viab…

Since it's a 25 minute video (ugh): what's the tl;dw for why biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment?

The energy put into the process to grow and ferment the plants or algae is high enough to outweigh the offset use of fossil fuels. It's an energy negative process.

The same creator has a 15 minute video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#222

Post by tpmx »

dharmab wrote: post #221
tpmx wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since it's a 25 minute video (ugh): what's the tl;dw for why biofuels are unscalable and worse for the environment?

The energy put into the process to grow and ferment the plants or algae is high enough to outweigh the offset use of fossil fuels. It's an energy negative process. The same creator has a 15 minute video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM

That seems like it it could be optimized?

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#223

Post by dharmab »

tpmx wrote: post #222
dharmab wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy put into the process to grow and ferment the plants or algae is high enough to outweigh the offset use of fossil fuels. It's an energy negative process. The same creator has a 15 minute video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM

That seems like it it could be optimized?

I'll defer to the 15 minute video- the creator is an engineer whos credentials exceed my own, and he goes into why it's unlikely to ever become viable.

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#224

Post by estaseuropano »

makomk wrote: post #199
dang wrote: post #175

The key word here is probably "draft". Bill proposals usually don't amount to much, and for that reason it's generally good practice to wait for a state change (no pun intended). Proposed bills usually go nowhere - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... On HN, there's no harm in waiting - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

I'm pretty sure the significance of a proposed bill is rather different from the EU than in typical democratic countries like say the UK, US or Canada. In most democracies any elected politician can propose a bill, and so they often do purely as a form of showboating to the electorate even if there's no chance it'll get passed. Within the EU, only the small, powerful and very much non-elected European Commission can…

The commission proposes, then both council (= national governments) and the directly elected European parliament each develop their own position on this basis. Each of those two positions is already a compromise between the different national and political groups.

The three organizations then meet in trilogue and hammer out compromises ('trilogue') with the commission facilitating but ultimately having little say on the outcome, except to block where something violates the EU treaties.

Ultimately both Parliament and council (at minister level) have to vote and agree before it becomes law.

So indeed lots still to be done and this is likely an attempt to already offer a compromise and will be reasoned (e.g. exempting these might be a small sacrifice if it gets a compromise that covers 99.9% of flights) - but given how visible this is it seems unlikely to stay in as Parliament will rally against it. You can also expect some egalitarian and green countries (Sweden, Finland, if the greens fet into government in the coming election even Germany) to already kill this in the council position.

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#225

Post by orwin »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #213
mbesto wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> itself isn't a big contributor to global warming but rather the manufacture and supply chains. Manufacture and supply chains (and services for that matter) that provide to the middle class. At least that's my interpretation of the parent's point.

Right, and my point is that the middleclass lifestyle doesn't care whether those industries/supply-chains are fueled by solar or fossil fuel.

No, they doesn't care, but "middleclass lifestyle" is only available for a fifth of the world, and the remaining four fifth want to partake to. And they slowly do.

The total installed renewable electricity capacity was greater than the totla installed fossil capacity for the first time in 2020. It was not replacing old fossil capacity, it was just added to the mix. And capacity != production, so i guess it's even worse than that.

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#226

Post by orwin »

WJW wrote: post #165
singlow wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant portion of the super-rich believe they are super-rich because they scrutinize bills and are thrifty/smart with money. "If only everyone else was as smart with their money they could be as rich as I am..."

Interestingly enough the reverse is true: not being aware about your expenses is a surefire way to make sure you don't get rich. But scrutinizing bills in itself is not sufficient that get rich.

I'm not aware of my expensive and i'm becoming rich, so i guess it isn't true if you work in tech.

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#227

Post by derriz »

whatever1 wrote: post #220
derriz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean the analysis is "bad"? It's widely referenced and they explain their methodology in detail and their data sources. If there's an aspect of the methodology you think is bad, I'd be interested in hearing it. Their results are pretty much in line with other independent studies of the same thing. I don't understand why you'd compare the capital cost of utility scale electricity generation against that fo…

The analysis is completely wrong for a country that is not in the West. Their first assumption is low interest rates for business loans and availability of investment capital. Again, we take these two for granted in the West, but they are not. Second big assumption is the existence of distribution grid and storage. The fact is that we have almost 1 Billion people off grid and by making fossil fuels more expensive to…

It assumes a blended cost of capital of 10% which is very reasonable for utility infrastructure projects even in developing countries. The World Bank charges rates of about 3% for infrastructure projects.

I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less.

Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also.

Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim.

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#228

Post by mbesto »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #213
mbesto wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> itself isn't a big contributor to global warming but rather the manufacture and supply chains. Manufacture and supply chains (and services for that matter) that provide to the middle class. At least that's my interpretation of the parent's point.

Right, and my point is that the middleclass lifestyle doesn't care whether those industries/supply-chains are fueled by solar or fossil fuel.

You're right except, they will when the price goes up. I think that's the implication here - middle class would have to adjust their lifestyles to good/services that are no longer cheap.

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#229

Post by mthoms »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #171
FpUser wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If large industries will cease to exist it will cause big rise in unemployment. This will for sure affect lower and middle classes

Not necessarily. It might mean people just shift to different industries.

Maybe. But even if true, the shift wouldn't be instantaneous.

Hence, lots of lower-to-mid timeframe unemployment.

Re: EU draft exempts private jets, cargo from jet fuel tax

#230

Post by pnt12 »

yongjik wrote: post #103
brobdingnagians wrote: post #7

To me, this just drives home the point that it is more about control than about anything scientific. The wealthy class want their perks and privileges while corraling the plebeians so that we won't use "their precious resources" or ruining their enjoyments.

I hate this kind of rhetoric. Frankly that sounds like: "A proposed solution A to problem X has another problem Y, which proves that it was never about X, and consequently I will refuse to acknowledge problem X - if anyone doesn't like it, it's their fault for not being able to create a perfect solution that gets my approval."

Well, although taxes are usually effective, they affect more the low and middle classes than the rich, as they can opt to pay and enjoy life as usual. Exemption to activities that are mostly enjoyed by the rich is quite absurd.

People will be more thoughtful and less cynical when the rich take a serious attitude at ecology and inequality.

Post reply on HN