Another excuse for more tax.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good thread here explaining how you can get more than one kg of CO2 from one kg of Jet A. Basically, you get the extra mass from the oxygen in the air when you burn the carbon. If the energy in a plane load of Jet A was released using EMC2 you would probably wipe out life on earth 
I read an interesting article which showed that more chemical energy was released by the Jet A in the WTC attack than stored potential energy released when the towers collapsed. Cannot find it, it's out there somewhere, but there is one hell of a lot of chemical energy in a kg of fuel.
One thing with these taxes is that they are not applied to the problem. So you can bet your last dollar (and it might well be your last dollar the way things are going) that when global warming causes major flooding we will be gouged again. The money raised with todays "environmental" taxes will be long ago spent on things like war. I already try to avoid connecting via Germany because the taxes are higher than the UK. Enough of us thinking this way will reduce revenue for LH, raising airplane related taxes in the UK will obviously have the same effect on UK based airlines.
I read an interesting article which showed that more chemical energy was released by the Jet A in the WTC attack than stored potential energy released when the towers collapsed. Cannot find it, it's out there somewhere, but there is one hell of a lot of chemical energy in a kg of fuel.
One thing with these taxes is that they are not applied to the problem. So you can bet your last dollar (and it might well be your last dollar the way things are going) that when global warming causes major flooding we will be gouged again. The money raised with todays "environmental" taxes will be long ago spent on things like war. I already try to avoid connecting via Germany because the taxes are higher than the UK. Enough of us thinking this way will reduce revenue for LH, raising airplane related taxes in the UK will obviously have the same effect on UK based airlines.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Coast, UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny
When you burn jet fuel (or any fuel), the carbon in the fuel is oxidised with oxygen from the air, converting it from a high energy (relatively unstable) state in the fuel to a low energy (relatively stable) state as CO2. Is is the difference in energy between these states that is given out as heat and used to propel the plane.
This means that the weight of the carbon coming out of the back of the plane is exactly the same as the weight of the carbon you put into the fuel tanks earlier - so 10 tonnes of Jet A1 gives you 10 tonnes of exhaust carbon.
Now, as slim_slag has explained, carbon in hydrocarbon fuel is combined with hydrogen - the lightest weight atom. When you burn the fuel, you replace those hydrogen atoms with oxygen atoms, which are sixteen times heavier than the hydrogen atoms they replace. This is how one tonne of kerosene can create several tonnes of CO2.
The only sorts of energy release involving atomic change are radiative decay (such as from radon in people's homes), nuclear fusion (such as the H-bomb) and nuclear fission (modern nuclear power plants). E=mc2 isn't relevant otherwise.
This means that the weight of the carbon coming out of the back of the plane is exactly the same as the weight of the carbon you put into the fuel tanks earlier - so 10 tonnes of Jet A1 gives you 10 tonnes of exhaust carbon.
Now, as slim_slag has explained, carbon in hydrocarbon fuel is combined with hydrogen - the lightest weight atom. When you burn the fuel, you replace those hydrogen atoms with oxygen atoms, which are sixteen times heavier than the hydrogen atoms they replace. This is how one tonne of kerosene can create several tonnes of CO2.
The only sorts of energy release involving atomic change are radiative decay (such as from radon in people's homes), nuclear fusion (such as the H-bomb) and nuclear fission (modern nuclear power plants). E=mc2 isn't relevant otherwise.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 40 odd cars...
Coming back to an earlier bit; whilst the differential between the two methods is neglible, consider this -
Each car has four tyres which also require energy to manufacture them
Each car creates greater congestion and hence decreases the efficiency of the roads (assuming they don't all decide to drive in the middle of the night)
Each car is also using 40 x lubricants (oil!)
Getting everyone on one mode of transport therefore makes sense (hence if they went on two coaches the difference would be yet another number crunching nightmare)
Each car has four tyres which also require energy to manufacture them
Each car creates greater congestion and hence decreases the efficiency of the roads (assuming they don't all decide to drive in the middle of the night)
Each car is also using 40 x lubricants (oil!)
Getting everyone on one mode of transport therefore makes sense (hence if they went on two coaches the difference would be yet another number crunching nightmare)
If aviation is targeted, Robbin' Gordon should also tax those lycra clad weirdos on their racing bikes, and the flatulant cows (the four legged kind) farting in the fields. They contribute to global warmiong too! That's assuming that the green lobby has got it's facts right on the reasons for climate change, which is becoming increasingly doubtful.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Man
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of people on this forum are missing the point, I mean as far as jet fuel is concerned it is not taxed unlike petrol, and as far as aviation is concerned a large proportion of commercial flights in the UK are charter to all the usual holiday destinations which I doubt very much are of much use to the UK economy, if anything they cause a negative effect.
I'm just saying that is it really fair for the population to subidise shellsuit flights to the sun which have virtually no value to the economy whilst heavily taxing all motorists at the same time bearing in mind the environmental damage caused by these aircraft, noise, pollution etc.
I fully understand the importance of scheduled flights to the economy which serve economic centres etc, but try telling local airport residents that these night flights carrying holidaymakers are of much benefit to our economy.
I'm just saying that is it really fair for the population to subidise shellsuit flights to the sun which have virtually no value to the economy whilst heavily taxing all motorists at the same time bearing in mind the environmental damage caused by these aircraft, noise, pollution etc.
I fully understand the importance of scheduled flights to the economy which serve economic centres etc, but try telling local airport residents that these night flights carrying holidaymakers are of much benefit to our economy.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will someone please tell me why if a train is so much more fuel efficient per person than an aeroplane air travel is generally as cheap as subsidised rail travel?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send Clowns,
I can travel Edinburgh to Birmingham return by train with a fully open and flexible ticket for £50.
Which airline will offer a fully flexible return ticket for £50? (including taxes, as the £50 train ticket is inclusive of taxes)
Come on. We all love aviation but if we are to argue effectively against tax increases we need to stick to indisputable facts.
I can travel Edinburgh to Birmingham return by train with a fully open and flexible ticket for £50.
Which airline will offer a fully flexible return ticket for £50? (including taxes, as the £50 train ticket is inclusive of taxes)
Come on. We all love aviation but if we are to argue effectively against tax increases we need to stick to indisputable facts.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoping
You have highlighted the problem.
None of the posts have argued effectively against this proposed tax.
The tax will be justified on technological and scientific grounds. I suspect these grounds are pseudo science, but I did post a question on the technical forum hoping for some expert opinions, alas very little transpired.
I suspect arguments about which car one would be prepared to travel on a long journey in and its fuel and manufacturing energy cost will carry little weight.
Driving across the Atlantic is well outside today's technology.
I think the airline business has to demonstrate that the government's scientific grounds for this proposed tax are clearly invalid, or accept the tax with its implications for the industry.
I mentioned on the other thread the very short time between the publication of what is called a preliminary report on the science and the tax proposal, a mere six months.
The reality is that this is too good an opportunity for raising money for the government to pass up, and no arguments will prevent it's introduction.
Once upon a time there was purchase tax, with a 'luxury' band at 60 per cent. This proposed tax may better be seen as a luxury tax.
You have highlighted the problem.
None of the posts have argued effectively against this proposed tax.
The tax will be justified on technological and scientific grounds. I suspect these grounds are pseudo science, but I did post a question on the technical forum hoping for some expert opinions, alas very little transpired.
I suspect arguments about which car one would be prepared to travel on a long journey in and its fuel and manufacturing energy cost will carry little weight.
Driving across the Atlantic is well outside today's technology.
I think the airline business has to demonstrate that the government's scientific grounds for this proposed tax are clearly invalid, or accept the tax with its implications for the industry.
I mentioned on the other thread the very short time between the publication of what is called a preliminary report on the science and the tax proposal, a mere six months.
The reality is that this is too good an opportunity for raising money for the government to pass up, and no arguments will prevent it's introduction.
Once upon a time there was purchase tax, with a 'luxury' band at 60 per cent. This proposed tax may better be seen as a luxury tax.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lost in Space
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trying today to workout how much tax we pay directly and indirectly out of our pay packet, I reckoned that it must be close to 50%, so has anyone worked it out?.
Income Tax
National Insurance
Tax on Petrol, the Vat on the lot
VAT on nearly everything
Airport Tax
Council Tax
Road Tax
Tax on insurance
Income Tax
National Insurance
Tax on Petrol, the Vat on the lot
VAT on nearly everything
Airport Tax
Council Tax
Road Tax
Tax on insurance
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget special tax on your beer, and the tax paid for the privalige of employing you, paid by your employer at the rate of 11 per cent.
Total tax probably about 70%.
Can't really get my head round the calculation that everything you buy has suffered its own tax burden which is passed on to you, and the profits of the shopkeeper and producer are taxed.
Total tax probably about 70%.
Can't really get my head round the calculation that everything you buy has suffered its own tax burden which is passed on to you, and the profits of the shopkeeper and producer are taxed.
PPRuNe Enigma
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget the Poll Tax, which has to be paid out of what's left of your income after income tax, national insurance and your employers' 11% national insurance contribution.... 
Sellby_date Expired
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: East Anglia
Age: 83
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has always been a 'pet' niggle of mine, all the indirect taxation.
If Income Tax were set at, say 50%, everyone would moan at first, until they realised that it would cost about a pound a gallon for petrol, and the same sort of savings on ALMOST everything.
There would also be the hidden savings. All the Shiny @rse tax collectors that could go onto the dole, and have to start earning their money instead of stealing ours
If Income Tax were set at, say 50%, everyone would moan at first, until they realised that it would cost about a pound a gallon for petrol, and the same sort of savings on ALMOST everything.
There would also be the hidden savings. All the Shiny @rse tax collectors that could go onto the dole, and have to start earning their money instead of stealing ours
