Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThorsBane | Hacker News Reader

What about electric airplanes for short-haul flights?

> What about electric airplanes for short-haul flights?

These don’t yet exist. That said, Paris just took its industry out of the running for building that future.

Setting a low- or zero-carbon threshold for these flights would have been a future-proof solution. (Or an exorbitant carbon tax, to align prices between trains and planes.) Altogether, this looks like protectionism in anticipation of the TGV’s upcoming expansion [1].

[1] https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/travel/article/tgv-m-france-rail-rev...

Sounds like this isn't about carbon, then. It's about control. There are already electric aircraft either in the works or soon available that could handle short-haul flights all day long, but if they're interested in preventing this from even becoming possible that just speaks volumes to what their real intentions are.

Saying something is "about control" is not an argument. The onus is on you to explain who is seizing this control and to what end, and with enough evidence and logical consistency that it's not just another of the million baseless conspiracy theories we're all sick of hearing about.

It's blatantly clear who is seizing control and to what end. It's literally in the article headline and description. Some bureacrats are invoking a lie around carbon emissions to ground their population so that people can't fly anymore. Pretending otherwise or putting your head in the sand by pretending the onus is on someone else ain't it.

You still haven't fleshed out a decent conspiracy theory. WHICH bureaucrats are intent on preventing people from flying? WHAT do they gain by achieving this end?

> There are already electric aircraft either in the works or soon available that could handle short-haul flights all day long

I'm afraid, no, not "soon".

You're wrong. There are 9-seater craft that already had maiden voyages at the start of the year. Those will just increase in size and range. Progress in tech is moving very fast including in electric airplanes and France could accomplish it's claimed goals around emissions without bans.

I've seen enough aviation startups get that far and fail to be pessimistic about those actually getting to production. Though there is hope.

Fair enough, it's a hard problem to work on indeed. But I would ask, why not raise investment then? Why is the solution a ban, when we have working prototypes that get better every month and that have done maiden voyages? The solution is larger investments and partnerships into more R&D on these crafts, not to shutter the prospect entirely...

My point is precisely that: those investments are happening, that R&D is happening, and electric planes will happen, and they will reach commercial scale at some point.

And when then do (I would probably bet "in 10 to 15 years", and I would absolutely bet "later than you're optimisticly hoping", because that's what the people making the planes are saying [1] [2]), then the bans won't make sense, sure. At some point.

But the emphasis is _AT SOME POINT_, where the commercial fossil fuel propelled planes are travelling and emitting _RIGHT NOW_. The best time to reduce the number of flights was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.

MEANWHILE...

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/are-electric-planes-ready-for-takeoff/...

[2] https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2023-03-electrify...

Increasing carbon taxes (even on planes) is a political no-no for the foreseable future (yellow jacket PTSD.)

We have a big plane industry, Airbus is _very_ actively working on EP (no idea if they will achieve anything, but, hey...)

I doubt this law should affect them much - their target is probably to "fix" private jets and very short trips rather than intercities, anyway.

I'm pretty sure that if they ever find a way to make fully electric flights between the _three_ routes that are canceled by this law, then the _three_ routes will re-open.

The question now is whether this is opening the road to banning more routes (the CDG situation is _really_ absurd, and will probably be a political bargaining chip in the future), if other countries will copy the idea, if the overton window will shift to banning private jets, etc...

Fairly symbolic at the moment, but if you believe in the "small steps actually taken vs ever-postponned revolution", that's a thing.

> doubt this law should affect them much - their target is probably to "fix" private jets and very short trips rather than intercities

Airbus is (perhaps intentionally) untouched. It's the space below them, which is being aggressively pursued by start-ups, that's being cut off at the knees by Paris.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com