Does France HATE Aviation?! Or DO they have a point 🧐

Solution: Jet engines on cars

This law is ok providing that there are enough trains and seats for passengers are available and I still think that the energy required for trains would not be that much different to flying an aircraft not that I travel a lot by air or trains for that matter. I am of the view that the environment question is being blown out of all proportion. Besides that in Australia where I live there is not that much infrastructure or frequency for me living in a rural area is just not there for me to travel to say Sydney which is a four and half hours for me to drive by car.

Sorry, really like your content especially the plane crash investigation ones but your 5% claim is very wrong. Ice engines are more like 25% to 40% depending on the specifics. The car industry has also been getting better with engines as people always want longer range for the same dollars pumped into the tank.

Acela train breaks in half due to mechanical failure while en route; number of casualties; zero. 747 has same issue, number of survivors………also zero.

I love your channel, but this video is way off. The most efficient airplanes when flying the ideal distance and passenger load will consume around 2.5 L/100km/passager. A family cars, like a Passat 2.0 TDI consistently consumes 4L/100 in the highway, which translates to 1 L/100 per person when traveling very comfortably with 4 people.

The mistake on the video is comparing the turbofan efficiency with internal combustion engine, and assuming that this is the efficiency of the whole machine. This is wrong for many reasons, mostly because airplanes move way faster, so they face higher air resistance, and airplanes fly, so they have to use fuel to accelerate air downwards to keep from falling.

EDIT: 5% of fuel efficiency on a car engine? You really believe this?

Green scam has to be voided in any case.

Most Diesels are over 30% efficient. Toyota's new petrol line up has 43% thermal efficiency. BUT being efficient, or being eco friendly is not the same thing… I never saw a catalytic converter on any plane much less Particle Filters. Yet any modern cars have these features.
Also CO2 is not the most polluting gas released when burning hydrocarbons, NOx is this is also the reason why diesel engines are phased out.

Many trains run on electricity produced by fuel . The tax level on this fuel is much higher than aircraft fuel.
Many people request that aircraft fuel being fairly taxed.

I would rather fly some where than use the trainbus or motor vehicle.

considering designing aircraft is the one thing the French are actually good at other than surrender it is strange to me. In the US we despise public transit unless your a bleeding hear WOKE idiot. quite literally 150m a year in fees, taxes, tariffs ect. is collected by the MAA (Maryland aviation administration) yet all of it is dumped into the "light rail". A light weight train system intended for the cheap convenience of the Baltimore residents. Because of this there is no funding for airport improvements. Local government expects airlines to pay for repairs insted. Fu(k TRAINS.

There is nothing wrong wth CO2. Supposed human caused climate change is a farce and nothing more than propaganda to attempt to usher in socialism.

Sounds like they’re pissed that the tgv is loosing customers

The problem of aviation on a climate change point of view is that the industry is expending way faster than its progress in fuel consumption does. It's becaus only rich contry can afford aviation, and with the developpement of a lot of contries, billions more people will access plane transportation. So the question is should we let the aviation take a bigger place on the global emission and pollute more (even if they make huge efficiency progress) or should we share with developing countries the limited number of flights that allow the industry to be sustainable (knowing that this number will slowly increase with the reduction of emissions)

The technology for zero carbon commercial shipping is tried and tested – for over 1000 years. Fossil fuels took over because journeys would be quicker and more consistent.

The reason short haul flights get the most flak, so to speak, is because take-off and landing are the most fuel intensive parts of the flight, where cruising is pretty minimal. Long haul flights spend the vast majority of their time at cruising altitude and kind of just motoring along with the engines set to use as little fuel as possible.

I think the low hanging fruit to reduce aviation CO2 emission is to electrify all the airport ground vehicules. Stairs, pushback, luggage, food,fuel vehicules, de-icers, snow plow, and buses should be electric. They don't go far, and they always come back to the same place, which is the best for charging small, cheap battery packs.
it will be cheaper to design them because the power train is not safety critical, they don't operate in high altitude very cold environment.

I know it's a very small part of the aviation emission, but it will be a first step in the right direction.

I'm not sure hydrogen for ships is a good idea because it is high cost and low efficiency.

How can the cost of air travel be cheaper than rail travel, that is the conundrum to fix. A good rail network is great for 3-4 hour journeys and fast trains are infinitely more comfortable even though in the UK the seat layouts in 2nd class (economy) are now like airlines to pack people in. The interesting thing about some rail networks in North America is that they don't have a timetable. Hence mixing passenger trains with freight leaves issues with timing even if the passenger train is supposed to have priority. And of course some of the tracks have relatively low speed limits compared to Europe. The UK's punishment for being first with a complex network is that it was built to the speed of the trains of the time. Getting trains running at high speed round sharp curves doesn't work too well.

I don't think there's any European country where you can travel,within the country, more than around 1200 km between major cities. With HSR that's about 4 hours centre to centre. Of course the EU HSR network is way behind Asia but it's easy to see that HSR could easily beat air travel for domestic trips in Europe. Of course, the EU has failed miserably to build an integrated HSR network so inter-country travel by plane is quickest – though far from the most pleasant.

usualy I like the videos and I think they are done in a constructive way. But in this case I think it's way to easy to say "we as aviation are super effective and thats fine" and to blame other industries or contries. I personaly come from the shipping industry and I can also give a LOT of examples how efficiant we got and how low our emmissions got. But if we all start to argue like this no company and no industry will continue to look for even more efficiency and sustainability. It's a global job and it's a global responsability! Therefore every industrie, every company and every human should have a look on how to reach the best rsults for its own and for others.

For continental countries like Europe (or even US) its a huge possibility to expand train services and making it become very efficient. On the other hand, different story with archipelago countries. If France's ban were implemented on other EU countries as well, this would shift entire aviation industry to shifting completelty to archipelago countries, usually this would ended up backfired for EU themselves.

Hmmm … restricting the time to 2h 30 basically makes the ruling meaningless and I am quite sure that the gov't knows that. Perhaps it is a trial balloon that can be further inflated. The point that aircraft are far more efficient than private cars is important and commendable as there is nothing more arrogant in the face of global warming than tooling around in your often over-sized gasoline car/pickup truck, leaving the engine running the morning because it is cool outside and basically doing nothing for the environment while expecting other's to shoulder the load. However, I see a lot of that going on in my area. We are killing the Earth and the main comment is 'how much is this going to cost ME'. I'm glad the boys who went off to WW2 did not feel like that … holy cow. We have had 40 years to deal with this and basically nothing substantial (ie GHG and temperature levels continue to rise dramatically) has happened due to myopic and short-sighted politicians playing to the short-term inconvenience and with the rise iof populism, it is getting worse, because … I feel that due to the selfishness, the only way we can fix this (if we even can … but I digress) is with some pretty restrictive laws and taxations and other economic means to get folks to do the responsible things. The exam is the mean temperature and the levels of crap in the atmosphere. Trying is not enough. Action and by that I mean immediate action is the only path.
In France, the electricity is almost exclusively carbon-free nuclear power. I believe that France uses the most nuclear energy per capita in the world. That being said, then no matter the success of the aircraft mfg to lessen emissions, a TGV would emit …NOTHING. So the savings is very dramatic. If this was imposed in a country where the electricity is produced by coal etc. that would be another matter. So, this law could make a contribution if implemented properly. However, we face the problem of any democracy, unpopular policy to make the situation better for the future. I fear we are far too selfish right now, probably IMHO due to a generation of kids raised by parents who never said 'NO'. Well, the laws of physics are saying 'Change your ways … or else'. We don't have to like it , but we do have to do something or future generations are going to be in some trouble.

One problem i see with cutting on maritime freight's pollution is that a lot of those are coming from developing countries where the regulations are more lax, combined with a much higher dependence on it that makes it hard to put pressure on the freight companies.

To be clear I am not saying it's not something that needs to be done yesterday nor that a lot of systemic changes arent needed on multiple level to make a sustainable economy, jsut that this is one change that will be hard to implement and is far from being a low hanging fruit.

A few more facts to add to this subject.

Plane fuel is less taxed, explaining lower prices for flights than trains while making the local taxpayers paying for a service they don't use at all.
Plane is used by a minority of people emitting the majority of CO2 per inhabitant.
Lots of noise issues with planes, since Europe is more densely populated than USA (less empty spaces to put an airport away from habitations).
Environnemental issues with birds, especially the migrating ones from north to south.
Airports tends to be built on farmlands and forests, again not environnemental friendly.

Overall, it doesn't make sense to choose a more polluting vehicule to do the same travel under the same duration.
But, yes, aviation taking the blame on CO2 emission is BS. it is an easier target than agriculture or personal transport.
It has more to do with the "1% making the 99% evil in the world" state of mind.