ChatterBank4 mins ago
10 � goverment tax per flight
33 Answers
I recently booked a flight for my dad and found myself paying a 10 � goverment tax.
If memory serves this tax was imposed in a so called attemtp to limit the number of people flying because of the "ecological damages" flying causes. OK I agreeit is now eco that millions of people per day go speeding around the world in jet planes,
but it begs the question: What is that money being used for ? for each flight 10 � per head is charged on an average plane of 180 passenger capacity thats 1800 pounds how many hundred of planes fly a day how many thousands of planes fly a month how many millions a year.
If the tax was imposed in the name of being "green" is that money being used for "green" sources of energy ?
If memory serves this tax was imposed in a so called attemtp to limit the number of people flying because of the "ecological damages" flying causes. OK I agreeit is now eco that millions of people per day go speeding around the world in jet planes,
but it begs the question: What is that money being used for ? for each flight 10 � per head is charged on an average plane of 180 passenger capacity thats 1800 pounds how many hundred of planes fly a day how many thousands of planes fly a month how many millions a year.
If the tax was imposed in the name of being "green" is that money being used for "green" sources of energy ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Thunderchild. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Spent fuel rods have the Uranium and Plutonium recovered in the form of reusable pellets. These are then sent back to the client. What is left is about 3% of the original waste, that is encased in glass and also sent back to the client.
Sellafield is one of the main places in the world where this happens. The facility was originally set up as a reprocessing plant in order to extract weapons grade Uranium/Plutonium for use in the UK's nuclear weapons program. This is no longer the case but the usefulness on the plant in cleaning up the waste is still retained.
Yes there is some nuclear waste and it does need storing but it is not anything like the problem that it is painted.
As I said above, you can't have it both ways, if you want to stop using fossil fuels, great but barring major breakthroughs, you are going to have to embrace the atom.
Sellafield is one of the main places in the world where this happens. The facility was originally set up as a reprocessing plant in order to extract weapons grade Uranium/Plutonium for use in the UK's nuclear weapons program. This is no longer the case but the usefulness on the plant in cleaning up the waste is still retained.
Yes there is some nuclear waste and it does need storing but it is not anything like the problem that it is painted.
As I said above, you can't have it both ways, if you want to stop using fossil fuels, great but barring major breakthroughs, you are going to have to embrace the atom.
I fear Thunderchid that you are rather mislead about the viability of wind and solar.
They're good but when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow you need a backup.
Put simply the maths just doesn't stack up with using those alone.
That means either fossil fuels or nuclear and nuclear doesn't add CO2.
Try it yourself here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/el ectricity_calc/html/1.stm
add in the numbers and tell us your prescription for balancing the books.
PS I think �10 per flight is laughable when there's no tax on aircraft fuel!
They're good but when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow you need a backup.
Put simply the maths just doesn't stack up with using those alone.
That means either fossil fuels or nuclear and nuclear doesn't add CO2.
Try it yourself here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/el ectricity_calc/html/1.stm
add in the numbers and tell us your prescription for balancing the books.
PS I think �10 per flight is laughable when there's no tax on aircraft fuel!
yes there would be a 6 % increase in power cost if:
we reduce the fossil fuels from 250 to 40 and increased renewables from 10 to 240 plus reducing national demand by 40 % ! the worst case scenario is 100 % fossil only fuel (without reducing the need by 40 %) and the price will only double I say only because with all the disasters of prices that people predict with renewables to the point of it being totaly and utterly impossible twice the current price is not bad but don't worry your right still its unfeasable and the fact that oil prices by then will be double is meanless isn't it ? with 15 % price increase this year what do you think the price of fossi fuel will be by 2020 ? YOU DO the maths
we reduce the fossil fuels from 250 to 40 and increased renewables from 10 to 240 plus reducing national demand by 40 % ! the worst case scenario is 100 % fossil only fuel (without reducing the need by 40 %) and the price will only double I say only because with all the disasters of prices that people predict with renewables to the point of it being totaly and utterly impossible twice the current price is not bad but don't worry your right still its unfeasable and the fact that oil prices by then will be double is meanless isn't it ? with 15 % price increase this year what do you think the price of fossi fuel will be by 2020 ? YOU DO the maths
If it is being used for green sources then it should be tracked. Or they should put the money into a green mutual fund that invests in the sector based on performance
http://www.amfi.com/types/green-mutual-funds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_energy
http://www.amfi.com/types/green-mutual-funds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_energy
Latest Posts
Crosswords15 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News24 mins ago
News24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.