emjoes1 parent
Why not? Because an engine based on 'rotating detonation' could be more efficient than what is in current use today. An engine that can burn a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and Jet-A fuel is better than just Jet-A fuel.? Why is the first response always about burning carbon... at least this is getting people to destinations fast. Go beat up on people joy riding around in cruise ships burning heavy fuel oil.
Because carbon is the religious original sin of our time. No matter what one does (carbon tax, cafe standards, other efficiency standards, etc) one will always be tarnished by committing the sin of using carbon and one must always be looked down on for it, at least to some people. It does not seem possible to have a reasonable conversation with these people along the lines of, ok set a carbon tax for the supposed externality releasing co2 causes and then stop wasting brain cycles on this. Let people choose under the new price regime and mind your own business because you don't know what their utility function looks like, what seems like waste to you is just the delta between your respective utility functions and you need to get along with each other for society to function, which necessarily means mind your own damn business once the harm that wasn't previously in the price is reasonably in the price.
I don't think the people you're talking about are the ones preventing a carbon tax from being implemented. If you start from the assumption that passing an effective carbon tax is impossible, as it seems to be, then their behavior starts to seem less irrational.
RotDet is claimed to be about 25% more efficient.