No. They provide phase shift to give the single-phase induction motors a rotating rather than oscillating magnetic field. They charge and discharge 100/120 times per second depending on grid frequency.
They do not cover inrush current, and would need to be orders of magnitude bigger and a different topology to do so.
Still tens to maybe low hundreds of microfarads.
Try 78: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/life-expectancy.htm
Obviously not everyone reaches that. Even if you set the retirement age at 50, some people would die first.
Yes,
But also, perhaps superannuation being (at least here in NZ) not means tested and larger than all other welfare combined implies there is a problem.
It means more tax take and less superannuation spending. Depends on the country's superannuation system, of course.
That means more money available for all the things taxes are used for, many of which are very very necessary.
How can you justify cuts to the healthcare system because you claim to not have enough money, but then pay pensioners some thousand dollars a fortnight, regardless of what assets or other income they have?
Most phones seem to give you the option to skip the next alarm. That may be better than disabling it?
Non-single-use plastic isn't really a problem. It's no worse than equivalent metal parts.
AF447 is sometimes blamed on lack of coupled sidesticks amongst other possible deficiencies in aircraft design. Pilot error doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Certainly not the same situation as the 737, though.
Several years is 'recent' in aviation, compared to the high-profile early FBW crashes Airbus had and AF447.
The issue with aviation hydrogen is... well, lots.
Fuel cells are heavy and direct combustion is inefficient and tougher than burning kerosene.
Aircraft typically use the wing structural members as the fuel tank walls. Both cryogenic and pressurised options make that a non-starter.
Lower density means much bigger tanks.
Self-vapourising fuel is a major crash issue.
Round trip efficiency for H2 is still terrible.
Plants may not be particularly efficient per km^2 but arable land isn't actually that hugely scarce.
Reducing aviation is really the only thing that's actually going to work.
I believe that would exclude Canada, Aus, and NZ which are pretty firmly considered first world.
Still increases air resistance. It gets hit by air, and that pushes it back into the fuselage.
Larger aircraft commonly have a ram air turbine (RAT) or Air Driven Generator (ADG) to provide some electrical power and hydraulics in certain emergency situations.
On CRJs, it's right up the front: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxgPrpjByTE
Still delivers a percent or two penalty to fuel burn, and the tiny little generator doesn't even come remotely close to making up for that.