Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Entraprenuerrrrr t1_iwhfp5v wrote

It has been proven. Ethanol burn much less efficiently and consistently. Engines run rougher, and get poorer gas mileage. Also, ethanol attracts water, which is very bad for a fuel system and engine. There is no benefit to it being in our gasoline besides juicing corn farmers.

Edit: (source and another point) The process of turning corn into fuel, and then burning it, emits more Co2 than just burning gasoline


frontbuttt t1_iwhimt2 wrote

Read the article. This isn’t proposing use of ethanol, it’s hypothesizing that use of a kerosene-equivalent biofuel, not unlike bio-diesel, could power aviation. And while the harvesting and refinement of the fuel would no doubt pollute, and we’d still be burning the fuel’s carbon into the atmosphere, at least the continuous regrowing of the vegetation to create these fuels would reabsorb some of that carbon (which can’t be said of fossil fuels).

Far from a magic bullet, but if this is a step towards lessening carbon emissions, while retaining an affordable aviation industry (something very few are willing to voluntarily give up) then it should be considered.


Entraprenuerrrrr t1_iwhmjln wrote

Ok I read the article. There is no mention on how well this biofuel will perform. Which is extremely important in aviation. Their rules and regulations are insanely strict. $4.10 a gallon vs $2 for jet fuel. Plane tickets double in price? Not to mention bio fuel will get worse mpg by quite a margin. Is a $500 ticket going to be $1300? Theres so much more that needs to be answered.

All they did was identify certain unused lands in the US can grow enough grass to be made into enough biofuel that it would be equivalent to the aviation industry’s use. Whoopdie doo that solves nothing


frontbuttt t1_iwhovxc wrote

No disagreement here—nothing solved whatsoever. But a reassurance/proposal to take biofuels more seriously, and consider that they need not cannibalize the country’s ability to grow food crops, could be a step towards a stop-gap solution that lessens carbon emissions (even if only by a margin). We need for information, more proposed solutions, and more people considering new approaches/options. Not less.