frontbuttt t1_j9z4yr9 wrote

Post was boring and redundant, nominal vocabulary or word variety, completely uninspired. Plus he used “DNF” unironically, in a subreddit about Books and to critique a famous writer’s literary merit and prose... I’m afraid OP might be a bad writer too.


frontbuttt t1_iz0awo4 wrote

And isn’t the real cost here the human suffering, plus the land needed, plus the ecological disruption caused? “Man hours” doesn’t exactly matter as a point of comparison when the functions of those hours are incomparable.


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.


frontbuttt t1_iwhiznx wrote

Agree that the idea we would turn ALL of our accessible-but-unused farmland into bio-fuel crops is pretty depressing. A country-sized no man’s land, where nothing can survive longterm.


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.