Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Hempcar will introduce 17 billion dollars into the economy

By ogfomk in Technology
Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 01:31:02 AM EST
Tags: Science (all tags)
Science

The Hempcar will introduce 17 billion dollars into our economy over the next five years. This alone, along with the green benefits of using hemp, will help manage our planet more responsibly. What is the spearhead of the Hemp Industrial Movement? It is the Hempcar Transamerica Tour.


The Hempcar and crew will be making a historic tour across the United States and Canada this summer 2001. What makes this tour historic are two things. One item of history will be the use of a bio-mass diesel fuel for over 10,000 miles. The other item of history will be that the bio-mass diesel is made from hemp seed oil.

This endeavor has so far been sponsored by hemp industry interests and advocates: The Hemp Industries Association , Hemp World, Inc. , The Ohio Hempery , Hemp Oil Canada , Appal Energy , and NORML .

The car itself was donated by a partner of the Motley Fool investor group. It is a 1983 Mercedes Benz 300 Turbo Diesel. It is an ordinary diesel car. The fuel is manufactured per the specs of the original inventor of the diesel engine Rudolf Diesel. His first engine was powered by peanut oil. Why are truckers and train operators in the United States paying for high fuel costs? Why are the United States Navy, Army and Coast Guard paying high prices for foreign fuels that we can make at home? The answer is simple. We do not know any better. The same hemp that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew, is considered by United States Federal Law to be a controlled substance under the Drug Enforcement Agency. This has no scientific fact or reasoning behind it.

The Hempcar intends to spotlight and change our knowledge in the areas of hemp use and to show us all that we can have simple cost effective alternatives to the fuels we are currently using.

How is it made? The hemp bio-diesel is made from the pressed oil of hemp seeds. The molecular stricture of the hemp seed oil is huge so lye is introduced via methanol to break down the molecules to act more efficiently in the compression to heat activation of the hemp seed oil. The creates a hemp bio-diesel. Its flash point is around 300° F. (145° C ). It is very safe. Its safeness is the same as vegetable oil. It is non-toxic so if there were spills from this the safety concern would be in slippery roads. All of the hemp bio-diesel is biodegradable. The by product from the manufactured fuel is soap. The active ingredients can be re-used for for future manufacture. The soapy by product can be used in the manufacture of biodegradable anti-freeze. Why are we not currently growing our own fuel?

The re-introduction of hemp as a viable marketable crop for the farmers of the United States would be a great blessing to our economy. Traditionally poor states that rely on agriculture or strip mining can use their lands to produce food, fuels and fibers. The marketing limits are only by creativity. All big businesses know that creative marketing and customer service build a company more so than what a company sells. Imagine how much easier their marketing strategies will be when big business does not have to hide where its products are coming from. It is simple. Big business needs only to choose what it wants to market. It is simple for the smaller businesses too. They can provide market strategies for highly personalized agricultural product services.

The Hempcar Transamerica Tour this summer will reach well over 20,000,000 people intimately in this 40 city tour. Traffic helicopters will spot the Hempcar and millions of news viewers will see this. In the city stops the Hempcar crew will talk about hemp, bio-mass fuels, and other concerned green issues. The idea is to let the general public know that we all have a greater choice in our lives than what we are currently paying for and using.

Some people have been asking about the price of the fuel now. The price is currently about $70.00 a gallon. It is expensive. But the fuel does not have to be. Not only that, but big industrial oil companies do not have to miss out on their involvement in its marketing. Once again, the solution is simple.

The infrastructure of the oil companies is excellent. They already have the stations to distribute, the refineries and storage containers to manufacture, and the know how to market the bio-mass fuels. Instead of taking great cost measures, paying environmental fines and polluting the air with toxic smoke, the oil companies can differ those costs in providing first the bio-diesel. Eventually in less than five years the cost can be down to as low as $0.32 a gallon. This is also with a tidy profit for the efforts of farmers, manufacturers and marketing gurus.

Our energy needs and resources that we currently need and use need to change. Help us to support the Hempcar Transamerica Tour. We can all be proud at the finish line.

Alexander B. Nuttall
alex@hempcar.org

RE: http://www.hempcar.org

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
What do you think of growing Hemp for food, fuels and fibers?
o If George Washington did and Thomas Jefferson did then so should we. 9%
o I think Hemp and Marijuana are the same thing. 3%
o I am already actively involved with the Hemp Industries. 1%
o I don't care about the environment, the economy or life in general. 8%
o Let me fire up another bud and think about it. 16%
o I'd rather be fishing. 6%
o I wish I could drive the Hempcar. 5%
o Hemp is a wonderful plant for us all to use. 48%

Votes: 131
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Hempcar
o The Hemp Industries Association
o Hemp World, Inc.
o The Ohio Hempery
o Hemp Oil Canada
o Appal Energy
o NORML
o Motley Fool
o http://www .hempcar.org
o Also by ogfomk


Display: Sort:
Hempcar will introduce 17 billion dollars into the economy | 163 comments (122 topical, 41 editorial, 2 hidden)
Didn't Cheech and Chong already do this.. (2.88 / 9) (#1)
by gridwerk on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 11:53:43 AM EST

in "up in smoke" or one of thier movies that always seem to be on comedy central?

Biomass fuel problems (3.42 / 7) (#6)
by DesiredUsername on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:00:22 PM EST

1) It still puts carbon into the air, right?

2) There's only as much fuel as there is biomass. Oil running out is bad enough, I don't want to be forced into growing "hemp" in my basement to keep up with the national demand.

Both of these problems are solved with solar and like technologies.

Play 囲碁
No (3.50 / 4) (#8)
by maketo on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:03:24 PM EST

Both of these problems are solved by riding horses and abandoning cars. This will mean inconvenience though and the pace of life will slow down. I doubt the coprorations are going to let us do this? What do you think?
agents, bugs, nanites....see the connection?
[ Parent ]
other alternatives? (2.75 / 4) (#11)
by ODiV on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:08:11 PM EST

Horses? What about bikes and mass transit? Or were you joking?


--
[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
No joking (3.00 / 4) (#16)
by maketo on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:14:05 PM EST

Horse of bike - same thing. I would rather live in a time when people rode horses and it took 15 days to get from town to town than now. But thats never going to change :(
agents, bugs, nanites....see the connection?
[ Parent ]
horses and bikes are not the same (4.00 / 5) (#24)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 01:12:32 PM EST

Here in Cincinnati, Ohio the police use both mounted patrols and bicycle patrols. The bicycle patrols don't need several full time employees driving around in a pickup and armed with shovels. On the other hand, the mounted patrols are far more effective at running down and attacking peaceful protesters of world trade groups meeting.

Bicycles are also at least one order of magnitude easier and cheaper to maintain than horses. Because of their low cost, bicycles are the preferred method of transportation in many cities (a few are even in the US). Horses do have a very big advantage over bicycles in terms of carrying capacity.

[ Parent ]

would this be the same peaceful protesters (1.50 / 2) (#77)
by gridwerk on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 05:50:31 AM EST

of world trade groups meeting we had here in Seattle throwing rocks and breaking windows.. as well as seeing NO WTO sprayed all over the city?

[ Parent ]
Cincinnati (4.00 / 2) (#88)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 09:13:40 AM EST

The only violence by the protesters here in Cincinnati were two plate glass windows that were broken and some slogans written on public buildings in chalk. I doubt the windows would have been broken if the police had not initiated violence on a group of protesters that were peaceful up until that point.

On the other hand the police clubbed several people who weren't resisting arrest into submission, used mace on reports, unlawfully detained groups with a license to hold a rally, prevented people (like me) who weren't out protesting but was ill with a case of severe bronchitis from seeing my doctor because I looked like I might be a protester and because my doctor's office was in the office building next to the hotel where the trade meeting was.

As far as Seattle, perhaps you forget about the dozens of protesters that held the black block in check in front of Starbucks until police arrived.

[ Parent ]

Horse advantage (none / 0) (#140)
by Mitheral on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 08:50:18 PM EST

The main advantage to the horse for modern patrolling is the height the rider gets. For crowd control (good or bad) the horse is a tough tool to beat.

[ Parent ]
This pretty funny (3.00 / 5) (#25)
by DesiredUsername on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 01:15:23 PM EST

The same people who complain about cow farts causing global warming want us all to buy horses.

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
who? (none / 0) (#101)
by mikpos on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 05:52:32 PM EST

Which people are those?

[ Parent ]
no more auto theft but (none / 0) (#132)
by Sikpup on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 05:02:22 PM EST

Will the laws making horse theft a capital crime come back? It sure would cut down on theft of transportation. Lawyers would hate it too - no more lawsuits for accidents, etc (or at least very few)



[ Parent ]
Renewable (3.60 / 5) (#15)
by retinaburn on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:13:15 PM EST

The main benefit of using biomass is the fact its renewable on a much smaller time scale. And you would be able to purchase it wherever you get your vegetable/peanut/hemp oil now i imagine.

The Veggie Van got 25 miles/gallon.

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
ergh? (3.75 / 4) (#21)
by titus-g on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:59:47 PM EST

*The Veggie Van got 25 miles/gallon.*

Are you sure about that? It's almost down to sports car economy...

I once read a page about converting (used) cooking oil to car oil and I'm sure they were getting better than that, otherwise I'd've quit reading, admittedly the process was a bit scary for homebrew. Could be I was only paying attention to the costs though (and never been able to find the page again :(

http://www.vwc.edu/library_tech/wwwpages/gnoe/avd.htm stuffy stuff about alt fuel.

--"Essentially madness is like charity, it begins at home" --
[ Parent ]

Yup (4.00 / 3) (#32)
by retinaburn on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 02:22:55 PM EST

Its correct ...Veggi Van.

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
Renewable (3.00 / 1) (#158)
by kzanol on Thu Mar 08, 2001 at 10:42:57 AM EST

The Veggie Van got 25 miles/gallon. Don't know about the van you refer to, but in Europe use of "Biodiesel" is quite common, biodiesel being metylated plant oil. It's a bit cheaper than regular (mineral oil) diesel but then it's about 5-10% less energy density, i.e you'll get less miles to the galon. My car uses about 5.3l/100km when running on biodiesel and about 4.9 if using regular diesel. Polutants in exhaust are deciedly lower, no Sulfur oxides for example. The raw material used for the production of biodiesel is a mix of fresh vegie oil and used cooking fat (which is collected and recycled). Gives you an exhaust that smells a bit like cheap fries, but who cares :-)
You have moved your mouse- please reboot to make this change take effekt!
[ Parent ]
CO2 (4.75 / 4) (#27)
by janra on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 01:15:55 PM EST

1) It still puts carbon into the air, right?

Any organic chemical will produce CO2 and water when completely burned (plus oxidised forms of any atoms other than carbon and hydrogen in the molecule). When incomplete combustion takes place, which is getting better but still happens when you start and stop combustion so many time per second, other garbage like CO is produced. Nitrogen in the air also burns if the temperature is in a certain range, producing the ever wonderful NOx compounds.

Personally, I'm more excited by hydrogen fuel cells - they produce only water and run cool, so there's no possible chance of NOx.


--
Discuss the art and craft of writing
That's the problem with world domination... Nobody is willing to wait for it anymore, work slowly towards it, drink more and enjoy the ride more.
[ Parent ]
Counterpoint (3.00 / 3) (#44)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 03:43:46 PM EST

The problem with solar power is that, at least using current technology, it takes an *immense* amount of space. Same with wind power ... the quantity of land needed for it is enormous.

[ Parent ]
Biomass vs. solar efficiency (3.00 / 2) (#74)
by cameldrv on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 03:05:30 AM EST

Well, if solar takes an immense amount of space, then you're going to have big problems with biomass because it is less than 1/10 as efficient.

[ Parent ]
Ummm...what? (3.00 / 3) (#84)
by DesiredUsername on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 07:50:09 AM EST

I could power my house with solar panels covering just my roof. Good luck doing the same with peanuts grown in the same amount of area. Especially considering that any biomass needs a growing season while solar works every day.

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
You might be able to do that (none / 0) (#98)
by aphrael on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 04:01:43 PM EST

for those of us who live in rainy/foggy climates, it's less clear.

In any event, I was speaking of large-scale solar power plants .... acre upon acre upon acre of solar collectors.

[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#103)
by DesiredUsername on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 07:40:18 PM EST

"In any event, I was speaking of large-scale solar power plants .... acre upon acre upon acre of solar collectors."

Apparently you've never visted a farm state. Just where do you think they grow all that corn, wheat and peanuts? Window boxes?

I'm not going to calculations, but a typical farm acreage, if totally covered with solar panels, could probably easily power a town of several hundreds if not thousands. The same could not be said for peanuts grown on the same acreage.

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0) (#111)
by dennis on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 05:28:48 PM EST

1) It still puts carbon into the air, right?

Actually, no. The whole point of biomass fuel is that the carbon it puts into the air is the same carbon that it took out of the air, by growing. Net effect, zero.

[ Parent ]

Facts are incorrect (4.72 / 11) (#9)
by retinaburn on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:04:53 PM EST

What makes this tour historic are two things. One item of history will be the use of a bio-mass diesel fuel for over 10,000 miles. The other item of history will be that the bio-mass diesel is made from hemp seed oil.

Acutally the Veggi Van has travelled over 25,000 miles on biodiesel fuel using new and used vegetable oil. Sorry Hemp Boy they beat ya to it. By 2 years and 15,000 miles.

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


the best part of the veggie van (4.25 / 4) (#31)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 02:20:27 PM EST

According the veggie van website, it's exhaust smells like french fries. That single fact would be a tremendous boon to the US. Can you imagine living next to a freeway and instead of waking to the smell of diesel exhaust every morning, waking to the smell of french fries?

I think I might go buy stock in McDonalds. . .

[ Parent ]

French Fries (3.00 / 1) (#114)
by cyclopatra on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 09:37:16 PM EST

You've obviously never worked in fast food. After my year flipping burgers, I would walk a mile to avoid that smell...

Cyclopatra(it takes 3 months to get it out of your clothes-!)
All your .sigs are belong to us.
remove mypants to email
[ Parent ]

Oops (4.25 / 4) (#64)
by ogfomk on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 07:53:53 PM EST

I should have said hemp bio-diesel. I am sorry.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]
What's so special about hemp biodiesel? (none / 0) (#118)
by plonk on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 10:35:15 PM EST

As it turns out nothing (other than the nitwit statement 'but it's HEMP, man!); chemically it's the same stuff as biodiesel made from algae, corn, oil palms, and soybeans.

[ Parent ]
So why is it illegal for farmers to produce? EOM (none / 0) (#126)
by ogfomk on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 03:01:58 AM EST


This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]
+1 Informative article, excellent subject ;-) (2.71 / 7) (#13)
by MisterX on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:10:41 PM EST

Being a bit of an armchair cannabis (it's a herb, not a drug) activist, I've read a fair bit about hemp and its uses. First I've heard of it being used as a safe and cheap fuel source. Fascinating.

Strange to think that such a useful plant is illegal in most countries around the world because it is considered a dangerous drug. Hmmm... it's safer than nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc. etc.

Efforts such as this make a far better case for the legalisation of hemp than a thousand demonstrations by cannabis users. I support both types of effort... from my armchair of course!

Well written, informative article too.

Now, the real question... can I get high off the exhaust? <g>



Hemp <> Dope (4.00 / 1) (#127)
by barnaclebarnes on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 06:51:07 AM EST

I think this view of the 'Hemp is Good(tm)' argument is flawed in the fact that people should not join the views of pot smoking with hemp production for other uses. I don't disagree with smoking as recreational or theraputical(sp?) activity but that should not be associated with the other benefits of hemp. The hemp produced for hemp products does not contain THC which is the active ingredient for getting high and therefore has no real relationship with the drug apart from the fact that it comes from similar plants. In fact I think that one of the reasons that hemp is not used as widely in production of clothing and general goods is the fact all products made with hemp seem to be associated with smoking! I would personally buy products made with hemp but quite frankly they generally have very little style and seem to be promoted as green products instead of just being released as a 'normal' product which would appeal to the masses.

[ Parent ]
Engage the sumbject (4.00 / 1) (#128)
by ogfomk on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 08:03:38 AM EST

By engaging the subject we remove the stigmatism associated with hemp.

Last night I shot the breeze with my grandma' and grandpa' and I discussed hemp. By listening to them and they listening to me we came about with an interesting idea:

What if bio-diesel was a hoax?

That really was the only thing stopping us from enjoying the idea.

As a matter of fact they told me things about the way the world has been that I did not know, just because we discussed challenging subjects... including morphine, opium and such. My Grandma' told me that women used to take an opiate derivative specifically so that thier (not her) skin could be a milky white color. No kidding.

So why is hemp illegal?
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

Exactly why talking with elders is a Good Thing (3.00 / 1) (#129)
by MisterX on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 12:10:07 PM EST

My Grandma' told me that women used to take an opiate derivative specifically so that thier (not her) skin could be a milky white color. No kidding.

When I were a lad, my great-aunt spotted that I was drinking from a can of Coca-Cola and went completely ballistic. Said I "shouldn't be taking drugs"!

Now, you can imagine that this was met with the blank stare. Drugs? "Yes, that drink has cocaine in it."

Further blank stare. OK, she's very old and maybe she's just confused. I dump the can and we drop the subject.

Imagine my surprise when I eventually discovered that yes, Coca-Cola once did contain cocaine as an active ingredient. No-one had told my great-aunt that it had been replaced many years previously with caffeine. She died before I could explain to her that I wasn't a cocaine-abuser :-)

Speak with your elders. Learn about the past from people as well as documents so that you can get closer to the truth.

So why is hemp illegal?

So far, my research leads me to believe that it's all the fault of one Egyptian negotiator at some League of Nations conference in the late 1920s. They were discussing banning the trade of opiates and other drugs. This guy managed to get cannabis included. Boom! Hemp becomes illegal.

This status quo has been reinforced over the years through drug legislation, flawed anti-cannabis "research" and propaganda ("reefer madness" anyone?).

To paraphrase the immortal Bill Hicks: "Making hemp illegal is like saying God made a mistake" ;-)

Paul

---
I'm not trying to be authoritative here... I encourage readers to do their own research and not trust my flawed data!



[ Parent ]
Different status quo depending on location (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by kzanol on Thu Mar 08, 2001 at 11:01:46 AM EST

This status quo has been reinforced over the years through drug legislation, flawed anti-cannabis "research" and propaganda ("reefer madness" anyone?). Kind of fun to read for someone from europe. While hemp is still not a very widely planted crop, it IS legal to to cultivate it. Not only that, as a farmer you can even get it subsidized by the european union since it's a crop that doesn't need much in the way of fertilizer, insecticide or weed killers. Of course, the varieties of hemp that may be cultivated have zero recreational potential - the content of T?? is so low as to be negligible.
You have moved your mouse- please reboot to make this change take effekt!
[ Parent ]
Re: Hemp <> Dope (2.00 / 1) (#130)
by MisterX on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 12:50:12 PM EST

I think this view of the 'Hemp is Good(tm)' argument is flawed in the fact that people should not join the views of pot smoking with hemp production for other uses.

I both agree and disagree with the gist of your comment! (I'll qualify this - I need to do more research on the relationship between hemp and cannabis - different strains of the same plant, yes?)

I believe it insane that a natural product as obviously useful as hemp is illegal AT ALL. Its production and use should be encouraged. Certainly the stigma associated with cannabis has prevented this from happening to some extent.

However, I think that cannabis is one of the positive hemp derivatives. Getting high, for whatever reason, is a wonderful and traditional use for this herb. Absolutely safe, socially lubricating and personally satisfying. The general public are told that cannabis is a DRUG and drugs are EVIL. Bzzzt... wrong! PEOPLE are evil, and cannabis is a PLANT. Remove this stigma and cannabis use can become just another beneficial product brought to you by that wonderful plant - hemp.

Probably not a popular point of view. Actually, I prefer to get stoned and have this type of conversation but then, I'm a criminal so who'd want to associate with me?

Quick MLP: this chronology of cannabis hemp makes for some interesting reading. Especially around 1962-63 ;-)

Paul



[ Parent ]
Clarification (4.00 / 1) (#139)
by barnaclebarnes on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 07:56:46 PM EST

(I'll qualify this - I need to do more research on the relationship between hemp and cannabis - different strains of the same plant, yes?) Yes hemp and cannabis are basically the same plant, different strains, one with the THC breed out of it. However, I think that cannabis is one of the positive hemp derivatives. Getting high, for whatever reason, is a wonderful and traditional use for this herb. Absolutely safe, socially lubricating and personally satisfying. For you and just about all of my friends. I just end up throwing up and having a bad time! I prefer my drugs a little more on the loved up side ;)

[ Parent ]
Re: Clarification (none / 0) (#144)
by MisterX on Tue Mar 06, 2001 at 04:22:56 AM EST

Yes hemp and cannabis are basically the same plant, different strains, one with the THC breed out of it.

Great - thanks for the clarification. It does raise an interesting question though - which came first? You imply that hemp is cannabis with the THC bred out? That industrial hemp is a derivative of the cannabis strain and not vice versa?

Apologies if I appear particularly dense. These are the kind of gaps in my knowledge that I need to fill.

For you and just about all of my friends. I just end up throwing up and having a bad time! I prefer my drugs a little more on the loved up side ;)

Ahhh... shame. I know a few people who react in a similar fashion. One man's fish... as the saying goes. I'm no great fan of alcohol, for example. I enjoy a couple of beers but dislike the disorienting effect of being drunk. I also find alcohol dumbs me down where cannabis seems to expand my cognitive abilities.

You enjoy yours. I'll enjoy mine. We'll both have a great time and no-one gets hurt! Heh, well unless I split my sides laughing :-)



[ Parent ]
link to further info (none / 0) (#146)
by barnaclebarnes on Tue Mar 06, 2001 at 03:51:55 PM EST

Great - thanks for the clarification. It does raise an interesting question though - which came first? You imply that hemp is cannabis with the THC bred out? That industrial hemp is a derivative of the cannabis strain and not vice versa? Check this link for further info:

[
Parent ]
link to further info (4.00 / 1) (#147)
by barnaclebarnes on Tue Mar 06, 2001 at 03:53:20 PM EST

Great - thanks for the clarification. It does raise an interesting question though - which came first? You imply that hemp is cannabis with the THC bred out? That industrial hemp is a derivative of the cannabis strain and not vice versa? Check this link for further info the last one didn't seem to work (: http://www.angelfire.com/hi4/hemp/facts.html

[ Parent ]
prohibition & fanaticism; dupont profits (none / 0) (#153)
by agentk on Wed Mar 07, 2001 at 08:53:40 PM EST

No, the most interesting parts are 1920-1955. 1919 AD : Texas outlaws cannabis. Alcohol is prohibited throughout the USA. 1920 AD : DuPont experiments with petrochemicals. Gang war takes over the alcohol industry, homicides increase drastically. 1937 AD : Marijuana Tax Act forbids hemp farming. DuPont files patents for nylon, plastics and a new bleaching process for paper. Anslinger [FBI] testifies to congress that Marijuana is the most violence causing drug known to man 1937 AD : DuPont patents plastics, seizing the opportunity created by cannabis hemp prohibition 1943 AD : Hemp for Victory program urges farmers to grow hemp to help war effort. 1943 AD : US Military Surgeon magazine declares that smoking cannabis is no more harmful than smoking tobacco. 1944 AD : New York Academy of Medicine reports marijuana use does not cause violent behaviour, provoke insanity, lead to addiction or promote opiate usage. Anslinger describes the authors as dangerous and strange. 1944 AD : Anslinger threatens doctors who carry out cannabis research with imprisonment. 1945 AD : USA 'Newsweek' reports over 100,000 Americans use cannabis. 1948 AD : Anslinger now says cannabis users are peaceful and that cannabis could be used during a communist invasion, to weaken American will to fight. 1955 AD : Hemp farming outlawed again.

[ Parent ]
prohibition & fanaticism; dupont profits (3.00 / 1) (#154)
by agentk on Wed Mar 07, 2001 at 08:55:34 PM EST


** My apolgies for last, unformateed post, please moderate it down **

No, the most interesting parts are 1920-1955.

1919 AD : Texas outlaws cannabis. Alcohol is prohibited throughout the USA.

1920 AD : DuPont experiments with petrochemicals. Gang war takes over the alcohol industry, homicides increase drastically.

1937 AD : Marijuana Tax Act forbids hemp farming. DuPont files patents for nylon, plastics and a new bleaching process for paper. Anslinger [FBI] testifies to congress that Marijuana is the most violence causing drug known to man

1937 AD : DuPont patents plastics, seizing the opportunity created by cannabis hemp prohibition

1943 AD : Hemp for Victory program urges farmers to grow hemp to help war effort.

1943 AD : US Military Surgeon magazine declares that smoking cannabis is no more harmful than smoking tobacco.

1944 AD : New York Academy of Medicine reports marijuana use does not cause violent behaviour, provoke insanity, lead to addiction or promote opiate usage. Anslinger describes the authors as dangerous and strange.

1944 AD : Anslinger threatens doctors who carry out cannabis research with imprisonment.

1945 AD : USA 'Newsweek' reports over 100,000 Americans use cannabis.

1948 AD : Anslinger now says cannabis users are peaceful and that cannabis could be used during a communist invasion, to weaken American will to fight.

1955 AD : Hemp farming outlawed again.

[ Parent ]
I wish... (none / 0) (#160)
by ogfomk on Thu Mar 08, 2001 at 04:18:52 PM EST

All of us pro or con should use research and source techniques. I am interested in the history, but I am really not sure where the sources are for the information. It would help if you could give the source.


This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

Exactly what I was thinking (none / 0) (#161)
by pauldy on Thu Mar 08, 2001 at 11:00:49 PM EST

That is exactly what I was thinking. I wonder if I could ride behind them durring the trip. :-)

[ Parent ]
Meet us in Washington, DC July 4 or... (none / 0) (#163)
by ogfomk on Fri Mar 09, 2001 at 04:15:51 AM EST

You can meet as at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington, DC 19, 20 & 21 April 2001. We will have the car there for the NORML conference.

We also have arranged to have the car do a few laps on the Indianapolis Speedway when we get to Indiana.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

Tobacco -> Hemp (4.28 / 7) (#17)
by fsh on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:20:46 PM EST

I live in North Carolina, where the number one cash crop is tobacco. One of the main reasons that farmers (and NC in general) are against the growing anti-tobacco movement is that it will cost thousands of tobacco farmers their jobs, and effectively ruin NC's farm economy. If hemp were legalized, then many of our farmers would have an excellent cash crop to turn to instead of tobacco.

[aside]
We have bumper stickers around here that read: Tobacco Money Pays My Bills.
But you never see: Crack Money Pays My Bills

-fsh

Tobacco Money Pays My Bills (3.00 / 8) (#20)
by codemonkey_uk on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 12:39:36 PM EST

Assuming this is meant to be a retort to the anti tobbaco movement ...

Why would people be proud to profit from murder?
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

murder? (2.66 / 6) (#26)
by finkployd on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 01:15:38 PM EST

Why would people be proud to profit from murder?

If people are dumb enough this day and age to chain smoke, than why not profit from them? Tobacco is neither as bad a the anti-smoking movement makes it, nor as safe as the pro-smoking movement makes it. Hardly murder though.

Finkployd
Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
[ Parent ]
*cough* (4.00 / 3) (#37)
by spaceghoti on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 02:36:53 PM EST

If people are dumb enough this day and age to chain smoke, than why not profit from them?

In part, because these idiots are also dumb enough to not care if their secondhand smoke bothers me (which it does). I don't like the smell, taste or effect of other people smoking around me. And last but not least, these people are dumb enough to encourage other people to do the same and will use peer pressure to attempt to validate their own stupidity.

I'm familiar with the concept of "survival of the fittest" but I want no truck with it. If there were a way to segregate smokers so there was no chance of their idiocy impinging on me, then I'd agree with letting them kill themselves quietly. An argument can be made that this is "censorship" akin to those who want to shut down pornography for my own good. My response to that is I have to go looking for pornography if I want it. While I don't mean to denigrate those smokers who are actually civil and polite enough to keep it away from me, it's ruined by those who just don't care if the secondary effects of their addiction bother me.



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

[ Parent ]
Bullshit (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by cyclopatra on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 09:35:11 PM EST

In part, because these idiots are also dumb enough to not care if their secondhand smoke bothers me (which it does). I don't like the smell, taste or effect of other people smoking around me.

Tough. I don't like people talking on the cellphones in restaurants or on the bus, I don't like people getting sloppily drunk and singing as they stumble down my street, and I don't like people who cut in lines at the supermarket. But we all have to deal with some things other people do that we don't like because that's what comes along with living with other people. And don't whine to me about the carcinogenic effects of secondhand smoke - frankly, unless you're being exposed to it day-in and day-out (ie, you live with a smoker) your risks are nonexistent - car exhaust is more of an issue if you walk to work - and even if you are, your risks are debatable.

Cyclopatra (not a smoker anymore, but I refuse to become one of those self-righteous ex-smokers)
All your .sigs are belong to us.
remove mypants to email
[ Parent ]

Ruffled fur (none / 0) (#120)
by spaceghoti on Sun Mar 04, 2001 at 04:39:42 AM EST

I grew up with a smoker. I've had plenty of experience with the smell, taste and effects of smoke in my home and surroundings. It helped to encourage me to not even be remotely curious about starting it myself. I freely acknowledge that no doctor has come forward to diagnose me with some hideous side-effect of second-hand smoke, but it's given me a healthy distaste for all things cigarette.

I'm very glad you're willing to be open and honest about the things you don't like. Bully for you. And I'm glad you're tolerant enough that you're willing to suffer through the effects of drunken molesters and annoying people on cellphones. I applaud your fortitude and martyrdom. It's a shame no one has produced data on the carcinogenic properties of second-hand cellphone use.

Legally, the courts have said that I have the right to not have to go to drastic efforts to avoid being harrassed by someone, be it advertising or evangelizing or just getting away from someone's obnoxious by-products. Second-hand smoke is not always easily avoided; it settles into furniture, clothing and hair to stay there until you can attack the contaminated item with soap and water. It seems pretty drastic to me.

I've had to choose between socializing with friends or avoiding saturation in a house full of smokers. I didn't complain about the smoke, I just stayed outside the house. I didn't put up a fuss and I don't preach the rewards of non-smoking to those around me who smoke. I merely avoid situations where I'll be forced to suffer the effects of smokers around me and always sit in non-smoking sections. If my friends want to smoke around me they know they'll have to sit somewhere else, not because I'm discriminating against them but because I choose not to cough through lunch.



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

[ Parent ]
Humanity's doom (4.25 / 4) (#45)
by slakhead on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 04:17:42 PM EST

"If people are dumb enough this day and age to chain smoke, than why not profit from them?"

You might as well be saying:

"They are were stupid to do it and they are screwed now anyway, so just let them die while others profit from it."

I don't want to get all preachy here but that is an unhealthy attitude to have about people. All crimes commited in the world from rape to murder to carjacking involve gross insensitivity to the wellbeing of others. When you label someone as stupid just because they smoke, you are just adding to the problem. I know plenty of very intelligent people who smoke and I know I would miss them if they weren't around anymore. Even as intelligent as they are, they cannot stop smoking for the life of them.

That is because stopping smoking has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with addiction. If tobacco were not addictive, these people could just stop. But they can't because it is addictive and even being smart enough to know that does not help. So you can say screw those people who smoke, they will just die out (in the Darwinian sense) because they deserve it and aren't smart enough or you can try to help stop the production of the drug in question and help save the lives of millions of people who haven't even been born yet or smoked yet. Because statistically speaking a certain percentage of them will be doomed to this addiction no matter how intelligent they are.

Whatever you decide to do though, don't even think for a moment that chain smoking has ANYTHING to do with intelligence. That is just insulting and misinformed trolling. If anyone can be proud about working at a tobacco company and what they are helping to do, that is just another sign of the utter lack of respect we all have for fellow human beings.

[ Parent ]
Bleh. (2.00 / 4) (#50)
by dice on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 05:31:56 PM EST

Here's the thing. Noone forced them to smoke.

If someone did force them to smoke, the person who forced them to smoke is responsible. Not the people who produce tobacco products.

It really is that simple.

[ Parent ]
It is not always a conscious decision (3.33 / 6) (#51)
by slakhead on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 05:46:25 PM EST

Most people who are chain smokers, etc started early on. No one twisted their arm to smoke but peer pressure is more powerful than most people give it credit for. Most smokers I know, started smoking to fit in. Fitting in is one of the most basic human emotional needs. Everyone wants to fit in somewhere.

But if there are no cigarettes, there is no more problem. Nothing to discuss. It isn't like we have to keep making them because we always have. We keep making them because people get addicted and keep buying them. If we are not going to stop tobacco production, the least we can do as a society is stop promoting cigarettes as positive and as a status symbol because that is why people start smoking them in the first place.

If we don't make the cigarettes we can help save people from themselves.

[ Parent ]
My job, your job, anyone's job... (3.16 / 6) (#66)
by dice on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 11:17:07 PM EST

It's their own job to save them from themselves. The idea of a nanny state is repugnant.
People's lives are their own, including if they screw them incredibly.
I know it's sad, but the real answer is that it just sucks for them.

[ Parent ]
Shenannigans!!! (3.50 / 2) (#109)
by Danse on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 04:45:30 PM EST

We regulate food and nearly every sort of drug that consumers can purchase in this country. I think the real question is why are we not regulating one of the most addictive drugs known to man the way we should be? You can't buy heroine at the supermarket. We don't let them sell it. Not even if they put a little label on it that says it will almost certainly kill you if you use it in ways other than prescribed or if you use it for an extended period of time. Why? Because it's effects are overwhelmingly harmful. Cigarrettes are almost exactly the same. They are highly addictive. They can cause all sorts of problems and diseases, including cancer. Why do we permit them to be sold? By your logic we should make crack and heroine legal. After all, if people are stupid enough to use them, why shouldn't we let someone profit from that?

Hell, alcohol even has positive effects when consumed in moderation. Marijuana is nowhere near as addictive as either alcohol or cigarrettes, yet it is entirely banned. I think this illustrates the complete incompetence of our country's drug legislators, or, much more likely, the incredible influence that money has on our government.




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
Congratulations. (none / 0) (#122)
by dice on Sun Mar 04, 2001 at 09:34:15 PM EST

> By your logic we should make crack and heroine legal

You followed my logic to this point beautifully.

[ Parent ]
a conscious decision (1.00 / 1) (#133)
by xiitone on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 06:20:49 PM EST

I smoke. A lot. And I loooove it. It's a special pleasure having a smoke and a cup of coffee in the morning. It seems to me that life is about quality rather than quantity. To follow your argument (with a quite overused example) if we stop selling saturated fats, we'll help all those obese people save themselves. As a matter of fact, why don't we turn the whole damn county into an outdoor Disneyland with nice, safe rounded corners made of Nerf.
Give me enough duct tape (perl) and I'll hang the world.
[ Parent ]
One word... (none / 0) (#145)
by bscanl on Tue Mar 06, 2001 at 07:23:26 AM EST

Marketing.

So, they're not responsible at all?

Then explain marketing. How does it fit in with your trendy short-sighted too ridiculous to be taken seriously off the internet pseudo-libertarian theory that a producer of a product is in no way responsible for actions taken by individuals, even if they company spends billions of dollars a year in promoting their product. Are you libertarians gonna come out and say that marketing doesn't influence people, yeh? That people make up their own minds irrelevant of marketing? *l*.

[ Parent ]
Marketing and freedom (1.00 / 1) (#148)
by crank42 on Tue Mar 06, 2001 at 07:13:52 PM EST

Marketing. So, they're not responsible at all? Then explain marketing.

I am hard-pressed to understand how so many people who otherwise think individual choice is a good thing can nevertheless believe that the Evil Advertisers somehow magically manage to take over the brains of most of the population.

It is certainly true that woefully few people (at least in the parts of the Euro-American world that I've enountered) have anything like a critical faculty; but that is not the fault of advertising. That is the fault of whole societies which have decided, for some reason, that learning is not to be tolerated. (That is to say, technical knowledge may meet with approval, but genuine political and social debate runs into so many wannabe-scientific taboos that it's almost impossible. The nonsense around smoke and, particularly, environmental tobacco smoke -- "2d hand smoke" -- is a good example of such.)

Marketing works mostly because people are willing to take almost any claim they hear seriously. But adverts are arguments, with the conclusion, "Buy this!" They should be evaluated as such.

And please, none of the clap-trap about the marketing to children. Children -- even very young ones -- can be taught elementary precepts of reasoning without much trouble. All it takes is some consistency on the part of the parents; consistency that, I suspect, is not really part of the current failth in buying one's way to happiness. Just don't blame the advertisers.

[ Parent ]

My Lovely Great Grandma' "Pau-pau" (2.50 / 2) (#83)
by ogfomk on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 07:05:11 AM EST

I live in Virginia. About four years ago my family had to bury my great grandmother. She had lived to the ripe old age of 103. She was buried in a bright red nighty because she was a fire-ball of a lady. To her last days she wore bright red lipstick. She was something else.

My great grandmother was also a smoker. At the age of 93 she had to quit smoking for safety reasons, not for health. What had happened was that her eyesight was so bad (She wore the RUN-DMC Gazelles) that she would light a cigarrette and forget that it was in the ashtray. She was constantly reminded by her daughter that she had forgot again about the last cigarrette as she was lighting a new one.

My great grandmother was a happy, loving and lucky woman. That is why she lived so long long. She handled stress differently than the lot of us.

Tobacco is harmful to unhappy people. I do believe there are many things that we all can do to change the situation and make life better. I am sure that the man or woman working in the slaughter-house would rather be fishing or skipping rope. Unfortunatel our demand for meat is why the slaughter-house exist. Let us demand hemp and give the slaughter-house workers (who are usually rural) a choice as to how they can boost thier income.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

re: tobacco money pays my bills (3.25 / 4) (#67)
by fsh on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 11:17:29 PM EST

I actually have very mixed feelings on this issue. The quote from the bumper sticker was mainly just to show non-North Carolina natives the attitudes of our state. And for the people who are extrememly anti-tobacco, make sure you don't leave the country (especially to go to Ireland).
-fsh
[ Parent ]
Hemp and Tobacco (3.75 / 4) (#81)
by ogfomk on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 06:47:54 AM EST

Hemp would be a great agricultural product for tobacco growers. Even if they did not want to stop growing tobacco they could use it to improve their soils by re-introducing nitrates and nutrients into the soil.


This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

I don't know if this is true or not (none / 0) (#119)
by Wah on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 10:38:11 PM EST

because I've heard the same argument before. However, I've also heard the opposite, and that as a weed it is fairly destructive of soil. And right now I'm too lazy to go figure it out myself, go figure...
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]
No one. (1.00 / 1) (#125)
by ogfomk on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 02:57:07 AM EST

No one who ever predicted a realistic sky falling incident ever became famous.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]
Uh... (2.00 / 1) (#138)
by weirdling on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 07:19:07 PM EST

Ok, the tobacco argument isn't something I feel like donning my asbestos underoos for, but I do wish to know if growing hemp will actually be as profitable as tobacco has been. George Washington Carver talked an awful lot of people into growing peanuts, which subsequently caused the peanut market to tank, and, luckily for GW Carver, he was able to generate a market for peanuts in time. The question is whether the US market can change its usage quickly enough to handle the influx of a new commodity these days. It would be an interesting thing to watch, anyway...
I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Inovation and Change (none / 0) (#149)
by ogfomk on Wed Mar 07, 2001 at 07:48:27 AM EST

I know that if I educated enough folks (including myself) about hemp that there is a lot of current infrastructure in business that can move laterally into the hemp industry. This would increase competition and diversify the choices of the marketplace. The green aspect of this venture is great too. Imagine if the EPA could work on helping industry by funding green technologies instead of fining big business. Many are looking for something new to do and this is it.

Toil, sweat and tears aside; change is part of life. If you ride the wave of change, you can enjoy your labors.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

That makes no sense at all (3.18 / 11) (#29)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 02:07:57 PM EST

The same hemp that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew, is considered by United States Federal Law to be a controlled substance under the Drug Enforcement Agency. This has no scientific fact or reasoning behind it.
Your correct, this makes absolutely no sense at all. I am almost 100% positive that the hemp that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew would have certainly decomposed by now. I'm not entirely certain how long it takes for hemp to decompose, but I'd wager its less than ~ 200 years.

Hemp lasts (3.50 / 4) (#39)
by bjrubble on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 02:53:27 PM EST

Even regular paper from that period (ie. the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence) hasn't all decomposed yet. Hemp paper tends to last significantly longer. You can also still find rope and cloth from the period, that's mostly hemp as well.

[ Parent ]
you've confused hemp with hemp products (3.00 / 3) (#42)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 03:14:37 PM EST

We have examples of papyrus paper and vellum that is thousands of years old. We don't have many examples of papyrus or sheep skins that are thousands of years old. I've seen plenty of clothing made from wool, cotton or hemp cloth that is hundreds of years old, but precious few cotton plants, hemp plants or unprocessed wool that has lasted for so long.

[ Parent ]
I meant (3.00 / 1) (#75)
by bjrubble on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 04:12:33 AM EST

I meant that the hemp grown by Jefferson and Washington might easily have been woven or pressed into something still around.

[ Parent ]
Good luck (they'll need it) (2.90 / 10) (#33)
by GreenCrackBaby on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 02:26:43 PM EST

My own views of hemp aside, this whole thing is doomed to failure (the promotion of hemp, that is). Why? Because you are going up against the oil companies. There exists a very well designed engine for cars that runs on hyrdogen feul, is no more dangerous than current cars, and expells H20 for exhast.

But why haven't we seen this engine introduced? Because the entire oil industry doesn't want it to see the light of day. I don't think a bunch of hippies in a van driving across North America are going to be able to even make the oil companies blink.

Other companies too.. (4.00 / 4) (#52)
by CyberQuog on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 05:46:49 PM EST

Not to mention the entire cotton industry, which is one of the main reasons hemp and all marijuana related products were made illegal to begin with. Also the paper companies, the lumber companies, and a lot of other established trades. Hemp has a hell of a lot of uses, is good at a lot of things, and that scares established corporations, which in turn lobby (ie bribe) politicians to keep it illegal.


-...-
[ Parent ]
Not just cotton... (2.50 / 2) (#131)
by Sikpup on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 02:24:58 PM EST

But its biggest parasite - fertilizer manufacturers. Cotton needs lots of it - Hemp, well there's the reason its called weed! It is one. No fertilizer necessary, grows fine in just about any soil. There is big big money in this. Enough to keep the US Congress and US Senate bought and paid for, at least enough of them to prevent any hope of reform.



[ Parent ]
Fuel Cells (4.00 / 4) (#68)
by Paradocis on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 11:19:49 PM EST

The hydrogen fueled engines you're referring to, if I'm not mistaken, are not generally used for a few reasons:

1. Hydrogen is highly unstable and has a loooow flash point.

2. The engines and fuel cells they use are generally very large, heavy, and expensive. They are currently unsuitable for anything but large trucks.

3. They have a poor power to weight ratio.

Now having said all that, Jeep is planning on releasing a large sport utility in the next few years using such an engine. The specs on the prototype are encouraging, and they seem to have squeezed alot more power that usual out of the design. I believe the article I read (about 6 months ago in Automobile Magazine) stated that it would be good for about 320 bhp. The only problem? It's still a very large, heavy, expensive vehicle (if it makes it to production it will likely cost ~$80,000 USD). It's roughly the size of a Hummer.

Still, it's an encouraging development, even if it doesn't make it to production. It means that Daimler Chrysler (Jeep's parent company) is giving serious thought to alternative fuel vehicles.


-=<Paradocis>=-
+++++++++++++++++++++
"El sueño de la razon produce monstruos." -Goya
+++++++++++++++++++++


[ Parent ]
The engine is an ordinary diesel (4.00 / 2) (#80)
by ogfomk on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 06:31:46 AM EST

The engine is an ordinary diesel. How much more introduction do you need?

One beauty of this whole operation is that people can use current technology to improve their current conditions. It is the same type of thinking that allows me to use an old Packard Bell Pentium 66Mhz as a router. It is only working because I use Linux Mandrake 7.2. Furthermore, I only use Linux Mandrake because it is a very nice and easy to use linux. Because someone cared to make something nice available I can use what I have and live better. Hence the Hempcar can and will improve all of our lives by showing us what we currently have is very good. We just need to change the attitude of the powers that be.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

The "oil companies" are not opposed (2.80 / 5) (#85)
by Paul Johnson on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 08:25:44 AM EST

The oil companies would actually be quite happy to see a shift towards alternative fuels provided that they get to sell the stuff. They are not really "oil" companies as much as energy companies who have infrastructure to shift the stuff around in liquid form and the consumer outlets to sell it to motorists. The origin of the energy is irrelevant to them.

Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
[ Parent ]

Hydrogen wasn't successful (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by weirdling on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 07:13:38 PM EST

Because of its extremely low specific output. In an internal combustion engine, hydrogen is a problem for a lot of reasons: low flash point means low compression. Low specific energy means low horsepower per displacement, resulting in a larger engine for the same horsepower, or, in car terms, a low specific output. Low specific output is precisely why diesel engines don't have widespread acceptance, and, realistically, the difference between a well-engineered diesel engine and an equivalent gasoline engine is very small, but enought to cause buyers to shun the 'slower' model. Hydrogen is significantly worse than diesel, and you can't hop up the compression, so you're forced to get by with inefficient 'over-square' engines that require high rpms or high displacement to achieve significant power. High-carbon fuels will always have a higher specific-energy than high-hydrogen fuels. Gasoline actually has a lower specific energy, but it is made up for in the fact that gasoline readily atomizes and also doesn't produce nearly the shock of detonation that diesel does, so the engine can be much smaller and lighter for the horsepower it puts out. Alcohol is even better in this regard because it atomizes and has a high flashpoint, allowing much greater compression, resulting in much higher specific output. However, the alcohol engine has to be reinforced due to the high compression, and little is to be gained from converting a standard gasoline engine unless the engine is reinforced and the compression increased, as alcohol has a lower specific energy than gasoline.
I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
There's one rather large problem.... (3.85 / 7) (#43)
by slambo on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 03:23:48 PM EST

... The vast majority of personal transportation vehicles (cars, trucks, SUVs, motorcycles, scooters, mopeds, etc) are not powered by diesel engines. Can this hempseed oil power a conventional engine? HOWEVER... If we can get trucks (18-wheelers, etc) and trains to switch, that would be a start. Yet, with the massive initial investment required, I don't see this happening any time soon.
--
Sean Lamb
"A day without laughter is a day wasted." -- Groucho Marx
Pyrolysis (4.20 / 5) (#48)
by ogfomk on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 04:59:18 PM EST

I beleive that there is a process called pyrolysis where the whole plant is converted by heating it in the absence of air to a point where it is liquified. This liquid can make a "gasoline" type of fuel that is now very expensive to produce. The Canadian government is currently funding this type of research. Again like the bio-diesel there is no converting ove the automobile engine.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]
Trains are already diesel (3.66 / 3) (#70)
by ScottW on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 01:16:30 AM EST

Unless you're talking about steam enignes (which have not been in commercial use on trains for decades), trains already use diesel fuel, and have for years.

An interesting fact about modern trains: even though they use diesel engines, they're realy diesel-electric. The engine doesn't directly drive the wheels, the engine drives a generator, and the wheels are driven by powerful electric motors that are powered by the generator.

The majority of commercial trucks (18 weelers, ect.) also use diesel, BTW.

[ Parent ]

Rudolf Diesel (4.25 / 4) (#79)
by ogfomk on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 06:18:49 AM EST

If you look at the Hempcar crew's website you will see a nice section on the diesel engine and about Rudolf Diesel . He created an engine for the regular guy that eventually put the steam engine down.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]
Thanks! (1.00 / 1) (#104)
by ScottW on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 11:56:19 PM EST

That was an interesting read, thanks for the link.

While we're trading facts, diesel engines have a higher compression ratio than gasoline engines (don't remember where I read that, so I don't have a link), and can put out a higher torque. This is importaint to truckers, the loads they haul weigh in at many tons.

[ Parent ]

actually, it's better efficiency (4.00 / 1) (#121)
by plonk on Sun Mar 04, 2001 at 02:47:27 PM EST

The reason you want a higher compression ratio has more to do with fuel efficiency than torque. It's fairly clear from basic thermodynamics that the higher the compression ratio the more efficient a reciprocating heat engine will be (think of it as the expansion ratio instead and the analogy makes more sense).

In a gasoline engine, the compression ratio is limited by the possibility of premature detonation from compression heating of the fuel. In a diesel, there is no such limit; in fact you want a higher compression ratio because it is that compressional heating that ignites the fuel in the cylinder. Therefore, the only limit on compression is the material limits of the cylinders, pistons, and crankshaft. Way cool.

[ Parent ]

The reason trains are diesel-electric (3.00 / 1) (#136)
by weirdling on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 07:03:05 PM EST

A properly engineered steam engine running on diesel fuel would be both more efficient and more powerful for the same size factor as any diesel-electric engine. The reason is relatively simple: a diesel burner on a train can reach much higher temperatures, thus greater efficiency, and a high-pressure steam turbine is one of the most efficient energy conversion devices on the market, beating out a Stirling engine by quite a bit. Now, the problem is getting all those horsies to the track. One of the prarie clippers of yore had many thousands of horsepower at its disposal, but it took *forever* to accelerate because of driver-to-track slippage. Also, when a high-pressure engine blows, you have quite a mess. So, along comes diesel-electric, with its low-perssure, low-maintenance, lightweight engine whose electric component magnetically attracts the track, causing a significant increase in apparent weight, without any increase in real weight, so, even though it only has 750 horsepower, a small shunt diesel-electric can outpull an old steam flyer up to modest speeds. However, as diesel-electric engines became commonplace, it became obvious that they lacked the power to pull a train much faster than about 75MPH economically. That's ok; at about that time, the US rail system was switching to freight while the airline industry was on the rise. Some of the old flyers could make close to 200 MPH consistently, though. Ah, the good old days of steam travel...
I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Start up and go (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by JonesBoy on Thu Mar 08, 2001 at 10:00:08 AM EST

Big problem with steam. I know on the old coal based steam trains it took about 5 hours to get the boiler up to operational temperature. This burns a lot of fuel with no change in motion. All of the energy that is put into the water to bring it up to operational temperatures is lost when the engine shuts down and the water cools. If you look at modern passenger rail, there is a lot of time between runs, esp. during off peak hours. Diesel electric can just start up and be going within minutes.
Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
[ Parent ]
Diesel vehicles (3.80 / 5) (#82)
by YesNoCancel on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 07:01:11 AM EST

The vast majority of personal transportation vehicles (cars, trucks, SUVs, motorcycles, scooters, mopeds, etc) are not powered by diesel engines.

Could be true for the US, but in Europe almost 50% of new personal cars have diesel engines, and the number is rising. The reason is simple... diesel fuel is cheaper (and diesel engines use less fuel, too), and this is important when fuel costs are as high as $5/gallon. Also, diesel cars are somewhat easier to drive (when you have manual transmission, of course it doesn't matter with automatic, but almost no one drives automatic - guess why? it uses more fuel).

By the way, I know several petrol stations where you can buy bio-diesel fuel (made out of hemp). It's cheaper than conventional diesel fuel, but you usually have to adjust your car's engine to be able to use it.

[ Parent ]

I drive a diesel. (4.00 / 1) (#100)
by molo on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 05:31:32 PM EST

Background: I have a '96 VW Passat TDI (turbo diesel with direct injection) with a manual trasmission, and live in the US.

Also, diesel cars are somewhat easier to drive (when you have manual transmission

Do you mean because of the low-end torque or is there something I'm missing? I never found gasoline cars hard to drive.

I know several petrol stations where you can buy bio-diesel fuel (made out of hemp). [...] you usually have to adjust your car's engine to be able to use it.

Is this in Europe? I've never heard of being able to purchase bio-diesel from ordinary gas stations. In what ways do you have to adjust the engine?

I love my diesel. A mid-size sedan that looks good, can carry plenty of stuff, and gets 47 mpg highway is a hard thing to beat (as long as you arn't racing.. hehe).

--
Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn
[ Parent ]

Re: I drive a diesel. (none / 0) (#102)
by YesNoCancel on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 06:43:57 PM EST

Do you mean because of the low-end torque or is there something I'm missing?

Yes, that's the reason. I just find it convenient to be able to move the car without having to use the accelerator, especially when parking. But probably that's because I'm just used to it (only drove a manual transmission gasoline car once and stalled the car several times at slow speed).

Is this in Europe? I've never heard of being able to purchase bio-diesel from ordinary gas stations.

Yes, it's in Europe. There are only few gas stations that offer bio-diesel, however, and they're all located in/around major cities.

In what ways do you have to adjust the engine?

Not sure. Never actually used bio-diesel (no gas stations in my area sell it yet, and I'm driving my parents' old automatic gasoline car at the moment until I find a new diesel car for myself), I read an article about it in a science magazine and it said you'd have to adjust most older diesel engine cars in order to use bio-diesel.

[ Parent ]

Why diesel is cheaper (3.00 / 1) (#135)
by weirdling on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 06:55:29 PM EST

The reason diesel fuel is cheaper is also the biggest hurdle biomass fuel faces, in the US, anyway: gasoline is in heavy demand, and cracking crude produces a certain amount of gasoline, a certain amount of diesel, a certain amount of JPs, some fuel-oil, some gas, various grades of oil, and tar. Now, since the stuff is going to be made whether its used or not, it is often sold at a discount compared to gasoline, which is in higher demand. That is one of the major reasons it is cheaper. The other reason has to do with social engineering, which is to say that the diesel engine produces lower nitrous oxide and lower monoxide emisions, while producing a higher carbon (soot) emission. Since it theoretically runs cleaner, governments tend to favor it.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Massive Initial Investment? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by agentk on Wed Mar 07, 2001 at 08:33:07 PM EST

What is the "massive initial investment"? The fiscal investment is small, the obstacle to growing hemp in the US is legal.

[ Parent ]
biomass vs. solar (3.00 / 7) (#56)
by Nyarlathotep on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 06:32:39 PM EST

I've been under the impression that plan solar energey conversion is really inefficent and even lame ass current solar cell technology can kick the shit out of any biomass fuel at pretty much any cost/energy comparison. If it can not beat solar then there is just no point. Now, hemp dose have advantages when you consider it as a building material and compair it to wood, but that is a totally diffrent story.

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
The advantage of biomass over solar (2.33 / 3) (#71)
by physicsgod on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 02:16:35 AM EST

If you devote 100 acres to solar, it's lost for as long as you produce power. If you devote 100 acres to biomass (hemp, corn, soy) you get a useful product, and energy.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
What's the useful product? (3.25 / 4) (#73)
by cameldrv on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 02:59:23 AM EST

Current solar technology is over 10x as efficient as biomass, so the "useful product" would have to be pretty good to justify this. What do you get out of corn or hemp or soybeans after you burn the carbohydrate?

[ Parent ]
The Leaves (2.66 / 3) (#78)
by ogfomk on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 06:13:03 AM EST

The leaves of the hemp plant are the best solar devices. What is at stake here is that solar panels do not improve air and soil quality. Hemp does so in a mighty way. Also people who have little or no money but have the land can cultivate hemp for the market. Hemp can increase the value of the people who grow it. Solar is too expensive for most of us.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]
The hemp situation (none / 0) (#112)
by cameldrv on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 07:24:58 PM EST

Hemp is less light efficient than solar panels. Period. No plant is over 1% light efficient, and there are solar panels now that approach 20% efficiency. Furthermore, you have to grow the hemp in areas where you have arable land. Instead of growing hemp and burning it, why not just put a bunch of solar panels in the desert in New Mexico and Arizona and keep the good soil for food?

[ Parent ]
Grow hemp. (none / 0) (#124)
by ogfomk on Sun Mar 04, 2001 at 11:18:42 PM EST

You should be able to grow hemp. You should be able to market hemp. If you want to grow hemp and eat it, you should be able to. If you want to grow hemp to make a stick figure and laugh at it, you should be able to.

To put all of your eggs in the desert is not going to help manage our soils and imporve air quality. Humans have to cultivate in order to survive on this planet. If you want to put solar cells out in the desert and ruin it, then that's your bag.

We want to power our car with hemp, and we are doing it.


This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

The problem is the disingenuousness (3.50 / 2) (#141)
by cameldrv on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 09:57:14 PM EST

Why the hell do you care so much about a plant? Hemp will not solve all of the world's problems. If hemp were so great for making paper, why don't we see other countries growing it and shipping the paper to the USA? Your argument is transparent. You like to smoke dope, and so you want to be able to grow hemp. You probably have never worked on a farm in your life, nor are you likely to. If hemp has nothing to do with dope, why is NORML behind hemp? Your credibility is pretty low because you have this not-so-hidden agenda. It's like when the mega-corp says that their scientists have determined that there is no global warming. When the conclusion is preordained, the reasoning is usually garbage.

[ Parent ]
I care about the Earth. (none / 0) (#143)
by ogfomk on Tue Mar 06, 2001 at 01:38:24 AM EST

I care about the Earth.
I care about the Dharma
Dharma is a word that shares the same root as the word Earth. Some have translated the Sanskrit word "Dharma" to be "Law". The Earth is that which supports us. So with reverence we respectfully trod.

I am very worried that the space and high tech armada are planning a hydro-ponics get away. If this is the spore leaving the flower, then so be it. I am just sure happy that Earth can renew and power the comforts that my and your family have. That is all that this is about.

All of us should be able to have power, food and fuel without the expense of duress.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

Geez, and kill the animals in the desert? (none / 0) (#134)
by weirdling on Mon Mar 05, 2001 at 06:48:22 PM EST

The problem with any energy source is that it is bound to have environmental side-effects. The one with the least observable side-effects is a nuclear powerplant venting to a man-made lake, but these still produce side-effects, although they are much easier to manage. However, stacking solar cells in Arizona would seriously damage the ecosystem there if done on a sufficient scale to make enough energy to make it worthwhile. Wind power slows wind and changes the weather. Tide power reduces the tide and changes ecosystems that depend on the tide. Ditto for wave power. Hydro-electric requires massive reworking of a locales environment, often displacing species wholesale, and interferes with salmon runs. Growing biomass for fuel results in farming, which is rather hard on whatever the farmer isn't growing, and, once again, on a scale enough to make any difference, going to result in much that is currently being left fallow (allowing nature to take its course) being put back in cultivation, which isn't a good thing in terms of the survival of various small mammals, birds, and insects.
This is going to be a problem as long as man lives on earth...

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Power should not be cultivated in large masses (none / 0) (#142)
by ogfomk on Tue Mar 06, 2001 at 12:40:17 AM EST

Power should not be cultivated in large masses of bureaucracy. All of us can make our own fuel. Our option to use hemp is not for grave toil, but for the pleasure of the earth.


This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]

Biomass can't yield enough (4.33 / 3) (#92)
by GonzoCoder on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 11:53:12 AM EST

If you devote 100 acres to solar, it's lost for as long as you produce power. If you devote 100 acres to biomass (hemp, corn, soy) you get a useful product, and energy.

If you devote the acres to biomass, the useful product *is* the energy.

The fundamental problem with biomass is that there simply aren't enough arable acres to generate the needed energy. And farming isn't wonderful ecologically. Even if you are using sustainable methods, that's land that is no longer wilderness.

The best energy generation method from an ecological standpoint is probably an offshore wind farm. The fan supports would serve as an artificial reef.

[ Parent ]

solar cells suck (3.00 / 1) (#117)
by plonk on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 10:27:13 PM EST

Solar cells require an enormous amount of energy to produce -- about 25% of their expected lifetime energy output. They are also unsuitable for powering mobile vehicles.

[ Parent ]
Hemp? Use corn (4.27 / 11) (#57)
by delmoi on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 06:36:50 PM EST

Why would you want to use Hemp, when Ethanol from corn works fine, doesn't cost $70 a gallon, and works in regular gasoline engines, not just in diesel machines. Ethanol isn't quite as efficient as gasoline, but it's quite a bit better then what your talking about. Its powerful enough to run in regular Cars already, Iowa State University's official vehicles run on an 80% ethanol blend, and the gas you buy in Iowa at gas stations already has about 3% mixed in (it's subsidized by the government, so that stuff is a little cheaper)
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
There are other benefits to hemp. (3.25 / 8) (#60)
by Wicket on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 07:09:39 PM EST

This is not just about being able to run a car on hemp. There are many other benefits and this drive will be used to promote the benefits of hemp. Taken from this website...

* Hemp growers can not hide marijuana plants in their fields. Marijuana is grown widely spaced to maximize leaves. Hemp is grown in tightly-spaced rows to maximize stalk and is usually harvested before it goes to seed.

*Hemp can be made into fine quality paper. The long fibers in hemp allow such paper to be recycled several times more than wood-based paper.

*Because of its low lignin content, hemp can be pulped using less chemicals than with wood. Its natural brightness can obviate the need to use chlorine bleach, which means no extremely toxic dioxin being dumped into streams. A kinder and gentler chemistry using hydrogen peroxide rather than chlorine dixoide is possible with hemp fibers.

*Hemp grows well in a variety of climates and soil types. It is naturally resistant to most pests, precluding the need for pesticides. It grows tightly spaced, out-competing any weeds, so herbicides are not necessary. It also leaves a weed-free field for a following crop.

*Hemp can displace cotton which is usually grown with massive amounts of chemicals harmful to people and the environment. 50% of all the world's pesticides are sprayed on cotton.

*Hemp can displace wood fiber and save forests for watershed, wildlife habitat, recreation and oxygen production, carbon sequestration (reduces global warming), and other values.

*Hemp can yield 3-8 dry tons of fiber per acre. This is four times what an average forest can yield.

There are many other uses too. Can you do this all with corn? Nope.


intune.org - music discussion for the soul...
[ Parent ]
Hemp growers (3.60 / 5) (#61)
by delmoi on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 07:16:10 PM EST

Hemp growers can not hide marijuana plants in their fields. Marijuana is grown widely spaced to maximize leaves. Hemp is grown in tightly-spaced rows to maximize stalk and is usually harvested before it goes to seed.

Well, that dosn't mean they can't do it, it just means they can't grow Marijuana as effectively hidden in hemp feilds.

And secondly, I don't really care about any of that, I was commenting on Hemps usefullness as a fuel, not as a paper.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
So? (3.14 / 7) (#63)
by Wicket on Thu Mar 01, 2001 at 07:27:59 PM EST

And secondly, I don't really care about any of that, I was commenting on Hemps usefullness as a fuel, not as a paper.

The article is about using hemp as a fuel and the benefits of hemp, as I described. Not only are there serious green benefits of using hemp, but it can be used for many other things than just paper. It don't just need to be used as a fuel and their mission is to bring this to the attention of anyone they encounter during the trip. I was simply stating that your suggestion to use corn doesn't exactly fit because the purpose of the hemp car is to promote it's many uses, not just it's uses as a fuel.


intune.org - music discussion for the soul...
[ Parent ]
hiding marijuana with industrial hemp is futile (none / 0) (#96)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 02:10:55 PM EST

First off, I know very little about cultivating hemp or marijuana. I might very well be misremembering the facts or simply be misinformed.

That said, if I recall correctly the genes in hemp that produce THC are recessive so growing marijuana for consumption in a hemp field would water down the marijuana over successive generations to the point of unusability for anything aside from normal everyday hemp usage.

[ Parent ]

hemp ethanol (4.00 / 3) (#93)
by brainchild on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 01:12:04 PM EST

Hemp will produce 4 times more ethanol than corn.

[ Parent ]
hemp vs. hemp oil (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by momocrome on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 01:55:11 AM EST

I am not super sure about this, but I think you mean 'hemp oil' will produce 4x's as much ethanol as corn oil. the question then is which source provides a higher yeild/acre?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that corn could produce 4x's the amount of oil per acre. We've been breading corn for higher yields for a couple of centuries now. Plus, the technology and infrastructure for dealing with corn production, as well as the experience and tradition, are already in place.

There is an added benefit: the nations workers won't slip away into an indolenent hemp induced stupor if we adopt a corn-based fuel source.

"Give a wide berth to all that foam and spray." - - Lucian, The Way to Write History
[ Parent ]
Our point is simple: Why outlaw hemp? (1.00 / 1) (#108)
by ogfomk on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 02:23:32 PM EST

Why outlaw hemp? Why put all of your eggs in one basket? Hemp works. It is easy to cultivate. It has a myriad of uses.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]
biodiesel better than ethanol (4.00 / 1) (#116)
by plonk on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 10:23:03 PM EST

You can't pour ethanol directly into a conventional gasoline engine and expect it to run well, or indeed at all, without substantial modification to the engine, which prevents it from using gasoline. You *CAN* pour biodiesel directly into a regular diesel motor and it will run exactly as if you had used petrodiesel. You can switch back and forth at will, and even mix the fuels in the same tank without concern or any special precautions.

[ Parent ]
What we need is a car that runs on booze. (3.16 / 6) (#90)
by marlowe on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 10:37:20 AM EST

Then we can fill up at the corner liquor store. Distilled liquor should work well. But forget that cheap jug wine. It'll gum up your carbeuretor. And no American beer, or you'll stall out at traffic lights.

-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
WhiskeyCar (4.00 / 1) (#95)
by Zarniwoop on Fri Mar 02, 2001 at 02:01:48 PM EST

Didn't Doc Brown try and modify the Delorean in Back to the Future III to run on moonshine? I seem to remember something about the engine not working after that :)

[ Parent ]
re: whiskycar (3.00 / 2) (#151)
by spacy on Wed Mar 07, 2001 at 07:10:39 PM EST

Didn't Doc Brown try and modify the Delorean in Back to the Future III to run on moonshine? I seem to remember something about the engine not working after that :)

You're right. As I recall, they tried to get it to run on moonshine, but it broke the engine somehow so they had to use the steam engine to get the Delorean up to 88 mph. The gas tank had previously ruptured shortly after Marty had gone back in time to 1885.

[ Parent ]

the booze car cometh (3.00 / 1) (#155)
by sludgo on Thu Mar 08, 2001 at 02:14:39 AM EST

The Cenex service station in my home town sells E85 (85% ethanol) fuel for about $1.25 a gallon (no, I don't know how much more it would be without subsidies). Our post office's (zip 55355) entire fleet uses the E85 with very positive results.

[ Parent ]
Actually (3.00 / 1) (#156)
by JonesBoy on Thu Mar 08, 2001 at 09:49:43 AM EST

Anything above 80 proof should work, but you will need a stainless fuel distribution system or you will rust out. Cars that run on m85 are already using stainless, btw. Personally I would use vodka. It is mainly alcohol and water, and probably wouldn't gum up your engine as much as a whiskey based beverage. Hmmm. I see a summer lawnmower project starting....

Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
[ Parent ]
Try Everclear (none / 0) (#164)
by dagoski on Fri Mar 09, 2001 at 12:22:54 PM EST

Coming back from Mexico, we briefly ran an old VW Microbus off of some of the Everclear we bought. I don't know what it did to the engine, but, hey, it wasn't my vehicle. And, it did get us up to the next gas station. For those who don't know, Everclear is this semi legal moonshine that's nearly 100% alcohol. Just shy of being denatured alcohol.



[ Parent ]
Hemp not the best biodiesel source (4.60 / 5) (#115)
by plonk on Sat Mar 03, 2001 at 10:20:40 PM EST

Biodiesel can be created from any plant or animal oil. Hemp is one possible source of this oil. It is not, however, anything like the best source. It's better than corn and soybeans, in terms of oil yield per acre; however plants such as the oil palm have twice the yield. The best source, however, is algae. Many common species of blue-green algae are 60% or more usable oil by weight. The US Dept of Energy is currently researching algal biodiesel technology; they believe they can bring the pump price down to $1/gal or less, from approximately $3/gal today. In addition, algae can be grown on macerated sewage; this breaks down the sewage and is a good first step in a larger sewage treatment process.

Excellent (1.00 / 1) (#123)
by ogfomk on Sun Mar 04, 2001 at 11:09:53 PM EST

Now why should the ordinary people not be able to grow hemp? We are not doing science here. That is great that the department of energy is doing that research at our tax paying expense. We also need to have the laws concerning hemp cultivation to be changed. Our economy needs the boost. Algea cultivation can not be done from the farms that we have. Hemp can. It is nothing fancy.
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
[ Parent ]
this is silly (1.00 / 1) (#150)
by wobblie on Wed Mar 07, 2001 at 03:45:17 PM EST

If there was an engine that ran on WATER that came out today that got 200 miles / gallon - it would be squashed.

The oil companies know what's in their best interests, and pay off the important people they need to in order to keep things going the way they are.

The oil companies are the problem, not a means to a solution.

This is like asking microsoft to open source their OS. Who cares?

Thank You (none / 0) (#162)
by ogfomk on Fri Mar 09, 2001 at 03:50:14 AM EST

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. Look for the Hempcar in your 'hood this summer. EOM
This is my opinion. I am not liable for any disclosed information.
Hempcar will introduce 17 billion dollars into the economy | 163 comments (122 topical, 41 editorial, 2 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!