PDA

View Full Version : Hybrid vs Conventional Cars



Zenstone
June 3rd, 2004, 06:01 PM
Is there a tangible environmental benefit from hybrid (gas+electric) cars? It seems to me that the environmental impact of creating the required batteries, and adding them to the waste stream, almost certainly outweighs the benefit of burning less gasoline.

(I am not very familiar with the data required to support my belief, but am willing to explore it here, if there's interest.)

Iluvatar
June 4th, 2004, 02:31 AM
Well, for one thing, gas is getting more expensive. There is a limmited supply of oil in the world, and production of oil can only go up so fast and so far. The demand for oil has gone up much faster. The advantage of hybrid or pure electric cars is that they use less oil, saving money there. At this point, is the ease of use of gas outweighs the cost efficiency of hybrid, but that will change in the next few decades.

CC
June 4th, 2004, 11:47 AM
of course there is an already tested fuel that can be made at a fraction of the cost of gasoline but we aren't going to do that. If electrical cars become the norm, since the price of electricity is made by big biz, expect drastic price hikes as companies declare that because we use more electricity now that the cost of securing it go up...

Also this alternative energy has been around at least as long as petro products, CAN replace many petro products more cheaply AND ecologically as well as replacing paper and textile products more cheaply, more cost efficient and once again, MUCH more enviromentally. It has a multitude of uses that go way beyond simply to fuel automobiles. It would have the saudi's drowning in oil that they could not then give away.....but we won't use this source because way back in 1936 big biz got with big gov and insured that any viable competition from this source would never get off the ground....and folks,,,that really is the case and a shame...............:O)

http://canapa.4net.com/canapa/risorsa-eng.html

Zenstone
June 4th, 2004, 06:36 PM
Illuv, these are the perceived benefits from hybrid cars. I'd like to explore the more demonstrated benefits. That is, do they deliver on this perception?

A hybrid still consumes gas and oil. Certainly, it consumes less than a heavy, overpowered American SUV.

But, so does a smaller, underpowered, compact car. Given that comparison, does it make sense to drive a hybrid, or a conventional Sunfire, Cavalier, Civic, etc?

Meng Bomin
June 4th, 2004, 09:09 PM
Well, hybrids do recharge their batteries during breaking, which means they save more of that energy that a conventional car.

Zenstone
June 4th, 2004, 09:23 PM
But, separating the heavy metals, producing the batteries, introducing them to the waste stream after use...this creates a negative environmental impact. I am not convinced that there is enough fuel savings in hybrids to make up for that:

Hybrid 45-55 mpg + Cadmium/Lead/Lithium/Mercury (in many batteries)
vs.
Conventional compact 25-35 mpg + Lead (in 1 battery)

Meng Bomin
June 4th, 2004, 09:36 PM
However, with the recharging, batteries are not often replaced in hybrid cars. This way, there are not many batteries being used.

Zenstone
June 5th, 2004, 09:46 AM
The battery in a conventional car is similarly recharged, and not often replaced. (well, except for my first car... )

Fyshhed
June 7th, 2004, 09:54 AM
The battery in a conventional car is similarly recharged, and not often replaced. (well, except for my first car... )

Keep in mind that the rechargable components of rechargable batteries are simply the chemicals within performing back-and-forth reactions. I believe that when a rechargable battery stops recharging it is simply the device itself that is unable to continue dictating the reaction. The chemicals themselves can be returned to usable states and put into new batteries if properly recycled. That's another economical mistake that won't make more big biz dollars :(

CC
June 7th, 2004, 02:03 PM
Did anyone read or follow the link at post 3? You people are talking like we don't already have a very viable source of fuel that could be made and distributed easily. Only minor changes in the combustion engine would be required and we could all be driving around on cheap fuel that does not pollute the air, while at the same time, saving our forests for over harversting and keep our rivers much cleaner by not producing any waste that couldn't be easily and ecologically controlled.

Instead, let's debate how well water fueled, or battery operated or solar cars......I mean the answer is right there under our noses as henry Ford was such a proponent of until the Rockerfeller's and gang bought Henry off so he changed the engine to run on petro instead of the hemp grown CLEAN methanol. Made from hemp that Henry Ford (who saw it for it's boundless products) stated would be the first "billion dollar" crop or product. But don't let me inject common sense into this, lets go on discussing ways that the big oil and power companies, (who generate electricity?) can continue to maipulate the public into buying whatever they are selling........sheesh!......

Corn, tree pulp and hemp are sources for clean-burning alcohol, methanol and methane gas. These 'biofuels' contain no sulfur, the pollutant that causes acid rain. Growing the fuel also produces oxygen, to balance the oxygen consumed during combustion. Engines stay cleaner and the air remains much cleaner.

Hemp may be the most profitable and productive fuel crop that can be grown in many areas of America. Hemp can produce about 1000 gallons of methanol per acre, four times as much as can be produced from trees. Fuel can be produced locally, reducing transportation costs. The production process, called biomass conversion, is safe and clean. It would create a domestic fuel industry, freeing us from Middle East oil dependency, providing jobs and keeping our currency at home.

Hemp fuel needs no taxpayer subsidies, as oil receives. The Department of Energy estimated that fuel could be produced from hemp for about 36 cents per gallon. In New South Wales, Australia the Minister of Energy told the parliament they should consider burning confiscated hemp to produce electricity. "It burns at extremely high temperature, produces a lot of power and is cheaper (and much cleaner) to burn than coal."

Hemp was the subject of a 1991 conference held in Wisconsin. One speaker pointed out our government spends $26 billion each year to pay farmers not to cultivate their land. Instead of this waste of taxpayer money, farmers could grow hemp or other fuel crops. This could completely end our dependence on foreign oil.

www.luminet.net/~wenonah/tommy/keepfram.htm

Apokalupsis
June 7th, 2004, 02:41 PM
saving our forests for over harversting
I understand that this was only 1 of a few different reasons to use alternative fuels. But I do not feel this particular reason, is valid. We have an abundance of forests to harvest from. In fact, we have more trees in America today, than we did 100 years ago. We grow them specifically to use for production. There is absolutely no shortage, will not run out of trees as a resource. I don't think your point here, makes for a strong case to use alternate fuels. The others do however.

CC
June 8th, 2004, 01:21 PM
I don't think your point here, makes for a strong case to use alternate fuels. The others do however.

Sure it does! You are taking one point that I made. Hemp pulp is a much better source for paper than is wood. (ecologically and enonomically) yet you left out the part in the same post that explains why I beleive that methane made from hemp is a source of fuel even though I clearly posted WHY....that it is cheap to produce, easier to refine, much more ecology friendly.
But since you tied them together.....pulp (and fabric for that matter) made from hemp is a far superior product than is wood. I understand that the logging industry, (though from what I seen in the rockies it would seem not to be the case) are growing trees faster than they farm them. However they do not want to see hemp made legal here just to protect their own industry from fair competition........

I find it odd that you pick one point (hemp for pulp) that you disagree with in my post but ignore the very valid points I made as to why methane made from hemp IS an alternative fuel source.................:O)

Apokalupsis
June 8th, 2004, 01:27 PM
I have a feeling that it being illegal, is a little more than just "they don't want competition". ;)

But the argument for its use (hemp), seems to be a good one. I don't really have any objections other than what was already stated.

CC
June 8th, 2004, 01:39 PM
(post #12 was submitted before I saw post #13)


have a feeling that it being illegal, is a little more than just "they don't want competition".

Are you really that naive? WHY do you think it is kept illegal? Do you really believe marijauna is the heathen devil weed portrayed in the ridiculous film, "Reefer Madness"? There are many industries that the legal use of hemp would compete heavily against, chemicals such as Methyl Ethyl keotone (sp?) paint thinners, pharmacies, paper, textile and of course as fuel that those industries would then have to compete against.....Read the marijauna prohibtion act of 1936 when marijauna was declared illegal for (one reason similar to others) the "fact" that when negroes smoked it it made them want to rape white women......yeah, it's illegal alright, and as long as big business can cloud the reasons for it being legal...well.....the band plays on.......:O)

Fyshhed
June 8th, 2004, 01:48 PM
(post #12 was submitted before I saw post #13)



Are you really that naive? WHY do you think it is kept illegal? Do you really believe marijauna is the heathen devil weed portrayed in the ridiculous film, "Reefer Madness"? There are many industries that the legal use of hemp would compete heavily against, chemicals such as Methyl Ethyl keotone (sp?) paint thinners, pharmacies, paper, textile and of course as fuel that those industries would then have to compete against.....Read the marijauna prohibtion act of 1936 when marijauna was declared illegal for (one reason similar to others) the "fact" that when negroes smoked it it made them want to rape white women......yeah, it's illegal alright, and as long as big business can cloud the reasons for it being legal...well.....the band plays on.......:O)

Does the hemp get processed so only the alcohols are available as fuels, or are traces of the smoke evident in the exhaust? I would think a traffic jam producing a few hundred highs slightly peculiar if that was the case :p
If not, then I would be all for it after seeing some proof.

Zenstone
June 8th, 2004, 05:50 PM
Did anyone read or follow the link at post 3? You people are talking like we don't already have a very viable source of fuel that could be made and distributed easily.

I really was discussing only the current hybrid cars, and whether or not they delivered as-promised. I haven't intended to ignore your discussion of alternative fuels.

Most of these alternative fuels claims from hemp, or other crops, don't pan out in the real calcualtions. In order to be a viable option, one must gain more energy in the final product than is required to produce it.
Hemp seems to be a net loss. Ethanol is very nearly a net loss - the jury is still out on that one. So-called "shale oil" is feared to be a net loss, so nobody has started an earnest project to refine it.

But, I think if the hemp route provided enough promise, we would see the major oil and energy companies buying up rights to it. If they could make it work, they would lobby to legalize their business. I don't think that's beyond their power.

CC
June 9th, 2004, 06:07 AM
hemp is cheaper to produce than gasoline, much easier. it burns 99% clean. hardly any dirty exhuast fumes. Methane (methanol) can be easily produced by using animal waste............:O)

Zenstone
June 9th, 2004, 05:22 PM
hemp is cheaper to produce than gasoline, much easier. it burns 99% clean. hardly any dirty exhuast fumes. Methane (methanol) can be easily produced by using animal waste............:O)

That may be true, but it is not yet proven to be so. Nor is it close enough to have launched major investment in "hemp refining." You've got to get more BTUs out than you put in to be a net gain.

Once its created, though, I'll grant you that it may burn extremely clean. Perhaps that is a benefit that we tend to under-rate.

For anyone interested, the following book is a very good introduction to the subject, and suitable for the scientist or non-scientist:

"Out of Gas the End of the Age of Oil" by David Goodstein, 2004. Should be easy to find on Amazon or locally.

CC
June 10th, 2004, 11:49 AM
it gives far more "BTU's" than is required to produce energy from hemp.

Listen all....this stuff is old school to me. I fought this battle 20 years ago, I can assure you I have researched this topic to death in the past. But just for anyone who is willing to look it up I will provide you with the link to downlad Jack Herer's book..."The emporer has no clothes, which outlines in great detail how and why methonol made from hemp is a better fuel and easier and cheaper to produce...


The Emperor Wears No Clothes text only version is FREE for download! You may also read the online version here at Jack Herer's website: http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html
Prove us wrong! Prove us wrong! Prove us wrong!

And we hereby extend our $100,000 challenge to prove us wrong!

If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the greenhouse effect and stop deforestation; then there is only 1 known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is the same 1 that has done it before... CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA!

http://www.thehemperor.net/nontesters/thehemperor/hemp.html (short version of book)

If anyone can defeat Jack's arguments, then as you see, you have a nifty $100,000 to play with, but of course since what he is saying is absolutely irrefutable, he (and High Times mag)'s money will just sit in a bank and draw interest...........:O)

Zenstone
June 10th, 2004, 05:12 PM
I'll spend some time with it. I don't recall that Goodstein's book directly addresses hemp, but it lays the groundwork of how energy works. Goodstein is an established scientist. I looked for Jack Herrer's bio on your link, but couldn't find it.

Can you tell me more about him?

I ask because, given that there are plenty of scientists who do lousy science (i.e, Cold Fusion of recent past), I don't know if its wise to take the work of an avid hemp...uh..enthusiast without some review of the source.

CC
June 11th, 2004, 08:20 AM
Hugh Downs as far back as 1990 did an in depth journalistic investigation on this topic, he was chastised by his bosses and learned to stay away from the topic after 1997...(I've excluded much of it as it is lengthy, I'll try to post the link for those who wish to read it in it's entirety)

The following is a transcript of a remarkable commentary on hemp, the world's premiere renewable natural resource, by journalist and commentator Hugh Downs speaking for ABC News radio out of New York in November, 1990. Mr. Downs did his homework exceedingly well for this report--
It is my hope that people will be motivated and inspired by the facts contained herein. Since the mid-1930s, this society has been reduced to an infantile status concerning an appreciation of the tens of thousands of uses of the vegetable hemp.

As the documentation below explains, the uses of cannabis hemp are as varied and multi-faceted as any of us could ever possibly imagine or hope for. This plant can indeed provide us solutions to MANY of the critical imbalances we as an industrial culture have created in the brief span of the past few hundred years. From the production of all forms of paper products, to plastics as tough as steel, to fuel that can replace all oil, gas, coal and nuclear power consumption, to a rich source of vegetable oil and protein, to all manner and form of fabrics and textiles, to medicinal products for the management of pain, chronic neurologic diseases, convulsive disorders, migraine headache, anorexia, mental illness, and bacterial infections, to 100% non-toxic paints and varnishes, to lubricants, to building materials that can replace dry wall and plywood, to carpets, rope, laces, sails, . . . the list rolls on and on and on.

And the only thing that prevents us from once again employing this premiere raw raw material is the way we have learned to think about hemp:

"You can't use it--it's illegal." "

All we need to appreciate is that any and all change starts with how we consider or think about the world. We can stop cutting down ALL trees used for making paper and fuel; stop extracting and consuming petroleum we can stop burning coal and begin to end the recently created phenomenon of acid rain; we can stop unearthing uranium and transmuting it into the most deadly man-made substance known to human beings. None of these limited, dirty and expensive forms of energy sources need be relied on anymore.

marijuana could replace most oil and energy needs? That marijuana could revolutionize the textile industry and stop foreign imports?

But the reason the pro-marijuana lobby want marijuana legal has little to do with getting high, and a great deal to do with fighting oil giants like Saddam Hussein, Exxon and Iran. The pro-marijuana groups claim that hemp is such a versatile raw material, that its products not only compete with petroleum, but with coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, pharmaceutical, timber and textile companies.

It is estimated that methane and methanol production alone from hemp grown as biomass could replace 90% of the world's energy needs[/B]. If they are right, this is not good news for oil interests and could account for the continuation of marijuana prohibition.[B] The claim is that the threat hemp posed to natural resource companies back in the thirties accounts for its original ban.

Rudolph Diesel, like most engineers then, believed vegetable fuels were superior to petroleum. Hemp is the most efficient vegetable. In the 1930s the Ford Motor Company also saw a future in biomass fuels. Ford operated a successful biomass conversion plant, that included hemp, at their Iron Mountain facility in Michigan. Ford engineers extracted methanol, charcoal fuel, tar, pitch, ethyl-acetate and creosote. All fundamental ingredients for modern industry and now supplied by oil-related industries.
The difference is that the vegetable source is renewable, cheap and clean, and the petroleum or coal sources are limited, expensive and dirty. By volume, 30% of the hemp seed contains oil suitable for high-grade diesel fuel as well as aircraft engine and precision machine oil. Henry Ford's experiments with methanol promised cheap, readily renewable fuel. And if you think methanol means compromise, you should know that many modern race cars run on methanol.

About the time Ford was making biomass methanol, a mechanical device to strip the outer fibers of the hemp plant appeared on the market. These machines could turn hemp into paper and fabrics quickly and cheaply. Hemp paper is superior to wood paper. The first two drafts of the U.S. constitution were written on hemp paper. Hemp paper contains no dioxin, or other toxic residue, and a single acre of hemp can produce the same amount of paper as four acres of trees. The trees take 20 years to harvest and hemp takes a single season. In warm climates hemp can be harvested two even three times a year. It also grows in bad soil and restores the nutrients.
Hemp fiber-stripping machines were bad news to the Hearst paper manufacturing division, and a host of other natural resource firms. Coincidentally, the DuPont Chemical Company had, in 1937, been granted a patent on a sulfuric acid process to make paper from wood pulp. At the time DuPont predicted their sulfuric acid process would account for 80% of their business for the next 50 years.

By 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was passed which marked the beginning of the end of the hemp industry. In 1938, Popular Mechanics ran an article about marijuana called, "New Billion Dollar Crop." It was the first time the words "billion dollar" were used to describe a U.S. agricultural product. Popular Mechanics said,


. . It is used to produce more than 5,000 textile products ranging from rope, to fine laces, and the woody "hurds" remaining after the fiber has been removed, contain more than seventy-seven per cent cellulose, and can be used to produce more than 25,000 products ranging from dynamite to cellophane.

Well since the Popular Mechanics article appeared over half a century ago, many more applications have come to light. Back in 1935, more than 58,000 tons of marijuana seed were used just to make paint and varnish (all non-toxic, by the way). When marijuana was banned, these safe paints and varnishes were replaced by paints made with toxic petro-chemicals. In the 1930s no one knew about poisoned rivers or deadly land-fills or children dying from chemicals in house paint.

During World War II, domestic hemp production became crucial when the Japanese cut off Asian supplies to the U.S. American farmers (and even their sons), who grew marijuana, were exempt from military duty during World War II. A 1942 U.S. Department of Agriculture film called Hemp For Victory extolled the agricultural might of marijuana and called for hundreds of thousands of acres to be planted. Despite a rather vigorous drug crackdown, 4-H clubs were asked by the government to grow marijuana for seed supply. Ironically, war plunged the government into a sober reality about marijuana and that is that it's very valuable.

If hemp could supply the energy needs of the United States, its value would be inestimable. Now that the drug czar is in final retreat, America has an opportunity to, once and for all, say farewell to the Exxon Valdez, Saddam Hussein and a prohibitively expensive brinkmanship in the desert sands of Saudi Arabia.

This is Hugh Downs, ABC News, New York

www.ratical.org/renewables/

The only thing I know about Jack Herer is in a brief bio:

Jack Herer, sometimes called the Emperor of Hemp, is an author and advocate for the hemp and marijuana movements. In 1970 he wrote one of the seminal books on the history of hemp and marijuana prohibition. Herer also founded and served as the director of an organization named HEMP (Help End Marijuana Prohibition).
Author of (Books)
G.R.A.S.S. Great Revolutionary American Standard System (1973)
The Emperor Wears No Clothes (1970, 1990) [online version]
Author of (Articles)
Cannabis Medicines Banned
Hemp For Victory Coverup
Interviews
Totse.com Interview
Hanf! Interview: After Sunset (Deutsch) (2000)
Links
Jack Herer.com
Emperor of Hemp: The Jack Herer Story (VHS, 1999)

Though years ago High Times mag was researching his claims with overwhelming success. If anyone is really interested about this, then follow the link I post and read the entire report. Also follow the links for more information from other sources..............oh! and I'm fairly certain the reward of $100,000 still stands to anyone who can disprove what Jack Herer claims in his book "The Emporer Wears No Cloths"...(or something like that).....:O)

Zenstone
June 11th, 2004, 05:47 PM
Interesting, but most of his site is dedicated to justification for smoking pot. Even there, his statistics are skewed, at best.

To consider the feasability of hemp as a fuel, we need to know more:

(1)How many btu per gallon of hemp oil?
(2)How many gallons of hemp oil are required to equal the btu in a gallon of crude oil?
(3) How many acres of hemp must be grown to produce that number of gallons?
(4) Does the Earth support this acrage, plus the amount of additional daily harvest necessary to meet the world's fuel needs?

That will give us a start.

CC
June 12th, 2004, 10:58 AM
Interesting, but most of his site is dedicated to justification for smoking pot. Even there, his statistics are skewed, at best.

Which is why I supplied the pertinent parts of Hugh Downs report on ABC as well as highlighting that he had ndone his homework on the topic well. Downs does not refer to the weed for social purposes, but rather basis his entire stand on the senselessness of being oil dependent when oil is showing to be a dirty, expensive means of fuel.

He does not even get onto the idiotic senseless laws that keep drug users behind bars on mandatory sentences while letting violent criminals out with non-mandatory binding sentences and the financial burden that comes from such. (a whole 'nother topic)



How many btu per gallon of hemp oil?

I'm not going to bother to find such detailed data because it isn't necessary. First, because methanol has already been proven to be easily and cheaply produced, (race cars use blends of ethynol and methanol) and puts out plenty of BTU's. Also since methane burns 99% clean, it would greatly reduce the amount of air pollution we must live with. There was an issue in Mother Earth News featuring a man who ran his entire farm (to include fuel for his vehicles) off methane made from animal waste. It's here, it can be abundant, it is cheap to produce, burns clean and puts out plenty of "BTU's".



How many gallons of hemp oil are required to equal the btu in a gallon of crude oil?

Once again because the output is better AND it is a cheap and renewable source of fuel it is not relevant, although it supplies plenty enough "bang for the buck" (combustionally speaking) to power our SUV's....



How many acres of hemp must be grown to produce that number of gallons?

Right now the government pays many farmers millions of dollars a year NOT to plant a certain percentage of their land in order to regenerate the soil. However, (you really didn't read through this stuff did ya?...*g*..) hemp not only can be grown in that land that is in non-plant rotation, it does not deplete the soil like agricultureral plants and actually regenerates the soil greatly instead! It would make more sense simply to add hemp into crop rotation to speed up the amount of time needed for the soil to become enriched enough for farming all plants again than to pay farmers to allow land to be idle. Also, (though I cannot remember the exact percentage, but it's in that free downloadable book you can win $100,000 from!) the land farmers are paid not to plant each year would be more than enough to meet the fuel needs of the USA, so instead of paying farmers not to farm they would have another cash crop, which incidently can be harvested twice yearly in warmer climates.


Does the Earth support this acrage, plus the amount of additional daily harvest necessary to meet the world's fuel needs?

This is a question I find funny in the current climate but I'll refrain from taking it lightly. First, personally, I don't care if it meets the world's fuel needs or not. I care if it meets our needs in the USA, (which it would and more cheaply), ending our economie's manipulating dependency on foreign oil. If anything, they can buy our excess oil that we would no longer need.

But on the other side, until the eradication of hemp began, it was plentiful all over the world. (had you followed the link to the entire report you would have read where farmers were being ordered to grow hemp during WW2 which greatly aided the war effort). In fact, it is the USA alone that shells out tax payer money (in many forms) to bribe other countries to enact harsh penalties for those caught growing mariujana. (Mexico in the early-to mid-70's and paraquat was a shining example)
Coincidently, hemp is a hardy plant that grows in many harsh conditions, it can even be grown at very high altitudes where presently nothing is grown.

Now there is your start. Quit making me do the research I've provided for you before you ask questions that have long had the answers, in print, undisputed for over thirty years with a prize of (now) $100,000 to anyone who can disprove Jack Herer's claim that hemp mass could be used to replace dependence on fossil fuels and provide all the side benifits to nature and mankind as well.

You mention that his (Herer's) site is pro-smoker. Perhaps, but I don't think a guy like him has much trouble procurring and smoking the stuff at his whim, reducing him to some pothead with an agenda so he can what? Smoke pot legally? I'm sure whether it is legal or not is no impediment to him so far as simply getting stoned on it. I view him as a pothead who is simply pointing out the way things were done two centuries ago that were working just fine until a bunch of folks with money began making products that were difficult and expensive to make, dirtied the air we breathe, and through use of bedroom deals with our politicians have nearly eradicated almost any hope that enough people will see through the smoke, (both from pot being smoked and pollution from gasoline) and reverse what has become a source of greed for the few, a source of great pollution for our earth, and a source of constant military presence from teaching to dying to keep it all rolling..........:O)

Zenstone
June 15th, 2004, 06:43 AM
I'm not going to bother to find such detailed data because it isn't necessary.

I think it is necessary. I'm on vacation - had some time to look at your numbers and compare them to crude oil. My analysis isn't complicated - but it shows that you can't replace the USA's oil consumption with hemp oil. I've used the data provided in your links, and made the best assumptions for the hemp-case. Check my math and assumptions, and see if you get something different:

From the hemp literature:
(a)Hemp oil produces 5000-8000 btu per lb
(b)Hemp grows 10 tons/acre every 90 days

Assume that 100% hemp mass turns into oil, and produces the maximum btu cited, then you can produce 180,000,000 btu per acre. If I assume that it is instantly harvested, processed, and replanted, then you produce this much every 90 days.

Crude oil conatains 5,800,000 btu/barrel. (http://www.ipaa.org/info/reference.asp)
Therefore:
(c)1 acre of hemp is equivalent to about 30 barrels of oil.

Its reported that:
(d)The USA consumes 19,650,000 barrels of oil per day. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html)

Using (C) and (d), its clear that one day in the US requires 6,560,000 acres of hemp, to equal the amount of crude oil consumed.

(e)This can be converted to 2,700,000 sq. km.
(f)The Earth's land surface is 148,326,000 sq. km

Using (e) and (f), meeting the US crude oil needs with hemp will be possible for 55 days, before the entire land surface of the Earth is covered with hemp fields.

Unfortunatley, you have a 90-day cycle. That means, after 55 days, you can't produce any more hemp oil. But, since you've covered the planet with hemp, I suppose that doesn't matter.

chadn737
June 26th, 2004, 09:46 AM
Hemp oil! Forget that. Corn, soybeans, etc work just as well. You can take almost any crop and crop residue and turn it brew it into ethanol. You can replace at least 15% of the fuel in most vehicles with ethanol, in some you can run 100% on ethanol. The ultimate combination would be hybrids running on ethanol.

Zenstone
June 26th, 2004, 06:43 PM
The ultimate combination would be hybrids running on ethanol.
But we still have to burn something to produce ethanol. If we use fossil fuels to make ethanol, do we stretch out our supply?

Meng Bomin
June 27th, 2004, 09:58 AM
If we use fossil fuels to make ethanol, do we stretch out our supply? Yes, but perhaps not as much as using fossil fuels in cars. Ethanol does not take much energy to make, and if it did, we would see a lot of environmentalists working to reduce alcohol consumption.

Fyshhed
June 27th, 2004, 03:35 PM
I think it is necessary. I'm on vacation - had some time to look at your numbers and compare them to crude oil. My analysis isn't complicated - but it shows that you can't replace the USA's oil consumption with hemp oil. I've used the data provided in your links, and made the best assumptions for the hemp-case. Check my math and assumptions, and see if you get something different:

From the hemp literature:
(a)Hemp oil produces 5000-8000 btu per lb
(b)Hemp grows 10 tons/acre every 90 days

Assume that 100% hemp mass turns into oil, and produces the maximum btu cited, then you can produce 180,000,000 btu per acre. If I assume that it is instantly harvested, processed, and replanted, then you produce this much every 90 days.

Crude oil conatains 5,800,000 btu/barrel. (http://www.ipaa.org/info/reference.asp)
Therefore:
(c)1 acre of hemp is equivalent to about 30 barrels of oil.

Its reported that:
(d)The USA consumes 19,650,000 barrels of oil per day. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html)

Using (C) and (d), its clear that one day in the US requires 6,560,000 acres of hemp, to equal the amount of crude oil consumed.

(e)This can be converted to 2,700,000 sq. km.
(f)The Earth's land surface is 148,326,000 sq. km

Using (e) and (f), meeting the US crude oil needs with hemp will be possible for 55 days, before the entire land surface of the Earth is covered with hemp fields.

Unfortunatley, you have a 90-day cycle. That means, after 55 days, you can't produce any more hemp oil. But, since you've covered the planet with hemp, I suppose that doesn't matter.

You have to take into account that the analysis of hemp fuels was done with Ford's team way back in the day. Since then the petro fuel processing methods have improved the efficiency and cleanliness of the fuel. Given enough time and some tampering with the genetics of the plant as well as the processing methods and any chemical manipulations to the fuel itself during processing, I am sure you could come up with a better fuel efficiency rate than your calculation.

Zenstone
June 27th, 2004, 05:29 PM
I am sure you could come up with a better fuel efficiency rate than your calculation.
If you can increase either (a) or (b) in my post, then you'll make an improvement. I used the best values for them that Cyberclown provided. I am not as sure as you that better numbers exist. But, if they do, just point me to them.

This calculation isn't just restricted to hemp oil, though. The initial values don't change much for corn-to-ethanol. There are benefits to producing ethanol. Maybe there are benefits to producing it from hemp oil. However, statements that imply either route can replace all our oil consumption are wrong. Nothing we can grow can replace it fast enough.

CC
July 14th, 2004, 10:37 AM
Sorry I've been gone....(against my computers's willl)............I am not suggesting (though I did point oit that Jack herer was) that hemp oil replace ALL oil. But starting with vehicles and moving on we could sure as heck end our dependency on foreign oil.

As I 've said, and it is not even my bet, there is a lot of money waiting for anyone who can prove that hemp cannot do what herer claims it can do, to include provide fuels for automobiles..............:O)

CC
July 14th, 2004, 10:41 AM
..........and no rebuttals......no one who can grab that $100,000?............:O)

Fyshhed
July 14th, 2004, 11:55 AM
..........and no rebuttals......no one who can grab that $100,000?............:O)

I would be in support of modern research into hemp fuels. I think with proper refinement just like we do with petrol products, we can get a more efficient fuel than modern gasolines.

CC
July 14th, 2004, 01:44 PM
You get my vote then. Of course they could......but then there are so many other products made from hemp, THOSE industries would still fight to keep hemp illegal and maintain the status quo...

just some of the several thousand products see:

THE USES OF HEMP - TEXTILES AND FABRICS
HEMP FOR PULP AND PAPER.
HEMP AS BUILDING MATERIALS
HEMP FOR CORDAGE
HEMP SEEDS: OILS, FOOD AND PROTEIN.
MEDICAL AND THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS
BIOMASS ENERGY

at: http://www.hemp.on.net/final_folder/about_us/what_weve_done/campaigns/industrial_env/urbecocan.html

not to mention the social applications....*g*....:O)

Zenstone
July 14th, 2004, 03:30 PM
I am not suggesting (though I did point oit that Jack herer was) that hemp oil replace ALL oil.
You have, however, made the following statements. They are tantamount to the claim that hemp oil would replace all fossil fuels:


It would have the saudi's drowning in oil that they could not then give away

we could all be driving around on cheap fuel that does not pollute the air, while at the same time, saving our forests for over harversting and keep our rivers much cleaner by not producing any waste that couldn't be easily and ecologically controlled.

I think my analysis effectively explains why you are wrong.

Zenstone
July 14th, 2004, 03:32 PM
..........and no rebuttals......no one who can grab that $100,000?............:O)
Two problems with that:

(1) you'd have to disprove all of his claims. They range from hemp makes you pretty to hemp gets you into heaven. No one can logically prove them all wrong.

(2) Potheads never pay people the money they owe them.

CC
July 15th, 2004, 10:22 AM
It would have the saudi's drowning in oil that they could not then give away

If all we replaced oil with was fuel for cars it would leave the demand so low for oil that yes, the saudis would be swimming in it.


we could all be driving around on cheap fuel that does not pollute the air, while at the same time, saving our forests for over harversting and keep our rivers much cleaner by not producing any waste that couldn't be easily and ecologically controlled.


While I did say that there are many more ecological ways to do many other things that would indeed not polute as oil use does, the amount of oil needed to produce things would drop to very manageable levels all but eliminating uncontollable waste from oil use.


I think my analysis effectively explains why you are wrong.

No, but thanks for playing along.....*g*


Two problems with that:

(1) you'd have to disprove all of his claims. They range from hemp makes you pretty to hemp gets you into heaven. No one can logically prove them all wrong.

No, the only claim you have to prove is that hemp cannot be used in place of oil, when clearly it can.


(2) Potheads never pay people the money they owe them.

All the "potheads" I know do...................:O)

Spartacus
July 15th, 2004, 10:34 AM
Is there a tangible environmental benefit from hybrid (gas+electric) cars? It seems to me that the environmental impact of creating the required batteries, and adding them to the waste stream, almost certainly outweighs the benefit of burning less gasoline.

(I am not very familiar with the data required to support my belief, but am willing to explore it here, if there's interest.)


#1) Most electricity in the US and the world is generated from burning oil. It in fact takes more oil to power an electric car than it does for a conventional internal combustion engine to power a car of the same size and weight.

2.) Hyrbid cars that combine gas and electricity generate their own electricity and offer some real economies.

3.) ALong with hybrid cars a new technology has been created. This invention captures the energy when a car brakes and then uses that energy to accelerate the vehicle from a dead stop. The US Amry has installed this type of braking system on some vehicles inthe U.S. and it does improve performance.

4,) Also we need to keep in mind that crude is used for many things other than just making gas. Plastics come from oil and so does kerosene and natural gas is often a byproduct of oil drilling. In a 55-gal drum of oil...only a certain percentage of that is used to make gas or diesel....the rest is used to make other product we can't do without these days...so even if we eliminate petroleum as a fuel for cars, there would still be a need for oil, infact demand would probably be aboutthe same...there would just now be a byproduct that used to be used for fuel that now would have no use and need to be disposed of..

Zenstone
July 15th, 2004, 04:17 PM
No, the only claim you have to prove is that hemp cannot be used in place of oil, when clearly it can.Okay, hemp oil can be used instead of oil in many applications. Hsck, so can vegetable oil in many applications.

You realize it is a completely different claim to say that hemp oil is a better alternative to conventional oil, or has any of the myriad other benefits claimed by you/your site links.


All the "potheads" I know do...................:O)Fair enough - you know cooler ones than I do. :)

Zenstone
July 15th, 2004, 04:23 PM
2.) Hyrbid cars that combine gas and electricity generate their own electricity and offer some real economies.Fuel cell vehicles like that aren't the type on the general market right now.


3.) ALong with hybrid cars a new technology has been created. This invention captures the energy when a car brakes and then uses that energy to accelerate the vehicle from a dead stop. The US Amry has installed this type of braking system on some vehicles inthe U.S. and it does improve performance.I think that was my general conclusion - I didn't know of the army's work with it. Have they perchance published anything from their work that you know of?


...there would just now be a byproduct that used to be used for fuel that now would have no use and need to be disposed of..I believe that wouldn't end up being a by-product, but could be refined to kerosense or jet fuel or used in plastics production. We'd just have a whole lot more of it, if you could find a different vehicle fuel (yeah, even if its Cyberclown's hemp farm).

CC
July 16th, 2004, 11:57 AM
Also we need to keep in mind that crude is used for many things other than just making gas. Plastics come from oil and so does kerosene and natural gas is often a byproduct of oil drilling. In a 55-gal drum of oil...only a certain percentage of that is used to make gas or diesel....the rest is used to make other product we can't do without these days

Henry Ford pointed out the myriad of uses that could be made from hemp. he even made a car out of hemp to prove it was stronger yet lighter than wood and metal.

Nearly every by-product made with oil can be made cheaper and more ecologically with hemp. Hemp extracts could easily replace most things that oil does, but until people wake up and wuit being mislead by the oil industry and their paid politico's we will never see it....utterly senseless........especially when our wars tend to be involving oil exports.....................:O)

chadn737
July 18th, 2004, 06:06 AM
Hemp has thousands of uses yes, but every product made from hemp oil can also be made from soybean oil, canola oil, etc. The fact that hemp is illegal to grow is not whats stopping the advancement of products made of plant oils. We have more than enough soybeans to supply our needs. Some other forces are holding these products back.

CC
July 19th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Some other forces are holding these products back.

It's no big secret who those forces are....(just so long as they can keep us little people at odds though they will continue to do business...BIG business as usual)................:O)

Snoop
May 6th, 2007, 11:38 AM
<TABLE width=500 align=center summary="" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle bgColor=#c0c0c0 height=24>H2CAR could fuel entire U.S. transportation sector </TD></TR><TR><TD>
<!-- ====IMAGE====== -->http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/H2CAR.gif A possible configuration of the proposed H2CAR process. Image credit: Rakesh Agrawal, et al.

In a recent study, scientists have demonstrated that a hybrid system of hydrogen and carbon can produce a sufficient amount of liquid hydrocarbon fuels to power the entire U.S. transportation sector. Using biomass to produce the carbon, and solar energy to produce hydrogen, the process requires only a fraction of the land area needed by other proposed methods. </TD></TR><TR><TD>
According to Purdue University scientists Rakesh Agrawal, Navneet Singh, Fabio Ribeiro, and Nicholas Delgass, this appealing scenario is well within reach of current or near-future technology.

“Enough technology exists to build the main concept of this process today,” Agrawal told PhysOrg.com. “H<SUB>2</SUB>CAR could also endure sustainably for thousands of years. [We hope that] this process will lead to the birth of a new economy, a ‘hybrid hydrogen-carbon economy.’”

The hybrid hydrogen-carbon (H<SUB>2</SUB>CAR) process takes advantage of the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons (currently provided from oil), but it uses a sustainable and environmentally-friendly method. Because the fuel is essentially the same, though, the H<SUB>2</SUB>CAR process could conveniently merge into the existing infrastructure and bypass delivery problems associated with other alternative energy carriers.

In their paper published in PNAS, Agrawal et al. analyzed and compared different variations of the H<SUB>2</SUB>CAR process. They found that an optimal method would use biomass (such as switchgrass or corn) to provide the carbon. The main source of energy driving the process would come from hydrogen. The hydrogen could be generated from solar energy or another carbon-free energy source, such as nuclear or wind power.

“Conventional processes treat biomass as a source of carbon atoms as well as a source of energy,” Agrawal explained. “This leads to the formation of a large amount of CO<SUB>2</SUB> during the conversion process. The significance of the H<SUB>2</SUB>CAR process, on the other hand, lies in the fact that we are treating carbon in biomass or coal as primarily a source of carbon atoms and not a source of energy. This preserves all the carbon in the biomass and converts it to liquid fuel.”

The scientists explain how the gasification and liquid conversion processes work: In a conventional process biomass, O<SUB>2</SUB> and steam are fed together to a gasifier, where they are transformed to gaseous products—primarily CO, CO<SUB>2</SUB> and H<SUB>2</SUB>—through a gasification and combustion process. In this gasification gives CO plus H<SUB>2</SUB> and a huge amount of CO<SUB>2</SUB>.

The next step is to transform the gas to a liquid fuel in a Fischer-Tropsch process, where an additional quantity of CO<SUB>2</SUB> is produced. Usually, this large quantity of CO<SUB>2</SUB> formed is released in the atmosphere and requires large amounts of land for the biomass-to-liquid process.

“The H2CAR method has a solution to these problems,” Agrawal explained. “H2 from a carbon-free energy source, along with CO<SUB>2</SUB> from the gas to liquid conversion step, is co-fed to the gasifier. The presence of excess H<SUB>2</SUB> in the gasifier not only suppresses formation of CO<SUB>2</SUB> but also reacts with some of the recycled CO2. The same happens with CO and H<SUB>2</SUB>, which are unreacted in a ‘gas to liquid fuel process’ and also recycled. As a result, we don't lose any carbon atoms as CO<SUB>2</SUB>, a greenhouse gas, from the H<SUB>2</SUB>CAR.”

One concern about the use of biomass to produce fuel is the estimated amount of land area: in conventional methods, biomass would require 25-58% of the total U.S. land area to provide fuel for the country. Based on the current scenario of growth rates and gasifier efficiencies, the scientists estimate the H2CAR process to require about 15% of the land—and with reasonable future projections, just 6%. Significantly, this scenario would avoid the land competition with food growth.

This study comes nearly on the heels of the 2005 “Billion Ton Biomass Study,” which estimated that the current amount of recoverable biomass could meet just 30% of the U.S. transportation needs. But because the H<SUB>2</SUB>CAR process supplements biomass with hydrogen, the same amount of biomass could provide liquid fuels for nearly 100% of U.S. transportation needs, according to Agrawal et al.’s estimates.

“The reason for significant decrease in land area requirement for the H2CAR process as compared to conventional processes is that hydrogen production from solar energy is an order of magnitude more efficient than biomass growth, which typically grows with an average energy efficiency of less than 1%,” Agrawal explained. “This decreases the land area required to produce same quantity of liquid fuel by a factor of nearly one-third.”

As the scientists conclude, H<SUB>2</SUB>CAR solves many problems simultaneously.

“One is that it eliminates the need for CO<SUB>2</SUB> sequestration from the chemical processing system,” Agrawal said. “The second is that it solves the grand challenge associated with hydrogen storage problem by storing the carbon-free hydrogen at a much higher storage density than currently known methods available. The third advantage is it needs nearly one-third biomass and, hence, land area to produce the same quantity of liquid fuel.”

As amazing as that sounds, the scientists also suggest that, when combined with other technologies such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles—which can run short distances on electricity and solar cells—the H<SUB>2</SUB>CAR process would provide the greatest value. Liquid fuels would only need to provide for less than half of the total driving distance in the U.S., bringing up the possibility that excess biomass could be used for residential and commercial power. The scientists also point out that, in this scenario, the U.S. could even become an exporter of oil.

“The question that remains is of economics and not feasibility,” said Agrawal. “We are currently looking into the economics of the process. Major obstacles are attracting funding for research because gasification routes are generally capital intensive. Other obstacles include decreasing the price of hydrogen available from renewable sources such as solar, etc.” Another of Agrawal’s research areas is on making cost-effective solar cells.

Citation: Agrawal, Rakesh, Singh, Navneet R., Ribeiro, Fabio H., and Delgass, W. Nicholas. “Sustainable fuel for the transportation sector.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. March 20, 2007, vol. 104, no. 12, 4828-2833.

Free access to the article is available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/12/4828 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/12/4828) .

Copyright 2007 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I think this has possibilities. I would add a wind turbine to the front of every car to generate electricity.