OT. Louisiana Leads the way
amdx
process and produced legislation to back it.
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0701-ethanol.html
Now if the rest of the states can follow.
Farm lobby by d$*^#d. No more corn subsidies..
And what about Butanol.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel
Butanol better tolerates water contamination and is less corrosive than
ethanol and more suitable for distribution through existing pipelines
(important to an efficient use MK)
High octane rating .
Higher specific energy than ethanol
The feedstocks are the same as for ethanol: energy crops such as sugar
beets, sugar cane, corn grain, wheat and cassava as well as agricultural
byproducts such as straw and corn stalks (reference needed).
Can be made from Algae
We need nuclear power and a better battery for autos.
We need energy independence.
Mike (MK)
Eeyore
amdx wrote:
> Louisiana has figured out that ethanol from corn is an inefficient stupid
> process and produced legislation to back it.
> http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0701-ethanol.html
> Now if the rest of the states can follow.
> Farm lobby by d$*^#d. No more corn subsidies..
Damn right. Corn is a relatively poor feedstock for bio-fuel production.. Not
maybe useless but far from ideal.
> And what about Butanol.
>
> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel
>
> Butanol better tolerates water contamination and is less corrosive than
> ethanol and more suitable for distribution through existing pipelines
> (important to an efficient use MK)
>
> High octane rating .
>
> Higher specific energy than ethanol
>
> The feedstocks are the same as for ethanol: energy crops such as sugar
> beets, sugar cane, corn grain, wheat and cassava as well as agricultural
> byproducts such as straw and corn stalks (reference needed).
And currently being developed in the UK using sugar beet as feedstock.
Graham
amdx
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:486FE94F...@hotmail.com...
ethanol? I t seems silly to make ethanol when butanol has all these
advantages.
Mike
Eeyore
amdx wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > amdx wrote:
> >
> >> Louisiana has figured out that ethanol from corn is an inefficient
> >> stupid process and produced legislation to back it.
> >> http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0701-ethanol.html
> >> Now if the rest of the states can follow.
> >> Farm lobby by d$*^#d. No more corn subsidies..
> >
> > Damn right. Corn is a relatively poor feedstock for bio-fuel production..
> > Not
> > maybe useless but far from ideal.
> >
> >> And what about Butanol.
> >>
> >> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel
> >>
> >> Butanol better tolerates water contamination and is less corrosive than
> >> ethanol and more suitable for distribution through existing pipelines
> >> (important to an efficient use MK)
> >>
> >> High octane rating .
> >>
> >> Higher specific energy than ethanol
> >>
> >> The feedstocks are the same as for ethanol: energy crops such as sugar
> >> beets, sugar cane, corn grain, wheat and cassava as well as agricultural
> >> byproducts such as straw and corn stalks (reference needed).
> >
> > And currently being developed in the UK using sugar beet as feedstock.
>
>
> I wonder if there is any extra energy input to produce butanol instead of
> ethanol? I t seems silly to make ethanol when butanol has all these
> advantages.
You'll need to ask Du Pont.
Graham
amdx
NotMe
One word SUGAR.
If politicians really meant what they say they'd approve other sources such
as industrial hemp. (it's a weed after all)
CurlyQue
Come on man, get real. Support of hemp or marijuana is the sure road to
political suicide.
To bad for us, but it aint never gonna happen.
Curly
phil-new...@ipal.net
It would take a real _leader_ to stand up and say that we need to dispose of
our legacy prejudices and accept the use of hemp (a product that has no
significant levels of any psychotropic drugs) in the many useful ways it can
be used for. The problem is, no real _leaders_ ever become politicians.
2008 is just yet another election year where Americans are expected to choose
among a few non-leaders.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
CurlyQue
If you care to, read
http://www.gametec.com/hemp/fiberwars/index.html
The denouncements of hemp by some in the fiber industries during WWII
rival 'Reefer Madness' in their absurdity
Oh, the games that people play.
Curly
Kris Krieger
I agree with this writer:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/09/lets_change_the.php
He points out that "rape seed oil" was renamed Canola Oil because people
got all upset over the name "rape seed" - based upon that, he proposes a
"rebranding" (pseudonouveau dopey word for "rename") of low-THC hemp.
How about a "rename the weed" contest?
Here are some starters:
- Elltea ("LT", = low-THC)
- No-nine (no delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol i.e. THC)
- Fan-leaf False Bamboo (based on its bamboo-ish look and leaf shape)
- Dakota Twineweed (since it's used for twine, among other things, and
North Dakota farmers Wayne Hauge and Dave Monson filed a lawsuit against
the DEA)
- Dakota Paperplant (as above) (Also, I dunno whether this is true, but I
read that the Declaration of Independence is written on hemp paper =:-o !)
I read that 30 (at least) industrial nations grow and utilize industrial
hemp. It figures, these days, that the US is looking backasswards rather
than towards the future - heck, most folks here seem to think that oil is a
never-ending self-renewing resource (too damn stupid to remember the
lessons of the gas crisis in the 70's, which I remember *very* well -
including people getting beat up, knifed, and even shot in various disputes
related to the lines - and the gov.t's flippant annihilation of MPG
restrictions compounded that myopic amnesia).
Anyway, given that, these days, Flash in the US now counts for far, FAR
more than substance, it wouldn't surprise me if a simple rename did
actually help =:-o
James Arthur
The real objection to hemp is it's hard for cops to tell
from marijuana, especially from the air.
Legalize 'em both.
James Arthur
Kris Krieger
news:EESek.258$6O4.201@trnddc06:
Except that isn't necessarily relevant, because, if someone is growing it
legally, it'll be grown out in the open, not secreted away in wooded
areas, areas inside other crop fields, or basement hydroponics setups.
If someone wants to grow it as a legal crop, heck, make them pay a fee
for signs that are visible from the air.
plus, if the cops are local, why wouldn't they already know who is
growing it legally, and where they're growing it?
It just doesn't make for a good-enough excuse, IMO.
>
> Legalize 'em both.
>
> James Arthur
>
Well, IMO, that'd save the most not only in terms of money, but also,
given the violence associated with the cartels bringing the stuff in,
lives as well. And, heck, it'd keep the money in the country rather than
simply adding to the trade imbalance (and funding violent activities) -
they subsidized tobacco for I don't even know how many decades, and it's
long been known to directly cause disease. Also, nicotine is supposedly
one of the most addictive substances around, whereas pot is only habit-
forming if someone is already prone to liking getting buzzed a lot - IOW,
the problem isn't with pot so much as it is with personal probably-
biological predelictions, and the solution with those is never to simply
make stuff illegal.
One would think people *might* have learned from Prohibition that trying
to outlaw every single little petty vice only succeeds in first creating,
than feeding, organized crime. But nope. Too many people, in various
sectors of society, make far too much money off of the current situation.
And it's soooo easy to get various voters all riled up by jumping
immediately into worst-case scenarious. Like tha tgoofy old movie
"Reefer Madnes" - all the evidence shows that it doesnt' exist, but
belief doesn't require proof...
So, a highly useful, and profitable, crop will go unused by the US, but
used by other nations (whose products we'll import), while violence and
deaths increase - and use of pot continues, except of course where it's
being overtaken by other drug use. The fact that people love to ignore
is, drug use is almost always a symptom of something else, and not self-
causational.
>sigh<
krw
m...@dowmuff.in says...
You don't think hemp growers are sharp enough to realize there's
money to be made growing pot too? Pot growers aren't sharp enough
to get into the hemp business? Pot growers aren't sharp enough to
secret a few plants inside other's hemp fields?
> It just doesn't make for a good-enough excuse, IMO.
It makes for some very good excuses.
> > Legalize 'em both.
> >
> > James Arthur
> >
>
> Well, IMO, that'd save the most not only in terms of money, but also,
> given the violence associated with the cartels bringing the stuff in,
> lives as well. And, heck, it'd keep the money in the country rather than
> simply adding to the trade imbalance (and funding violent activities) -
> they subsidized tobacco for I don't even know how many decades, and it's
> long been known to directly cause disease. Also, nicotine is supposedly
> one of the most addictive substances around, whereas pot is only habit-
> forming if someone is already prone to liking getting buzzed a lot - IOW,
> the problem isn't with pot so much as it is with personal probably-
> biological predelictions, and the solution with those is never to simply
> make stuff illegal.
Not such a big deal with pot, because so much (of the good stuff) is
grown locally.
> One would think people *might* have learned from Prohibition that trying
> to outlaw every single little petty vice only succeeds in first creating,
> than feeding, organized crime. But nope. Too many people, in various
> sectors of society, make far too much money off of the current situation.
> And it's soooo easy to get various voters all riled up by jumping
> immediately into worst-case scenarious. Like tha tgoofy old movie
> "Reefer Madnes" - all the evidence shows that it doesnt' exist, but
> belief doesn't require proof...
Typical tired weenie arguments.
> So, a highly useful, and profitable, crop will go unused by the US, but
> used by other nations (whose products we'll import), while violence and
> deaths increase - and use of pot continues, except of course where it's
> being overtaken by other drug use. The fact that people love to ignore
> is, drug use is almost always a symptom of something else, and not self-
> causational.
Nonsense.
--
Keith