Using Ethanol in Your Plane

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:18:15 GMT, "Private"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:10:48 -0500, Roger wrote:
The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.

This is why many are looking to hemp as our source for ethanol.
Using current technology, hemp yeilds almost twice the ethanol per acre
corn does. Hemp does not require pesticides and is drought resistent.
snip
but there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last
penny per pound out of the stuff.


I have read that the hemp fiber is longer and tougher than the celulose?
fiber from wood normally used to produce paper. This shorter wood fiber is
further shortened by the pulping process durring recycling and requires the
addition of new fiber in the process to create quality recycled paper. One
of the largest sources of raw material for paper is now what is termed the
urban forest of waste paper. It is suggested that the best place for future
paper mills is not close to the trees but rather close to the waste paper
and that the addition of hemp fiber to waste paper will mean we will not
want to cut as many trees.

The last I read it takes more energy to recycle paper than to make new
paper. OTOH trees used for pulp grow quite fast which makes it/them a
renewable energy and material source. So which way is really best for
the environment and economy
?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

It looks like the autofuel days will be over in these parts.
It this the same through out the rest of the country?

Breaking news: the FAA has now approved an STC for a Cessna 182 to burn
ethanol! Great, right?

Not.

In typical government-bureacratic style, the FAA has NOT approved the
"use" of ethanol for that engine.

Only the FAA can make sense of THAT.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:18:15 GMT, "Private"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:10:48 -0500, Roger wrote:
The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.

This is why many are looking to hemp as our source for ethanol.
Using current technology, hemp yeilds almost twice the ethanol per acre
corn does. Hemp does not require pesticides and is drought resistent.
snip
but there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last
penny per pound out of the stuff.


I have read that the hemp fiber is longer and tougher than the celulose?
fiber from wood normally used to produce paper. This shorter wood fiber
is
further shortened by the pulping process durring recycling and requires
the
addition of new fiber in the process to create quality recycled paper.
One
of the largest sources of raw material for paper is now what is termed the
urban forest of waste paper. It is suggested that the best place for
future
paper mills is not close to the trees but rather close to the waste paper
and that the addition of hemp fiber to waste paper will mean we will not
want to cut as many trees.

The last I read it takes more energy to recycle paper than to make new
paper. OTOH trees used for pulp grow quite fast which makes it/them a
renewable energy and material source. So which way is really best for
the environment and economy
?

Interesting and counterintuitive. I wonder how inclusive the analysis is
and if it includes all the energy inputs including logging and freight to
deliver new paper and cost of disposal of waste paper. It is my uninformed
understanding that paper recycling is only viable in a micro economy where
the source of the waste and the location of consumption of the recycled
paper is close geographically. The analysis of hemp as new fiber for
recycled paper supposed that the urban forest was Los Angeles or similar and
that the hemp would be grown close by thus saving transportation to/from the
normal paper mills. I have read that deinking is the biggest problem.

I agree that the big picture often provides a perspective that is missing
from obvious but short sighted solutions and strategies. Both government
and business claim the former but IMHO usually deliver the latter.

The continued creation of large amounts of waste paper reminds me of the
wags claim that 'the paperless office is as likely as the paperless
bathroom'.

Happy landings,

"Roger" wrote in message
...

The last I read it takes more energy to recycle paper than to make new
paper. OTOH trees used for pulp grow quite fast which makes it/them a
renewable energy and material source. So which way is really best for
the environment and economy

Not quite. Not even DOE claims that recycling paper uses more energy than
making new paper. The savings are not as spectacular as with other recycling
programs, but they are there. Also, the argument that making new paper is
more efficient does not take into consideration the fact that 39% of our
trash is in fact paper, or that recycling does not just mean making paper
out of the waste, it also means using it for other purposes, such as
packaging material in shipping, etc.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 21:48:12 GMT, "Private"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:18:15 GMT, "Private"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:10:48 -0500, Roger wrote:
The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.

This is why many are looking to hemp as our source for ethanol.
Using current technology, hemp yeilds almost twice the ethanol per acre
corn does. Hemp does not require pesticides and is drought resistent.
snip
but there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last
penny per pound out of the stuff.


I have read that the hemp fiber is longer and tougher than the celulose?
fiber from wood normally used to produce paper. This shorter wood fiber
is
further shortened by the pulping process durring recycling and requires
the
addition of new fiber in the process to create quality recycled paper.
One
of the largest sources of raw material for paper is now what is termed the
urban forest of waste paper. It is suggested that the best place for
future
paper mills is not close to the trees but rather close to the waste paper
and that the addition of hemp fiber to waste paper will mean we will not
want to cut as many trees.

The last I read it takes more energy to recycle paper than to make new
paper. OTOH trees used for pulp grow quite fast which makes it/them a
renewable energy and material source. So which way is really best for
the environment and economy
?

Interesting and counterintuitive. I wonder how inclusive the analysis is
and if it includes all the energy inputs including logging and freight to
deliver new paper and cost of disposal of waste paper.

Supposedly it does.

It is my uninformed
understanding that paper recycling is only viable in a micro economy where
the source of the waste and the location of consumption of the recycled
paper is close geographically.

One way to tell is a recycling system saves energy is whether thy pay
you for the waste (Aluminum cans) or charge you for your efforts
(paper)

The analysis of hemp as new fiber for
recycled paper supposed that the urban forest was Los Angeles or similar and

The LA urban forrest is the wrong kind of hemp. :-)) OTOH I think
Canada has the right idea.

that the hemp would be grown close by thus saving transportation to/from the

I would guess that the transportation is one of the smaller costs, but
if you are operating on a thin margin it could make the difference
between profitability and failure.

normal paper mills. I have read that deinking is the biggest problem.

It gets bleached out or taken care of in the acid wash which is one of
the reasons paper mills smell so bad.

Recycling paper uses a lot of water and energy. It also takes a lot
of labor to sort and seperate out the "unwanted" stuff.


I agree that the big picture often provides a perspective that is missing
from obvious but short sighted solutions and strategies. Both government
and business claim the former but IMHO usually deliver the latter.

The continued creation of large amounts of waste paper reminds me of the
wags claim that 'the paperless office is as likely as the paperless
bathroom'.

My degree is in CS and I retired from the profession a few years back.
I never really saw computers sucessfully reduce the amount of paper in
offices. Where I did see serious work to eliminate paper from the
office the result was usually deep and expensive regret. Depending on
how important, most things that are stored digitally are also stored
on paper or film. As it stands today, microfilm and regular film will
probably outlast the digital data to which they are transfered. The
problem with microfilm is handling the stuff can be hard on it. OTOH
handling CDs and DVDs is hard on them as well. Still, a trashed
digital doc is one whale of a lot easier to reproduce from the
archives than microfilm. It's also a lot easier to migrate to new
storage media with digital than other forms of storage.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Happy landings,

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:16:19 -0400, Roger wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

Except we don't irrigate for corn so that makes the crop output highly
dependent on nature. Here in Michigan we don't use a lot of pesticides
on corn. Herbicides yes, pesticides no.

Except that is exactly the point. A bad crop year for corn means through
the roof ethanol prices. Hemp, on the other hand, continues to grow
rather well while corn is hardly growing at all. Thus, hemp = stable fuel
market; corn = unstable fuel market.


If hemp produced twice as much alcohol for about a 1/3 less cost to
the farmer you'd be getting about 2.56 gallons fore every gallon used
in the production cycle although I don't know how much energy is used
in the actual production.

the costs associated with the crop and cause volatility in the price of
corn at market. Furthermore, hemp can grow is almost all zones within the
US. Corn can not.

As I understand it's more difficult to get it to quit growing rather
than to get it to grow.


That's correct. This is why "ditch weed" is still found and killed in the
US. For those that don't know, "ditch weed" is hemp planted to help the
war effort during WWII.


To be clear, hemp is NOT pot!! I can not stress this enough! In fact,

And just when I thought you'd come up with a good and legal reason I
could make a good living off that 40 acres.


They've actually passed the break even point, but only by about 50%
depending on which study you read. So you get 1.56 gallons out for
every gallon you put in to raise and process the stuff which is not a
very good figure.

I would enjoy reading any current news on this. Please share if you can.
The last I read, using the very, very, very latest technology, which was
not practical for for any scalable deployment, was just only reaching
break even. You need to be careful about some of the studies which claim
high returns for corn. All of them that I've read conviently forget to
include the fuel used to plant, grow, spray, and harvet (or some
part-of) and only include the energy required for conversion. Based on the
numbers you're tossing out, I'd bet this is the case; probably pushed
forward by corn farmers. A more typical corn based effort is actually
yeilding something between 70-80% of what's required to deliver.



currently subsidised (on both ends of the economy!!), making it very
expensive for us, the consumer. Hemp based ethanol can be produced at
small scales around $1.50 - $2.00 a gallon. Research is under way to
further reduce the costs...but keep in mind, we're talking about small
scale production at this point. With better technology, it is thought the
price can be reduced to $1.05 - $1.25 a gallon in the near future. These
prices are based on hemp cellulose enzymatic conversions.


I should add here, "near future", means within a decade or two...not
tomorrow or day after tomorrow. ...just so we're on the same page.

With almost all current alternative fuels and the present technology
the break even point comes at closer to $3.50 a gallon here in the
states with subsidies taken into account.


I don't have numbers to debate here and flatly, I believe it's in
the ballpark...but keep in mind, I'm 100% sure hemp is exluded from those
numbers! So be sure to keep that in mind! Having said that, I've never
read anything which equated it to price per gallon but rather price per
barrel of oil. Typically, alternate fuels become viable between $50-$60;
which is required to support an emerging market. Once a market becomes
viable, it's said the prices can fall from there. Given that we already
see barrel prices in or above that range now and gas price is not $3.50 a
gallon, I suspect the number you're quoting is somewhat inflated.

You might ask, why haven't alternatives already appeared on the market
then? When, volatliity, which the oil companies manipulate and history
assure, prevent the creation of alternatives as an emerging market. Now
that barrel prices are up and look as if they will not be falling below
the magic $50-$60 (let's say $60) mark...suddenly you are seeing a lot of
R&D into alternatives.


The long of the short, if the law was changed in the US, hemp may yet
prove to be a viable fuel alternative. Currently, any product containing
some fractional amount (sorry, don't remember the amount) of THC is
illegal in the US. Despite this, large scale ("larger" scale may be more

We have a number of "zero tolerance" idiots running states and passing
bills ... unfortunately.

Well, I honestly doubt this ban on hemp stems from "zero tolerance
idiots". Historically, hemp was banned by lobbiest form, surprise,
chemical and petrochemical companies. Thing about it...hemp completes
with just about every significant market petrolium products do. Fibers
(rope to clothes); check. Oil (cooking and lubriation); check. Fuel
(ethanol and biofuels); check.


Depending on equipment, and contracts for sale (as in sugar beets) the
conversion to hemp should be relatively easy for the farmer. In
addition, corn takes more out of the land than most other crops and
requires time for the soil to recover. As corn is of the same family
I'd assume that hemp takes quite a bit out of the soil, but I don't
know that.


That's a good point. I don't know. But, since hemp can grow in many more
places than corn, it's a lot easier to rotate hemp to different locations
to allow for recovery than is even possible with corn.

As is my understanding, the most recent data available on this type of
change dates back to the turn of the century with the introduction of
the peanut as a viable agricultural crop. We know from that experience,
it was not a painless endeavor; becoming possible, thanks mostly to Mr.
Carver giving spirit.

George Washington Carver, but you are talking something far more
involved than introducing the peanut to agriculture and in today's
markets on a scale that is difficult to compare.


Let's not be so hasty here. Surprisingly, the peanut as a crop took, if I
remember right, some decade to become viable. Of course, there were a lot
of other variables there which need not apply today. Having said that,
the peanut is the closest crop we can compare...which is why we have so
many unknowns today when talking about hemp as a new crop...especially
since the potential market impact is profound.

OTOH I think the processing plants and disposal of byproducts from
processing, getting the alcohol into the sales chain on a large scale,
and phasing in the vehicles to use the stuff (Usually E85) will be the
big hurtle. The farming should be the easy part.

Which is exactly why Canada is currently conducting studies on this
exactly subject. There are a lot of unknowns and Canada is looking for
answers.


Lastly, hemp is edible! Hemp can be used for clothing. Hemp can also
be used for cooking oils (not as nice tasting as corn oil AFAIK),
biofuels, machine lubricants, and probably many other uses I'm
forgetting. Meaning, hemp can actually hemp grow an economy rather then
be part of an economic down turn; like corn.

Like with crude oil you have to make choices during the production run.
It's doubtful it'd become popular for cooking, or as a human food but
there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last penny
per pound out of the stuff.


Agreed. At least here in the US. Do keep in mind, in some parts of the
world, hemp is already used in the food chain. Perhaps a new export crop?
I dunno.

Greg

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:35:29 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:16:19 -0400, Roger wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

Except we don't irrigate for corn so that makes the crop output highly
dependent on nature. Here in Michigan we don't use a lot of pesticides
on corn. Herbicides yes, pesticides no.

Except that is exactly the point. A bad crop year for corn means through
the roof ethanol prices. Hemp, on the other hand, continues to grow
rather well while corn is hardly growing at all. Thus, hemp = stable fuel
market; corn = unstable fuel market.

I do believe they irrigate corn in the central states, but even then
a dry year (or wet) would raise the growing cost considerably with a
corresponding reduction in yield..



If hemp produced twice as much alcohol for about a 1/3 less cost to
the farmer you'd be getting about 2.56 gallons fore every gallon used
in the production cycle although I don't know how much energy is used
in the actual production.

the costs associated with the crop and cause volatility in the price of
corn at market. Furthermore, hemp can grow is almost all zones within the
US. Corn can not.

Hemp can certainly grow in a much wider area although corn will do
well in a wide range of temperatures. It will not do well with too
much or too little rain though and that is what limits its growing
range/area.


As I understand it's more difficult to get it to quit growing rather
than to get it to grow.


That's correct. This is why "ditch weed" is still found and killed in the
US. For those that don't know, "ditch weed" is hemp planted to help the
war effort during WWII.

Actually I don't think you can eradicate the stuff.



To be clear, hemp is NOT pot!! I can not stress this enough! In fact,

And just when I thought you'd come up with a good and legal reason I
could make a good living off that 40 acres.

Unfortunately you need to convince our congress critters of that.
Currently if it even has a trace of TCP? to them it's bad even if it's
so little as to be unrecoverable, or useable in any form.



They've actually passed the break even point, but only by about 50%
depending on which study you read. So you get 1.56 gallons out for
every gallon you put in to raise and process the stuff which is not a
very good figure.

I would enjoy reading any current news on this. Please share if you can.
The last I read, using the very, very, very latest technology, which was

Michigan State University did a recent study that came out positive
although it may take some digging to find the study and the parameters
under which it was taken. To me the parameters are the qualifying
criteria by whether a study can be judged valid.

Most studies are commissioned, or undertaken with specific criteria
given to a supposedly independent, unbiased facility. Coming up with
he true cost of producing a crop from field preparation, to sale at
the elevator is difficult and a bit tricky. Taxes (property, sales,
fuel, and even income), subsidies, fuel, deprecation on equipment, and
labor all need to be factored in.

not practical for for any scalable deployment, was just only reaching
break even. You need to be careful about some of the studies which claim
high returns for corn. All of them that I've read conviently forget to

The problem looking at "studies" is not having the ability to judge
which ones, _if_any_, are valid. The results vary from a substantial
net negative energy return to a substantial net positive return. Only
one actually showed a large return.

include the fuel used to plant, grow, spray, and harvet (or some
part-of) and only include the energy required for conversion. Based on the
numbers you're tossing out, I'd bet this is the case; probably pushed
forward by corn farmers. A more typical corn based effort is actually
yeilding something between 70-80% of what's required to deliver.

And that's the problem. there's a lot of information out there with
little of it agreeing with any of the other while some is outright
contradictory.




currently subsidised (on both ends of the economy!!), making it very
expensive for us, the consumer. Hemp based ethanol can be produced at
small scales around $1.50 - $2.00 a gallon. Research is under way to
further reduce the costs...but keep in mind, we're talking about small
scale production at this point. With better technology, it is thought the
price can be reduced to $1.05 - $1.25 a gallon in the near future. These
prices are based on hemp cellulose enzymatic conversions.


I should add here, "near future", means within a decade or two...not
tomorrow or day after tomorrow. ...just so we're on the same page.

I was a project manager in industry. "Near future" really doesn't
have a meaning outside of press releases when used in the context we
normally see. Those alternative energy break throughs being touted
have been "just around the corner" ever since the shortages in the
70's.

With almost all current alternative fuels and the present technology
the break even point comes at closer to $3.50 a gallon here in the
states with subsidies taken into account.


I don't have numbers to debate here and flatly, I believe it's in
the ballpark...but keep in mind, I'm 100% sure hemp is exluded from those

I'm only aiming for the stadium, not a particular base:-)) It's
basically impossible to find definitive figures to pin any of this
down. No matter where you get them and from who ever, there will be
some one who can find equally valid and contradictory numbers.

numbers! So be sure to keep that in mind! Having said that, I've never
read anything which equated it to price per gallon but rather price per
barrel of oil. Typically, alternate fuels become viable between $50-$60;

When it comes to production they look at what it takes to get a useful
net energy gain first. The amount of energy required to drill the
well, pump the oil, refine it, and then get it to the consumer is
about 10% of the final yield. So, although dirty it is by far the
most efficient energy source. Unfortunately it gives us a tremendous
net gain in atmospheric CO2, SO2, and other pollutants. We also use
so much that a major portion has to be imported which makes the US and
much of Europe dependent on the oil producing nations. That in itself
makes for some grand political problems.

which is required to support an emerging market. Once a market becomes
viable, it's said the prices can fall from there. Given that we already

Much depends on the definition of "viable" and who is doing the
defining:-)). There are some alternative fuels that look great at
present that just will not scale up well. For instance, creating
biodeisel from waste works well on a relatively small scale, but it's
already requiring the soy oil. Soybeans are an expensive product. I
wish we could raise them every year. Those and sugar beets.

Fuel cells and Hydrogen. Even given that the Metal Hydrides make the
storage and transportation of the stuff safer than gas; H2 can be
inexpensive to make (given clean fresh water and electricity), but it
gets expensive in a hurry when scaled up. OTOH fuel cells have been
developed that can burn most any burnable liquid but they like much
other technology is waiting for the break through just around the
corner.

Total electric cars are fantastic on a small scale, but we do not have
the technology, or power grid to have more than a small percent of our
fleet all electric.

see barrel prices in or above that range now and gas price is not $3.50 a
gallon, I suspect the number you're quoting is somewhat inflated.

That is indeed possible, but I think when rising costs/inflation,
supply and demand, as well as the cost of scaling up new technology
and then looking at the expected investment versus the return I think
by the time we can actually produce alternative fuels on a large (read
useful) scale those will be valid numbers.

You might ask, why haven't alternatives already appeared on the market
then? When, volatliity, which the oil companies manipulate and history
assure, prevent the creation of alternatives as an emerging market. Now
that barrel prices are up and look as if they will not be falling below
the magic $50-$60 (let's say $60) mark...suddenly you are seeing a lot of
R&D into alternatives.

No argument at all.


The long of the short, if the law was changed in the US, hemp may yet
prove to be a viable fuel alternative. Currently, any product containing
some fractional amount (sorry, don't remember the amount) of THC is
illegal in the US. Despite this, large scale ("larger" scale may be more

We have a number of "zero tolerance" idiots running states and passing
bills ... unfortunately.

Well, I honestly doubt this ban on hemp stems from "zero tolerance
idiots". Historically, hemp was banned by lobbiest form, surprise,
chemical and petrochemical companies. Thing about it...hemp completes
with just about every significant market petrolium products do. Fibers
(rope to clothes); check. Oil (cooking and lubriation); check. Fuel
(ethanol and biofuels); check.

Depending on equipment, and contracts for sale (as in sugar beets) the
conversion to hemp should be relatively easy for the farmer. In
addition, corn takes more out of the land than most other crops and
requires time for the soil to recover. As corn is of the same family
I'd assume that hemp takes quite a bit out of the soil, but I don't
know that.


That's a good point. I don't know. But, since hemp can grow in many more
places than corn, it's a lot easier to rotate hemp to different locations
to allow for recovery than is even possible with corn.

As is my understanding, the most recent data available on this type of
change dates back to the turn of the century with the introduction of
the peanut as a viable agricultural crop. We know from that experience,
it was not a painless endeavor; becoming possible, thanks mostly to Mr.
Carver giving spirit.

George Washington Carver, but you are talking something far more
involved than introducing the peanut to agriculture and in today's
markets on a scale that is difficult to compare.


Let's not be so hasty here. Surprisingly, the peanut as a crop took, if I
remember right, some decade to become viable. Of course, there were a lot

It did and he basically had to create the uses for the oil before the
crop became viable if I remember my history correctly.

of other variables there which need not apply today. Having said that,
the peanut is the closest crop we can compare...which is why we have so
many unknowns today when talking about hemp as a new crop...especially
since the potential market impact is profound.

OTOH I think the processing plants and disposal of byproducts from
processing, getting the alcohol into the sales chain on a large scale,
and phasing in the vehicles to use the stuff (Usually E85) will be the
big hurtle. The farming should be the easy part.

I do have to give GM credit in their adds for E85. They are sticking
with the "clean fuel" rather than any claiming any big energy savings,
or as least the adds I've seen. Alcohol is clean burning and it
doesn't add any new CO2 to the atmosphere. However I don't see corn
alcohol as being a viable fuel to wean us off imported oil.

IF the figures I have are correct and there really is a net energy
gain of about 50% on alcohol, when compared to the energy required to
produce gas from crude is about 2,000 times more efficient. It takes
one gallon of crude to produce the energy to produce 10 gallons of
gas. While it takes one gallon of alcohol to produce a gain of 1/2
gallon. This does not take into account that there is much less energy
in alcohol as well. I looked it up a couple weeks ago, but have
forgotten the actual number, but I think pure alcohol only contains
about 40% of the energy in a gallon of gas. So, as a comparison based
on a poor memory, if we use one million barrels of gas a day we'd need
over two million barrels of Alcohol to get the same energy. Or course
we use a lot more than a million barrels a day.


Which is exactly why Canada is currently conducting studies on this
exactly subject. There are a lot of unknowns and Canada is looking for
answers.


Lastly, hemp is edible! Hemp can be used for clothing. Hemp can also

Some how that produces the mental image of chewing on a piece of
rope.:-)) Yes it's a big green plant through part of its life cycle
that contains a protein rich sap if I remember correctly.

be used for cooking oils (not as nice tasting as corn oil AFAIK),
biofuels, machine lubricants, and probably many other uses I'm
forgetting. Meaning, hemp can actually hemp grow an economy rather then
be part of an economic down turn; like corn.

Another item. Hemp is far easer to harvest than corn. Processing is a
different story.


Like with crude oil you have to make choices during the production run.
It's doubtful it'd become popular for cooking, or as a human food but
there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last penny
per pound out of the stuff.


Agreed. At least here in the US. Do keep in mind, in some parts of the
world, hemp is already used in the food chain. Perhaps a new export crop?
I dunno.

There are so many alternatives and so much information along with the
politicians rooting (sounds like pigs doesn't it) for their own
districts. Who knows how much is spin and how much is reality?

No mater how we look at it I don't see the likely hood of any really
useful alternative energy sources on a large scale for some time. That
leaves the general public with the necessity of learning how to
conserve.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Greg