10:19:56 -0500, Curbie, jim.richards65@yahoo.com wrote:
> Steve,
>> Methane? Mobile? That's quite a low energy
>>density gas.
> It's better than hydrogen, in which so many are trying to use as a
> mobile fuel, at least there is one carbon atom binding four hydrogen
> atoms into a larger molecule. I just won't know what the problems are
> not unless I look at the different concepts.
Methane is pretty well regarded as a stationary fuel.
>> Henry Ford, OTOH, used to get 1000 gallons of methanol
>>per acre growing and converting hemp early last century,
>>which is why his early tractors and cars could run either.
> Moot, illegal crops are measured in years in prison per acre not
> gallons per acre;
There's no such thing as an illegal crop... only
regional laws against certain crops. IOW, if you
live in Canada, you're perfectly free to grow hemp.
Likewise in many other countries.
> that notion remains a political issue and not a
> feedstock issue
Yes, it's a political hurdle in most of the US,
but not an insurmountable one. For instance, there
are farmers legally growing hemp in North Dakota,
and Oregon has legalized hemp as well.
Strictly speaking, it's not even illegal to grow
in the US at all... since 1970, you "just" need to get
a DEA permit.
This chart is quite dated, but shows that the legal
status of hemp is nowhere as homogenous as you seem
to imply.,, even as of 5 or 6 years ago:
http://www.industrialhemp.net/state/state030501.html
> and since legal crops like switch-grass and Jerusalem
> Artichokes yields are roughly the same, one that doesn't really
> concern ethanol production.
Jerusalem artichokes would have more food value, I
would think, and I suspect higher soil requirements.
I've grown it before, but only for the tubers.
Switchgrass... I know nothing about except it was a
big buzzword a few years back.
>> How about the energy to compress methane to any kind
>>of reasonable energy density?
> I listed that as fuel density, but you're right, that's the real
> hurdle for both methane and hydrogen as a mobile fuel.
>> I haven't looked at them all, but, some of these
>>might be of interest:
>>
>>http://www.motherearthnews.com/search.aspx?search=distillation%20column
>>http://www.motherearthnews.com/search.aspx?search=ethanol%20still
> Here's the ethanol compilation written by Mother Earth News
> http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meToC.html
Ah, ok. Doing a 'wget -r' on it. Strange it's by
TMEN, but published on a Japanese site. You'd think
TMEN would have it on their own site.
Looks like journeytoforever has quite the farm
library as well. :-)
--
☯☯
Steve,
>>> Methane? Mobile? That's quite a low energy
>>>density gas.
>> It's better than hydrogen, in which so many are trying to use as a
>> mobile fuel, at least there is one carbon atom binding four hydrogen
>> atoms into a larger molecule. I just won't know what the problems are
>> not unless I look at the different concepts.
> Methane is pretty well regarded as a stationary fuel.
You need to store a mobile fuel somehow, if you take any standard
D.O.T. 10,000 P.S.I fuel tank of any volume, Methane holds 3.5 times
as much energy as Hydrogen, but the one that holds 3.5 more is
"considered" stationary while the one that holds 3.5 times less is
considered to have mobility potential. Who ever is doing the
considering for energy density (what I was referring to), didn't
consider Gas Law.
>>> Henry Ford, OTOH, used to get 1000 gallons of methanol
>>>per acre growing and converting hemp early last century,
>>>which is why his early tractors and cars could run either.
>>
>> Moot, illegal crops are measured in years in prison per acre not
>> gallons per acre;
> There's no such thing as an illegal crop... only
>regional laws against certain crops. IOW, if you
>live in Canada, you're perfectly free to grow hemp.
>Likewise in many other countries.
>> that notion remains a political issue and not a
>> feedstock issue
> Yes, it's a political hurdle in most of the US,
>but not an insurmountable one. For instance, there
>are farmers legally growing hemp in North Dakota,
>and Oregon has legalized hemp as well.
> Strictly speaking, it's not even illegal to grow
>in the US at all... since 1970, you "just" need to get
>a DEA permit.
> This chart is quite dated, but shows that the legal
>status of hemp is nowhere as homogenous as you seem
>to imply.,, even as of 5 or 6 years ago:
>http://www.industrialhemp.net/state/state030501.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Industrial_growth_under_license
Quote:
"Hemp is illegal to grow in the U.S. under federal law due to its
relation to marijuana, and any imported hemp products must meet a zero
tolerance level. It is considered a controlled substance under the
Controlled Substances Act (P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Some
states have defied federal law and made the cultivation of industrial
hemp legal. These states - North Dakota, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Montana, West Virginia, Vermont, and Oregon - have not yet
begun to grow hemp due to resistance from the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration.
Industrial growth under license
Industrial hemp production in France Licenses for hemp cultivation are
issued in the European Union, Canada, in three states of Australia,
and nine states in the United States."
End Quote:
The bottom line is that if someone wants to grow a feedstock for
ethanol (especially on a home-scale) hemp is a moot point, the
proposed licenses are for Industrial growth and they aren't being
recognized at a federal level yet.
>> and since legal crops like switch-grass and Jerusalem
>> Artichokes yields are roughly the same, one that doesn't really
>> concern ethanol production.
> Jerusalem artichokes would have more food value, I
>would think, and I suspect higher soil requirements.
>I've grown it before, but only for the tubers.
> Switchgrass... I know nothing about except it was a
>big buzzword a few years back.
The tubers are used as the feedstock for ethanol; Jerusalem Artichokes
are roughly 900/acre, switch-grass yeilds about 1200.
>>> How about the energy to compress methane to any kind
>>>of reasonable energy density?
>> I listed that as fuel density, but you're right, that's the real
>> hurdle for both methane and hydrogen as a mobile fuel.
>>
>>> I haven't looked at them all, but, some of these
>>>might be of interest:
>>>
>>>http://www.motherearthnews.com/search.aspx?search=distillation%20column
>>>http://www.motherearthnews.com/search.aspx?search=ethanol%20still
>>
>> Here's the ethanol compilation written by Mother Earth News
>> http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meToC.html
> Ah, ok. Doing a 'wget -r' on it. Strange it's by
>TMEN, but published on a Japanese site. You'd think
>TMEN would have it on their own site.
> Looks like journeytoforever has quite the farm
>library as well. :-)
No, mostly search motors, and like I said, "I've taken a pretty hard
look at mobile fuels (SVO, Bio-diesel, Ethanol, Methane, Hydrogen, and
Electricity)". I've read every alternative energy web-site I've run
into over last few years, including foreign sites, they seem to be
more serious about alternative energy.
TMEN's web-site is all about the money and JTF's site is all about the
help. You're right JTF's library is a great resource.
Good luck,
Curbie
XML site map
>> Methane? Mobile? That's quite a low energy
>>density gas.
> It's better than hydrogen, in which so many are trying to use as a
> mobile fuel, at least there is one carbon atom binding four hydrogen
> atoms into a larger molecule. I just won't know what the problems are
> not unless I look at the different concepts.