Biodiesel: Is it the answer to all our energy needs?

A

Ancient Oldie

Still Mildly Glowing
Check out this site:

Grassolean

No it's not some hippie treehuggers wet dream, but one hell of a cool alternative to diesel fuel. The funniest part is that instead of relying on the middle east for oil, if this stuff becomes popular, we'll be relying on fast food joints and other grease companies to churn the fuel that will run our cars.

"Rudolph Diesel first described plans for this in his engine in 1893, he thought he had designed something that farmers could fuel themselves using peanut oil."

After reading about it, it turns out that it is just as effective as normal gasoline and the only reason that it costs more is because it isn't as popular. Plus, it's cleaner, renewable, and the source will be constant so none of those price fluctuations that plague us currently. Also, all the soybean oil we threw away last year could have produced over 6 billion gallons of fuel, if this stuff ever did become popular, it would be a lot cheaper than the current gasoline prices. The only disadvantage that it has is that in colder temps the gas tends to congeal, but if you add a fuel heater to it, that doesn't make a difference. Also it's only good on diesel engines (as far as I can tell anyways).

Why haven't I heard about this until now and wouldn't it be better if we just began using this stuff instead of having to put up with all the BS from the Middle East. I do remember hearing about something similar but it was regarded as a poor alternative and that is was way overpriced to boot. Sounds to me like a conspiracy from the worlds top gasoline companies. Comments?
 
Some pretty cool stuff. But I would still be concerned about consequences. Some years ago the Brazilians played heavy with the idea of an ethenol-based fuel. It made sense considering the agricultural output of Brazil. Problem was the cars that ran on it were pretty damn awful.

Still, its about time that we came up with a better alternative than drilling for oil.
 
Yeah, I think that's what it was that I heard about, but the difference between that and what I and Gwydion cited is that these sources of fuel are just as good as normal gas. In fact, the site that Gwydion has talks about a process that turns our carbon-based waste into gasoline, which is probably better than biodiesel for many reasons.

The only bad thing about it is that it would ruin the middle east's largest source of income, thereby creating a more deplorable state for its citizens.
 
Yes well oil will eventually run out in there anyway. We won't have a choice then.
 
Hemp-based fuels
Now this is something to consider. Believe it or not, hemp probably will be the gas of the future once we stop treating it like marijuana. And yes, there is a difference between hemp and marijuana even though they come from the same species! Mainly that marijuana is for smoking and hemp is for manufacturing.
 
Yes, and it smells nice too.

Actually we would have to be careful. Locking the garage and keeping the motor running has all new potential when the car runs on hemp.

(Why not just attach a hose from the exhaust system to the passenger compartment).

Probably lead to mellower driving.
 
Sorry welsh...
[url=http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_faq1.shtml said:
Cannabis FAQ[/url]]The pulp is used as fuel, and to make paper. The seed is suitable for both human and animal foods. The oil from the seed can be used in as a base for paints and varnishes. The medicine is a tincture or admixture of the sticky resin in the blossoms and leaves of the hemp plant, and is used for a variety of purposes.
Click to expand...
Not only do hemp and the good stuff come from different parts of the plant, they way they are grown affects the potency of the plant as well. Growing these plants for potency greatly increases the levels of THC, while growing the plant for hemp reduces these levels and increases the levels of another chemical found naturally in the plant that actually counter-acts the effects of THC. Thus, hemp is actually anti-marijuana.

I've done several papers on marijuana and hemp during my high school and university years so far. Trust me, I know too much about this subject for my own good.
 
Sounds like it Ozrat. Recently, we were over in Orcacoke, NC and there was a store that sold hemp clothing and I thought it smelled fine.

My personal feeling is that legalizing grass is probably a good idea. If you can't kill it, tax it.

As for cars running on hemp, hey whatever works.
 
welsh said:
If you can't kill it, tax it.
Click to expand...
Actually that's how it originally was.

Full Text of the Marihuana Tax Act as passed in 1937
The popular and therapeutic uses of hemp preparations are not categorically prohibited by the provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The apparent purpose of the Act is to levy a token tax of approximately one dollar on all buyers, sellers, importers, growers, physicians, veterinarians, and any other persons who deal in marijuana commercially, prescribe it professionally, or possess it.
Click to expand...
$1.00!?!? One whole freaking dollar? Grrrr...

The simple truth is that it was unfairly made a controlled substance because of many "Ripley's believe it or not!" strange reasons. Read all about it!
 
I had heard about Harry J. Anslinger as the one behind pushing for the illegalizing of Marijuana and that this was another throwback to substance control.

It seemed much of the debate went to a question of who was using it.

Alcohol, being addictive and prone to create violence in people due to reduce inhibitions was more widely used. Thus Prohibition ends. Marijuana was more selectively used, and then by a small discrete populations, and thus easier to crush. This despite Marijuana being a habituate and having more mellowing effects than Alcohol.

I am curious about the arguments why Marijuana should be kept illegal. However, I think the argument that Alcohol is legal, so grass should be, isn't a very good one.

My own interests in this is how illegal trade in narcotics supports insurgent movements abroad, destabilize governments, etc. One of the consequences of globalization that we often forget about.
 
One of the main things I support is golobal legalization of all drugs. I'm a very liberal person on this subject, and I think that whatever you do with drugs, is your OWN responsibility. If you die because of an overdose, that is what YOU did, not what anyone else forced you to do(And if it was what someone else forced you to do, those things would be easier to battle with legal drugs).

The main thing with legal drugs is that you are now able to not only tax it, but also offer support and information about it with much less controversy. As well as that, it'll take another thing away from (organised) crime, thus also lessening their power. If drugs are legal, those people previously ilegal, could now sell drugs legally.

Ofcourse, the main issue with this is international trade and smuggling. Thus, it should be a global "revolution", not just a national one(Even though that could also work).

The silly thing with marijuana are it's effects, it has no bad ones except for possible PSYCHOLOGICAL addcition(no physical at all), and with abuse, it could produce hallucinations.
 
Another interesting point would be to look at drug-related death statistics. From what I remember reading a while ago...

Top Deadly Drugs of America
1.) Tobacco
2.) Alcohol
3.) Caffine

Yes, caffine! The drug that anybody of any age can get without any restrictions whatsoever is one of the most deadly drugs in America!

Perhaps you should also notice that these are "white-man drugs", meaning that they are not associated with any minorities besides the fact that tobacco came from the Native Americans since it is now generally associated with caucasians.

So where's cannabis? Dead freaking last. Nobody has ever died from a marijuana overdose. In order to OD from the toxins in this plant, you would need to smoke over 40 pounds of it in one hour. Common sense says that this is frigging impossible and that you would die of either suffocation from or burning your lungs with the heat and steam in the smoke. I don't think anybody has ever attempted to smoke more than an ounce in an hour, which would definately get you stoned. But can you just imagine 40 pounds in an hour? Or over any period of time?
 
40 pounds in an hour. Dude, HOW???

As I said, no really bad effects to marijuana at all.

Besides, marijuana shouldn't even BE on that list of deaths.

PS. How DO people get killed by caffeine?
 
Sander said:
PS. How DO people get killed by caffeine?
Click to expand...

Ever seen a caffeine OD? It's possible, though mostly not from coffee but from caffeine pills, and it's nasty.

I suppose there're other ways too.

If you die because of an overdose, that is what YOU did, not what anyone else forced you to do
Click to expand...

And in the same way it's the junk's responsibility when he breaks in a house to get his drugmoney, that doesn't mean the law enforcers shouldn't try to remove the causes.

Hard drugs = t3h bad
 
Hard drugs = t3h bad
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but freedom also includes the possibility to do "t3h bad", simply because that is what freedom is. You can do what you want, as long as you YOURSELF accept the consequences. This is a principality issue, mainly, and I'm taking a very liberal stance, because I think that those people cán make that decision themselves. If you make it legal, you also eliminate a certain group of people who take drugs because it is ilegal(Yes, that happens), and you don't really get more drug users, if it will work the same way it did with marijuana. When it got legalized here, you got a small raise in marijuana users for a short while, and then the amount of marijuana users actually dropped. Also, with legalisation, it becomes easier to offer support for those who are addicted, and, as I said, it also lessens the power of (organized) crime.

And in the same way it's the junk's responsibility when he breaks in a house to get his drugmoney, that doesn't mean the law enforcers shouldn't try to remove the causes.
Click to expand...
You could also try to get that junk OFF of drugs, instead of keeping him on them, and just making drugs illegal. With legal drugs, anti-drug campaigns aimed at addicts, and campaigns to get addicts OFF of the drugs are much easier to launch and maintain, because there isn't any fear of arrests any more for the drug users.
 
I second Sander's motion here.

Prosecution of drug use only makes the situation worse. Social acceptance of drug use and better services to help them overcome their problems will drastically reduce the number of addicts in the world.

Not to mention destroying one of the biggest blackmarkets in the world. Having legal sources of drugs will improve the quality and purity of them, helping the users avoid accidently overdosing or other complications. And what about marijuana's medicinal benefits?

You see, hemp really is the future in my opinion. If you think this is crazy, you should look into how much hemp was valued and how common it was in the United States and the rest of the world prior to the 1930's.
 
Sander said:
Perhaps, but freedom also includes the possibility to do "t3h bad", simply because that is what freedom is. You can do what you want, as long as you YOURSELF accept the consequences. This is a principality issue, mainly, and I'm taking a very liberal stance, because I think that those people cán make that decision themselves.
Click to expand...

This is true, but that doesn't take away the fact that you should try to prevent.

Hang on a sec, you're against guns! That makes NO SENSE! If freedom is the possibility to do the bad, you should be able to own guns as well!

If you make it legal, you also eliminate a certain group of people who take drugs because it is ilegal(Yes, that happens), and you don't really get more drug users, if it will work the same way it did with marijuana. When it got legalized here, you got a small raise in marijuana users for a short while, and then the amount of marijuana users actually dropped. Also, with legalisation, it becomes easier to offer support for those who are addicted, and, as I said, it also lessens the power of (organized) crime.
Click to expand...

1. I'd like to know where you got those numbers, sounds like BS.

2. Mirijuana is not an addictive substance, hard drugs, on the other hand...If you had a "slight raise in users", those raise would be there to stay.

You could also try to get that junk OFF of drugs, instead of keeping him on them, and just making drugs illegal. With legal drugs, anti-drug campaigns aimed at addicts, and campaigns to get addicts OFF of the drugs are much easier to launch and maintain, because there isn't any fear of arrests any more for the drug users.
Click to expand...

Wrong, you can't stop someone from doing something completely legal. This isn't a perfect world where every junkie is just a helpless victim of circumstances that would just LOVE to loose the habit, given the choice, plenty would choose not to try and loose their addiction. That's the harsh reality.

Also, if you legalise hard drugs, they become cheaper. Cheaper means more available and the junk has to do less to get them. This would mean we'd have a huge section of the population addicted to different drugs and having it within reach, meaning they'd prolly never be caught for the sporadic petty crimes they commit, whilst nobody can force them to get rid of the habit, because it's legal. Not a problem? Yes it is, lots of them would die, they might hurt people in their crimes, we'd loose a chunk of the working populace.

You're being way too much of an idealist. Oh, and about the pre-illegalising drugs world, the world didn't explode into a drugs-frenzy then because most drugs were expensive and hard to get, as opposed to the current situation.
 
This is true, but that doesn't take away the fact that you should try to prevent.

Hang on a sec, you're against guns! That makes NO SENSE! If freedom is the possibility to do the bad, you should be able to own guns as well!
Click to expand...
Nuh-uh. Guns hurt OTHER people. Drugs only hurt YOURSELF.

As for trying to prevent it, in case you didn't know it, by making it legal, you'll make it easier to prevent it. By, for instance, removing the fear of getting caught from the user, removing PART of the social stigma, offering better options for rehabilitation centres, and other such things. Making drugs illegal doesn't help in getting people OFF drugs.

1. I'd like to know where you got those numbers, sounds like BS.

2. Mirijuana is not an addictive substance, hard drugs, on the other hand...If you had a "slight raise in users", those raise would be there to stay.
Click to expand...
I don't have numbers(I'd like to though, since I've heard this on a lor of occassions, maybe you can point me towards other numbers?).

Indeed Marijuana is not addictive, making the comparison perhaps a bit invalid, but it's about teh allure of illegality(and risk) to a certain group of people.

Wrong, you can't stop someone from doing something completely legal. This isn't a perfect world where every junkie is just a helpless victim of circumstances that would just LOVE to loose the habit, given the choice, plenty would choose not to try and loose their addiction. That's the harsh reality.
Click to expand...
Yep, and it's their own choice, their own repsonsibility. Taking drugs isn't ilegal anymore, but stealing still uis, though. So it doesn't matter for the person "harming society" in being out there and doing things.

Also, if you legalise hard drugs, they become cheaper. Cheaper means more available and the junk has to do less to get them. This would mean we'd have a huge section of the population addicted to different drugs and having it within reach, meaning they'd prolly never be caught for the sporadic petty crimes they commit, whilst nobody can force them to get rid of the habit, because it's legal. Not a problem? Yes it is, lots of them would die, they might hurt people in their crimes, we'd loose a chunk of the working populace.
Click to expand...
We would also get rid of a large part of the criminal sector, the people DO have better access to frugs, but again, that is THEIR repsonsibility. The same could be said for alcohol, it's cheap and available, so people become alcoholists, do nothing or die, and become pains in the ass for society. However, that still doesn't take away the fact that it's about granting basic freedoms to people. Such as fuck around with their own lives(What COULD happen, would be one clause in the law saying that drug addicts do not get any money, if they are causing troubles for society. Just a possibility).

You're being way too much of an idealist.
Click to expand...
I've classified myself as one of them on multiple occasions. So?

Oh, and about the pre-illegalising drugs world, the world didn't explode into a drugs-frenzy then because most drugs were expensive and hard to get, as opposed to the current situation.'
Click to expand...
Or maybe there were other reasons why it didn't explode. You don't know that, neither do I.

One thing I forgot to add: WIth good education about WHAT exactly drugs do to you, access to GOOD information, and no myths circling around, people SHOULD be able to make up their own minds about whether it's good for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top