Serious question....I realize most of the links that can be found on this subject are biased towards legalizing hemp in the US and investing heavily in an infrastructure to harvest at a ridiculous rate. Even so, I wonder how many of their claims are true and if so, why don't they get more attention?

Biomass is the term to describe all biologically produced matter. World production of biomass is estimated at 146 billion metric tons per year, mostly as wild plant growth. Biomass conversion to fuel has proven economically feasible in laboratory tests and continuous operation of pilot plants since 1973. It has a heating value of 5000-8000 BTU/lb, with virtually no ash or sulfur produced by combustion.
About 6% of contiguous U.S. land area cultivated for biomass could supply all our current demand for oil and gas. This is the basis of the emerging concept of "energy farming," wherein farmers grow and harvest crops for biomass conversion to fuels.There is one farm crop that can fill all our energy needs. Hemp is the only biomass resource capable of making America energy independent.

 

Originally Posted by XquiziVex

I'm just gonna say yeah without knowing dick about this subject because weed is awesome.

Pretty much this.

It's unanimous then

I'm with the OP and genuinely interested in the feasibility of it.

 

Originally Posted by XquiziVex

I'm just gonna say yeah without knowing dick about this subject because weed is awesome.

One of the best first responses to a thread ever.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

Solar

My friend just came back from a 2 week 3300 mile solar powered car race in South Africa. Japan took #1 and #2. Technology is here but nobody wants to use it or invest in that direction. Had a long conversation on it last weekend but I was drunk as hell at the time, was like 4am. In his day job he works for NASA or maybe use to, not sure exactly but he is an engineer, very intelligent. Isn't converting energy from the sun the most logical place by a longshot. Better to use a resource that can be controlled I guess

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

Yeah, no one wants to use it.

He knows a lot about it, I don't, he isn't here to post. Before last weekend I didnt know solar powered cars that could go 3,000 miles in a 2 week race existed. He has been at this race several years in a row and understands the technology behind it. He isn't a photographer or something, he is on the science side. What he said is that it is similar to electric in that people are not willing to make sacrifices in their daily life to the limits that they can drive with current technology. Plus, it is currently very expensive. To say the technology is here for the everyday consumer is a stretch I think but the technology to power cars using the sun is here. There is not enough money being invested into the R&D as there should be since it should be our future. A lot of our conversation was centered around the high demands of consumers in general. People like the idea that they can drive a car 48 hours straight and stop at a gas station along the way even if they will never drive across the country and an electric or solar car can meet their needs. So yeah, people don't want to use it it because it doesn't meet their demands and is too expensive. 2 things that can be fixed

These cars from the race are crazy looking, just googled it. They are specifically designed for the purpose of this race and completing the stages required
http://www.sasolarchallenge.co.za/

 

Originally Posted by zeppelinzoso16

He knows a lot about it, I don't, he isn't here to post. Before last weekend I didnt know solar powered cars that could go 3,000 miles in a 2 week race existed. He has been at this race several years in a row and understands the technology behind it. He isn't a photographer or something, he is on the science side. What he said is that it is similar to electric in that people are not willing to make sacrifices in their daily life to the limits that they can drive with current technology. Plus, it is currently very expensive. To say the technology is here for the everyday consumer is a stretch I think but the technology to power cars using the sun is here. There is not enough money being invested into the R&D as there should be since it should be our future. A lot of our conversation was centered around the high demands of consumers in general. People like the idea that they can drive a car 48 hours straight and stop at a gas station along the way even if they will never drive across the country and an electric or solar car can meet their needs. So yeah, people don't want to use it it because it doesn't meet their demands and is too expensive. 2 things that can be fixed

These cars from the race are crazy looking, just googled it. They are specifically designed for the purpose of this race and completing the stages required
http://www.sasolarchallenge.co.za/

Does this thing run on hemp oil? If not, another master Zep derail.

I'm all for research to make renewable energy more beneficial. Actually, Tesla supposedly was on the right track with " free energy ". It's unfortunate we as a human race can't use our free will to broaden our horizons without being chastised. The following video is pretty interesting.

I really don't know that much about nuclear power but my initial questions about it are:

how much does it cost to build/maintain a nuclear plant?

isn't it run off uranium which is a finite resource?

 

Originally Posted by cdmalgee

Oh yeah, no, growing hemp for biomass is stupid and inefficient. Growing high quality marijuana and selling it legally to those of age, then using the leftover product for biomass is smart.

Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so. I bet growing hemp for fuel is more efficient than growing corn for fuel like we currently do.

 

Researchers at UConn have found that the fiber crop Cannabis sativa, known as industrial hemp, has properties that make it viable and even attractive as a raw material, or feedstock, for producing biodiesel – sustainable diesel fuel made from renewable plant sources. The plant’s ability to grow in infertile soils also reduces the need to grow it on primary croplands, which can then be reserved for growing food, says Richard Parnas, a professor of chemical, materials, and biomolecular engineering who led the study.

http://phys.org/news205599757.html

 

Originally Posted by Geoff Moore

I really don't know that much about nuclear power but my initial questions about it are:

how much does it cost to build/maintain a nuclear plant?

isn't it run off uranium which is a finite resource?

It wouldn't cost the taxpayer's anything. You let a utility build a new efficient reactor, and they'll jump at the chance. It's obviously expensive, but that's on the owners.

Uranium is a finite resource, but we have known stocks to hold us for 200 years, and if we can advance feeder technology, you're talking 30,000+ years, and if we can learn how to remove uranium from sea water, you're talking over 60,000 years. I don't think we go another 200 years without fusion, anyway.

 

Originally Posted by Mr Galt

As an investor in frito lay I'm strongly pro-hemp.

No doubt. Pro-hemp = better rope. Better rope = cat can't get away. Cat can't get away = more time to smoke sticky green bud..... = $$$

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so. I bet growing hemp for fuel is more efficient than growing corn for fuel like we currently do.

I'm sure it probably is more efficient. It doesn't mean growing corn and using it for fuel isn't stupid and inefficient as well.